Does Legal Online Video Content Delivery Exist?

RingDev asks: "I'm working on a system integration project for my CIS capstone. One of the systems we are integrating is a Windows MCE PVR. One of the topics that came up implementing a movie on demand or rental system using an existing online content provider. But the question we have run into is, are there any? Is the only option for online video content (TV shows, movies) P2P and BT clients? Is there no company out there that handles licensing and provides DRM'd content?"

Comments

"Legal"?

[TheSHAD0W]

There's nothing wrong with using BitTorrent for distributing legal content. DRM was deliberately left out of the spec, because it would've made it horribly complicated and because it's much better to put the DRM in the payload being transferred rather than try to work it into the protocol.

Re:"Legal"?

[22RealMcCoy]

I know the guys at http://authena.org/ and http://22surf.org/ are working on solutions for DRM & online delivery. I think they're blending both proprietary and open source protocols. DRMTORRENT coul be cool. :)

Re:"Legal"?

[Keruo]

No, Bittorrent is not suitable protocol for that purpose.
If I paid for the content, there's no way I would saturate my upstream to upload it to others while downloading it for myself.
Bandwidth is cheap, if you are running a huge media company.
If those companies arrange deals with operators as content providers, I'm sure they would get all the bandwidth they need for selling content to the operators customers.

Since MPAA/RIAA are lobbying the rant about movies/dvds/cds being different mediums for delivering media, why don't they offer streaming media services for say $10-20/month where you can watch or listen to all the programs they're offering when ever you want.
The technology is already here, why are they too stupid to use it?

Sounds like it just is more profitable business model to just sue the customers on random intervals than to actually "Improve the quality of American Entertainment"
Btw. anyone else noticed that they don't print that on their albums anymore?
Old vinyls used to have slogan like that right under RIAA logo.

here's two that i use

[putch]

movielink allows you to 'rent' movies for anywhere from .$99 to $5. quality is decent though certainly not DVD. speed is good. selection is sparse.
http://www.movielink.com/

you can also get "starz on demand" through realplayer for approx $13 a month. you're limited to the current line up of STARZ movies--and they often suck. but it's better than paying $70 for premium cable. quality is ok, but still not DVD.
http://starz.real.com/

but i dont know if those are the kind of things the poster wants. his question was amorphous at best.

Re:here's two that i use

[RingDev]

Thanks for the links, that's exactly the kind of stuff I'm looking for!

-Rick

To clarify his question...

[cgenman]

What it seems like the submitter wants, is an existing online video rental company with a bunch of licensed videos who he can partner with to rent to people who use his PVR / set-top box. In much the same way that there are companies that handle B2B licensing and delivery of music, are there established companies that handle licensing and delivery of movies to hardware vendors? Who handles the in-house entertainment systems for motels and hotels?

As a side note, there are legal videos online. Check the internet archives feature film division for quite a few classics, including The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari, Night of the Living Dead, The Charlie Chaplin Film Festival, and period genre shlock like sex madness and hemp for victory. That's not really what he's asking for, but it's worth mentioning for the other people who may be reading. Anywhere that has Santa Claus Conquers the Martians deserves a nod.

Re:To clarify his question...

[RingDev]

That is exactly what I'm talking about! Thanks for the link also, it may not be as all inclusive as I had hoped, but we may be able to organize a library system that works off of different standards. (ie: a bit torrent library, a internet archives library, etc)

It really seems like this technology/business model just doesn't exist yet.

-Rick

Re:To clarify his question...

[SleepyHappyDoc]

Wow, thanks for the link...I had no idea such an awesome free historical film collection was online.

Counterintuitive

[Sundroid]

OurMedia (at www.ourmedia.org), still in Alpha, provides storage space for video and film makers to upload their digital contents that use, mostly, Creative Commons rights model.

Seems like you're interested in providing existing Hollywood TV and movie products. The question I throw it back at you is: why bother? Anyone who has watched one episode too many of those bad or mediocre TV shows and movies churned out by the industrial machine, at one time or another, must have thought that the home movies made by his cousin, as amateurish as they are, still beat those glossy images produced by a group of people who are in it for the money.

Speaking of money, you should know by now that TV and film producers hang on to their rights as if giving them away were akin to giving their manhood away. The notion that someone out there is thinking, "Jeez, I can't watch enough of those shows on WB network, and darn it, where can I pay to download them online?" is, you know, counterintuitive.

Re:Counterintuitive

[Planesdragon]

Anyone who has watched one episode too many of those bad or mediocre TV shows and movies churned out by the industrial machine, at one time or another, must have thought that the home movies made by his cousin, as amateurish as they are, still beat those glossy images produced by a group of people who are in it for the money.

Here's the big secret that all of us whiney creative-but-poor types don't like to point out.

Most of the big talent in hollywood was a crappy kid with a videocamera once too. And the big ones are still there because, well, they make things worth watching.

Sheesh. Yes, 90% of TV is crap. 90% of everything is crap. But that 10% is certainly worth paying for--it's just a matter of price.

Re:Counterintuitive

[RingDev]

"Seems like you're interested in providing existing Hollywood TV and movie products. The question I throw it back at you is: why bother?"

Why bother? A $50 BILLION industry? The $30 Billion battle over DVDs, 2.6 MILLION netflix subscribers? And you say why bother? A seemless open standard DRM could open up huge markets as broadband penetration continues to rise. Having tools in place to immediately take advantage of such a DRM, and the connections/money to get in bed with the content producers (Hollywood) could put a company in excellent position to make a trimendous profit.

