Translation of Macrovision Response to Jobs on DRM

BoboB-69 writes "Daring Fireball has posted a humorous, and accurate PR-speak to Plain English translation of Macrovision's CEO's response to Steve Jobs' Open Letter on DRM. Highly recommended reading for slashdotters everywhere."

Comments

that's beautifully worded

[jessecurry]

and much more to the point. Why can't all execs speak like that?

Re:that's beautifully worded

[sumdumass]

Because it is too hard to change your mind later. With the corp/marketing speak, they can just claim confusion and blame the change of mind on the lesser inteligent people like you and me who didn't understand what they said. That way they all look good in front of the camera!

Re:that's beautifully worded

[jc42]

Why can't all execs speak like that?

Because then you'd understand them.

Re:that's beautifully worded

[PopeRatzo]

My friend jc42 makes a joke, but there's insight there too.

We're going to see a lot more of this kind of misdirection now that the first serious cracks in the DRM-club's armor. Major players in the production and delivery of content are starting to actually question the wisdom of DRM. Guys like Steve Jobs are not Defective by Design or Freeculture.org, but important bricks in the wall that has kept DRM the default and a more sane approach to copyright out of the discussion entirely.

I'm afraid that the battle over DRM is about to morph from a guerilla action to mutually assured detruction, and the Copyright Industry may prefer the latter in the end to actually sitting down with their enemy (the customers) and coming up with a reasonable solution.

Re:that's beautifully worded

[maxume]

RIAA declares war on music, clones Britney, releases voice destroying virus!

The likely real world outcome of drm is that a bunch of time and money ends up being wasted. People won't put up with doomsday scenarios where they can't sing Happy Birthday(and get away with it like you can now) and laws will be changed.

People don't care about the drm on dvd's; lots of people are going to be really pissed off with the coming 'not on that screen' drm.

Re:that's beautifully worded

[encoderer]

I agree entirely.

Well, mostly.

I'm not really against DRM per se, but I am against how it's currently implemented.

In my opinion, if DRM existed just to prevent me from sharing my content with somebody else, that would be OK with me. As long as it lets me format-shift it to any device or future device, make self-destrutable copies for a friend that blows itself up, say, 3 days after being watched (like lending a DVD), and generally stays out of my way, I'm fine with it.

Unfortunately, they can't figure out how to do that, so instead they give us draconian content locking.

But what I _do_ agree with is that companies are now, for the first times, starting to realize it's not going to work.

Who remembers SDMI? The Secure Digital Music Initiative was created right about the time the labels sued (unsuccessfully) to have the Rio pulled from the market. It was a consortium of all the big companies--MSFT, SONY, etc. Probably no apple back then, tho--and they took like 18 months to come out with this way to "protect" music and, I swear to god, it was broken in like days.

The reason I bring this up are two fold:

1. It was the first crack at DRM and the first time DRM was cracked.
2. Maybe if it hadn't been cracked, things would be marginally better now. Just a thought, but maybe we'd have a single standard.

Point one is significant because every time DRM has failed the makers say "We've learned from our mistakes, wait until you see the NEXT version"

And now, finally, after hearing these promises from the likes of Macrovision, the industry has FINALLY started to get fed-up. When their hundreds of millions spent on securing HD content was just evaporated in the first few months of comming to market I swear you could just smell 1000 execs puking in their mouths.

The DRM battle has been a horrible experience for both consumers and content companies. The companies, each go around, get their hopes up. They're psyched to go out drinking. They slap hands, talking about all the bitches they'll pick up. All the fun they'll have. They change their shirt 4 times and use a can of Pomade in their hair. But every single time, without fail, they wake with a serious fucking hangover.

Meanwhile, Macrovision and the ilk already collected their huge development and licensing fees. To hell with the fact that what they produced doesn't actually _work_.

It would really be funny to watch the content companies in this self-destructive behavior if it wasn't such a shitty deal for consumers.

Re:that's beautifully worded

[theAtomicFireball]

I'm not really against DRM per se, but I am against how it's currently implemented.

I think Steve Jobs actually did a good job of pointing out the problem with DRM. DRM can never work unless you require the device to be networked so that it can check back with some central server for the key (and even then that's not infallible, just a bigger challenge). Without that, you HAVE to put the key to unlock the content right on the media and the player has to know how to find and use that key. This is true for DVDs and DVD-HD, protected CDs... it's inherent in the nature of the produce. Content that can't be viewed is useless to the consumer, so the device has to know how to play the content. Somebody will ALWAYS be able to crack any DRM scheme no matter how sophisticated, in less time and at less cost than was put into developing the scheme.

Every version of Macrovision has been cracked in a fairly short period of time. DVD encryption was cracked. DVD-HD hasn't been fully cracked, but enough to allow unprotected copies of HD DVDs to already exist.

