Slashdot Mirror
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?"
"such as by enabling people to rent content at a lower price than ownership"
Consumers don't get the opportunity to "own" media, consumers get no ownership rights at all, we cant resell, get a refund etc like you can with a TV you buy.
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.
As far as I am concerned there is no value in a product you buy and can't use as you see fit. The one thing that doesn't want to be admitted here is that it isn't what a company sets the price and value at that has meaning. It what the customer is willing to pay for it that sets the value. You can make all the thousand dollar matches you want, if your customers won't buy them then you go broke waiting for the sale.
While the example may be a good bit overextended, it makes the point no less applicable. Selling a nonphysical product at the price of a physical one and then limiting what can be done with it lowers the value that is already seen as near nil by the majority of the public.
There's a tiny store near us called 'blockbuster', I wonder if it will catch on?
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I don't think DRM will ever develop to a good thing. Either it places restrictions on a user regarding OS, player, mobile device, etc. or it is available everywhere which will make the DRM system more vulnerable to cracks. Then it's a waste of money to develop such a system if it's unable to protect content. Was making analog copies of VHS tapes and DVDs really prevented by the Macrovision protection on there? No. So why develop it in the first place?
The strength of a civilization is not measured by its ability to fight wars, but rather by its ability to prevent them.
then you're in the wrong business
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Quite simply, this is bullshit. Some of the greatest (sorry, "High value") music and film was produced in an era when there was no DRM. The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Charlie Chaplin, B.B King, Billie Holiday, Miles Davis, Martin Scorcese, Stanley Kubrick, even Steven Spielberg created their work in a pre-DRM era and somehow managed to sell their work.
Are we really to believe that people such as these would not pursue their art if there were not DRM? It doesn't even make sense from a hardcore businessperson's point-of-view. If someone stamps their feet and says "Fine, I'm not going to make my brilliant movie because I cannot use DRM," then there is no loss. Someone else with more sense will simply step up to the plate and make their movie instead, and profit from it. To think that one cannot make money on media without DRM is ridiculous. History has shown this. If there is money to made, somebody will do it.
Some will argue that less profit would be made without DRM due to piracy. Even if this were true, less profit does not equal no profit. But various studies have shown that piracy does not affect sales much, and nobody has ever been able to demonstrate that DRM prevents piracy. In fact, it is more likely that DRM reduces profit, because companies have to pay a "DRM tax" to the ridiculolus companies who make crappy DRM, like Macrovision. It's basically an extra cost that doesn't even prevent piracy.
We offer to assist Apple in the issues and problems with DRM that you state in your letter. Should you desire, we would also assume responsibility for FairPlay as a part of our evolving DRM offering and enable it to interoperate across other DRMs, thus increasing consumer choice and driving commonality across devices.Macrovision even think they can do a better job than Apple, and offered to "take responsibility" for Fairplay. This is hilarious. They are obviously jealous of Apple's success, and would love to be given access to Apple's products. Does anyone think that Macrovision could do a better job? 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. We've all seen the kind of shit that bottom-feeding companies like this produce, and it ain't pretty. (think Sony rootkits)
... and then they built the supercollider.
Nothing irritates me faster than being forced to watch that drivel BEFORE I get to watch the movie I PAID FOR!
And on a side note, if we have a system where DRM is needed to protect Kevin Federline or Britney, it begs the question of why lock up turds in a vault anyway.
The really hilarious part here is that I've never seen those infomercials before movies, because I stopped paying for the movie theater "experience" (i.e., douchebags with cell phones, sticky floors, and 25 minutes of car commercials on the screen) long before the studios started adding them. So the people like me--who might actually feel a smidgen of guilt at seeing the infomercials--don't actually see them, while people who are doing the right thing by paying instead of stealing get to be annoyed by shit that doesn't apply to them in the first place.
I guess I just defined irony.
10. The executives who think this DRM stuff up, go to bed every night with a big smile thinking of all the money their making despite having cheated on their tests all the way from high school to college, since they are now putting their training to good use.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
How about....no DRM ? There are many other problems in the world looking for solutions, why create more problems?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Let's see...