"Jeez, I can't watch enough of those shows on WB network, and darn it, where can I pay to download them online?"

Yet how many people have downloaded Dr. Who? Firefly? or Battleship Galactica? You may say why bother, but consumers are demanding it, and all the industry has to do is offer a legal means to get the content and people will swarm to it.

-Rick

Re:Counterintuitive

[sl956]

A seemless open standard DRM could open up huge markets

Yes, and so could a magic carpet...
Please stop dreaming about "seemless open standard DRM": DRM systems don't work.
For a non-technical explanation, you should probably read Bruce Schneier or Microsofts Darknet paper.

Re:Counterintuitive

[RingDev]

I disagree. Papers have shown that illegal file sharing has little effect on profit margines. And as such, can be assumed to be a mitigated loss. There will always be people who break DRMs. Look at DeCCS, by your logic, every signle DVD released should have been immediately pirated and made as available as public domain. But they weren't. Why? because it's too much of a hassle. Why deal with multiple clients, crappy searchs, fake files, and days worth of waiting to get a movie that you could drive down to the video store and picked up for $2?

I'm not dreaming about a PERFECT system, I'm dreaming about a system that is good enough to provide a simple way for the majority of consumers to legally obtain content online.

Look at iTunes. Personally, I think their specific DRM sucks donkey balls. BUT, all they did was provide a way for consumers to easily and legally aquire content online. And now it is a multi-million dollar revenue source for Apple. This should be a screaming fireball of a wake up call for veture capitalist to invest in DRMs and content delivery. Because if Apple can wrap content in a crap sandwich, offer it up on a silver platter and make millions, what do you think a GOOD solution could do?

Imagine an international open standard DRM. One that has a simple API for authenticating the user, and determining the date. That API could be availible to Windows, Linux, Apple, what ever. No more of this iPod/Tunes only crap. No more DMCA violations to watch DVDs on Linux. Just one open standard DRM. You could even advance the DRM technology and maintain the standard API. So if someone ever cracks the DRM, you can patch it with out having to re-write all of the readers and delivery system.

-Rick

Re:Counterintuitive

[sl956]

I said: "DRM systems don't work."
You replied: "I disagree."

So let's see your argumnents to disagree :

There will always be people who break DRMs. Look at DeCCS, by your logic, every signle DVD released should have been immediately pirated and made as available as public domain. But they weren't. Why? because it's too much of a hassle. Why deal with multiple clients, crappy searchs, fake files, and days worth of waiting to get a movie that you could drive down to the video store and picked up for $2?

If I may rephrase: people who could get things for free illegaly on the net still go buy it in shops because it is easier. I would add "and because most people given a choice prefer the legal way". And why do you say it is easier? no "multiple clients, crappy searchs, fake files, and days worth of waiting" I agree 100% with those reasons but they have everything to do with a better distribution and nothing to do with copy protection (aka DRM). You proved nothing here about the need or effectiveness of DRM.

Look at iTunes. Personally, I think their specific DRM sucks donkey balls. BUT, all they did was provide a way for consumers to easily and legally aquire content online. And now it is a multi-million dollar revenue source for Apple. This should be a screaming fireball of a wake up call for veture capitalist to invest in DRMs and content delivery.

If I may rephrase: people offered a mean of buying content online legaly are happy to do it. I agree with that too. And I agree that "This should be a screaming fireball of a wake up call for veture capitalist to invest in [...] content delivery." But why do you write "DRMs and content delivery"? Apples DRM is so ineffective (just burn, it's gone) that they are in fact selling DRM free content. Once more you proved nothing about the need or effectiveness of DRM.

Imagine an international open standard DRM.

I can imagine it as easily as I can imagine a magic carpet.
What I wouldn't do is to build a business model on such a dream.

You could even advance the DRM technology and maintain the standard API. So if someone ever cracks the DRM, you can patch it with out having to re-write all of the readers and delivery system.

I see: single vendor control, centralized user database, single point of failure... Great!
And one last thing: never say "if someone ever cracks the DRM", say "when". And remember the answer to that question is probably "yesterday" (except if your product is still vaporware... as it seems)

Re:Counterintuitive

[RingDev]

Sorry for the confussion, my goal was two fold. first to show the demand of an online content delivery system. Which we both agree exists. And Second the means of a control method, a DRM. Which we don't agree on.

I would not see any point for a centralized user database, or user tracking in any case. I understand the issues of having the data in the enemy's hands, but there's no real way arround that in this case. The goal here is not to make a an inpenitrable standard. It is to make a standard where for the majority of people will use the legal means and the offenders will be easier to find. similar to DeCCS and the Apple DRM remover, where the offenders were rounded up and arrested (when applicable, I have no idea how DVD Jon has kept his ass out of jail), and any host sites were given seise and desist letters.

It's not perfect, nor does it have to be, it ust has to be good enough to make it an obvious violation of the law to break people down. While I'm sure the industry would love to shut down the Asian black market (that DOES have an impact on DVD sales), a DRM will not solve that. But online content will also have little effect on it.

-Rick What I would recommend is a product identifier and a unit identifier on each drm.

Re:Counterintuitive

[Alsee]

I have no idea how DVD Jon has kept his ass out of jail

Well duh, because he did nothing illegal.