This shouldn't be a moral discussion, it should be a practical one. So far, CEOs have been gullible enough to be believe Macrovision and other companies' claims that they can "protect" content. They can't, but they've made a lot of money by convincing people that they can, but unfortunately, that's all starting to unravel.

The funniest thing about Macrovision's letter is the suggestion that Macrovision can "help" Apple. Apple, despite it's public stance, has done as good a job as anybody at implementing DRM. Yes, you can get around it, but at least they evolve their DRM whenever somebody cracks it because there are actually implications to not doing so... unlike Macrovision who is still raking in gobs of money for protection schemes that have long since been cracked.

Re:that's beautifully worded

[Elad Alon]

Because then you'd understand them.

And because they themselves would have to understand what they're talking about.

Re:that's beautifully worded

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I didn't think I would ever say this, but I think it's actually a bit of a cultural battle.

The people that advertise by MySpace, YouTube or any other social site won't need to sign with a label so much. Usually it's the "replacements" that change how things are done, not the "old guard". I can see the transition taking a long time because the old guard often has to just die out or fade away, but revolutionary changes are possible too.

I'm afraid that the battle over DRM is about to morph from a guerilla action to mutually assured detruction, and the Copyright Industry may prefer the latter in the end to actually sitting down with their enemy (the customers) and coming up with a reasonable solution.

I don't even see how that is possible. How can a solution be agreed upon? I'm not sure if a social contract can be struck because the customers are an extremely diverse group of people.

For example, some here suggest that recordings should be free of copyright, considered advertisements, and that concerts should be the sole way that artists make money. The problem is, maybe I'd like to support a big name artist, but I won't pay hundreds of dollars for a tiny seat in a two hour concert in a neighboring city.

Re:that's beautifully worded

[SeaFox]

I'm afraid that the battle over DRM is about to morph from a guerilla action to mutually assured detruction, and the Copyright Industry may prefer the latter in the end to actually sitting down with their enemy (the customers) and coming up with a reasonable solution.

Here's my reasonable solution: The industry allows me to use their product in whatever personal way I see fit, like I can with a standard audio CD today, and I'll buy their product.

It seems simple but the industry wont agree to it. I think the reason is the industry doesn't like the market the way it has been. They don't like one-time revenue. What they ultimately want is a per use charge on all media, but since that would involve setting up a micropayment system, they do what they deem to be the next best thing: lock the usage of the media in the most artificial ways possible so ultimately the easiest legal solution for the consumer is to simply buy a copy for every device they use it on.

The recording/motion picture industry doesn't seem to understand one fact of business: theft happens. Wal-Mart doesn't add RFID tags to every candy bar, owners of boutiques may watch the door closely, but they both expect to have a little shrink every year (Wal-Mart actually has quite a bit). In both these retailers' situations, the cost of the theft is less than the cost of preventing it (like extra personnel to stand right by the door all day, or RFID tags on items costing less than a pay phone call to begin with, or the cost of frivolous lawsuits when you attempt to capture thieves with force).

Rather than sink millions of dollars into DRM that doesn't work or causes class action lawsuits, the labels need to live with the theft that happens and try to reduce expenses other places to make themselves more profitable. Some of these are:

• Reduce executive pay (this is also the one least likely to happen). They may make the company a lot of money, but keep in mind this is the pay of a single employee. Some of these guys are making more money than they could even spend in a lifetime.
  
  
• Be more selective of signing artists. Give recording contracts to the groups that actually have talent and focus. There are far too many lousy groups getting signed. More prudent investment = better returns for the label. This also leads to more consumer interest in the label. Some consumers are so tired to shuffling through lousy music to find the good stuff they aren't even interested in listening anymore.
  
  
• Tone down the promotion. You can't make people like an artist. They either do or they don't. If a very popular act is going to do a show, is there any reason you should have to promote it out the wazoo? Wouldn't people be aware of it and spread the info for you via word of mouth? Also, referring back to the last point, a lousy band is going to require more promotion to get those albums sold, making them an even less desirable investment. Plus, too much promotion leads to consumer burnout.
  
  
• Stop the long-shot piracy lawsuits. If you don't have any hard evidence, you're just burning money. And you're pissing off your legitimate customers with your actions, lowering your sales. People are less likely to sympathize with someone who really is infringing on copyright than they are people who are innocent and being bullied by string arm legal tactics.
  

Re:that's beautifully worded

[shutdown -p now]

"Digital files cannot be made uncopyable, any more than water can be made not wet."

That's all there is to it, really.

Great....

