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

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.