DRM in Vista

[kamper]

Originally posted by: MrChad
That's a terrible analogy. Movies and music aren't outdated; there's clearly still a very high demand for them. It's the delivery methods that are outdated, not the content. Cars offered a better and cheaper alternative to other forms of transportation and were successful. Open-source software, again, is in many cases better and cheaper than other alternatives.

Yeah, the delivery methods are what I was referring to.

What are your alternatives in music? Unsigned artists? I suppose the music industry could collapse and all of our favorite bands could peddle free downloads of MP3s they recorded in their basements, but I don't see that happening (the bands have to eat) nor is that something I would enjoy as a consumer (no more tours? no high-quality studio recordings?).

I think the problem here is the conception that the RIAA = music. Tours, of all things, will not stop, as they are still a relevant distribution mechanism. It's not very practical to pirate a live performance. What will take the biggest dive is the marketing and physical distribution. I won't cry a tear for marketing, as that will take a whole lot of bad music down with it. The physical distribution stuff is exactly the problem. Use technology to enhance (rather that diminish) distribution techniques and the problem is solved. Stuff like bittorrent costs essentially nothing for a distributor. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but producing music in a different way can definitely be ironed out.

What are your alternatives in film? Small indie films? I like seeing Hollywood movies, and it would be a shame to have the entire industry reduced to small independent efforts. Maybe that's where we're headed, though.

This is something that bothers me. The creation of music takes very little resources (comparativley speaking) so it's easy to envision a different market model. Movies, of course, really are tough to produce. Maybe there are different, less artificial ways, that the industry can provide value or maybe it simply isn't sustainable.

Maybe it can be like open source where people who feel stronly enough about freedom can make movies with free licenses, then an industry can be built around providing real services like cinemas and efficient distribution. I guess that's probably a pipe dream though.

Of course, the irony of all my arguments about how the market should dictate what gets produced is that drm is part of the market and if everyone is allowed to keep on doing exactly what they think is best for themselves, it will continue. I'm as unhappy about piracy as I am about drm, not because it affects me directly, but because it's only fair.

 

[Nothinman]

What are your alternatives in film? Small indie films? I like seeing Hollywood movies, and it would be a shame to have the entire industry reduced to small independent efforts. Maybe that's where we're headed, though.

I sort of agree, movies produced by Hollywood are generally of higher quality than those produced by independents. But when something like http://www-us.starwreck.com/ can be produced for virtually no budget by amateurs, it makes me wonder why Hollywood's movies have been so sh!tty lately.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: kamper
I think the problem here is the conception that the RIAA = music. Tours, of all things, will not stop, as they are still a relevant distribution mechanism. It's not very practical to pirate a live performance. What will take the biggest dive is the marketing and physical distribution. I won't cry a tear for marketing, as that will take a whole lot of bad music down with it. The physical distribution stuff is exactly the problem. Use technology to enhance (rather that diminish) distribution techniques and the problem is solved. Stuff like bittorrent costs essentially nothing for a distributor. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but producing music in a different way can definitely be ironed out.

Who pays for the tours? Who promotes the music? You can certainly have an independent music rating site that allows users to share and promote their favorite bands. But again, the entire music industry as we know it goes away. Big venue concerts are unlikely, because bands are no longer making money from their music.

This is something that bothers me. The creation of music takes very little resources (comparativley speaking) so it's easy to envision a different market model. Movies, of course, really are tough to produce. Maybe there are different, less artificial ways, that the industry can provide value or maybe it simply isn't sustainable.

Maybe it can be like open source where people who feel stronly enough about freedom can make movies with free licenses, then an industry can be built around providing real services like cinemas and efficient distribution. I guess that's probably a pipe dream though.

It's not entirely a pipe dream. Many filmmakers are moving to digital filming, which is cheaper and easier to edit and distribute. Mark Cuban, if I recall from an issue of Wired a few months back, has been promoting digital film distribution (from film companies to cinemas) in an effort to cut industry costs. It's possible that films could be produced and enjoy a wide audience without Hollywood, but it's much less likely than with music. And I'm not sure that's what the market wants anyway.

Of course, the irony of all my arguments about how the market should dictate what gets produced is that drm is part of the market and if everyone is allowed to keep on doing exactly what they think is best for themselves, it will continue. I'm as unhappy about piracy as I am about drm, not because it affects me directly, but because it's only fair.

