Macrovision Responds to Steve Jobs on DRM

An anonymous reader writes "Macrovision Corporation, best known for its long history of DRM implementations, (everything from VCRs to software copy protection), has responded to Steve Jobs open letter regarding DRM. With ample experience and despite the obvious vested interests, it's great to hear their point of view. In the letter they acknowledge the 'difficult challenges' of implementing DRM that is truly 'interoperable and open'. At the same time they also feel that DRM 'will increase electronic distribution', if implemented properly, because 'DRM increases not decreases consumer value', such as by enabling people to rent content at a lower price than ownership, and lowering risks for content producers. While I'm impressed they responded, I can't say I'm impressed by lofty goals that might not be reached for years. The reality is, current DRM implementations often leave users with the bad end of the deal. What do you think? Should people give DRM manufacturers more time to overcome the challenges and get it right?"

Comments

Re:renting content

[Phil246]

Apple is one of the top software producers in the world. Macrovision is a bunch of hacks, a one-trick pony who has made a living from a stupid analog video hack. I doubt they are even competent to write software ever heard of safedisc? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SafeDisc Macrovision make that, and its fairly 'successful' in terms of publishers using it

Re:renting content

[dangitman]

it works against the novice, clueless users who dont realise it can be removed yes,

The problem being that the novice clueless users are probably not inclined to try and copy a disc in the first place, and just go buy them at the store. So, it does nothing except cost producers profits, because they have to pay to license stuff from Macrovision, when they could simply release the product without those costs.

Its why i put 'successful' in quotes :)

Yeah, I got that, but I still think they remain a "one trick pony." the "SafeDisc" thing is really just the digital equivalent of their analog video hack. What are they going to do to "help Apple improve Fairplay? Have it include deliberate "bad samples" in AC3 files?

I was trying to highlight what a joke it was of Macrovision to think they had anything to offer Apple - who have some of the greatest talents in the software field, and produce a greater breadth and depth of software than pretty much any other company. In comparison, Macrovision reminds me of those idiots who write the drivers for hardware copy-protection dongles.

Indeed, so well infact that it wont even let it *start* the game :D

Yup, but Macrovision claim they want to "lead the industry" in DRM. Yet they've written software for a grand total of one platform, and are basically only still around because of the prevalence of their video hack. not really ones to be in a position of leadership over anything.

The funniest thing about their rant is that I actually know people who stopped buying DVDs, and started getting copied DVDs from friends because of Macrovision. You see, their DVD player is hooked up to their old TV via a VCR. This is because their TV only has an RF input. So DVDs look like utter crap. They eventually found out that this was because of Macrovision. But ripped DVDs that have been de-macrovisioned look perfectly fine.

I'm not sure how Macrovision can be considered "successful" when illegally ripped copies of products that use Macrovision look better than the purchased original. I guess they are successful in the way the mafia is successful - but even the mafia adds more value for end users than Macrovision.

Re:DRM increases not decreases consumer value

[gregorio]

Consumers get usage rights as granted by the copyright holder, DRM makes it easier to restrict these usage rights which takes us further away from what they would call "ownership".

Smells like fud to me.

That's an extremely inappropriate use of this expression.

Facts

[tomstdenis]

1. DRM costs the consumers money. That is, the producers license shit technology (that going by their track record they're batting .000) that they then pass the cost onto the consumer/customers.

2. DRM doesn't actually work. Every single form of DRM from CSS to WDRM to Fairplay has been in one form or another broken or circumvented. Including the many methods (and millions of dollars that went into) CD and video game protection schemes

3. Despite the ability to circumvent DRM, media says continue to increase.

4. DRM often attempts to circumvent fair use rights preventing the social order.

5. The introduction of the DMCA was a *crutch* introduced by lobbyists to do what DRM could not do.

6. DRM vendors have no souls.

7. Media studios leverage their market share to unfairly harm competition (see: payola).

8. Media studios will boldly lie about revenue and other statistics to gain power over citizens of "free" nations.

9. I ran out of facts.

Tom

Re:renting content

[MMC Monster]

I've got a pretty nice library near me. Selection is not as nice as Blockbuster, but the prices are somewhat better.

Give to your local library. Either media (originals, of course) or via donations. Your entire community will benefit.

Re:If you are asking that question on /.

[TheRaven64]

The GPL and DRM are very different, both conceptually and in terms of implementation. The GPL is based on copyright law, DRM is not. The GPL says you have bought (or had given to you by someone who is either the copyright holder or their authorised distributor[1]), and you may use it in any way you wish. If you want to distribute it, then the GPL imposes legal, but not technical, limitations on you (such as requiring you to pass on the same rights that you have to anyone you distribute the code to).

DRM, in contrast, says 'you have paid for this material, now you may do any of this small list of things (which are usually smaller than the list of things copyright law allows you to do anyway) with it.' Do you see the difference? The GPL (and copyright law) are exclusive, while DRM is inclusive. You can use GPL'd (or copyrighted) material for anything that the GPL (or copyright law) does not expressly prohibit. You can only use DRM'd material in the way that the DRM vendor authorised; no transcoding, no playing it on unauthorised devices, and often no fair use rights, such as extracting clips for academic discussion or using a music track as the sound track to your (not for distribution) home video.

[1] In the case of the GPL, this is anyone who has a copy of the code and accepts the GPL.