×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DRM — It's Not Really About Piracy

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the squeezing-blood-from-silicon dept.

Media 360

shadowmage13 writes "Hollywood privately admits that DRM is not really about piracy. From the article: 'In a nutshell: DRM's sole purpose is to maximize revenues by minimizing your rights so that they can sell them back to you... Like all lies, there comes a point when the gig is up; the ruse is busted. For the movie studios, it's the moment they have to admit that it's not the piracy that worries them, but business models which don't squeeze every last cent out of customers.' You can take action on Digital Restrictions Management at DefectiveByDesign of the Free Software Foundation, Digital Freedom, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

360 comments

It never was about piracy (4, Insightful)

packeteer (566398) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626412)

It never was about piracy. It has always been about controling your customer. The industry knows that they dont lose nearly as much through piracy as they do by not controlling their consumers. Remember a consumer is a customer with no choice.

YET ANOTHER MISLEADING HEADLINE (0, Troll)

MicrosoftRepresentit (1002310) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626492)

Can one of the fuckwit Slashdot editors please tell me where exactly in that article Hollywood admits anything? For fucks sake, cant the editors at least RTFA before they conjure up their headlines? Or is it deliberately dishonest?

I'm not disagreeing with the article, btw, its pretty much spot on. But even the shittest of shitty English tabloids wouldn't stoop so low as that headline did.

Re:YET ANOTHER MISLEADING HEADLINE (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17626630)

Try reading the artcile a little more closely:

According to him, an unnamed studio executive said that a major reason why studios weren't jumping on board with the iTunes Store and other similar services is that their DRM is too lax. "[Apple's] user rules just scare the heck out of us."



Ars Technica's Ken Fisher adds: " It's not piracy that's the concern, it's their ability to control how you use the content you purchase."

It seems to me that is a reasonable interpretation of the "unnamed executive's" comment that the DRM is "too lax", because if "piracy" were a major reason for Hollywood's wanting DRM then its relative stringency or laxity would not be such an important issue for Hollywood. However, if what they are really after is the maximum possible control over users then the relative laxity of a DRM standard *will* bother them - because, for example, they mightn't want a customer to enjoy the content on more than one device without purchasing more than one copy.

Therefore, the summary by shaowmage13 -

"Hollywood privately admits that DRM is not really about piracy."

... and is, moreover, merely the same as Ars Technica's headline with a slightly different word order:

"Privately, Hollywood admits DRM isn't about piracy"



The comment from the "unnamed executive" _is_ as good as an admission of that, as has been shown above. The headline Slashdot used "DRM - it's not really about piracy" doesn't directly comment on what anyone has said - privately or not - but states an opinion on what DRM is "about". It's an opinion that is reasonably substantiated by the Ars Technica article.

As for the British gutter press you'd find far more offensive and dishonest articles there than at Slashdot. At least Slashdot sticks to technology and related matters and hasn't, so far as I know, been involved in concealing Stalin's purges from the reading public, as the British newspaper the Guardian was.

Re:YET ANOTHER MISLEADING HEADLINE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17626720)

You've missed the point utterly. The headline is fine, but the blurb isn't. Some Internet journalist posting completely unverifiable hearsay from an "unnamed executive" does not a Hollywood admission make.

Re:YET ANOTHER MISLEADING HEADLINE (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17626824)

The journalist would have revealed the name to us but didn't manage to crack the DRM on it.

A shining example to all Slashbots (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17626858)

No, sorry, I still don't see any admission there, and certainly not one by 'Hollywood'. All this 'unnamed executive' said was that he thought the DRM in the iTMS was too lax.

You can let your own agenda colour your thoughts as much as you like. I'll stick to seeing the argument from both sides, thanks.

PS Your comment about it just being the word order that's different is just icing on the cake!

Re:It never was about piracy (2, Insightful)

Kaydet81 (806468) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626800)

Why is this news? Microsoft's been using this strategy for years...

Power to the artists??? (3, Interesting)

Merkwurdigeliebe (1046824) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626836)

Well, let's take out the recording and movie making industries, and now let us imagine that everyone who produces or would produce media can do so and does do so by themselves (without industry intermediaries.) Then imagine that there be a system that allowed the publishing artist to exactly and precisely control how their content was used and or was available so that the publishing artist could revoke something they put out there but for whatever reason now regret. What would be wrong with that? It would be total control in the hand of an artist. Afterall, it is their work. Why not give them ultimate control?

Imagine an idiot posts something he or she later regrets to the web. It's foreseable that some of them would wish to recall/revoke/delete what they posted to the Internet. Today there is no way to put the "genie" back inthe bottle. If there were a total artist control type of rights management this idiot could retrieve (forever extinghuish the existence) the now-regrettable work posted to the Internet.

Let's say that the audience never had ownership but simply could make micropayments (in the case of for profit works --not the stuff posted to the internet for free --that would still be free but still bound by the total rights management system) to listen or see content. That could be say for a one-off experience of for a bulk experience. What would be wrong with such a scenario? (that is if controlled by each artist themselves?) No industry to deride and loathe. Only artists with infinite control over their works. If the artist were to die then it could be had that all their content die too.

Would that be too much control in the artists' hands? It'd be like it was before technology, in the sense that the artist'd control all aspects of their fruits. Their fruits lived and died with them. the audience never had ownership of the artists' work. They only had the pleasure and priviledge to listen, see and enjoy in the moment.

I could further imagine that an artist could forgo their rights if they so desired. Or the rights to work not recalled/revoked could pass into public domain, etc. There could be a great number of permutations

an idea....

Re:Power to the artists??? (5, Insightful)

KDan (90353) | more than 7 years ago | (#17627004)

No, that's a completely ridiculous suggestion, for several reasons.

1) Artists build upon other artists. Some of the best pieces of art are composites of other pieces of art (Shakespeare being the classic example). This super-DRM'ed world would contradict that fact and make it much harder for artists to do their work. It would also make it impossible to create such art forms as satire, abbreviation, etc.