[AtariDatacenter]

This is one of those great times where I wish I could vote on the story. Translating executive speak to common speak is *always* priceless. Example:

CEO: "We are not going to lay off 500 workers."
English: "We are going to lay off 510 workers. Or 490. Just not 500."

Its all about making you FEEL a message instead of actually hearing and understanding the words. (They want to imply a very positive message, without ACTUALLY lying.)

Re:Great....

[gutnor]

Remind me when the new CEO at my previous company went all the way accros the ocean to explain us how our department has been magnificent and how proud he was of every one of us.
Thanks to us, he saw the great wisdom of Software development and how a proper team will lead his company from Stone Age to World Domination.
In conclusion, one week later (or maybe more, but less than a month later) the department was closed, everybody fired and the software development was outsourced to a specialised development house in India: that would would bring to the company even more flexibility and satisfaction for a cheaper price than our brilliant team could ever provide, but the CEO has to thank us for all this new wisdom.

Re:Great....

[dangitman]

But that would mean visiting Digg. And nobody wants that. Think of the poor tubes that have to carry that sewage.

Re:Great....

[Master of Transhuman]

Yup. Been there, done that.

Worked for a small company of about 11 people - an IBM Series 1 VAR and PC VAD.

CEO brought in a new guy. Held a party. Told us everything was great - company profitable. The new guy was going to be CEO, the old CEO was going to be Chairman of the Board.

A week later, they fired six of the 11 people (not including me - they sent me home that afternoon to avoid the bloodshed).

Week later, the new CEO moved on to Honeywell.

A couple months later, I moved on, having seen the writing on the wall. And that was after he'd sent me back to Atlanta to go through IBM PC tech school. I came back, new job waiting for me, I reported on my experience at the IBM school - and then, "Oh, by the way, I'm quitting!"

He offered me a significant raise to stay on.

Yeah, right, asshole CEO. Sayonara!

Anybody who believes anything a manager says is seriously naive.

The icing on the cake is that this guy got his MBA on a thesis about "employee relations" - and he was one of the biggest assholes I ever worked for in any company. I mean, not just because he fired everybody. I mean, he was a SERIOUS asshole in normal conversation. Everybody at the company couldn't stand him.

Re:Great....

[jthill]

Problem is, it's the truest statement in his whole screed.

Fairplay's rules are DRM, well maintained and reasonably implemented.

Before flaming, I plead "truest", not "true": people pay for iTMS content, to the extent that they do, because if you have to crack Fairplay to do what you want to do with the music, you're behaving either criminally or idiotically (i.e. if you want to play it on something besides iTunes or an iPod, wtf did you buy at iTMS in the first place?) -- and thus iTMS rules... the DRMed market.

Here: let me fix his statement so it's actually "true", not just truthy:

Macrovision: Well maintained and reasonably implemented DRM will increase the electronic distribution of DRM'd content, not decrease it.

But of course that's not the message Daring Fireball is parodying, and not the message Amoroso wants to get across. In Amoroso's fantasy world, he gets paid everytime anybody hears or sees or says anything at all, so he's going to speak as if that's the real world. Being a bigshot, he can get lots of people dancing to that tune, and hurt small fry that refuse to. Aren't lies fun? And so profitable, too! Must be nice being low-level royalty.

I like this blurb best

[i_should_be_working]

I believe that most piracy occurs because the technology available today has not yet been widely deployed to make DRM-protected legitimate content as easily accessible and convenient as unprotected illegitimate content is to consumers.

So, piracy will go away when DRM-protected legitimate content is available for free, from many sources, comes in many formats, can be copied without restrictions, and works on many devices. Brilliant! We are finally on the same page. Now get working on that.

Re:I like this blurb best

[evilviper]

DRM-protected legitimate content as easily accessible and convenient as unprotected illegitimate content is to consumers.

An online store can be much easier and more convenient than tracking down music on the current P2P networks. More than enough to make up for the inconvenience of having to enter credit card details, and paying a few cents per song (or per-month).

Re:I like this blurb best

[roscivs]

Now get working on that.

Exactly. That's pretty much the gist of what I wrote in response to Amoroso's letter:

With such an enjoyable and revolutionary experience within our grasp, we should not minimize the role that DRM can and should play in enabling the transition to electronic content distribution. Without reasonable, consistent and transparent DRM we will only delay the availability of premium content in the home. As an industry, we should not let that happen.

Reasonable, consistent, and transparent DRM is an impossible pipe dream. Telling content producers and content owners to wait to license their content until this pipe dream is available will only delay the availability of premium content in the home. We, as an industry, and as the people who support that industry, should not let that happen.

