Beta
×

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!

Translation of Macrovision Response to Jobs on DRM

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the worth-a-read dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 284

BoboB-69 writes "Daring Fireball has posted a humorous, and accurate PR-speak to Plain English translation of Macrovision's CEO's response to Steve Jobs' Open Letter on DRM. Highly recommended reading for slashdotters everywhere."

cancel ×

284 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

that's beautifully worded (5, Interesting)

jessecurry (820286) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060390)

and much more to the point. Why can't all execs speak like that?

Re:that's beautifully worded (5, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060474)

Because it is too hard to change your mind later. With the corp/marketing speak, they can just claim confusion and blame the change of mind on the lesser inteligent people like you and me who didn't understand what they said. That way they all look good in front of the camera!

Re:that's beautifully worded (5, Funny)

jc42 (318812) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060540)

Why can't all execs speak like that?

Because then you'd understand them.

Re:that's beautifully worded (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060734)

My friend jc42 makes a joke, but there's insight there too.

We're going to see a lot more of this kind of misdirection now that the first serious cracks in the DRM-club's armor. Major players in the production and delivery of content are starting to actually question the wisdom of DRM. Guys like Steve Jobs are not Defective by Design or Freeculture.org, but important bricks in the wall that has kept DRM the default and a more sane approach to copyright out of the discussion entirely.

I'm afraid that the battle over DRM is about to morph from a guerilla action to mutually assured detruction, and the Copyright Industry may prefer the latter in the end to actually sitting down with their enemy (the customers) and coming up with a reasonable solution.

Re:that's beautifully worded (4, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061370)

RIAA declares war on music, clones Britney, releases voice destroying virus!

The likely real world outcome of drm is that a bunch of time and money ends up being wasted. People won't put up with doomsday scenarios where they can't sing Happy Birthday(and get away with it like you can now) and laws will be changed.

People don't care about the drm on dvd's; lots of people are going to be really pissed off with the coming 'not on that screen' drm.

Rating (1)

Libor Vanek (248963) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060406)

+1 Insightful

You know you've been playing too much NetHack when (3, Funny)

kale77in (703316) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060882)

+1 Insightful
  • Should've wished for "blessed rustproof +2 Insightful".

Great.... (5, Insightful)

AtariDatacenter (31657) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060408)

This is one of those great times where I wish I could vote on the story. Translating executive speak to common speak is *always* priceless. Example:

CEO: "We are not going to lay off 500 workers."
English: "We are going to lay off 510 workers. Or 490. Just not 500."

Its all about making you FEEL a message instead of actually hearing and understanding the words. (They want to imply a very positive message, without ACTUALLY lying.)

Re:Great.... (1)

dmartin (235398) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061422)

CEO: "We are not going to lay off 500 workers."
English: "We are going to lay off 510 workers. Or 490. Just not 500."

Ummm.. If you lay off 510 workers, you are laying off 500 workers. You are also laying off an additional 10 workers. It is like that riddle "I have two coins in my pocket, the total of which is thirty cents. One of those coins is not a quarter."

Such a statement means that they can lay off up to 499 workers without lying; after that 500 workers have been laid off even if the figure is not only 500 workers.

Fairly amusing but not overly informative (0, Redundant)

raisedbyrobots (808710) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060430)

Not a whole lot of actual information in the article, but it's a fairly entertaining rebuke of Macromedia's letter.

Re:Fairly amusing but not overly informative (4, Interesting)

drdanny_orig (585847) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060470)

Well, duh! (And I mean that in the nicest possible way.) I think that was the entire point. Macromedia's letter was a fairly entertaining, but ultimately content-free rebuke of Job's equally self-serving pronouncement.

Re:Fairly amusing but not overly informative (1)

mustafap (452510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060796)

>Macromedia's letter was a fairly entertaining

+5 Funny for that one, dude.