2) This system would contradict one of the basic realities of this universe: ideas are infinitely duplicable at no cost other than the medium to store them. You can have all the DRM systems in the world - if your poem appears on my screen and I memorize it or write it down, I've made a copy. I can then repost it if I feel so inclined. Trying to control the technological gateways (enforcing DRM'ed hardware, etc) is ultimately a losing battle, like fighting the ocean with a broom.

3) Such a system, to work perfectly, would by definition require real-time, detailed monitoring of everyone's activities that have anything to do with so-called "intellectual property". Apart from the huge technical challenge that this would represent (can you even imagine any IT company implementing this when they can't even create a centralised system of patient records without screwing up - see NHS PfIT), this would be a huge infringement on everyone's privacy. Or rather, it would be a complete eradication of the very concept of privacy.

Daniel

Re:Power to the artists??? (5, Funny)

Bloke down the pub (861787) | more than 7 years ago | (#17627150)

Some of the best pieces of art are composites of other pieces of art (Shakespeare being the classic example).
You clearly haven't seen his work in the original Klingon.

Re:Power to the artists??? (5, Insightful)

nschubach (922175) | more than 7 years ago | (#17627012)

Then imagine that there be a system that allowed the publishing artist to exactly and precisely control how their content was used and or was available so that the publishing artist could revoke something they put out there but for whatever reason now regret. What would be wrong with that? It would be total control in the hand of an artist. Afterall, it is their work. Why not give them ultimate control?
I always hated this argument. The reason being, no other industry works this way. When you buy your next car, does your dealer tell you that you can only drive it for three years and you cannot let more than 3 people drive it? (Leasing not included)

Sure, I'll give you the argument that you can't copy [or clone] a car (yet) but to let the originator decide exactly how their product will be played or not played is exactly what I don't want.

Don't buy the car analogy because they are in a different price bracket? Let's aim lower. Greeting Cards. You aren't given explicit instructions with your greeting card and told that you have to give the Happy Birthday card on your kid's birthday, and that day alone. You can buy the card and use it for any occasion if you want. It's always fun to give condolence cards for births, birthdays, or even weddings. :)

Re:Power to the artists??? (1)

spectro (80839) | more than 7 years ago | (#17627066)

If you are going to publish something you may regret you better don't publish it at all, once the genie is out of the bottle nothing can erase that information from people who have seen it.

Re:Power to the artists??? (4, Interesting)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17627088)

Would that be too much control in the artists' hands? It'd be like it was before technology, in the sense that the artist'd control all aspects of their fruits. Their fruits lived and died with them. the audience never had ownership of the artists' work. They only had the pleasure and priviledge to listen, see and enjoy in the moment.

Art != Music (Whether or not music, especially contemporary music, is even a subset of art is a matter of opinion). Some of the greatest works of art in history were done 'for hire'.

Unless you want to see an end to persistent recordings, you're advocating the same sort of BS "have thier cake and eat it too" setup we have now, except instead of some industry suits reaping the cash, it's the artist himself. If I buy a painting, I expect the right to put it on my bathroom wall, wipe my mouth on it, or have my picture taken in front of it. Same for a recording. If I want to listen to it in my cd-less car stereo, on my Neuros, or on my GP2X, I'm going to. I expect to control my own purchase.

Re:Power to the artists??? (3, Insightful)

Saint Fnordius (456567) | more than 7 years ago | (#17627134)

Your argument falls flat when you take the print media into account. That is, unless you consider all technology and not just modern audio/video storage methods. Remember, copyright and publishing rights laws date back to the invention of the printing press.

Artists have always been at the mercy of their patrons. Whether it was aristocrats contracting compositions or keeping musicians on retainer, or writers accepting a commission to write a penny dreadful. Artists were often paid in advance.

There's also that dumb, dumb dream that you can take back what you said, or at least prevent it from being preserved for posterity. Much like how Tom Hanks tried to kill all reruns of Bosom Buddies, or how some composers like Richard Wagner tried to forbid others from playing their operas. Even your post here is now beyond your control.

Today, musicians earn more by playing concerts than by cutting albums. Most of the budding stars only make an album as a way of improving their image. Groups are discovering that non-DRM'ed music on the internet is an excellent way to generate interest.

No, the problem with studios is that they have grown accustomed to being the gatekeeper, and charging ruinous rates for using their distribution channels and production equipment. They are already losing control of production exclusivity. Now they are losing control of distribution. It's all about staving off the inevitable.

You ALWAYS have a choice (2, Insightful)

stretchsje (999497) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626970)

...at least in this business. Who makes you buy HD-DVD or online music? If you buy it, you're doing so because- despite DRM- it's worth it to you. Now, on the other hand, if the music industry charged you more for DRM-less media, would you be happier in the long run? (Whether or not they'd need to is debatable, but that's not the question.)

Like Region Coding, Then (5, Interesting)

cyclomedia (882859) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626414)

Because THAT worked wonders for release timing, content control and market restrictions, didn't it.*

*Though having a decent TV that can handle PAL and NTSC helps, in the UK they're 6 bob a throw i can tell ye!

Re:Like Region Coding, Then (5, Interesting)

arun_s (877518) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626484)

When I look at the VHS examples of long back, and the more recent DVD-region-encoding failure, it just looks like one big, sad cycle repeating itself every generation or so.
Even if we get over the current mess (Trusted Computing, RIAA etc), it looks like as if the big media dinosaurs will never really learn to adapt. Each time a new technology pops up that threatens their stable position, they panic immediately and create a huge fuss in trying to maintain the staus quo.
If only they weren't so powerful already, they'd probably have died off by now; replaced by smarter, quicker companies that didn't have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new world.

Re:Like Region Coding, Then (2, Interesting)

melikamp (631205) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626556)

Even if we get over the current mess (Trusted Computing, RIAA etc), it looks like as if the big media dinosaurs will never really learn to adapt.

True, since that's their last stand. We finally have the tools at our possession which enable us to promote and distribute digital content cheaper and more effectively than any corporation possibly could. Once they loose this battle, they are gone for good; they are aware of that, and so they are squeezing every penny out of the established customer base.