Moreover I would say he did absolutely nothing wrong. He wrote some extremely useful software which, amongst other things, enabled people to view the DVDs they bought on their Linux machines and enabled people to ignore stupid region coding on DVDs they bought and enabled people to skip the SEVERAL MINUTES of advertizments with the fast-forward and menu buttons LOCKED OUT at the beginning of some DVDs they bought (such as Shrek 2).

And this really clarifies why your DRM utopia is actually a fantasy distopia...

What DVD Jon did is not illegal unless you pass a specific NEW law (like the DMCA) to make it illegal. Under good old traditional copyright law Jon did nothing wrong. Under good old traditional copyright law there is no such thing as DRM enforcment. Under good old traditional copyright law, attempting to enforce DRM is an infringment of contitutionally guaranteed fair use rights. In order for this rediculous new DRM scheme to function you need a new DRM law that has absolutely nothing to do with copyright infringment. That new law is not "effective" unless it turns INNOCENT NONINFRINGING PEOPLE into felons. You see DVD Jon did not commit copyright infringment. Most of the people who used DeCSS did not use it to commit copyright infringment. Advocation a DRM "solution" is essentially advocating that INNOCENT NONINFRINGING people must be imprisoned for making perfectly legal and absolutely legitimate uses, in order to make DRM at least minimally "effective".

There is a bill floating around the US congress called the DMCRA. The DMCRA simply amends the DMCA to say that noninfringing people are not criminals, that noninfringing people do not go to prison. The pro-DRM lobby is fighting tooth and nail to prevent the DMCRA from even coming to a vote. They are fighting it because it opens a big fat hole in DRM enforcement and makes DRM entirely inneffective. However I have NEVER found a single DRM advocate actually willing to justify and defend the position that INNOCENT NONINFRINGING people should be imprisoned. I have asked at least a dozen DRM advocates, ane never once gotten an answer or justification for opposing the DMCRA.

I'm sorry, but you're pretty much stuck with two options. One one hand you can have "effecive" DRM with a draconican DMCA law that needs to imprison noninfringing people doing legal noninfringing things. On the other hand you can NOT imprison innocent noninfringing people, and DRM will be worthless because the natural market will supply people the products and abilities to circumvent or remove DRM for perfectly legal purposes. You can wish for a magic flying carpet "good" DRM system all you like, but the fact is that a law enforcing DRM itself means enforcing bad DRM that obtructs legal uses and that infringes fair use rights and which is abused to impose all sorts of schemes that have absolutely nothing to do with copyright or copyright infringment.

If you wish to continue advocating the DRM position, please please please explain to me how and why you justify the position that noninfringing people should be imprisoned. Either that or actually produce your magic "good" DRM system and explain how enforcing it does not require innocent noninfringing people to face prison.

-

Re:Counterintuitive

[RingDev]

I would like to commend you on your excellent use of a loaded question. Although I think my favorite is still "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

DVD Jon is not a copywrite infringer. He is a DCMA violator. His (US) cohorts from DeCCS were arrested. At the time, I beleive he was living in Sweeden where the laws are a bit more lax and he wasn't extridited to the US. Since then, he has released new tools that break actual DRMs, but I beleive it was Apple that finally just hired him on instead of pressing charges.

And lets make sure we're clear on this, DeCCS did not break a DRM. It broke a security system (albeit a really crappy one used on media). It did not track rights, it was not a management system, it was just security. Although I agree that DeCCS should have been acceptable (fair use and adaptation for Linux DVD player software).

At no point in time have I ever recommended the innocent people be persecuted. I don't think they should. Infact, I think DRMs should advance to the point where innocent people don't need to break them to use the content as desired and agreed to. As I have expressed at other time on the DRM arguement: I want the content to be associated with me. I want to buy a CD, and own that content. I want to play it on my car and home sterio, my computer, my iPod, if it is ever lost or damaged, I want to be able to download it again for free, because I own that content. I want to be able to play the content on my friend's car and home sterio, his computer and his iPod. If he can't play it when I'm not there, that's fine by me, he can buy his own damn copy.

In such a case, how would I be infringing? By having an open standard DRM interface, all of my hardware could by default claim to be me, and if I try to put someone else's content on it, it could ask for something as simple as the owner's name. So, people could still distribute illegal content but they would have to enter someone else's name, which most people would be okay with for a close group of friends and family (ie: fair use), but they would not likely try to keep an entire library of downloaded media with a list of names to match up.

The problem facing the industry is not ma, pa and little jimmy downloading a handful of songs from kazaa. The problem is the black asian market where films are ripped back to DVD on the professional level. This is where you wind up with hundreds of thousands of copies of a movie that some black market asshat is getting rich selling. And there is no DRM solution that will beat them. But setting up a solid DRM can be benifitial to the average user, especially the one who right now are 'innocent infringers'.

-Rick

Re:Counterintuitive

[Alsee]

'innocent infringers'

Huh? Who or what is an 'innocent infringer'? And why would you or I want to defend infringers? I certainly did not defend infringement.

I moved this part to the top because maybe it highlights some communication problem?