The market will dictate what gets produced AND the direction that DRM goes in. I think DRM is mostly a concern of computer enthusiasts now. It's starting to trickle into the mainstream with Apple and iTunes, but pretty soon "Joe Six-Pack" is going to know about it. And when DRM techniques are too draconian and infringe on users' fair use rights too much, consumers will fight back. Just look at what happened to Intuit with TurboTax and their boot sector copy protection. Or with Sony and their huge DRM security hole. I'm curious to see how early HDTV (sans HDMI) adopters will react when the next-gen DVD formats won't play in full resolution on their TVs.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: kamper
I think the problem here is the conception that the RIAA = music. Tours, of all things, will not stop, as they are still a relevant distribution mechanism. It's not very practical to pirate a live performance. What will take the biggest dive is the marketing and physical distribution. I won't cry a tear for marketing, as that will take a whole lot of bad music down with it. The physical distribution stuff is exactly the problem. Use technology to enhance (rather that diminish) distribution techniques and the problem is solved. Stuff like bittorrent costs essentially nothing for a distributor. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but producing music in a different way can definitely be ironed out.

Who pays for the tours? Who promotes the music? You can certainly have an independent music rating site that allows users to share and promote their favorite bands. But again, the entire music industry as we know it goes away. Big venue concerts are unlikely, because bands are no longer making money from their music.

The tours only exist on a scale at which they can support themselves. My key point is that they are a value that is actually hard to reproduce so people will continue to pay for them. Big venue concerts have been going on since Handel and they're not about to stop if the current record industry goes under. As for promotion? Who gives a rip? Most of what goes on now is the worst part of the industry and I think freer distribution of the music will more than overcome any visibility problems. It will also serve very nicely to weed out the crap music.

This is something that bothers me. The creation of music takes very little resources (comparativley speaking) so it's easy to envision a different market model. Movies, of course, really are tough to produce. Maybe there are different, less artificial ways, that the industry can provide value or maybe it simply isn't sustainable.

Maybe it can be like open source where people who feel stronly enough about freedom can make movies with free licenses, then an industry can be built around providing real services like cinemas and efficient distribution. I guess that's probably a pipe dream though.

It's not entirely a pipe dream. Many filmmakers are moving to digital filming, which is cheaper and easier to edit and distribute. Mark Cuban, if I recall from an issue of Wired a few months back, has been promoting digital film distribution (from film companies to cinemas) in an effort to cut industry costs. It's possible that films could be produced and enjoy a wide audience without Hollywood, but it's much less likely than with music. And I'm not sure that's what the market wants anyway.

Ok, it's getting easier, but a full blown hollywood movie is still going to cost more than an album to cut. The primary value of an album is in the writing and performance. Still true of a movie, but there's lots more in terms of scenery and post-filming processing that I think would be hard to replace (I should check out nothinman's link...).

I like a lot of what I've heard from Mark Cuban, but what you're talking about has little to do with drm, no?

Of course, the irony of all my arguments about how the market should dictate what gets produced is that drm is part of the market and if everyone is allowed to keep on doing exactly what they think is best for themselves, it will continue. I'm as unhappy about piracy as I am about drm, not because it affects me directly, but because it's only fair.

The market will dictate what gets produced AND the direction that DRM goes in. I think DRM is mostly a concern of computer enthusiasts now. It's starting to trickle into the mainstream with Apple and iTunes, but pretty soon "Joe Six-Pack" is going to know about it. And when DRM techniques are too draconian and infringe on users' fair use rights too much, consumers will fight back. Just look at what happened to Intuit with TurboTax and their boot sector copy protection. Or with Sony and their huge DRM security hole. I'm curious to see how early HDTV (sans HDMI) adopters will react when the next-gen DVD formats won't play in full resolution on their TVs.

I couldn't agree more, except that I'm a little more concerned about the Sony's out there. The only official complaint I heard (like when reading cnet stories, media industry quotes...) was that it opened up potential security holes on the user's pc. That's so far behind the real issue it's actually funny and it scares me to think that they could get away with it if they could somehow convince the right people that their malware was secure enough.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
http://www-us.starwreck.com/

The trailer for that looks pretty neat; downloading off bittorent now.