Re:Like Region Coding, Then (3, Insightful)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626834)

Once they loose this battle, they are gone for good; they are aware of that, and so they are squeezing every penny out of the established customer base.
They won't necessarily disappear. However they will be forced to adapt and therefore to change. And nobody likes to change, especially for something that hasn't been tried before and might prove to be expensive for an unknown return.

Something like the big studios are useful because they have the financial backing for large scale projects (in movies mostly, it's less necessary in music unless you have to heavily market something inherently worthless). If they were to die it would be problematic for that industry. The high budget films would be starved for funding. This could well translate into a decrease in quality and originality as only "safe" films would be produced.

Re:Like Region Coding, Then (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17627100)

If they were to die it would be problematic for that industry. The high budget films would be starved for funding. This could well translate into a decrease in fancy explosions,CGI, and "bullet time" effects as only "safe" films would be produced.

Fixed. There's very little of 'quality' and 'originality' in movies today as is, and the MAFIAA's not dead yet. (It's just lightly stunned.)

Re:Like Region Coding, Then (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626954)

Once they loose this battle, they are gone for good; they are aware of that, and so they are squeezing every penny out of the established customer base.

They seemed fairly sure of this back when they were arguing the Sony/Betamax case.

Re:Like Region Coding, Then (2, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626708)

Once the main distribution method is streaming off the net, then they hopefully will calm down, as the only things that will change are file formats..

Re:Like Region Coding, Then (2, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 7 years ago | (#17627124)

Each time a new technology pops up that threatens their stable position, they panic immediately and create a huge fuss in trying to maintain the staus quo.

You hit the ol' nail, Arun. And the only reason they haven't yet fully succeeded is because of people like us who fight a constant running battle with them.

Re:Like Region Coding, Then (4, Funny)

pipatron (966506) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626496)

in the UK they're 6 bob a throw i can tell ye!

Care to translate?

Re:Like Region Coding, Then (4, Informative)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626666)

Bob = informal name for a Shilling. Although no longer used (*) (since 1971, when British money went decimal), the shilling was worth 1/20 of a pound; that is, 5p in post-decimalisation money (**)

So the original poster was claiming we can buy DVDs for £0.30; he was quite definitely being tongue-in-cheek, unless he meant blank ones :-)

(*) Fascinating facts #1! Although the concept of a shilling disappeared in 1971, the one and two shilling coins remained in circulation until the early 1990s, as they were identical in size, composition and value to the new 5p and 10p coins. They disappeared when the 5 and 10p coins were reduced in size.
(*) Fascinating facts #2!!!!! That was 12 old pennies (12d)... pre-decimalisation there were 240 pence in the pound. No, I don't remember any of this, I'm not that old :-)

Re:Like Region Coding, Then (1)

cyclomedia (882859) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626712)

actually, the other translation was more correct, i was just having an uncontrolled yorkshireman moment, it happens

Re:Like Region Coding, Then (3, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626788)

having an uncontrolled yorkshireman moment
Care to translate?

Re:Like Region Coding, Then (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626940)

having an uncontrolled yorkshireman moment
Care to translate?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_CTIYP_DS38

Re:Like Region Coding, Then (1)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626546)

Because THAT worked wonders for release timing, content control and market restrictions, didn't it.*

*Though having a decent TV that can handle PAL and NTSC helps, in the UK they're 6 bob a throw i can tell ye!


Getting multisync TVs to be the norm would be nice, but I was under the impression that DVD players can be had for a low price which will output in pal or NTSC, or multi if you happened to have a TV which handled both. Not being in Europe, I was under the impression that pal VCRS were made to handle NTSC by slowing down from 30 FPS to 25, as opposed to the more complex system of telesync.

Re:Like Region Coding, Then (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626686)

No, AFAIK most modern TVs can handle 30fps, 480-line video. I think it's possible to get the DVD player to crudely convert, but this isn't always necessary. Note that the output (AFAIK) is still PAL colour-encoded; that is, the players output 30fps, 480-line PAL, not "true" NTSC.

Re:Like Region Coding, Then (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626690)

I was under the impression that pal VCRS were made to handle NTSC by slowing down from 30 FPS to 25,

Mine just outputs at 30FPS (or 60 fields per second). Most European TVs seem to be able to handle PAL60 at least. In fact, most reasonable quality ones can handle an NTSC signal. Not sure if there's a difference between these formats if we use RGB.

None of them do a simple speed-up. This would be extremely noticable. The only speed up is the 4% needed to go from Film's 24fps to PAL's 25fps. My previous DVD player did convert but not very well. I think it just dumped every 6th frame. It was visibly jerky. I'm sure some do a reverse 3:2 pulldown, but it's not really needed.

Re:Like Region Coding, Then (4, Informative)

jrumney (197329) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626758)

I was under the impression that pal VCRS were made to handle NTSC by slowing down from 30 FPS to 25

No, they just convert the colour representation to PAL and output a PAL signal at 30fps. Older TVs (and some newer cheap 14" and smaller TVs) are simple enough that this just works (with a black band top and bottom due to fewer lines on the screen) and newer TVs are designed for it, adjusting their vertical scan to fit the picture on the screen perfectly.

Pretty much all PAL DVD players will output either PAL60 or NTSC if you put an NTSC disc in (modulo region coding issues), and all but the cheapest PAL TVs these days will handle both.

Re:Like Region Coding, Then (2, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626864)

When will the MAFFIAAA learn that if you offer people what they want, they will buy it.

This same applies to region coding. The content is there, people want it, but they can't legally get it... guess what happens next.

Offer them restricted media, and they'll just download and create their own unrestricted media. Offer them unrestricted media, and most people won't bother to download; they'd buy. If movie studios offered new movies for download for, say, US$ 5, who would wait for his friend to download and copy it and who would just buy it themself? I'd certainly spend more on movies in a year than I do now.

In other news... (5, Funny)

AxminsterLeuven (963108) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626416)

... "Tobacco industry privately admits smoking actually not very healthy at all."

Re:In other news... (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626644)

Didn't they actually pretend it had health benefits at some point in the past?