Re:I like this blurb best

[neongrau]

"comes in many formats"

i would say thats not even necessary.
imho most important is convertibility. so whenever a new format comes available you should be able to convert it to the new media yourself. not being forced to re buy or keep "antique" hardware players just to see a movie/song/album you bought these days again in say 10 or 20 years.

since this is the crap that the content industry wants to make us believe all the time we don't buy a physical product but the license to "consume the content".

if that would be true then we should be able use vinyl and cd's as a license to get the digital versions of the songs for free. and not such crappy codes inside for some bad-website to get weird proprietary drm'ed files that only plays on non-standard players that will just cease to exist someday anyway.

and how the hell are you supposed to lend and album to a friend who wants to listen to it? or bring an album to a party? like generations did before with vinyl and cd's ?

how should that be ever possible with various proprietary drm formats controlled by the industry?

Re:I like this blurb best

[arctan1701]

and how the hell are you supposed to lend and album to a friend who wants to listen to it? or bring an album to a party? like generations did before with vinyl and cd's ?

that's the point, the media companies don't want you to have these "privileges"

Re:I like this blurb best

[Master of Transhuman]

As I've said here repeatedly, nobody pays or has ever paid for music.

They pay for ACCESS to music - whether that is going to a club and paying for access to a band, or buying a phonograph record when there were no cassette radio recorders, or buying CDs when there were no P2P systems or legal downloads.

That's exactly why Apple's iTunes took off. It's a hell of a lot easier than:

1) Install P2P software (assuming the user even has a clue about what it is and where to get it.)
2) Read ridiculously bad documentation on how to use it - assuming said documentation even exists.
3) Search for content.
4) Out of a thousand search results, find one that actually currently exists and can be accessed.
5) Get in queue behind 300 other people for the file.
6) Wait six days to become number 1 in queue.
7) Discover all sources of the file have shut off their machines or stopped providing the file. Bittorrent is notorious for this! Just try to find a seeder 24 hours after a file has been posted! It's over - you're late - you lose!
8) OR discover file is a virus-ridden phoney that hoses your machine. I've had two clients with this problem from Limewire - somebody via Limewire took over their machine, loaded it up with crap files full of trojans, and now their machine is moving like molasses because they're serving these files up to everyone else on the Limewire network.
8) Go back to step 1 or 3, depending on whether your machine still works.
9) Rinse and repeat with some other P2P system.

I've used them, don't get me wrong, but compared to legal downloads, they are a frikkin' nightmare designed by "frikkin idiots" (to use Dr. Evil's term).

It's no surprise that, according to most studies, P2P has little effect on CD sales, because the only people who would use those things are people who simply can't or wouldn't buy CDs anyway.

Re:I like this blurb best

[shutdown -p now]

The problem is that there are places - like allofmp3.com - which offer everything iTunes does, at 1/20th of the price.

Google language tools.

[Devv]

I just realized another language that would be a great addition to Google Language Tools.

Re:Fairly amusing but not overly informative

[drdanny_orig]

Well, duh! (And I mean that in the nicest possible way.) I think that was the entire point. Macromedia's letter was a fairly entertaining, but ultimately content-free rebuke of Job's equally self-serving pronouncement.

Dream the impossible dream

[Linker3000]

If I could implant all my media devices with a unique-to-me identifier and then transfer any content I have paid for *from any source* to any of my devices then I'd be happy with such DRM. Trouble is, this implies all companies with a vested interest in DRM cooperating and the system actually working.

Until that time, I am forced to live in a world where I can listen to an MP3 file at home on 'Player A'. I can also take and use 'Player A' in my car, round a friend's house (and let them listen!), whilst shopping, on the train, plane etc., but heaven forbid I should try and copy or move my MP3 file from 'Player A' to my in-car 'Player B' which is designed to be operated whilst driving, unlike player A which is about as big as a small box of matches and is bloody dangerous to fiddle with whilst on the move.

Re:Dream the impossible dream

[binarybum]

heaven forbid I should try and copy or move my MP3 file from 'Player A' to my in-car 'Player B' which is designed to be operated whilst driving, unlike player A which is about as big as a small box of matches and is bloody dangerous to fiddle with whilst on the move.

  indeed, but not as dangerous as stealing from the record industry and macrovision at the same time by not using DRM'd media. Sure you might end up in a horrific MV accident, but there's your soul to think about to, have you thought about your soul?

Jobs in plain English

[solevita]

Of course, you could also argue that Steve Jobs' letter said little in plain English apart from "Hey Europe, don't get upset with me, the content producers make me do it". Norway saw through it and actually replied in plain English (Norwegian?) when they said "Jobs, stop making excuses, you're still breaking the law by selling your lock-in products in Norway".

Re:Jobs in plain English

[ivan256]

Apparently you didn't see through the Norwegian response though. Let me translate for you:

"It's quite clear that the record companies carry their share of the responsibility for the situation that the consumers are stuck in. However, no matter what agreements iTunes Music Store have entered into, they're still the company that's selling music to the consumers and are responsible for offering the consumer a fair deal according to Norwegian law."