I would like to commend you on your excellent use of a loaded question. Although I think my favorite is still "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

If you want to claim it was a "wife beating" question, fine. Please explain how so. You may not LIKE the question, but that does not show there was actually anything wrong with it. Am I wrong in saying that the DMCA currently *does* say noninfringing people face five years in prison? Am I wrong in saying that the DMCRA merely fixes the DMCA to say that noninfringing people not be prosecuted? Am I wrong to say that the DMCRA only protects the innocent? Am I wrong to say that opposing the DMCRA is to defend the position that noninfringing people should be imprisoned?

You still have not answered whether you support or oppose the DMCRA. Is that a "loaded question"?

Whether DRM "works" or not comes down to the law. The DRM conflict really does come down to the DMCRA. It really does come down to whether or not noninfringing people should face prison. If you support the DMCRA, great. However that just so happens to mean that DRM becomes completely ineffective. Anyone and everyone will have the ability to circumvent DRM at will. Then you're right back at traditional copyright law and trying to catch and prosecute actual copyright infringers. At that point the DMCA is entirely worthless, except to function as doubled penalties for copyright infringment. You might as well just scrap the DMCA and simple double the already draconian laws on copyright infringment that already existed.

If you oppose the DMCRA, well how do you justify that? How do you justify the position that the law *does* say and should continute to say that noninfringing people face prison?

Just because it is an ugly question does not make it false. You can't simply say "I'd LIKE DRM to work" and simply IGNORE questions and issues about whether there is any fundamental flaw in HOW you expect it to work. Just because you have a good goal of wanting to fight copyright infringment does not mean you can IGNORE legitimate questions about the means of doing so.

He is a DCMA violator.

DMCA. The DMCA is a 7 year old US law. Jon was REPEATEDLY persecuted in his home country, and repeatedly vindicated as having done nothing wrong. As I said, Jon did nothing illegal.

His (US) cohorts from DeCCS were arrested.

False. The only arrest I am aware of ever, was Sklyarov. That arrest was abandoned almost immediately. The DMCA case against his employer was a technical slam dunk, a direct violation of the DMCA, but the jury refused to convict. The Jury Foreman had a big "problem" with these provisions of the DMCA. No one has ever been convicted of circumvention crime in the 7 years the DMCA has been on the books. In a way that is almost a bad thing, in that it is virtually impossible to get a law tossed out as unconstitutional on appeal without an actual conviction to appeal in the first place. So we are stuck with the chilling effects on the market by law that has never once upheld a conviction.

and he wasn't extridited to the US

Excuse me?!?

If Jon were to chew bubble gum, do you imagine that he could or should be extradited to Singapore? (Yes, gum is illegal in Singapore.)

If Jon were to publish information that China's government finds unflattering, do you imagine that he could or should be extradited to China?

Jon is a law abiding citizen sitting at home, and he locally publishes something that the US dislikes, what makes you imagine that he could or should be extradited to the US?

If you think Jon is subject to DMCA and could or should be extradited, well you better be ready to subject to and extradited fo

Re:Counterintuitive

[RingDev]

To clarify your loaded question. You said, "please please please explain to me how and why you justify the position that noninfringing people should be imprisoned"

That implies that I do justify the imprisonment of the innocent. Thus a loaded question which I have no desire to answer, any more then you have a desire to answer my question about your wife beating habbits.

As for the communication break down between what you are calling "noninfringers" and what I am calling "innocent infringers". Making a copy of copywriten is an infringment on that copywrite, HOWEVER, fair use entitles us to one personal backup, HOWEVER, if you break encryption to make that back up you are INFRINGING on the DMCA. That person has technically broken one law will obeying another. That is what I call an Innocent Infringer. What they have done is technically illegal (in the US), but they have not done anything that could be considered outside of fair use.

These are the people I want to protect. People who decode DVDs so they can view them on a Linux based system, or other new technology. People who want to loan their content out to a friend or two. In other words, I want a person to be able to do everything that they should be able to do under fair use.

Then there are those I don't care about protecting. People who download content with out paying for it. People who distribute content with out a license/contract to do so. People who post movies to the internet the day before they screen. People who run thousands of copies of pro quality black market copies. IMO, the movie industry has every right in the world to crucify(figuratively) these people. These are also the people who will do their damndest to get arround DRMs, but many of them, and their customers will move to legal means if the system is simple, easy, and intuitive.

...DVD Jon...Well duh, because he did nothing illegal.

Woh, there is a big difference between "nothing illegal" and Convicted. DVD Jon has never been CONVICTED of a crime. Then again, so far as I've heard so far, none of the RIAA sueies have been CONVICTED of copywrite infringment. It doesn't mean they haven't broken the law, it just means they weren't found guilty. And I totally agree that the goal of DeCCS (to create a linux based DVD Player) was valid and should not have been taken as a DMCA violation, I am not a DA, so that's not my call. Releasing the code, or even the specific knowledge of the weekness however, that was a risky move. I know, I know, it's linux, it's open source, blah blah blah. Not all code is ment to be shared.

"If Jon were to chew bubble gum, do you imagine that he could or should be extradited to Singapore? (Yes, gum is illegal in Singapore.)"

Let's say you run an online book company in the US. You have a library of 10,000 books online. Now lets say someone in Sweden figures out your security, grabs a copy of your entire library, then sells them all for half your price, your multi-million dollar company goes under, publishers loose money and authors go hungry. Should you be able to sue them? Or are they protected by the magical invisible man made borders? No, they have damaged your company and you have every right to sue them either in their location, or to try to talk the USDA into extriditing them to the US to stand trial here. Extridition laws are well beyond my scope of knowledge, but if some DA can claim it's a felony (ie: DMCA violation) they may be able to.