Or am I thinking of some other body-destroying drug?

Re:In other news... (1)

NekSnappa (803141) | more than 7 years ago | (#17627138)

I use to have an audio cassette of the whole half hour Abbot & Costello radio show with the original "Who's on First" routine. The show was originally sponsored by Camel, and they actually had a commercial break that stated that "9 out of 10 doctors prefer Camel." Now I've only got the TV show that was sponsored by some soap mfr. not nearly as interesting.

RTFA? (5, Insightful)

Cheesey (70139) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626444)

"Hollywood privately admits that DRM is not really about piracy. From the article:

I just read the article - there is no cited evidence that anyone from Hollywood has ever said this. It may be true, yes, and I agree with the conclusions of the article itself, but this isn't some sort of sensational scoop.

MPAA executives have never admitted that piracy isn't the motivation for DRM. The current generation will never admit that: piracy is their excuse and they will stick to it. DRM is part of their business model and it won't go anywhere until it results in a shareholder-awakening loss of money.

If people prefer to pirate stuff, that means the DRM is not restrictive enough to stop them. That is the only thing they'll ever tell you, and the only thing you'll hear from the media outlets that they own.

IRTFALITFA (4, Insightful)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626518)

I Read The F***ing Articles Linked In The F***ing Article, and there is still no such admission from anyone.

I do, however, also agree with the articles conclusion that DRM isn't about piracy, if only because it's so ineffective to be laughable. It's always been, and obviously so, to make the people who do spend, spend more than they should.

Why chase people who won't buy jack, when you can shaft the people who do for more? It's less effort.

Re:IRTFALITFA (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17626746)

This is why I won't buying stuff that I can't fully control, be it software, games, music or movies.

Windows XP/Vista activation/DRM is not good.

Game protection root kits are not good. Also, steam is nice, until you realize that playing old games will be hard
if they go out of business (or release forced "updates", which HAS happened).

All DRM is bad.

Re:IRTFALITFA (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626876)

Windows XP/Vista activation/DRM is not good.

I agree. Unfortunately the gaming experience for me is more important than the minor hoops I have to jump through to do it, though I wouldn't be complaining if they removed it entirely.

Game protection root kits are not good.

Starforce is one of my sworn enemies - my drive refused to burn CDs/DVDs even after cleaning the system of it. It is also definitely the cause of the problem, as the drive burned fine before I installed PoP: Two Thrones, and I switched the drive for a new one and that now works fine with Starforce off the machine. Too much of a coincidence to be ignored, I'm afraid. I'm glad Ubisoft dropped it.

Also, steam is nice, until you realize that playing old games will be hard if they go out of business (or release forced "updates", which HAS happened).

I have a lot of games on Steam. I tend to scratch/lose CDs and DVDs anyway, so if Steam did go out of business I don't see a difference between that and the usual disdain with which I accidentally treat my media. Right now the convenience of the thing is, again, too important for me to ignore. I've had to reinstall Windows when I've changed hard-drives and the ability to install about 20-25 games overnight without having to be at the computer is a godsend. I've never had the problems that others have had, either, so I can't comment on that.

Re:RTFA? (4, Interesting)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626634)

MPAA executives have never admitted that piracy isn't the motivation for DRM. The current generation will never admit that: piracy is their excuse and they will stick to it. DRM is part of their business model and it won't go anywhere until it results in a shareholder-awakening loss of money.
I'm less concerned with piracy and more concerned with the death of the used movie and music market. With DRM, how am I supposed to resell music that I've purchased to the local place that used to buy my used CDs when I was sick of them? How do I sell my DVDs when I'm tired of watching that movie? I've paid either nearly full or even full price for the movie or music, yet I've lost the right to resell the content in the secondary market? Will the studio or record company unlock that content from its DRM chains so that I can resell it upon request?

Thank you for that. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17626640)

Your response to this story is both well written and reasoned, and has justifiably been modded up to +5 insightful. I'm very glad to see it, because that makes it far more likely that my reply will be read by the slavering Slashdot masses, before being modded into oblivion.

I JUST FARTED AND IT SMELLS LIKE DIARRHEA. THE CRACK OF MY ASS IS ALL SLIMY NOW. THANK YOU.

Re:Thank you for that. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17626696)

Hey, karma farmers are trying to work here!

Re:RTFA? (4, Informative)

richie2000 (159732) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626716)

MPAA executives have never admitted that piracy isn't the motivation for DRM.
"DRMs' primary role is not about keeping copyrighted content off P2P networks. DRMs support an orderly market for facilitating efficient economic transactions between content producers and content consumers."
Dan Glickman, Motion Picture Association of America [bbc.co.uk]

Re:RTFA? (5, Informative)

heroofhyr (777687) | more than 7 years ago | (#17627074)

MPAA executives have never admitted that piracy isn't the motivation for DRM.
From an interview with the Vice President of Technology at Universal Pictures, Jerry Pierce:

Different studios have different philosophies in this area. It is our view that we have to provide customers a rich experience so they can do what they want to do within their home. We don't expect them to make copies of HD DVDs for their friends. And we don't think customers want to do that either. So, DRM needs to give them some restrictions beyond what both the customer and we believe are the proper usage rules. That's what we need to achieve. DRMs enable business models, they don't stop piracy. And we want to make sure that we have a rich one without making it so easy so that you can violate what we agreed on when you purchased a movie.
The full interview is here [tgdaily.com] .

Here is a quote from another interview with Fritz Attaway, an MPAA exec:

Consumers should have a choice to either own a copy of a movie for multiple viewing, or to just view it one time for a much lower price. And movie companies want to provide that choice, and many more. But without DRM, every transaction would have to be priced as a sale, not just of one copy but of many copies, in order to account for unrestrained copying...

With regard to your comment that many DRM technologies can be circumvented by commercial pirates, you are correct, but DRM is not intended to prevent commercial piracy. It is intended to insure that most consumers will keep the deal they make with movie distributors. Like the lock on your door, they are not a guarantee against theft, but they "keep honest people honest."
The source of that interview is here [wsj.com] .