Re:Fairly amusing but not overly informative (1)

Mr Pippin (659094) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060924)

But not necessarily convincing, since the letter ITSELF was not protected by DRM. I mean, ANYONE could copy and paste that letter's response to ANYONE, without permission. Well, unless someone saw a wavy line roll through the message as they were reading it.

Re:Fairly amusing but not overly informative (1)

yroJJory (559141) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060712)

a fairly entertaining rebuke of Macromedia's letter.

Macromedia!?

Re:Fairly amusing but not overly informative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061412)

Macromedia developed things like Flash and Dreamweaver and were bought by Adobe about a year ago. Macrovision does copy protection, DRM, and software licensing subsystems. Big difference.

I like this blurb best (5, Insightful)

i_should_be_working (720372) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060448)

I believe that most piracy occurs because the technology available today has not yet been widely deployed to make DRM-protected legitimate content as easily accessible and convenient as unprotected illegitimate content is to consumers.

So, piracy will go away when DRM-protected legitimate content is available for free, from many sources, comes in many formats, can be copied without restrictions, and works on many devices. Brilliant! We are finally on the same page. Now get working on that.

Re:I like this blurb best (3, Interesting)

evilviper (135110) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060784)

DRM-protected legitimate content as easily accessible and convenient as unprotected illegitimate content is to consumers.

An online store can be much easier and more convenient than tracking down music on the current P2P networks. More than enough to make up for the inconvenience of having to enter credit card details, and paying a few cents per song (or per-month).

Re:I like this blurb best (2, Insightful)

roscivs (923777) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060964)

Now get working on that.

Exactly. That's pretty much the gist of what I wrote in response [indessed.com] to Amoroso's letter:

With such an enjoyable and revolutionary experience within our grasp, we should not minimize the role that DRM can and should play in enabling the transition to electronic content distribution. Without reasonable, consistent and transparent DRM we will only delay the availability of premium content in the home. As an industry, we should not let that happen.

Reasonable, consistent, and transparent DRM is an impossible pipe dream. Telling content producers and content owners to wait to license their content until this pipe dream is available will only delay the availability of premium content in the home. We, as an industry, and as the people who support that industry, should not let that happen.

Re:I like this blurb best (3, Insightful)

neongrau (1032968) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060996)

"comes in many formats"

i would say thats not even necessary.
imho most important is convertibility. so whenever a new format comes available you should be able to convert it to the new media yourself. not being forced to re buy or keep "antique" hardware players just to see a movie/song/album you bought these days again in say 10 or 20 years.

since this is the crap that the content industry wants to make us believe all the time we don't buy a physical product but the license to "consume the content".

if that would be true then we should be able use vinyl and cd's as a license to get the digital versions of the songs for free. and not such crappy codes inside for some bad-website to get weird proprietary drm'ed files that only plays on non-standard players that will just cease to exist someday anyway.

and how the hell are you supposed to lend and album to a friend who wants to listen to it? or bring an album to a party? like generations did before with vinyl and cd's ?

how should that be ever possible with various proprietary drm formats controlled by the industry?

Slashdotted? Too lazy to click links? Read here (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18060456)

Translation From PR-Speak to English of Selected Portions of Macrovision CEO Fred Amoroso's Response to Steve Jobs's 'Thoughts on Music'
Friday, 16 February 2007

Source: "Macrovision's Response to Steve Jobs's Open Letter".

        I would like to start by thanking Steve Jobs for offering his provocative perspective on the role of digital rights management (DRM) in the electronic content marketplace and for bringing to the forefront an issue of great importance to both the industry and consumers.
Fuck you, Jobs.

Macrovision has been in the content protection industry for more than 20 years, working closely with content owners of many types, including the major Hollywood studios, to help navigate the transition from physical to digital distribution.
We've been helping and encouraging the entertainment industry to annoy its paying customers for more than 20 years.