It's nice to see some good alternatives.

 

[Nothinman]

The story is so-so, it has some good jokes if you know all of the series' that they're talking about, and the CG is amazing. The only real problem is that the audio only comes in Finnish.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: kamper
I think the problem here is the conception that the RIAA = music. Tours, of all things, will not stop, as they are still a relevant distribution mechanism. It's not very practical to pirate a live performance. What will take the biggest dive is the marketing and physical distribution. I won't cry a tear for marketing, as that will take a whole lot of bad music down with it. The physical distribution stuff is exactly the problem. Use technology to enhance (rather that diminish) distribution techniques and the problem is solved. Stuff like bittorrent costs essentially nothing for a distributor. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but producing music in a different way can definitely be ironed out.

Who pays for the tours? Who promotes the music? You can certainly have an independent music rating site that allows users to share and promote their favorite bands. But again, the entire music industry as we know it goes away. Big venue concerts are unlikely, because bands are no longer making money from their music.

The tours only exist on a scale at which they can support themselves. My key point is that they are a value that is actually hard to reproduce so people will continue to pay for them. Big venue concerts have been going on since Handel and they're not about to stop if the current record industry goes under. As for promotion? Who gives a rip? Most of what goes on now is the worst part of the industry and I think freer distribution of the music will more than overcome any visibility problems. It will also serve very nicely to weed out the crap music.

As I understand it, the RIAA generally makes no money directly from ticket sales, or merchandising sales, or anything that isn't record sales. Modern music can continue very well without an industry association.

This is something that bothers me. The creation of music takes very little resources (comparativley speaking) so it's easy to envision a different market model. Movies, of course, really are tough to produce. Maybe there are different, less artificial ways, that the industry can provide value or maybe it simply isn't sustainable.

Maybe it can be like open source where people who feel stronly enough about freedom can make movies with free licenses, then an industry can be built around providing real services like cinemas and efficient distribution. I guess that's probably a pipe dream though.

It's not entirely a pipe dream. Many filmmakers are moving to digital filming, which is cheaper and easier to edit and distribute. Mark Cuban, if I recall from an issue of Wired a few months back, has been promoting digital film distribution (from film companies to cinemas) in an effort to cut industry costs. It's possible that films could be produced and enjoy a wide audience without Hollywood, but it's much less likely than with music. And I'm not sure that's what the market wants anyway.

Ok, it's getting easier, but a full blown hollywood movie is still going to cost more than an album to cut. The primary value of an album is in the writing and performance. Still true of a movie, but there's lots more in terms of scenery and post-filming processing that I think would be hard to replace (I should check out nothinman's link...).

I like a lot of what I've heard from Mark Cuban, but what you're talking about has little to do with drm, no?

Of course, the irony of all my arguments about how the market should dictate what gets produced is that drm is part of the market and if everyone is allowed to keep on doing exactly what they think is best for themselves, it will continue. I'm as unhappy about piracy as I am about drm, not because it affects me directly, but because it's only fair.

The market will dictate what gets produced AND the direction that DRM goes in. I think DRM is mostly a concern of computer enthusiasts now. It's starting to trickle into the mainstream with Apple and iTunes, but pretty soon "Joe Six-Pack" is going to know about it. And when DRM techniques are too draconian and infringe on users' fair use rights too much, consumers will fight back. Just look at what happened to Intuit with TurboTax and their boot sector copy protection. Or with Sony and their huge DRM security hole. I'm curious to see how early HDTV (sans HDMI) adopters will react when the next-gen DVD formats won't play in full resolution on their TVs.

I couldn't agree more, except that I'm a little more concerned about the Sony's out there. The only official complaint I heard (like when reading cnet stories, media industry quotes...) was that it opened up potential security holes on the user's pc. That's so far behind the real issue it's actually funny and it scares me to think that they could get away with it if they could somehow convince the right people that their malware was secure enough.

I would like to remind everyone that a market requires scarcity. You can't really call something a market unless there's scarcity. The question, then, that needs to be asked is "Is DRM necessary for scarcity?" No, it's not; but in order to have scarcity without DRM, you need a major paradigm shift.