Trying to outcompete 15yo (4, Insightful)

melikamp (631205) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626448)

It's no news that a bunch of 15yo with P2P clients and MySpace profiles are able to do a better job at promoting and distributing music than the publishing companies. The answer? Make the distribution of the digital content difficult again! That reminds me of that time when my countrymen tried to make rivers run uphill.

Whaaa? (4, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626456)

Oh my god! They're so right! How come nobody on slashdot ever figured any of this out? Good thing I caught this story, I'm so logging off the net right now and writing to my congressman!

Bias (5, Insightful)

kentrel (526003) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626460)

This article forces you to believe the crap it's not telling you before it doesn't tell you it. The headline is entirely misleading. Hollywood hasn't admitted anything of the sort, and his source for this information is a reference to another journalist's unnamed source! What kind of journalism is that? From the following quote he extrapolated far too much:

"His user rules just scare the heck out of us"

Now, it's entirely possible that DRM is about exactly what they say it's about. What's not true however is that Hollywood is admitting this. The article is forcing you to accept the journalists bias hoping you don't exercise your critical thinking skills and question it. Whether it's true or not - the journalist needs to get his act together and get better sources than some other journalists dodgy source.

Now somebody might argue: "well we know they're doing it, what does it matter if the journalist exaggerates a quote from an unnamed source". I think it matters a great deal. When you're right you should be able to prove it very easily. Otherwise you have to accept that no matter how you feel on the matter you may be wrong, or there's just not enough evidence to imply anything.

Re:Bias (4, Interesting)

richie2000 (159732) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626728)

Hollywood hasn't admitted anything of the sort
"DRMs' primary role is not about keeping copyrighted content off P2P networks. DRMs support an orderly market for facilitating efficient economic transactions between content producers and content consumers. "
Dan Glickman, Motion Picture Association of America [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Bias (1)

Cheesey (70139) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626790)

That's an interesting quote. I notice that he still says that DRM is about preventing piracy, but says that the mechanism is by controlling legitimate users, rather than actually preventing unauthorised copying. So he's still blaming piracy to justify the need for DRM.

Really this article is a non-story, an opinion piece with no real sources. The sort of thing most of us could have written with a couple of minutes of thought. It's not news.

Re:Bias (1)

Dilaudid (574715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17627076)

This had me stumped. An orderly market? According to investopedia this means supply and demand are reasonably matched - there is no sudden swing of prices. Efficient economic transactions mean that the transactions maximise the net benefit to everyone - an example of an inefficient transaction is where I see that bananas are mispriced at the supermarket so that if I buy 100 it's cheaper than buying the single banana I want to eat. So I buy 100 and throw away 99 - inefficiency.

Efficiency is increased by better understanding the needs of the consumer and supplier. Since DRM only gives the supplier power over the actions of the consumer, and seems to be done with complete disregard for the needs of the consumer (c.f. Sony DRM rootkit), it seems to me that Glickman's argument is spurious, and he's just trying to justify what he wants to do by throwing around economic buzzwords. What unusual behaviour for a senior manager.

The reference to an orderly market presumably means that dropping the price of his product from $20 to $3 scares him, so he's trying to convince us it's not economically beneficial. Thanks for the quote, it's interesting to get a glimpse inside a stereotypical hollywood suit's head.

There's no gun to your head (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17626872)

n/t

not about piracy? really? (1)

rich42 (633659) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626488)

with itunes (and other services) you can burn tracks you've purchased to CD, load them up on portable devices, listen to them on multiple computers....

for the most part - it seems to me you can do just about anything that would constitute "fair use" - am I missing something here?

I'm not saying I "like" DRM - I think it's just a reality of the market (counting the RIAA suing grandmas as a "market" force). no one's (OK, almost no one) is going to sell you a pre-ripped MP3 - ready to share via limewire.

I'm playing around with some services that offer $15 / month all-you-can-eat music. this wouldn't be possible without some heavy DRM. seriously - that guy with the horns and the cape - not so bad...

Re:not about piracy? really? (1)

Jessta (666101) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626862)

"Fair use", as long as you are using their software/portable devices. If you can burn them to cd then the DRM serves to use as you can get around the DRM by ripping the cd back to mp3. I can't imagine they would want to allow that.

Re:not about piracy? really? (1)

rich42 (633659) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626978)

from what I've read - iTunes -does- let you do this (if I'm wrong - smack me down). I suspect they could've simply chosen not to include this functionality if they wanted to.

could you imagine the additional legal / licensing pains to iTunes if they wanted to "share" with Microsoft-DRM devices? and that's just in addition to Apple not wanting to do anything to help undermine their semi-monopoly.

I'm both a software author, and a libertarian.

I certainly use DRM myself - but I don't believe in trying to have government enforce it (not that they'd help in my case).

My hope is that DRM let's music companies offer music "cheaper" than free - that is it's inexpensive enough where it's not worth the pain of limewire / whatever. $15 / month is getting close. If someone could get any music they wanted for a $7.99 / month - even with DRM - would they really bother doing anything else?

Yes you're missing something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17626930)

"am I missing something here?"

Yes, you can't play them on non Apple equipment without paying again (at least for a CDR per 10 tracks, or worse an Audio CD+ cost of your time), you also can't stream them on a Sonos high end audio system, or use them on the device of your choice.

So you're saying the water is only warm, croak, and you're happy and comfortable, croak, in the warm water, croak croak....

Original iTunes let you burn 10 copies, last I looked it was 3. When the CD format ends it will be zero.
It's also put Apple in a position to milk the record companies of all their profits. Gates is unhappy because he had the idea to milk them of their profits first! How dare Apple steal his evil plan! Locking in a middleman, even Apple is a bad idea.

"I'm playing around with some services that offer $15 / month all-you-can-eat music. this wouldn't be possible without some heavy DRM."

The problem with that is it's not all you can eat, it's all you can *taste*. You can't let them eat it because then they won't continue paying. But they won't pay if it's all you can taste, so you pretend it's an all you can eat buffet. Not many people want to pay a license fee to listen to old music, and they don't know if next years music is worth paying for because they can't see into the future. Yet they know that if they stop paying, they can't listen anymore. The DRM enables a market that has no demand.