We have been involved with and have supported both prevention technologies and DRM that are on literally billions of copies of music, movies, games, software and other content forms, as well as hundreds of millions of devices across the world.
Remember those squiggly lines when you tried copying a commercial VHS tape? You can thank us for that.

While your thoughts are seemingly directed solely to the music industry, the fact is that DRM also has a broad impact across many different forms of content and across many media devices. Therefore, the discussion should not be limited to just music.
We recognize that if getting rid of DRM works for the music industry, it's going to open the eyes of executives in other fields, and it could unravel Macrovision's entire business.

DRM increases not decreases consumer value
Up is down. Black is white.

I believe that most piracy occurs because the technology available today has not yet been widely deployed to make DRM-protected legitimate content as easily accessible and convenient as unprotected illegitimate content is to consumers.
I have, to date, succeeded in convincing the entertainment industry that DRM can stop piracy.

The solution is to accelerate the deployment of convenient DRM-protected distribution channels--not to abandon them.
The solution is more DRM. DRM everywhere.

Similarly, consumers who want to consume content on only a single device can pay less than those who want to use it across all of their entertainment areas -- vacation homes, cars, different devices and remotely. Abandoning DRM now will unnecessarily doom all consumers to a "one size fits all" situation that will increase costs for many of them.
Abandoning DRM will prevent us from forcing our customers to keep paying us over and over again for the same movies and songs they've already paid for.

Well maintained and reasonably implemented DRM will increase the electronic distribution of content, not decrease it.
I am high as a kite.

Quite simply, if the owners of high-value video entertainment are asked to enter, or stay in a digital world that is free of DRM, without protection for their content, then there will be no reason for them to enter, or to stay if they've already entered. The risk will be too great.
If it weren't for DRM, no one would attempt to sell video in digital formats.

I agree with you that there are difficult challenges associated with maintaining the controls of an interoperable DRM system, but it should not stop the industry from pursuing it as a goal.
Just because we have sold the entertainment industry on the pipe dream of "interoperable DRM" that can't actually be implemented does not mean they should stop paying Macrovision in a futile attempt to make it happen.

Truly interoperable DRM will hasten the shift to the electronic distribution of content and make it easier for consumers to manage and share content in the home -- and it will enable it in an open environment where their content is portable across a number of devices, not held hostage to just one company's products.
Magic interoperable DRM would give people all the features and capabilities they get with DRM-free media.

At Macrovision we are willing to lead this industry effort.
If we could get everything under our control we could make a lot of money.

We offer to assist Apple in the issues and problems with DRM that you state in your letter. Should you desire, we would also assume responsibility for FairPlay as a part of our evolving DRM offering and enable it to interoperate across other DRMs, thus increasing consumer choice and driving commonality across devices.
I realize Apple is never going to work with Macrovision, so I have decided to insult you and your company by insinuating that your "Thoughts on Music" open letter was an expression of frustration at technical hurdles Apple just can't figure out on their own.

With such an enjoyable and revolutionary experience within our grasp, we should not minimize the role that DRM can and should play in enabling the transition to electronic content distribution. Without reasonable, consistent and transparent DRM we will only delay the availability of premium content in the home.
Without DRM we don't have control over what people can do with their media.

As an industry, we should not let that happen.
As a company whose only purpose is to provide copy protection, we can't let that happen.

MODS=FAGS (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18060680)

sup mods on crack, check out the dates and see this is the oldest copy of the article, also it is the only one that is not fucked up in some way.

Google language tools. (5, Funny)

Devv (992734) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060462)

I just realized another language that would be a great addition to Google Language Tools.

Re:Google language tools. (1)

hazelwoodfarm (865136) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061094)

Yes, yes, yes..you are so right. It would be awesome to have a langage tool which would say what someone really meant!

Re:Google language tools. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061364)

"Corporate Droid-Speak" translator: Genius!

the text (-1, Redundant)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060464)

Fuck you, Jobs.