Fair Use is clear in some cases, and muddy in others. Personal use, back up copy, intropolerity(sp?) are all covered. Loaning the content to friends, Showing the content large groups of people, donation requests, etc, all start to get in to shaky territory.

I'm not a fan of petitions, and online political petitions are a complete waste of time. If you want a petition to be worth something, do it locally. Get signatures from the areas your local and state representatives represent. I can get 10

Re:Counterintuitive

[Alsee]

I'm not a fan of petitions

Actually it's more than just a petition. If you enter your address it figures out who your representative is in Washington and it fires off an individual message right to them. You can edit the message to say anything you like. In fact you will almost certainly get a snailmail reply from your congressional represenative with a form letter thanking you for your input.

Now lets say someone in Sweden figures out your security grabs a copy of your entire library, then sells them all for half your price

The part about "figures out your security" is a bit vague. Depending on what you have in mind that might be illegal or perfectly legal in Sweden. However I'm quite certain that copyright infringement is illegal in Sweden. I would have absolutely no problem suing him under Swedish law for copyright infringement. No need for extradition at all.

big difference between "nothing illegal" and Convicted. DVD Jon has never been CONVICTED of a crime.

It was not a case of insufficient evidence or getting off on a technicality or anything of the sort. The judge ruled that it is simply not illegal in Norway to decrypt and copy your own files for your personal use. That it is not illegal to access your own data. That if you buy a DRM encrypted file (music, DVD, ebook, whatever), it is not illegal for you to decrypt and read it. It is not any sort of illegal access to anyone else's data, as they (twice) attempted to charge him with.

That is what the DMCRA would do for the US. It would make US law basically the same as Norwegian law.

Current US law, the DMCA, says that noninfringing people can go to prison for five years for playing a DVD they bought on Linux using DeCSS. But Jon is not subject to that rediculous US law.

To clarify your loaded question. You said, "please please please explain to me how and why you justify the position that noninfringing people should be imprisoned"

That implies that I do justify the imprisonment of the innocent.

Not true. You only pasted a portion of what I wrote. You cut off the conditional at the beginning and you cut off "or" in the next sentence. So my full question did not imply that at all, it merely listed that as one of three possibilites.

In fact I don't expect you to accept that particular position at all. The reason I bring up that point is to get you to CONSCIOUSLY reject that position, and to realize that you need to reconsider your DRM position because of it.

Let me repost what I actually said: If you wish to continue advocating the DRM position, please please please explain to me how and why you justify the position that noninfringing people should be imprisoned. Either that or actually produce your magic "good" DRM system and explain how enforcing it does not require innocent noninfringing people to face prison.

ONE alternative is to give up hope on an effective DRM system.

I realize you do not want to accept that position, so let's temporarily reject that option. We hypothetically now have you advocating some sort of DRM.

A SECOND option is to actually produce a magic DRM system and explain how enforcing it does not require innocent noninfringing people to face prison.

This is the "wishing for a magic carpet" option. I believe this option is physically impossible. I invite you to prove me wrong.

Assuming you do not take option TWO, where are we now? We hypothethicaly now have you advocating DRM, but with absolutely no DRM system that does not require a law imprisoning innocent people to be effective. If we remove the double negative from that... we hypothethicaly now have you advocating DRM, and it is a DRM system that *does* require a law imprisoning innocent people to be effective.

*IF* you pass up on option ONE and *IF* you passed up option TWO, well all that is left is option THREE, trying to justify the support of a DRM system that does require a law imprisoning innocent people

Re:Counterintuitive

[RingDev]

"We hypothethicaly now have you advocating DRM, but with absolutely no DRM system that does not require a law imprisoning innocent people to be effective. If we remove the double negative from that... we hypothethicaly now have you advocating DRM, and it is a DRM system that *does* require a law imprisoning innocent people to be effective."

What the?!?! Hypothetically, You are not a murderer and you have not raped anyone. But if we remove both of those negatives, you are a murdering rapist? That makes no sence. That's like "Chewebaka can not live on Endor" logic!?!

"Current law, the DMCA, says that innocent people go to prison. You seem to strongly agree that innocent people should not face prison, if so, well that pretty much means the DMCRA should be passed."

Another fatally flawed piece of logic. I do not want people to goto prison for innocent infringments. But I also think the DMCRA is a poorly worded unnecesary piece of garbage. There is nothing it does (other then the label requirements) that a good court battle couldn't solve. Even with a new law like DMCRA, it would still be worthless until someone was willing to fight it. We don't need more laws, we need judicial clarification of presidence.

"You want to protect DRM, but you do not want noninfringing people facing prison. Well, those are the two opposite sides of the issue. They are in conflict."

I disagree. I want to protect content. I want to punish people who DISTRIBUTE content illegally. No new laws, no imprisonment of innocent infringers. So far as I know, other then DVD Jon and his cohorts, no one in the US has actually made it to trial for decrypting a DVD they own to play it on Linux. People have been sued for illegally distributing content on peer2peer networks, but we've already established that those people are not innocent infringers.

My desire is two fold. First, to protect content to ensure developing content remains a profitable market. If developing content fails to be profitable, quality will drop, options will drop, and consumers will be left with the aformentioned 2nd cousin's amature soap operas. And Second, to make content readily available online and improve the consumer's experience. Online delivery is a growing field, and the market is there for it. Providing a quick and easy way for consumers to get legal high quality content online.