Oh and one more thing, MP3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17626992)

"no one's (OK, almost no one) is going to sell you a pre-ripped MP3 - ready to share via limewire"

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,124676-page,1/ar ticle.html [pcworld.com]

"The digital media watermark used in the Fraunhofer system also contains a "hash value," which creates a link between the content provider and registered purchaser. "The hash value is like a fingerprint; it contains unique information about the user," Kip says.

So they can make MP3's that embed a purchaser ID in a way difficult to remove, and as long as they don't given any tools to test if the mark as been successfully removed, the pirate has no way of knowing if they've successfully remove the ID that identifies them as the buyer.

The MP3 isn't put on limewire because it traces back to the buyer. Yet it's a regular MP3, plays on anything and free from the negatives that the DRM solution has.

Re:not about piracy? really? (1)

frog51 (51816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17627096)

Definitely missing something - iTunes as it currently stands will only let me play music on one of my players. It won't let me transfer to my car (unless I make a CD and re-rip, thus losing quality), to my mp3 players (none are Apple), to my home audio server or other devices. DRM does nothing but mean I have to find other sources of music

Mirrors my views exactly (4, Interesting)

grimJester (890090) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626508)

DRM is meant to prevent interoperability, raise barriers for entry to markets and force "upgrades" of your media when playback devices are upgraded.

Just look at iTunes; you can burn the music to CDs and rip to mp3. This is no copy protection - only a mild barrier to make it more likely that the average customer does _not_ buy another brand of mp3 player.

As others have pointed out, the article headline is misleading. Hollywood won't admit any such thing.

My response in two words is.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17626510)

O RLY?

...It wouldn't let me include the ASCII owl. :(

mutiple sales (5, Insightful)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626564)

They want to sell you the DVD version, the PSP version, the special edition, the remastered edition, the directors cut, the laser disc version, the VHS version. Next will be the HD-DVD, and Blueray versions. Followed by the hologram version, err, maybe. If anyone has been most successful at this, its George Lucas, how many of us own more than one version of the first Star Wars trilogy?

Re:mutiple sales (1)

alexgieg (948359) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626674)

I'm myself have none. I'm waiting for George Lucas to die so that I can then buy the definitely definite final forever unchangeable version, in a box including all of them, which the company will surely release some time after the fact.

Also, I have no version of LotR, since the extended edition wasn't released here in Brazil. We had single, double and box editions, but no extended. So, I'm holding my money until it's released.

The same goes for the original Superman tetralogy. I'll only buy them when it's released as such, not as a trilogy.

And so on and so forth. :)

Re:mutiple sales (1)

CaptnMArk (9003) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626814)

Don't bet on it. Gene Roddenberry is dead, and now they will release new "Original" Trek episodes.

BTW: I have the "extended" LOTR. It's still in plastic, cause I've (besides cinema and TV) only watched the DIVX version.

Re:mutiple sales (2, Interesting)

tbo (35008) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626726)

They want to sell you the DVD version, the PSP version, the special edition, the remastered edition, the directors cut, the laser disc version, the VHS version.

[rant] Honestly, who wants to watch a movie more than once or twice? Get Netflix or Zip.ca or whatever, rent it once or twice, and you don't have to worry about buying it over and over again. It's also cheaper. I have a really hard time getting worked up about DRM for movies if that's all it's about. I'm not going to buy a movie more than once, period. If you own more than one copy of the Star Wars trilogy, get a life. Once you have a "life", you'll find it's useful for maintaining perspective on things like this. [/rant]

If DRM means that the movie execs feel comfortable digitally "renting" content to me for one-time viewing, and it's cheaper than Blockbuster, great. Without DRM, there's no market for digital rentals, because now you "own" it and can give it away. Thus, for the vast majority of us who just want to rent a movie to watch once, prices for digital content would end up in the range of DVD sales rather than DVD rentals.

Now, I'm aware of lots of DRM downsides. It's not interoperable, yada yada. Believe me, as a Mac user from long before the iTunes Music Store existed, I know how annoying it is when something isn't available for my OS of choice, and I feel for you Linux users who can't download the latest episodes of 24 from the iTMS. Of course, Season 6 was on bittorrent about a week before it even hit TV, and I don't think it's even on the iTMS yet, so it's not like the Linux users are really suffering. In short, DRM hasn't really hurt anyone too badly, because it's not too hard to circumvent. OTOH, it does keep Joe Consumer from committing copyright infringement, and it helps the studio execs feel good about releasing digital content. It's a compromise.

Oh, and don't even get me started on the article. Why even RTFA if the quality is this awful? What happened, did Digg [digg.com] buy up Slashdot last weekend? I'm just waiting for the first "DRM FTW" post. I especially like the briliant flashes of insight in TFA:
...the studios have turned to DRM (and the law) to create the scarcity.
Wow! What an awful new development! Except, oh right, creating scarcity to allow creators to profit was the original constitutional purpose of copyright. Ars may be up on the latest technology, but they seem to be a couple hundred years behind on the legal world.

Hmm... Maybe I should have put that [/rant] tag towards the end of my post...

Re:mutiple sales (4, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626988)

Except, oh right, creating scarcity to allow creators to profit was the original constitutional purpose of copyright

Insightful, up to that point.

According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, 1787: "the Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

You've swallowed Hollywood's line. Profit is supposed to be a carrot to "promote the progress of science and useful arts", not the purpose, though these days you'd never know that.

As for TFA, yes, what a load of crap. When did musings in random blogs become newsworthy?

Re:mutiple sales (1)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 7 years ago | (#17627022)

If anyone has been most successful at this, its George Lucas, how many of us own more than one version of the first Star Wars trilogy?

Ummmm.... I'm happy to say I own NO starwars media nor accessories. Technicaly "I" may have bought the comic back in '79 but I was so young I don't remember if "I" bought it, or my brother. But needless to say if I did buy it I no longer have it. I may have recievd a "tonton" action figure but that again would be long since lost.

