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?"
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.
"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.
Of course DRM adds value! You get an interesting pastime, a puzzle to solve.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
Those starving stunt men who show up in front of otherwise legitimate movies to warn us about how we (the theater-going evildoers of the world) are denying their kids a college education... ...said cars to be filled with DRM executives and other such indispensible consumer-value-enhancers.
I SAY LET THEM EAT CAKE. Let's take up a collection... and hire them to drive cars off cliffs
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.
Here is John Grubers translation. Spot on.
MLT - simple and robust open source multimedia framework for Linux
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
because 'DRM increases not decreases consumer value', such as by enabling people to rent content at a lower price than ownership
That's like being happy you got into a car accident because you met a nice nurse at the hospital.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
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.
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
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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.
/.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.
Or is it that
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.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.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.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).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?
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.
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.
.....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.
All theory is gray