"This is the "wishing for a magic carpet" option. I believe this option is physically impossible. I invite you to prove me wrong."

Linus once declared himself the worlds best programmer and created Linux. While I'm not brash enough to claim to be as uber as he, I'm atleast will to work towards and help in creating such a system. A system where a person has full access to the content they own/rent. A system that limits illegal distribution. I may not have the perfect plan, but I'd much rather work to help the perfect plan get created then have to worry about the next round of blueray/hd dvd DRMs that hobble my fair use and might get me into legal trouble for decoding.

As for my 'perfect' plan (which I admit, is not perfect!). If I were the media industry here's what I would do. First, I would work on getting a standardized DRM that uses a simple API to authenticate the user/machine. I would work closely with vendors to try to get this technology in every DVD player, OS, CD/DVD-Rom, sterio, head unit, iPod, etc... Then I would begin providing online content that was DRM'd with this system. Anyone with the DRM enabled system could then play any content that is either not DRM'd or DRM'd that can be authenticated. Who cares if you can't decrypt the DRM if you can play it on every device you own. You could copy your content as much as you like, but it always need to authenticate to either the machine it's on, or the user. For example, if you set the default key on the computer to your personal key, then anything you download should play fine. If your buddy brings over a new CD with DRM'd files on

Re:Counterintuitive

[Alsee]

You are not a murderer and you have not raped anyone. But if we remove both of those negatives, you are a murdering rapist?

If option one is that I ham not a murderer, and option two is that I am not a rapist (and in this particular case options one and two could overlap), and *IF* we were to hypothetically pass on both options one and two, then YES, in fact the ONLY REMAINING POSSIBILITY would be that I am a murdering rapist.

That is not any sort of personal attack, and you should not have taken it as a personal attack.

That makes no sence.

It makes perfect sense. It is fundamental logic. It simply lays out the fact that there is no fourth option. It simply lays out the fact that we MUST accept one of the listed options.

If we lay out all possibilities then we can work by process of elimination. Option three is and was rediculous... that is simply a statement that we do have to go back and choose between option one and/or two.

There is nothing it does (other then the label requirements) that a good court battle couldn't solve.

The DMCA says that anyone who circumvents DRM or who enables someone else to circumvent DRM is a criminal. Period. Now if a court battle were to strike the DMCA down as unconstitutional, well of course that would solve the problem of of criminalizing innocent people. And that of course would be an even more "radical" situation that the DMCRA.

And even if a court did decide to ignore the blatant text of the law and just MAKE UP STUFF to leave the DMCA intact, well I don't see what you imagine the court could do that would be any different than the DMCRA. The DMCRA says that people who do not commit copyright infringement are not criminal. Your stated position is that people who are not copyright infringers should not be criminals.

What sort of wording would you suggest would be better than the DMCRA? What sort of court ruling would pervent innocent people from going to prision without DRM becoming entirely worthless? That innocent person who did not go to prison now has an "unprotected" copy. If he has an unprotected copy, well anyone would have the ability to just as easily create an unprotected copy themselves.

I want to protect content.

There has always been copyright protection. You presumably mean you want DRM protection on top of copyright protection.

I want to punish people who DISTRIBUTE content illegally.

Great! Lets get rid of the DMCA entirely and abandon DRM. The DMCA does not punish people who DISTRIBUTE content illegally.

Seriously, the DMCA does not punish copyright infringers at all. The DMCA has absolutely no penalty against copyright infringement at all.

Punishing copyright infringers means enforcing the good old pre-DRM copyright law we had a hundred years ago.

>"wishing for a magic carpet" option
I'm atleast will to work towards and help in creating such a system. A system where a person has full access to the content they own/rent. A system that limits illegal distribution.

It is a logical imposibility. If you have full access to the data then you can trivially copy and distribute it. That is of course copyright infringement, but you want something *MORE* than a law against copyright infringment. You want something *MORE* than punishing copyright infringers. You want a DRM system that will actually do something. You want a legally enforced DRM system that somehow magically removes people's ability to commit infringment while somehow magically not interfering with legal uses.

As for my 'perfect' plan...

TYou proceed to describe a DRM system that will prohibit you from playing your files on any pre-existing devices. A system that will prohibit you from playing your files on any hardware/software that has not been approved. That will prohibit you from playing them on a device or with software you yourself built/wrote. That will prohibit you from playing your files in any way

Re:Counterintuitive

[RingDev]

"If option one is that I ham not a murderer, and option two is that I am not a rapist (and in this particular case options one and two could overlap), and *IF* we were to hypothetically pass on both options one and two, then YES, in fact the ONLY REMAINING POSSIBILITY would be that I am a murdering rapist."

My point being that wether or not I refute you claims of not being a rapist or a murderer, you are (with all likelihood) not a rapist or a murderer.

"TYou proceed to describe a DRM system that will prohibit you from playing your files on any pre-existing devices. A system that will prohibit you from playing your files on any hardware/software that has not been approved. That will prohibit you from playing them on a device or with software you yourself built/wrote. That will prohibit you from playing your files in any way other than how the approved devices happen to be designed to allow them to be played."