Apple is making it difficult for other companies to offer DRM infected media to Norwegian citizens. This is unfair, as all companies doing business in Norway should be allowed to screw our citizens equally.

Re:Jobs in plain English

[argStyopa]

I dunno. Maybe it is just an American vs European viewpoint thing, but I'd say someone who managed to understand the marketplace so well that they build a product that comes to dominate that market, and offer services that support only that device - well, that's a successful business person.

Yes, if Apple went to music distributors and said something like "distribute your songs exclusively over ipods or we'll ban you" that would be unreasonably using market dominance. But to claim that there's some unreasonable market behavior just because you make your products and services work with each other to the exclusion of others? That's just goofy.

Re:Jobs in plain English

[calstraycat]

Of course, you could also argue that Steve Jobs' letter [theregister.co.uk] said little in plain English apart from "Hey Europe, don't get upset with me, the content producers make me do it". Norway saw through it ...

Over the past couple of weeks, I've seen this assertion made many times and I still don't get the logic. The implication is that Apple secretly wants to continue using DRM and is wrongly pointing the finger at the record companies to deflect blame. But the facts don't support that point of view. When he says the that the recording industry is to blame for the situation, he is, in fact, telling the truth and justifiably pointed the finger in that direction.

I understand that people who subscribe to the view that Jobs's statement was a cynical ploy believe that Apple secretly wants to keep DRM alive to "lock in" customers, but the evidence simply doesn't support that viewpoint. Ninety-seven percent of the music on iPods is DRM-free. Customers are not locked in. The lock-in argument is bogus. Furthermore, DRM is a pain in the butt for online music retailers and consumer electronics manufacturers. It is of no benefit to them. It increases the complexity of product development, increases support costs and makes for a poorer customer experience.

So, please explain to me why Apple would want to continue utilizing DRM when it of no benefit to them. Also, I'd be interested in what your response would have been had Apple announced that they would license Fairplay to third parties rather than calling for the end of DRM. Would you have preferred that? I just don't get it. A good portion of the ubiquitously anti-DRM Slashdot crowd seems to be implying that it would be better if Apple proliferated their proprietary DRM than call for the end of DRM. Is that what you want? Would you rather Apple appease Norway's regulators and further entrench DRM than getting rid of it completely?

Re:Jobs in plain English

[gnasher719]

'' Ninety-seven percent of the music on iPods is DRM-free. Customers are not locked in. The lock-in argument is bogus. ''

Actually there is a different lock-in, and I would really like to know how strong it is.

iTunes (the jukebox software) can encode your CDs to AAC, which (a) has much better sound quality at the same bitrate compared to MP3, and (b) plays on the iTunes. My CDs are all encoded in AAC for reason (a), which "forced" me to buy an iPod. ("Forced" is a bit strong, because (1) I liked the iPod that I bought, (2) I caused the situation myself and (3) every other manufacturer could have got a license for AAC. )

For me, buying a player that doesn't play AAC would be a major pain, and I don't want a Zune. I looked a long time for a CD player that could play AAC (plenty of them can play MP3), but I couldn't find one. I'd like to know what percentage of buyers are in the same situation with huge amounts of AAC files.

Re:Jobs in plain English

[calstraycat]

I use iTunes as well. Although it is set up to encode using ACC by default, it will also encode to MP3. So, I changed the encoding format to MP3 on day one so that my music files would be in a format supported by all players. While the ACC encoder is superior in that you can create high quality files of smaller size, you can get equal quality MP3s by choosing a higher bit rate. Disk space is cheap, so file size isn't much of an issue. I encode MP3 at 192 kbps and sometimes 256 kbps. That's good enough quality for me and the file sizes are still reasonable.

Re:And I find it kind of funny, I find it kind of

[JrOldPhart]

Just like a radio or television if you don't like the content go somewhere else.

why is this tagged as humo[u]r?

[JustNiz]

I don't understand why this is tagged as humour.
It seems like a truly accurate translation from business-doublespeak into plain English, and as such is insightful and scary, not humorous.

Re:the text

[jc42]

The translation by itself isn't nearly as entertaining as reading both.

This is why it's always a good idea to present the original texts alongside a translation. Sure, as in this example, most people won't be able to read and understand the original. But some will, and (again as in this example) those people can help verify that the translation is accurate.

Just think of all of history's warfare that could have been prevented if if were a legal requirement that translations always be presented side-by-side with the original. Holy books would always include the original, so the mistranslations would be visible to those with a bit of knowledge. Politicians wouldn't get away with "straw-man" distortions of their enemies' statements, because the distorted version would be accompanied by the original.