1. I thought it was foolish to buy starwars action figures in the 70s as all my friends had them already, and most were destroyed with firecrackers.
2. I never "bought" any star wars film, though I liked starwars I saw it enough in the theater, and on cable to keep me perfectly happy.

Now... if you were to say the Robotech series, Macross, or the 2006 re-dub of macross... These are things I would have bought. Various Doctor Who serials I bought. Series or movies I couldn't rent or borrow I bought. The new macross dub is an example of re-buying something enough work went into to justify the expence. StarWars on the other hand, I caught the re-mastered edition in the theater, when it hit the $1.00 cinema.

This being said, I wouldn't knock anyone who bought anything from the Lucus franchise, most of the crap spewed out from there has been a very good investement.

Consumers losing control (3, Insightful)

quokkapox (847798) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626596)

The real risks of DRM come into play when consumers lose control of the devices they legitimately assume will have traditional functionality. Why on earth should my cellphone, a digital communication device be unable to share MY data freely with other networks? So I have to PAY for a ringtone or PAY to upload a picture I just took? Why should my wifi-enabled Zune not be able to "squirt" MY data to any nearby Zune?

That's bad enough, but the most dangerous outcome here is when I can no longer wipe and then reinstall a free operating system onto a general purpose computing device. The people might be forced to pay the microsoft tax, but we will not give up our free software.

Re:Consumers losing control (2, Interesting)

Sique (173459) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626804)

There is a second thing to that. With the inability of the device to spread your very own content it is no longer a device for you to promote your own content. So not only the usage and the distribution of content gets controlled, also the creation of new content gets controlled, because the only way to get out content with mandatory DRM is to sign up with a DRM provider (and if you can't pay the sign up fee in cash, you have to sign a contract surrendering rights for your own creation).

Re:Consumers losing control (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 7 years ago | (#17627028)

Why on earth should my cellphone, a digital communication device be unable to share MY data freely with other networks?
Oddly enough this type of thing seems to only be enforced on the US market. Elsewhere, phones can freely communicate with anything. In France a bundled phone can be unlocked from its operator network after 6 months (I expect the other European countries have similar provisions), etc. On the rare occasions I take a picture with my phone (bought from my cell operator) rather than with my camera, I can upload it with BlueTooth or with the provided USB cable to my Linux machine without any problem. In the same vein, I have installed a couple MIDI ringtones on it which I have always used on all my phones.

Granted the insane locking down of everything might be pushed to the rest of the world by the US corps but for now it certainly isn't the normal state of affairs.

F__k em (2, Funny)

J_Doh! (830090) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626628)

The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more customers will slip through your fingers.

F__k em-Buy 'em. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17627026)

Except that statement flies in the face of the "But I'm not hurting anyone, because I never would have bought it anyway". Customers buy. Customers have a voice. You guys have neither.

On a scale of 1 to 10... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17626652)

... would you say the story is:
- very neutral about DRM
- slightly neutral about DRM
- slightly biassed about DRM
- very biassed about DRM

Now answer again, but for slashdot as a whole.

Re:On a scale of 1 to 10... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17626850)

It's not wrong to be biased against things that are bad ideas. What do you think of slavery, Communism and apartheid? Do you think we should have a neutral point of view in regards to these things?

DRM is a technological abberation. So say various [fsf.org] experts [eff.org] . But perhaps you know better.

Re:On a scale of 1 to 10... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17627000)

... would you say the story is: - very neutral about DRM - slightly neutral about DRM - slightly biassed[sic] about DRM - very biassed[sic] about DRM Now answer again, but for slashdot as a whole.
NOT being biased against injustice is itself unjust.

Some thoughts. (2, Informative)

d3m0nCr4t (869332) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626668)

How the movie and music industry must long for the days of vinyl records and videotapes. In those days, they could produce movies and music, sell them to their customers and after 10 to 15 years, if you used the tapes and records enough, they could sell them again to you. Was there any piracy then ? Hell yes. Records were copied on to audio cassettes and with 2 videorecorders you could easily copy any videotape. Now, with media being spread in a digital form, they lost that kind of control over their sales. And the industry is going to do whatever it takes, to try to get the tapes and vinyl back, in the form of DRM.

Re:Some thoughts. (4, Informative)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626832)

They used to have fits about tapes and vinyl copying too. It's always happened. Their main problem is that selling media in any form will always be a business which experiences lots of unauthorised copying of its products if you use their traditional distribution method (being monolithic companies selling media at high price through a limited number of channels)

The problem they have is that faced with this undeniable fact they have decided to focus on an unrealistic solution, being drm. The plain fact is that drm will only cause problems for legitimate users, not unauthorised copiers.
Circumvention being illegal is no problem. There will always be someone, somewhere who figures it out, and finding that person in time to stop dissemination of their solution is a game that will be lost before they start, every time.

DRM then is so they can continue to attract investors. It gives them something to say in pitches. 'We have solution x to this problem that will ensure a return on your investment' and so on. The fact that historically such solutions have a 100% faliure rate isn't something they can even think about, so they're trapped.

Looking at this from an evolutionary standpoint, they're screwed, and heading to extinction. Simply demanding that the world be other than it is can only have that result. What system will emerge in its place I don't know, but I strongly suspect that the current crop of p2p companies/products will form the basis of a new media empire.

The current media industries are trying to get into this feild, but for years all they've been doing is trying to stop it, whilst the p2p producers have been innovating like crazy. That means the p2p guys are already ahead in the next wave of media production/distribution, and very likely to stay there.

I think you're all wrong (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626704)

I think they insist on DRM simply because they're convinced that limitting the number of people who can watch something is better. But they haven't researched. They just take it as a self evident truth. It's become more of a religion than a business strategy.

Re:I think you're all wrong (1)

J_Doh! (830090) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626736)

Agreed. And they have gone so far now that pride, ignorance and the quest for the almighty dollar have taken over.