Wrong. First, go pick up an 8 track. No plug it into your DVD player. That DVD player is incapable of playing that medium, that doesn't make DVD players evil. Second, as I specificly noted, the DRM is authenticated via an API. so you could write an interface for windows, linux, unix, BSD, .Net, Java or any other language that can interact with C based libraries.

"And even if a court did decide to ignore the blatant text of the law and just MAKE UP STUFF to leave the DMCA intact, well I don't see what you imagine the court could do that would be any different than the DMCRA. The DMCRA says that people who do not commit copyright infringement are not criminal. Your stated position is that people who are not copyright infringers should not be criminals."

If the DMCA never goes to court, there will never be presidence, which means even after the DMCRA were passed Sony/RIA would continue to send collection letters, and people could still be fined for breaking the DMCA. In the end someone would HAVE to go to court to force the RIA to stop. At that point the judge would clarify the presidence and limitation of the DMCA. If the DMCRA exists, it would be slightly easier, but it would not have any effect once everything was done. IF the judge found on behalf of the DMCA overriding Fair Use, THEN the DMCRA should be passed. Until then, lets just have someone do something with the law we have.

"What sort of wording would you suggest would be better than the DMCRA?"

First I would clarify that the breaking of security that does not create a copywrite infringement to specify that it only applies to copywritten material. I know, it sounds redundant, expecially given the name of the bill. I would consider it a safe precaution. Other then that, I'd have a few lawyers both DA's who have used the DCMA and ACLU lawyers who have fought against it review your document. don't be happy until their both pissed off.

"There has always been copyright protection. You presumably mean you want DRM protection on top of copyright protection."

Let me correct myself, I want to secure content.

"Great! Lets get rid of the DMCA entirely and abandon DRM. The DMCA does not punish people who DISTRIBUTE content illegally."

Drunk driving laws don't punish Copywrite infringers either, but I'm not about to request them to be abandoned. You are thinking way to black and white.

"It is a logical imposibility. If you have full access to the data then you can trivially copy and distribute it... You want a legally enforced DRM system that somehow magically removes people's ability to commit infringment while somehow magically not interfering with legal uses."

Never speak in absolutes. Let's imagine (stick with me here) that my API based DRM idea takes off. For the next 5 years all content is released on a double standard, with a DRM and the ability to play on nonDRM-API devices. After 5 years all content sold plays only on DRM enabled devices. The DRM is authenticated by de

heres one:

[bagofcrap]

http://video.google.com/

Re:I'm an engineer, not a marketeer.

[RingDev]

A capstone is usually a research paper and thesis for a degree. But I'm sick of doing research papers, so I talked to my dean and capstone coordinator and managed to find an alternative solution.

CIS is Computer Information Science. I have an Assoc CS degree, and the CIS degree takes that technical framework, adds other general technical knowledge and builds up managerial and entrapanurial skills.

The goal of the project is actually technology integration. Using a wireless PDA to connect to a "home" network and control network enabled appliances. The movie downloading is just a feature that alot of people I've spoken to have asked about.

Windows MCE is Windows Media Center Edition. It is a stripped down version of XP with WMP 10 installed and some extra software and a great API for providing PVR like functionality.

Cool Streaming, while neat, still works on the premise that someone has to upload copywriten content which is illegal, even if that content is originally broadcast over the air. And thus, is not an option. Video Lan is also neat, but it deals with the distribution system. My problem is not distribution, it's content.

-Rick

If using MCE 2k5...

[rogabean]

Cinema Now and Movielink are already integrated into the Online Spotlight section as well as TV Tonic and a host of news video feeds.

I personally use Cinema Now and Movielink and the quality is excellent.

Re:If using MCE 2k5...

[RingDev]

Awesome! I'm not the developer working on the MCE portion of the code, but hopefully that developer can track down the api set for grabbing the movies. Thanks! -Rick

Streaming video does...

[sam1am]

There are at least a couple streaming video solutions out there:

ESPN Gameplan

MLB.tv

Probably not exactly what you're looking for, though...

Re:I'm an engineer, not a marketeer.

[enrico_suave]

I find windows MCE a curious choice... with plenty of good extentadble or open source 3rd party PVR software solutions out there. *Shrug*

Someone has pointed out movielink... beyond media has it integrated into it's frontend... I believe Meedio does or would have a plugin for it. Meedio has a ton of HTPC/home automation stuff that might be worth investigating fruther.

it's not hollywood, but creative common's licensed material of interest is Downhill Battle's Particpatory Culture DTV thingie

e.

Re:I'm an engineer, not a marketeer.

[RingDev]

This capstone is more then a one man job. The developer who is working on the network appliance code (the PVR) hates Java with a flaming vengence, and is not a big fan of linux. So Windows MCE was his call. My work is more centered on the PDA end, the client that interacts with the "home" network.

-Rick

Pipe Dream (ain't nothin' wrong to dream)

[Sundroid]

"all the industry has to do is offer a legal means to get the content and people will swarm to it."

There is already a "legal means" offered by Hollywood, and it's called "syndication", which is how they put old, popular shows on Sunday afternoons and Weekday mornings at 2am, so the fans can set their Tivo timer and record them.

I may be harsh on Hollywood people for their greediness, but I'd never call them stupid, in fact many of them are quite smart. Hollywood has already looked at this model of putting TV shows and movies on the fat pipe, but they have ("wisely", I might add) concluded that the money to be made in that arena is minuscule and not worth the hassle of having to build another infrastructure around it. They figure DVD is working out, Netflix is working out, and that's good enough for them.

