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

renting content

[ravenspear]

DRM increases not decreases consumer value', such as by enabling people to rent content at a lower price than ownership

Well, if the consumer recognizes that as a value at all. So far the trend (at least in DRM systems used in internet distribution) has been clearly indicating that people generally don't want to rent their content.

The media companies certainly want this however, as it gives them more opportunities to get the consumer to pay for the same content multiple times, maybe in different formats or for different devices or uses.

Re:renting content

[dangitman]

ever heard of safedisc? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SafeDisc [wikipedia.org] Macrovision make that, and its fairly 'successful' in terms of publishers using it

Sounds like crap to me. Deliberately authoring discs with "weak sectors"? Sounds like copy protection from the Commodore 64 era. Probably breaks DVD standards, too.

This is exactly the kind of shit I'm referring to when I talk about hacky software developers. When have they written some serious software that does something useful?

And, from the Wikipedia article:

Though SafeDisc protection effectively prevents regular home users from creating functional copies of CDs or DVDs, it is quite easy for skilled software crackers to bypass.

So, it doesn't even work, does it?

00000001.TMP CLCD16.DLL CLCD32.DLL CLOKSPL.EXE DPLAYERX.DLL And also by the existence of two files .EXE and .ICD (where is replaced with the acual game's name). The EXE executable is only a loader which decrypts and loads the protected game executable in the encrypted ICD File.

Gee, that EXE file must work wonderfully with non-Windows systems.

Translation from PR-Speak to English

[sunya]

Here is John Grubers translation. Spot on.

Re:If you are asking that question on /.

[jbuda123]

I've never understood the standard /. position on this. Most /.ers support the GPL, which is nearly identical to DRM, at least in theory - both protect the original creator of a copyrighted work from unauthorized redistribution by others (the GPL doesn't forbid redistribution, but does force derivative works to be distributed under the terms of the GPL, i.e. open). The motives behind the two are completely different, but the theory is the same - content creators control the rights of redistribution.

Or is it that /.ers aren't opposed to DRM per se, but just the current implementations? If DRM worked in practice the way it works in theory - that is, by preventing redistribution while allowing free use for private purposes - would /.ers support it? If that's the case, then I wouldn't entirely disagree. But, then I wouldn't say I don't like DRM - I'd say I don't like the current implementations, the concept of DRM being sound. But that's not the impression I have of most /. posters' positions.

Stop pretending it's in our interests

[mgiuca]

DRM is uniquely suitable for metering usage rights, so that consumers who don't want to own content, such as a movie, can "rent" it.

I fully agree that the Single And Only Fair Usage of DRM is to enable rentals. I hate DRM, but if I'm going to pay $3 to rent a film, it's in everyone's best interests to give me a disc which I don't need to return, I can just throw away as it becomes useless after a week. That's great, and it's a great use for DRM.

Problem: I don't want DRM to "meter my usage rights". In other words, I don't want DRM to say "you own this" "you rent that". By the very nature of DRM, I don't own it. In my eyes there is one and only one solution: Anything I am renting has DRM on it. Anything I own does not, or by definition, I don't own it.

Similarly, consumers who want to consume content on only a single device can pay less than those who want to use it across all of their entertainment areas - vacation homes, cars, different devices and remotely.

Correction: Consumers who want to use content across all of their entertainment areas can pay more than those who just want to consume it only on a single device. This was never about making things cheaper.

The entire concept of this is complete bullshit. You buy content. You own it. You do whatever the hell you want with it. There is no free or convenient consumer market for "only using content on a certain device". No market like that is ever in the consumer's best interests.

Abandoning DRM now will unnecessarily doom all consumers to a "one size fits all" situation that will increase costs for many of them.

You know... if I could buy a shirt that fits any size body, like I can buy hats or socks that do, I'd be happier with my shirts (in case I grow, or I want to give it to my friends, or I don't want to fuss about with shirt sizes, or whatever, it's just more convenient to have one-size-fits-all shirts). Digital media is great, because it is one-size-fits-all! Yay! Now why would you use the phrase "doom all consumers to a one-size-fits-all situation"? One-size-fits-all is good for consumers, if it's feasible. And it is.

"DRM needs to be interoperable and open"

There is no such thing as open DRM. There is only different shades of interoperability. So you can get FairPlay vs Zune going at each other, or you can unify them into a single DRM model which is interoperable. That's better for consumers, yes, but it isn't open. DRM, by design, can never be open, because as soon as it is, it can be cracked. In other words, you may get the same DRM working on Zune, iPod, Windows and Mac, but you will never get it working in open source software (unless it's been hacked, like DVD).

Without reasonable, consistent and transparent DRM we will only delay the availability of premium content in the home.

The delay, I assume, being from the corporate shits who can't stand to see their content go on a format without DRM. What about the years of setbacks in products such as PS3 and Vista just to get the overblown and insane DRM specs working?

Re:Might be with the world "digital" in it

[arminw]

.....If they could apply the same method to analogue with the same sucess.....

Analog success? I remember making a simple one transistor sync restoration circuit to circumvent the Macrovision VHS "protection" scheme. Other than the normal generation loss from the analog process, the VHS copies were just fine.