A market where everyone does pursue their own interests does work well, but only when everyone stays within the bounds of the economy. Once matters invade the domain of politics (as has happened), all bets are off.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: bersl2
I would like to remind everyone that a market requires scarcity. You can't really call something a market unless there's scarcity. The question, then, that needs to be asked is "Is DRM necessary for scarcity?" No, it's not; but in order to have scarcity without DRM, you need a major paradigm shift.

Very well explained, are you an economist? I think I've been arguing all along that this paradigm shift is what we need. The problem is that people with lots of money to lose (and hence, power) prefer the drm road.

A market where everyone does pursue their own interests does work well, but only when everyone stays within the bounds of the economy. Once matters invade the domain of politics (as has happened), all bets are off.

Trying to understand this. Are you saying that piracy and drm are straying outside the bounds of the economy? Is a forced paradigm shift what you'd consider the realm of politics?

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: bersl2
And some of us would argue that the concepts (not the precise laws) of moral rights and of free speech are in opposition, and that free speech should have more precedence.

You have no 'moral rights' or 'free speech' when it comes to copyrighted material. You do not own the content, nor do you have any 'right' to be able to view it or do things with it other than what the copyright owner and copyright law allow.

There are two separate issues here:

1) What you should be allowed to do with the content, and how much control content providers should legally have on content they have 'sold' you.

2) How stringently technology (whether labelled as "DRM" or not) should be able to enforce said control.

Well-designed DRM should allow consumers to do what they are allowed to do with the content, while preventing them from doing things that are illegal to do with it.

A well-designed DRM implementation should be advisory in nature, not compulsory. Hell, obliterate the anti-circumvention provisions on the DMCA, and one would have a deal on this issue.

The only reason you would want to circumvent well-designed DRM would be to:

1) Do something illegal (which is illegal whether or not the DMCA is present), or

2) Do something legal that the DRM prevents you from doing, but which you feel you have some legal entitlement to do. This is due to incomplete or inadequate DRM, or inadequate/unclear copyright laws.

If you fix the laws and have good DRM implementations, reason #2 goes away. I would argue that current DRM implementations are technologically limited, and so restrict consumers more than is necessary. I don't think the concept of DRM itself is fatally flawed.

If you're violently opposed to this, then you have issues with copyright law, which -- as you noted -- is a compromise between the rights of the content owner and the public.

Anything from the Berne Convention and after has been utterly unilateral and as far from compromise as possible. Life of the author plus 50^H^H70^H^H90 years?! Are you fscking kidding me? That may have worked 100 years ago, but that length of time is obscenely long when you consider the speed at which information moves today. And do remember, the trend over the past 50 years has been to extend that period of time. Retroactively, might I remind you.

I agree that the retroactive copyright extensions are total BS, and copyright law needs changes to deal with today's world. However, it's very hard to come up with a set of laws that protect content providers adequately while still giving consumers the abilities they're used to having. And if there is technology out there that can effectively enforce those laws, content providers are going to want to use it.

Basically, cheap and perfect digital copying breaks a lot of old assumptions that were used when copyright law was first developed. Even cheap and somewhat lossy analog copying changes the picture considerably. Remember how hard the RIAA fought cassette recorders, and how hard the MPAA fought VCRs? They had to adapt their business models, and establish new interpretations of copyright, and they'll need to do it again.

Obviously, current DRM implementations are not perfect. However, the market seems to do just fine sorting out which ones are unacceptably draconian.

The market is only guaranteed to work in the presence of perfect information. True, this is impossible outside of theory; but it is to the advantage of the copyrights' holders to spread misinformation, so in order to counter this, making people actively aware of the issue is the best course of action (as I see it). In other words, I would not leave the market to its own devices and just hope for the best.

Making people aware of the situation is something I support completely.

 

[ShadowBlade]

dont a lot of dvd decoders upconvert to HD anyway? so if its degraded to a low-res b/c your monitor isnt HDCP compliant, wont the decoder upconvert it back to HD

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: ShadowBlade
dont a lot of dvd decoders upconvert to HD anyway? so if its degraded to a low-res b/c your monitor isnt HDCP compliant, wont the decoder upconvert it back to HD

Um... not really.

There's a world of difference between a 1920x1080 feed and a 720x480 feed that has been resampled up to 1920x1080.

 

[alfa147x]

should ii be surprised?

oh...


really?....

ow....


~yeah right!~