But I guess we know why such an idea couldn't possibly be accepted, especially not by our religious or political leaders. Probably not by our corporate leaders, either.

Almost, but not quite

[DingerX]

Cute little "translation", and it almost gets it.
 
"Black is White" is certainly the case of "DRM increases consumer value". But the point to:
 

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.

Isn't simply: "Abandoning DRM will prevent us from forcing our customers to keep paying us over and over again for the same movies and songs they've already paid for."
  It's more pernicious than that. It reveals the fundamental difference in philosophy: we don't buy things anymore, we "consume content", and they "own content". Ownership is a social convention: in theory, we more or less agree what constitutes "property". Now they are trying to change the rules, claiming they own all the things we use, and we pay them whatever they deem fit. So we become intellectual sharecroppers: we own nothing and owe everything.
 
The beauty of the letter, however, really lies in how it reveals that the DRM proponents' own ridiculous notions of intellectual property prevent them from having their "DRM-laden paradise". For DRM to truly work, it has to be transparent to the user, interoperable, and add value, not remove it. And, wait! Today's technology can do that! But hold on: that technology is itself "High-value content", and as such needs protection through trade secrets, patents, and proprietary deals, and the resulting product is subject to the same market forces as the content it is supposed to protect. Dammit! The same logic we use to defend DRM shows us that DRM cannot work!

Choose your battles...

[Space cowboy]

If you accept what Steve was saying was true, about how the risk/reward simply wasn't worth it for Apple, it's clear that both parties were simply explaining their respective positions without giving ground. There is no need for your "saw through it" bias.

What Norway was saying is "it is illegal for you to do business in the way you are"
Jobs replies "this is the only way that makes sense for us"
Norway replies "it's still illegal, you're going to have to fix it or withdraw"
[expectation: Jobs replies "Ok then, we'll stop doing business in Norway"] ... and Jobs gets to blame it on the various label companies - it was a pre-emptive strike at managing the fallout when Apple stop selling iTunes in Norway. He added a sufficient number of things to make the "story of the day" not be this, of course. Now it's firmly in the subconscious that DRM is not Apple's fault, I expect the next salvo to be "and we made it as easy on the customer as the labels would let us" - that is, if the labels have the stomach for the upcoming fight.

Jobs' vision is of making consumers products (and computers, for that matter) that people lust after, while making money of course. He's not interested in getting in their way - a few years ago, I think the iTunes DRM effectively helped Apple, but now I genuinely think the market is theirs to lose, and they have a track-record of making very *very* attractive and successful products in the music market.

I don't think he cares about DRM any more, in fact I think he'd swap the DRM for the risk of running iTunes as it is right now (with the sword of Damocles over his head if FairPlay is ever seriously broken). And I think he'll be more than happy to give up the tiny percentage of iTunes sales that Norway represents in order to remove that risk - "goodbye Norway, thanks for playing, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out"

Simon.

iPod does not equal DRM

[Shrubber]

The thing I'd expect the least is Steve Jobs (whose company makes the most DRM-fucked up mp3 player in the world) fighting against DRM. Talk is cheap and I will not believe a word, unless I see the results. People need to stop spouting this nonsense. The iPod is not DRM laiden. The iPod does not create DRM. The iPod does not do anything but play the files YOU give it. If you do not purchase music files that have DRM then you do not have to play music files with DRM. You can put any MP3s you want on the iPod, they won't magically become something different than they were before you put them on there.

Complain about the iTunes music store all you want, but direct your complaints where they belong.

Ultimate DRM

[Hennell]

I love the way that people involved in DRM think it adds to the product. You can do less with this product now! Whoo-hoo!

It may be shameless self-promotion but I made a visualisation of the Ultimate DRM just the other day. What happened to giving the customer what they want?

Re:Ultimate DRM

[an.echte.trilingue]

I love the way that people involved in DRM think it adds to the product.

DRM does add costumer value to the product, for Macromedia's customers. Macromedia's customers, however, are not you and me. Most of Macromedia's customers are members of an organization that ends in AA.

Explain?

[springbox]

Macrovision says:

DRM increases not decreases consumer value

I know their entire business relies on DRM's success but every encounter I have had with it ended up being some sort of pain in the ass. How does DRM increase consumer value. Like, why should I be excited that I can't copy media from one format to another without it being a hassle? I wish Macrovision explained that statement.

Re:Explain?

[Hieronymus Howard]

The only experiences that I have ever had with Macrovision are when it's prevented me from playing legitimately owned content. So I'd like to say a great big Fuck You to Macrovision for they way that they have 'increased my consumer value'.

