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?"
renting content (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Translation from PR-Speak to English (Score:5, Interesting)
These Guys Want You To Drink Their KoolAid (Score:2, Interesting)
who want to steal your right to own your own copy of a song, and share music with your friends at
parties? (Things even our parents and grandparents could freely do when they were growing up).
You buy a copy of a song or album, and play it all you want, and move it to another player for jogging,
or to play in your car, or as a backup on your computer. But Macrovision and the music companies would
deny you any of this.
To them, DRM means they own the music and they will rent you your copy for a price, and totally limit
what you can do with that rented copy. Don't buy into their Doublespeak. They are not your friend.
Their only interest in you is profit, and as much as they can milk you for.
To them, you have no rights, and you are probably a criminal anyway, stealing their potential profit
from them, every time you hum the words in public, and every time a second person hears the song
you bought playing on your stereo, and every time you move that song to another player or computer.
Which sort of makes this whole topic ludicrous, doesn't it? You might as well discuss how the terrorists
are going to benefit us with their way of doing things. Sheesh!
Steve Jobs was right about DRM. It is time to ger rid of that whole thing. If it were gone, more people
would buy music, and even these people who say they own the music would profit by DRM being gone.
Mackerelvision (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:renting content (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds like crap to me. Deliberately authoring discs with "weak sectors"? Sounds like copy protection from the Commodore 64 era. Probably breaks DVD standards, too.
This is exactly the kind of shit I'm referring to when I talk about hacky software developers. When have they written some serious software that does something useful?
And, from the Wikipedia article:
So, it doesn't even work, does it?
Gee, that EXE file must work wonderfully with non-Windows systems.
Re:If you are asking that question on /. (Score:3, Interesting)
Or is it that
Stop pretending it's in our interests (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re:renting content (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Renting makes no sense (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference between buying and renting is who pays for storage. There are very few films I want to see more than twice, so I'd rather someone else pays for storage. Ideally, I would be able to download a film in an unencumbered format, transcode it to a format that suited my playback device (e.g. burn it to a DVD+RW as MPEG-2 or make a lower quality copy for a mobile device) then delete it when I'm done with it.
The idea of DRM seems completely pointless for video content, since I have no desire to hoard films (and neither do the majority of the non-kleptomaniac population). I don't want to pay to own a film. I want to pay for access to new films. I want to pay for someone else to maintain a well-indexed store of all older films. I want to pay for the convenience of being able to watch any film I want, when I want to watch it, how I want to watch it. I thought capitalism was about the market providing customers with the services they want to pay for, not using technology to try to prolong obsolete business models.
'Difficult Challenges' too difficult for them! (Score:2, Interesting)
In the letter they acknowledge the 'difficult challenges' of implementing DRM that is truly 'interoperable and open'
Clearly too bloody hard for them. I got two new DVDs last week, was pretty happy with them. Both use RipGuard, meaning none of my Linux machines, using XINE, MPlayer or VLC can play the damned things.
The sad fact is, these are fairly obscure UK TV shows, and basically, short of piracy, this is now the only way for me to get them on DVD. So what I have to do now is rip them to watch them on Linux.
Ironic, how the only way to watch "RipGuard" on any of my computers (all running Linux) is to rip the things!
Re:If you are asking that question on /. (Score:1, Interesting)
Let me count the ways that Macrovision has interfered with my fair use rights:
1. When I wanted to pipe the output from my DVD player through my VCR to use it as a video switch -- Macrovision ruined the signal, even though I wasn't recording. I had to buy a manual switch
2. When I wanted to play a Microsoft game on a new Microsoft operating system, and it wouldn't run, not because the game was incompatible, but because the Macrovision copy protection wasn't
3. Every time I want to install and play a game without hunting for the CD, Macrovision (or some other DRM scheme) is there
4. When one of my DVDs got badly scratched up, and I wanted to make a copy of it before it was completely ruined
5. When I wanted to extract some tracks from a particular (copy protected) audio CD to make a compilation CD
And that's just the hassles where I know Macrovision's technology has been directly respondible. DRM in general has caused more. While it's often an interesting adventure to figure out how DRM systems work and circumvent them, I really have better things I could have been doing, and both Macrovision and the companies that buy its product have been working hard to make what I am doing (circumventing the DRM in order to exercise my fair use rights) illegal in my country (it currently isn't). The technical means are bad enough. The lobbying for legal changes to tilt the balance in copyright is much, much worse. Forcing electronics manufacturers to include protections (conveniently the technology Macrovision sells) by law? And I as a consumer get to pay for them, all in a FUTILE effort to stem commercial-scale piracy? Yay!
Everything the CEO says sounds laudable, fair, and well-principled, but they've been at this for decades and I've seen NO sign that they care about the half of copyright law that limits controls and grants users certain rights. "Challenges"? In what way have they attempted to implement a technical system that would respect all the user's rights inherent in copyright law? All I've seen is very one-sided efforts that care only about the content owners, and trample user's rights. Even if they did try, is it even technically feasible to have a DRM system that can read user's minds to figure out their intended use and whether it qualifies as "fair use"?
The answer is a resounding "no", but thanks for trying, Macrovision. You had your chance to do things right, and you never have. You're at the forefront of the erosion of consumer rights, and now that the general population are slowly starting to realize it, you are starting to realize the backlash could hurt your business. Now you care.
It's too late. You and your DRM crew are the pirates. You've made your money by stealing fair use rights from me and every other honest user who has paid for content with one of your DRM schemes embedded.
Re:renting content (Score:3, Interesting)
If you just fancy watching a decent film it's the laziest, cheapest way of doing it. Just press yes and $3 later you're watching the movie and you can as much as you like for 24 hours.
how about... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Might be with the world "digital" in it (Score:4, Interesting)
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.