It would really suck if my car got stolen. That's why I go to the effort of carrying a key with me everywhere I go to protect it.
It would also really suck if my house got broken into. Or my bank account. These things are so important that it's worth carrying around a piece of metal or plastic just for that wherever I go.
If someone copied my music off my iPod... well frankly that would be between them and the RIAA. In other words, I as a consumer have no interest in protecting my music from being stolen (especially when it's being protected from myself), therefore I have no interest in carrying a dongle to access my music.
Furthermore, my car, my house and my bank account are probably the 3 most expensive things I own, so once again I go to such lengths to protect them. If I am forced to go to such lengths to protect something like my music, then why not have a dongle to activate my toaster, my chair or my shirt?
As with all DRM, the issue here is that unlike other forms of security (where I go to as much or as little lengths as I wish to protect myself) this is about me being forced to go to exactly the lengths they tell me to go to to protect them. This is a hopeless solution, and I don't think consumers would even be stupid enough to go along with it unlike other forms of DRM.
The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Charlie Chaplin, B.B King, Billie Holiday, Miles Davis, Martin Scorcese, Stanley Kubrick, even Steven Spielberg created their work in a pre-DRM era and somehow managed to sell their work.
They also created their work in a pre-Internet era, in which essentially zero cost distribution to potentially hundreds of millions of people simply wasn't possible.
I'm no fan of DRM, but you're (intentionally?) ignoring the fact that copyright infringement is a lot easier and on scales orders of magnitude greater now than in the period you're talking about, even ignoring the (solved) problem of generational loss of quality.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Macrovision's CEO's argument with Jobs seems to rest on a faulty foundation. Jobs didn't call for the death of DRM, at least not directly, he called for the big 4 to license their music for sale online without DRM.
If, like most people reading this, you consider DRM a negative for the consumer, then you'd naturally think DRM-free licensing would obviously lead to the death of DRM, at least for music. But if, like Macrovision's CEO, you claim that DRM actually adds value for the consumer, then you should have nothing to fear from competition with non-DRMed sales. If a consumer thinks it is a better value to rent music with DRM, then they will do so regardless of weather music available for sale elsewhere has DRM or not.
The idea that DRMed music cannot be successfully sold when non-DRMed music is also available is only valid if you assume that DRM has a negative impact on the consumer large enough to overwhelm any positives it might offer (like the ability to facilitate online rentals). The fact that Macrovision's CEO equates allowing DRM-free sales opportunities to denying DRMed sales opportunities, while asserting that DRM is a positive for the consumer, would seem to indicate that he is either arguing dishonestly or hasn't really thought this out (or both).
That said, Macrovision's CEO's position actually suggests a compromise (if we assume that Macrovision's CEO is honest in his assertion that he believes DRM adds value for the consumer, and that decision makers at the big 4 agree with him, both of which are far from certain imho):
If Apple were to license the RIAA (and it's international equivalents) the right to sub-license FairPlay DRM to anyone they liked, in return for the RIAA's members giving Apple license to sell all their music DRM-free under terms no worse than their current ~70% cut, then everybody wins (after a fashion).
Apple gets to sell music DRM-free, the RIAA&co get to sell/rent DRMed music for the iPod under whatever terms they like, and the customer gets to have their choice.
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
"At Macrovision we are willing to lead this industry effort. We offer to assist Apple in the issues and problems with DRM that you state in your letter. Should you desire, we would also assume responsibility for FairPlay as a part of our evolving DRM offering and enable it to interoperate across other DRMs, thus increasing consumer choice and driving commonality across devices."
ie. "Please, Apple. Give us the keys to your iPod and let us make money from your copy protection scheme while you abandon it" Huh?
What you say is true, but, aside from people who hang out here, it seems that an awful lot of people (myself included) place enough value in iTMS songs, music videos, TV shows, and movies that they're very happy to pay what Apple charges, despite the DRM.