Re:Steve Jobs

[jc42]

I'd bet that Steve Jobs is right now wishing that people would just stop sending him copies of TFA. I mean, he probably really laughed the first time he read it, but by the 25th time ...

You know you've been playing too much NetHack when

[kale77in]

+1 Insightful

• Should've wished for "blessed rustproof +2 Insightful".

Summary

[JPMaximilian]

I think that whole PR can be summarized as, "What Steve Said, if followed, will put us out of business, he was wrong, media companies really do still need us to protect their content."

Oh oh...

[freeze128]

Just think of all of history's warfare that could have been prevented if if were a legal requirement that translations always be presented side-by-side with the original.

This is a good idea, but what if the original was copyrighted? Then it might be infringement to publish it alongside the translation. This is affecting our copyright. What we need is some way to prevent that. Maybe some sort of way to MANAGE what RIGHTS the translators have....

I'll get my team of lawyers to work on this Monday morning....

Bill Gates

[BGatesFan]

I disagree with Bill Gates, as he wants to be rid of DRM, and recommends buying CDs. Now maybe I'll be a Fred Amoroso fan. As he seems to be more manipulative and greedy than Bill, maybe Bill has gone soft. I don't know. I like my Music and other Media formats DRM-Laden so that I can only use them on my Dell Running Windows Vista. Vista is the operating system of the future people, can't you realize that? DRM today, DRM tomorrow, DRM Forever! Michael Dell is cool too, especially when they started coming out with ink cartidges for their printers that only work with dell printers. I don't like being able to go to any computer store and buy standard ink cartidges. I prefer to give all of my money to Dell, so that Michael Dell will have enough money to buy Bill Gates.

Just go DRM Free.

[twitter]

If I could implant all my media devices with a unique-to-me identifier and then transfer any content I have paid for *from any source* to any of my devices then I'd be happy with such DRM. Trouble is, this implies all companies with a vested interest in DRM cooperating and the system actually working.

It's not just impossible, it's an undesirable loss of control. For any DRM to work you have to surrender your ability to copy files. Each and every time you try, the DRM would have to check and grant you permission. Any limit you put onto the power of that copy is arbitrary and won't really protect the user from abuse. Imagine you could restrict the copy control to files of a particular type in a particular location. For this to work, each time you tried to copy or move a file the computer would have to make sure your file was not of that type or in that location. Further restrictions could be added at any time, so you should never accept even the mildest set.

Until that time, I am forced to live in a [DRM world where I can't copy between devices]

That's only true if you buy into DRM systems, so don't give up while things are looking good. Right now, you can buy commercial music on CDs, and most music on players still gets there that way. You can also get more free music than you can ever listen to at archive.org or magnatune.com, which should be good for music sales by the artists there. If enough people reject DRM, DRM won't happen because people making money will all be DRM free. That is why the majors are all thinking hard about it.

The ultimate dream here is greed. DRM is about control by a few big dumb companies who want to "transition from physical to digital distribution" with their broadcast monopoly intact. Without lots of bad laws, that's the really impossible dream.

Re:No you can't

[Toba82]

I think capitalism works pretty well. That's why it's been in use for the majority of recorded history.

So... Cable TV?

[SanityInAnarchy]

I bring this up because even if your solution works, it takes control out of our hands.

I don't mind Google, because if they ever start being obnoxious in their search ads, I can easily switch to some other search engine, or even attempt to build one myself.

What you're talking about implies a lot of industry cooperation, which also implies that there'd be a monopoly on this service. Which means it would be overpriced and under-featured. They'd arbitrarily move normal content to "premium", and you wouldn't be able to do anything other than cancel and slowly try to save up and re-buy the stuff. They'd be able to set prices wherever they want, with the same result. They'd advertise just as much as Cable TV -- have you seen those fucking things? Can't even let you enjoy the 5-10 minutes of the show you get between ads without sliding in some little ad that takes up a quarter of the screen, animates, and makes an occasional sound or two. Except that with Cable and Satellite, if I get sick of it, I can cancel my subscription and go buy a DVD, which won't have ads...

Which brings up another thing: DVDs can have unskippable ads. You can skip them in VLC, but only because VLC cracks the DRM.

So, the only way I would ever subscribe to something like this is if they gave everything to me DRM-free. If they could manage a distribution system which is faster and better than the existing networks (think BitTorrent), and if they would actually just give me the DVD in, say, a matroska file, I'd subscribe and stay subscribed. Yes, of course this means I could just share the file with all my friends, but I can do that anyway -- have music execs even looked on peer-to-peer networks lately? DRM ISN'T WORKING! It also means I could just subscribe and download as much as I could in a month, then unsubscribe -- which is, after all, what they deserve; they should be making enough new content to keep me interested -- I would subscribe to cable or satellite TV to watch a show I like, so what makes them think I wouldn't do the same over the Internet? MythTV already makes it ludicrously easy for me to share that show of cable or satellite, why do they think the Internet will make it any easier?

