While the MPAA has a "piracy" problem,
I would like to know how much of that is due
to commercial efforts especially in the developing
areas of the world.
Personally, I think that the "solution" is to
aggressively pursue those making profits off
their efforts and ignore the people who trade
the grainy previews.
Instead of DRM, why not commit to a common digital
signature format. Player software would detect the
signature, and _WARN_ if it is not present. Have
a bounty for reporting illegally applied signatures,
and a clearing house which allows the measuring of
actual profits for any signature.
The presumption is that in general, people
do recognize that they should pay for entertainment,
as long as they can do WHAT they want with their
copies.
The existence of unlabelled, hard to transfer
content should be a competitor to the otherwise
monopolistic scenario. Is the price and terms
so onerous that your customers spend the time to
get it elsewhere?
And the ones that will copy, will copy. But
maybe when they grow up, they'll want the
"platinum memorial edition" of the titles they used
to watch.
Very good on noticing this.
The Hollings bill mandanted (as I recall) that
the DRM solution be OPEN to the point that any
manufacturer can implement it (usually,
government chosen specs are patent-licensed to
all, such as the Digital Signature Algorithm).
RIAA wants cheap players so more people can watch movies.
The BSA wants the PER-SALE fee to use their DRM
solution (each DRM protected movie file you download
a small amount goes into Microsoft's coffers).
First, what the BSA wants is NOT less DRM, it is Market-Enforced DRM. You can only get your software, movies, music and what have you THROUGH their blessed Palladium. The reason they don't want Hollings bill is that it forces them to consider things that they otherwise wouldn't for economic reasons, for example fair use and expiration of copyrights, which would come into play IF the DRM solution was part of a law.
So -- Remember. They are NOT anti-DRM, they just want to CONTROL the DRM. And it is a LOT more difficult for government to interfere with the private choices of individuals (you bought this hardware knowing it had DRM -- but you can't connect to your online banking otherwise and the $10/teller visit fees added up!)
Slashdot Mirror
While the MPAA has a "piracy" problem, I would like to know how much of that is due to commercial efforts especially in the developing areas of the world. Personally, I think that the "solution" is to aggressively pursue those making profits off their efforts and ignore the people who trade the grainy previews. Instead of DRM, why not commit to a common digital signature format. Player software would detect the signature, and _WARN_ if it is not present. Have a bounty for reporting illegally applied signatures, and a clearing house which allows the measuring of actual profits for any signature. The presumption is that in general, people do recognize that they should pay for entertainment, as long as they can do WHAT they want with their copies. The existence of unlabelled, hard to transfer content should be a competitor to the otherwise monopolistic scenario. Is the price and terms so onerous that your customers spend the time to get it elsewhere? And the ones that will copy, will copy. But maybe when they grow up, they'll want the "platinum memorial edition" of the titles they used to watch.
Very good on noticing this. The Hollings bill mandanted (as I recall) that the DRM solution be OPEN to the point that any manufacturer can implement it (usually, government chosen specs are patent-licensed to all, such as the Digital Signature Algorithm). RIAA wants cheap players so more people can watch movies. The BSA wants the PER-SALE fee to use their DRM solution (each DRM protected movie file you download a small amount goes into Microsoft's coffers).
First, what the BSA wants is NOT less DRM, it is
Market-Enforced DRM. You can only get your software,
movies, music and what have you THROUGH their
blessed Palladium.
The reason they don't want Hollings bill is
that it forces them to consider things that they
otherwise wouldn't for economic reasons, for
example fair use and expiration of copyrights, which
would come into play IF the DRM solution was
part of a law.
So -- Remember. They are NOT anti-DRM, they just
want to CONTROL the DRM. And it is a LOT more
difficult for government to interfere with
the private choices of individuals (you bought
this hardware knowing it had DRM -- but you
can't connect to your online banking otherwise and
the $10/teller visit fees added up!)