I've seen that dollar (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17626846)

Hey, I got the almighty dollar in change for a pack of twinkies once. It's a little thicker than regular dollars but otherwise doesn't look too different. I didn't know people were questing for it, I would have held on to it instead of using it to pay at the carwash.

Re:I think you're all wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17626842)

Wheras your extensive research, which you will no doubt supply in a follow-up to this comment, shows clearly that placing no limits on copying is better.

Remember that anecdotes, thought experiments and Slashdot groupthink dogma do not count as research (even though they may have convinced you)
.

Re:I think you're all wrong (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#17627050)

Wheras your extensive research, which you will no doubt supply in a follow-up to this comment, shows clearly that placing no limits on copying is better.

Nope. All I have is my own dogma. I'm not making decisions. I have the right to unsubstantiated opinion. If I was making decisions about applying DRM, I'd make sure they were the right decision.

For all I know, they might be right. Maybe DRM does increase sales. But they're just assuming this is the case. Few other industries reduce utility to increase sales. Aircraft manufacturers could sell twice as many planes if they made them smaller. Truck makers would logically sell more units if they lobbied the government to reduce the permitted load on roads.

Re:I think you're all wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17627070)

Wheras your extensive research, which you will no doubt supply in a follow-up to this comment, shows clearly that placing no limits on copying is better.
Despite your arrogant attitude, I will do so for GP.
http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/papers/Sticky%20In fo%20and%20Mass%20Customization%20(1998).pdf [mit.edu]
http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/papers/opensource. PDF [mit.edu]
http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/papers/UserInnovNe tworksMgtSci.pdf [mit.edu]

DRM is just another word for nothing left to lose (2, Insightful)

locksmith101 (1017864) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626762)

DRM is a funny thing. It's like trying to make a Tsunami go away by yelling at it. I guess that both Hollywood and the music industry, suffer from their historical misbehaviour towards users. Take the questionable pricing as an example - regardless of manufacturing costs. I assume that it costs less to mass produce DVDs and CDs than the late VHS and vinyl records - still prices haven't dropped. DRM is all about piracy - but it's a lost battle, that ship has sailed long ago...

Specious logic. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17626866)

"There is simply no evidence whatsoever that DRM slows piracy. In fact, all of the evidence suggests the opposite, and arguments that DRM "keeps honest people honest" are frankly insulting. If they're already honest, they don't need DRM."

Arstechnic knows this is poor logic. If people are already honest, then there's no need for ANY laws of any kind. No speeding laws because people are already honest. No embezzlement, or fraud laws because people are honest.

Also I would like to see "all of the evidence" for myself, instead of some "unamed source". This is not "Deep Throat", or "Watergate". Let's not let our standards slip because we really want the outcome to be a certain way.

In today's edition... (1)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626894)

In-depth studies at the Institute For The Blindingly Obvious have confirmed that large corporations may sometimes behave in ways that do not benefit the users of their products. Followup studies reveal that despite the fact that this is blindingly obvious, many people uncritically believe anything they see on TeeVee. Sometime in May 2007, we expect the release of a groundbreaking study by our sister organization, the Ric Romero University Of Things Everyone Already Knows, which will purportedly claim that music and film labels are obsolete in the Internet Era. Stay tuned for the Institute's investigative segment, where our undercover reporters hope to either confirm or dispel rumors that many executives in the entertainment business are megalomaniacs and/or control freaks.

Other stories coming up on the 11 o'clock segment: That hot girl you met in the AOL chatroom? She wasn't hot, and she was a he. This shocking story of one nerd's attempt to meet a real woman. Also, the sky is blue and bears shit in the woods.

>>> But seriously, the entire MAFIAA business model is built around controlling you (the buyer's) access to the artist's work. The Internet shatters that, and they're terrified by the realization that they are now redundant elements in a capitalist system.

Customer lock-in (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#17626906)

Yes, that, and customer lock-in to proprietary DRM are some pieces of the DRM puzzle.

When you see Microsoft switching from their PlaysForSure DRM to Zune's own for its marketplace as that player is released without quoting security problems with the PlaysForSure tech, you know there are other things under the hood. Similarly, Apple is reluctant to opening up their FairPlay (why do they keep picking oxymorons for these techs?) standard to others because it could impair Apple's market dominance.

It's really sad that outside organizations to keep market competition, business practices, as well as user rights in check aren't more involved in this.

Its about bugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17626926)

Since DRM allows for new and presumable unknown kinds of defects, it has to be implemented. That's because software development is about bugs. The more bugs the better.

Well, Duh (1)

segedunum (883035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17627010)

Amusingly, it's why DRM schemes and this digital home thing Microsoft funnily thinks is coming will never work. The content owners want you to buy your films and music all over again, or even better, to rent your own content to you. Stop paying and you have no content. It's how a lot of Windows Media based stores work, and as soon as people realise it, they immediately stop paying.

The only DRM scheme that works is Apple's, and that's because they were clever enough not to get down on their knees in front of the studios and promise them anything, which is what Microsoft has done.

Re:Well, Duh (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#17627130)

The only DRM scheme that works is Apple's, and that's because they were clever enough not to get down on their knees in front of the studios and promise them anything, which is what Microsoft has done.

Incorrect on both counts.

1) Apple's DRM scheme does not work - it blocks fair use & impedes a user's rights like the others.

2) Apple did get down on their knees in front of the studios and promise them anything.

What bothers me the most is that Congress ... (3, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17627068)

is partaking in this and pushing for DRM everywhere and lose of fair rights. It use to be the dems who pushed this. But anymore these days, the neo-cons (who are the majority of the republicans) are also behind it. It seems to be that rather than fight each and every one of these initiivies, we need to cut the beast off at the knees. The only way that I can think to do that is to prevent money flow from lobbyist to congress reps. And the only way to prevent all of the is to implement Joel Hefley's ideas on corruption prevention. All in all, if we want America to be the land of the people, and by the people, and for the people, we are going to have pony up the funding of the election process. Otherwise, this will remain the land of the high bidder, of the highest bidder, and for the highest bidder.

DRM - It's Not Really About Piracy (3, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17627116)

TFA - It's Not Really About What It Says In The Title
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...