Re:I'm an engineer, not a marketeer.

[nmos]

I guess I'm just being dense but if your goal is technology integration then it seems that you'd be better off encoding whatever content you want on a local server using the pvr software of your choice and re-transmitting it via videolan or whatever. Dealing with content providers sounds a lot more like a job for a business major or lawyer (and a lot of $$$$). In any event (and IANAL) time and format shifting fall under fair use so many (but not all) uses of this sort of system seem to be perfectly legal.

Open Source CMS & DRM

[22RealMcCoy]

Here's some more info on Authena & 22surf:

http://authena.org/

Authena software is based on a philosophy of creators' rights, and its three pillars are:

1. Full Artistic Control: Open Source CMS allows Artist-Hackers to get under the hood to change themes, graphics, UI, sound quality, modules, etc.

2. Distribution: Open Source CMS coupled with RDF/RSS fosters efficient searches and syndication on the semantic web, and thus effective distribution.

3. DRM: Open Source CMS coupled with an extensible rights language such as the CC licenses expressed in RDF/RSS allows a full spectrum of rights definitions in parallel with distribution. Open security standards and protocols afford financial transactions, secure delivery, and trusted ratings for marketplaces and content.

There are great divides in the contemporary media industry. Many companies and individuals are finding themselves on the wrong side of the laws--Moore's Law, Metcalfe's Law, and Constitutional Law. Authena is devoted to keeping artists and entreprenuers on the right side of the laws. The Open Source Content Management System (CMS) renaissance is under way, and with a few clicks of the mouse or a bit of PHP, you can begin leveraging its vast power to host your band's site, to share or sell your photography, to display your art, to organize and stream your music, to set up a record label or publishing house, and to have fun pursuing your artistic dreams. Simply put, Open Source has moved beyond the operating system, and is now bringing its classic robustness and freedom to content management systems--many are listed in the right hand column.

Welcome to AuthenaTM: An Open Forum for Open Source CMS & DRM

Authena @ Harvard Law School & OSCOM.ORG Dr. Elliot McGucken

AuthenaTM software is based on a philosophy of creators' rights, and its three pillars are:

1. Full Artistic Control: Open Source CMS allows Artist-Hackers to get under the hood to change themes, graphics, UI, sound quality, modules, etc.

2. Distribution: Open Source CMS coupled with RDF/RSS fosters efficient searches and syndication on the semantic web, and thus effective distribution.

3. DRM: Open Source CMS coupled with an extensible rights language such as the CC licenses expressed in RDF/RSS allows a full spectrum of rights definitions in parallel with distribution. Open security standards and protocols afford financial transactions, secure delivery, and trusted ratings for marketplaces and content.

There are great divides in the contemporary media industry. Many companies and individuals are finding themselves on the wrong side of the laws--Moore's Law, Metcalfe's Law, and Constitutional Law. Authena is devoted to keeping artists and entreprenuers on the right side of the laws. The Open Source Content Management System (CMS) renaissance is under way, and with a few clicks of the mouse or a bit of PHP, you can begin leveraging its vast power to host your band's site, to share or sell your photography, to display your art, to organize and stream your music, to set up a record label or publishing house, and to have fun pursuing your artistic dreams. Simply put, Open Source has moved beyond the operating system, and is now bringing its classic robustness and freedom to content management systems--many are listed in the right hand column.

Gone are the days when we logged on to merely set up a web page or share our poetry. Today, with Open Source CMS, one can become a record label, publisher, distribution center, and media conglomerate. The software is still a bit "hackeresque," but Authena is aiming to help streamline it, highlight the coolest applications, and bundle them with open standards for digital rights management (DRM). Check back here early and often for the latest in how you can manage your creations online.

http://22surf.org/

It's a Catch-22. Universally trusted DRM and syndicated commerce can't work unle

Akimbo

[major.morgan]

www.akimbo.com

Offers VoD service. They have ~40 or so 'channels' covering cartoons, sports, movies, travel, adult, indie & music. Service is roughly $10/mo. with some individual programs having a small charge.

Their service does require a set-top box from them right now, which runs WinXP-Embedded and contains an OEM MSI motherboard. Their docs specifiy that they are using WindowMedia9 with DRM to deliver the content. They are claiming that you will be able to use their service with a PC soon (WinXP-MCE).

DivX VOD

[data64]

DivX.com has a Video On Demand service. See https://vod.divx.com/.

DivX certified DVD players have a built-in code which you provide while downloading the movie from DivX.com. This then you burn to DVD RW, etc and play in your DVD player.

There are some restrictions on how many times you can play the content though.

Just as the "dept" line says...

[Kevin Burtch]

Adelphia Cable has it, although it's limited to what they're currently showing that month (you can't just watch anything you want).

http://adelphia.com/cable_entertainment/inDemand_p pv.cfm

Video on demand in Canberra

[polysylabic psudonym]

In Canberra, Australia, we have video on demand delivered by two companies over our broadband network by our local cable company, Transact.

The content is provided by VOD and AnyTime.

Availability

[binkzz]

Here in Holland legal video and movie content has been available for a while.

From all public channels and some commercial ones, pretty much everything that is aired is afterwards available via the internet, indefinitely, for free (streamed, no DRM) from here and here. You can watch entire seasons of shows online without commercials, which is really great.