And if you really have zero affiliation to any company, why are you posting as Anonymous, you Coward?!

Oops, he got this one wrong:

[Stephen Samuel]

Magic interoperable DRM would give people all the features and capabilities they get with DRM-free media. Magic interoperable DRM would give people some of the features and capabilities they get with DRM-free media.

Re:I have a translation process constantly running

[Mateito]

especially the word "solution"

As somebody with a foot in both camps (I design RAS compliant solution architectures for business enablement - ie.. I'm a tech in a suit), "solution" is my current most hated word. It's a redundant tag added by people who think using more words makes them sound brighter. In a way, it does, because their audience is often just as fucked as they are.

If I design a storage or network infrastructure to address a number of issues subject to a number of constraints then, yes, technically its a solution to a problem. Its definitely not a Storage Network Infrastructure Solution. It may be a Solution to Business problems, but its not a Business Problem Solution.

Also, have you noticed how solutions are always complete? Who would advertise offering only a partial solution? Nobody. (That would be an Integrable component solution... or maybe a Complete point solution.)

This is not restricted to IT. Recently I've seen advertisements for "complete lawn solution", "complete pest solution" and "complete outfit solution". There is even a barber around the corner proclaiming to offer "complete hair solutions".

As long as I come out of my MBA with my grasp of the English language intact, I'm assured that I can make a positive contribution to the demanagerialization of verbal communication channel protocols".

Re:No you can't

[HiThere]

Capitalism can work fine as an economic system when it's not supported by governmental fiat-monopolies.

Well, I should back-pedal a bit on that...it can work as well as any other economic system we've devised. Once you start allowing fiat-monopolies (copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc.) things quickly get more comples, and it's not honest to call the resulting system capitalism. Also, the evidence for capitalism working fine is limited. It's limited to low density populations living in areas with poor transportation. This naturally results in all companies being of limited size.

I'm specifically NOT including cases where governmental troops suppress the populace into subservience to the company as examples of capitalism working fine. Those are example where it has DRASTICALLY FAILED. (You don't need to read much history to find lots of those cases.)

N.B.: I'm not insisting that the populace was always right when it got so angry that it was willing to rise in a mob and attack a company. I'm merely asserting that capitalism had failed. Usually the specific remedies advocated by the populace were short-sighted. This doesn't mean that they system was working, it means that BOTH (all?) sides were wrong.

E.g., the luddites. They were treated very unfairly, in many diverse ways. The "solution" of destroying the machines wasn't a proper way out, but neither was the governmental exclusion of the folk from the lands that they had held for generations. Neither was the arbitrays increase of the rents until they couldn't pay. Some people got very rich by using the power of governmental force to abuse others. This was a failure of something that can't rightfully be called capitalism, but is usually considered to be such. Once assymetric governmental force is invoked, you don't have capitalism. (Governmentally mandated "cooling-down" periods may well not be violations of capitalism, but if one side is assymetrically penalised, then they violate it.)

P.S.: Capitalism isn't all that great. It's just the best that can be done in an anarchistic state, or in a state where the government doesn't get involved with economics. One could argue that all taxes represent governmental interference...but while that's true, it is also omnipresent. So you'll never see pure capitalism unless you vist the Kalahari bushmen (perhaps) or deal in illegalities (drugs, theft, etc.). Note that quasi-governmental groups start forming immediately, and they impose "taxes" of their own.

So one will never see pure capitalism. Ever. It's an abstraction, like a mathematical point. I'm not sure, though, that it's as useful an abstraction. It seems to me quite plausible that it represents cutting economics along a non-optimal partition.

Re:Fairly amusing but not overly informative

[indiechild]

Macromedia? The moderators must be high on crack again...

Macrovision admits the real intention of DRM

[Ath]

DRM is nothing about piracy and all about reselling the same content over and over again to the same consumer. The promise is that consumers will have more "choice" (that they don't want) and "flexibility" (that they used to have) at lower prices (that they won't get).

Does anyone really think that a consumer wants to buy the same song or movie more than once without there being some added value to the second purchase? If you buy a movie on DVD, should you have to pay again to play it on your computer? On your portable media player? According to this guy, this is what consumers WANT to do. Uh huh. So if I buy a CD, instead of having the fair use right (which I still have) to convert that music to a format I can use on my iPod, I would actually be better off buying the same content again in a format that already works on my iPod?

I know Macrovision is in the DRM business and so they are hardly neutral on the idea of whether DRM should become the industry standard, but they really need to work harder on their arguments about why DRM is good. I guess the marketing department rejected using terminology like "resell the same shit".