Macrovision Responds to Steve Jobs on DRM 221
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?"
Re:renting content (Score:4, Informative)
Re:renting content (Score:4, Informative)
The problem being that the novice clueless users are probably not inclined to try and copy a disc in the first place, and just go buy them at the store. So, it does nothing except cost producers profits, because they have to pay to license stuff from Macrovision, when they could simply release the product without those costs.
Yeah, I got that, but I still think they remain a "one trick pony." the "SafeDisc" thing is really just the digital equivalent of their analog video hack. What are they going to do to "help Apple improve Fairplay? Have it include deliberate "bad samples" in AC3 files?
I was trying to highlight what a joke it was of Macrovision to think they had anything to offer Apple - who have some of the greatest talents in the software field, and produce a greater breadth and depth of software than pretty much any other company. In comparison, Macrovision reminds me of those idiots who write the drivers for hardware copy-protection dongles.
Yup, but Macrovision claim they want to "lead the industry" in DRM. Yet they've written software for a grand total of one platform, and are basically only still around because of the prevalence of their video hack. not really ones to be in a position of leadership over anything.
The funniest thing about their rant is that I actually know people who stopped buying DVDs, and started getting copied DVDs from friends because of Macrovision. You see, their DVD player is hooked up to their old TV via a VCR. This is because their TV only has an RF input. So DVDs look like utter crap. They eventually found out that this was because of Macrovision. But ripped DVDs that have been de-macrovisioned look perfectly fine.
I'm not sure how Macrovision can be considered "successful" when illegally ripped copies of products that use Macrovision look better than the purchased original. I guess they are successful in the way the mafia is successful - but even the mafia adds more value for end users than Macrovision.
Re:DRM increases not decreases consumer value (Score:3, Informative)
Facts (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:renting content (Score:5, Informative)
Give to your local library. Either media (originals, of course) or via donations. Your entire community will benefit.
Re:If you are asking that question on /. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:DRM solution... (Score:1, Informative)
The music industry is now curious about the advantages of offering their product on fair terms; as Macrovision imply, when the "transition between physical and digital distribution" is coming to an end and producers are comfortable with fair terms, DRM is no longer useful.
Obviously, as a business based solely on providing DRM technologies, Macrovision is unhappy with their product base becoming irrelevant. Cry me a river. The door's that way, don't hit it on your way out.
And, dongles aren't secure at all.
Crackers have debuggers which find it very, VERY easy to trap on hardware interactions; they stick out like candles in the dark.
Really good crackers have friends who perform professional hardware reverse-engineering, with ready access to nitric acid and scanning electron microscopes that will take that poor potted dongle and turn it into a specification and a routine in about 24 hours.
Really, really good crackers will sidestep the whole thing.
Dongles aren't flexible at all.
You either have the dongle or you haven't. When the dongle breaks, you're screwed. When the dongle wobbles, you're screwed. When the dongle is removed or breaks during your access, you're screwed. If the dongle stops working at any point, it's a minor miracle if you can get a replacement, and you're screwed until you do.
I have, in the distant past, been employed at considerable cost by content purchasers to remove dongle-based copy protection from an expensive software package they have licensed, on the grounds that the dongle was failing on a continual basis and the manufacturer refused to provide the support they were paying for. I was successful in this. It was a nice challenge. The dongle was a 16-bit LFSR with an extra XOR whitening stage. Calls to it were used to step into jump-tables that indexed into tables of mathematical operations such that if the dongle was not working correctly, the content that was being produced using the software would be subtly altered without the purchaser's knowledge, leaving a watermark identifying the user with the unique 16-bit code imprinted in the dongle's FPGA. This watermarking was not disclosed to the licensee by the producer. They were very interested to learn it was deliberately ruining their data for not working right.
I have, in the recent past, but before relevant changes in the law, also been employed at considerable cost to provide a proof-of-concept procedure for non-interactively deriving knowledge of the PIN from the smart-card on a Chip&PIN card. I was successful in this. It was a nice challenge, too. It takes approximately 30 seconds, is non-destructive, offline and potentially portable, and leaves no usage traces. It could be performed by a modified rogue terminal. Now I am very careful where I use my card, never let it out of my sight, and always treat the terminals with healthy suspicion. I doubt I am the only person to figure that out.
Hardware tokens ("dongles") where the adversary has physical access and ownership are fundamentally insecure, and are not the answer.