We've been helping and encouraging the entertainment industry to annoy its paying customers for more than 20 years.

Remember those squiggly lines when you tried copying a commercial VHS tape? You can thank us for that.

We recognize that if getting rid of DRM works for the music industry, it's going to open the eyes of executives in other fields, and it could unravel Macrovision's entire business.

Up is down. Black is white.

I have, to date, succeeded in convincing the entertainment industry that DRM can stop piracy.

The solution is more DRM. DRM everywhere.

Abandoning DRM will prevent us from forcing our customers to keep paying us over and over again for the same movies and songs they've already paid for.

I am high as a kite.

If it weren't for DRM, no one would attempt to sell video in digital formats.

Just because we have sold the entertainment industry on the pipe dream of "interoperable DRM" that can't actually be implemented does not mean they should stop paying Macrovision in a futile attempt to make it happen.

Magic interoperable DRM would give people all the features and capabilities they get with DRM-free media.

If we could get everything under our control we could make a lot of money.

I realize Apple is never going to work with Macrovision, so I have decided to insult you and your company by insinuating that your "Thoughts on Music" open letter was an expression of frustration at technical hurdles Apple just can't figure out on their own.

Without DRM we don't have control over what people can do with their media.

As a company whose only purpose is to provide copy protection, we can't let that happen.

Re:the text (4, Interesting)

jc42 (318812) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060652)

The translation by itself isn't nearly as entertaining as reading both.

This is why it's always a good idea to present the original texts alongside a translation. Sure, as in this example, most people won't be able to read and understand the original. But some will, and (again as in this example) those people can help verify that the translation is accurate.

Just think of all of history's warfare that could have been prevented if if were a legal requirement that translations always be presented side-by-side with the original. Holy books would always include the original, so the mistranslations would be visible to those with a bit of knowledge. Politicians wouldn't get away with "straw-man" distortions of their enemies' statements, because the distorted version would be accompanied by the original.

But I guess we know why such an idea couldn't possibly be accepted, especially not by our religious or political leaders. Probably not by our corporate leaders, either.

Re:the text (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18060942)

please mod parent up: insightful

Re:the text (1)

NoTheory (580275) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061112)

Great... You've just reinvented Dr. Esperanto's argument for universal language.

Language is not the barrier. Mutual consensus is. It was plainly obvious to anyone who has a brain that the intelligence used to justify an invasion of Iraq was faulty. It didn't ever pass the smell test, and yet there was a broad base of support for it among a large number of Americans. There are still Americans who believe that Saddam Hussein supported Al Qaeda, and there's no proof of that what so ever.

It is possible for people to believe what they want to believe regardless of how much fact you throw at them. That is the power of denial. That is the power of the cult of personality. That is the power of ends justifying their means.

Demystifying language barriers is a paltry bulwark against the convolutions of the human mind.

Re:the text (1)

dberstein (648161) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061250)

Your argument can be extrapolated ad infinitum. What about religion? What about supernatural phenomenas? And UFOs? No proof of the above for the non *believers*, though try to convince a beliver otherwise.

Once you get into the realm of BELIEFS, no rational/scientific proof/disproof is useful.

When mothers say with joy "I hope all of my kids die as martyrs" (e.g. one of her kids just blow up killing himself and innocent people), you start to dimension the power of BELIEFS over mutual concensus.

Let me state to all who haven't realized yet: This is a crazy, crazy world.

Re:the text (1)

NoTheory (580275) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061396)

Your argument can be extrapolated ad infinitum. What about religion? What about supernatural phenomenas? And UFOs? No proof of the above for the non *believers*, though try to convince a beliver otherwise.

Once you get into the realm of BELIEFS, no rational/scientific proof/disproof is useful.
Yeah, i'm okay with that. I just think that there are benign irrational beliefs that i don't care about (spirituality, or whatever generally), or find harmless (not to say that there aren't religious beliefs that i find horrible and/or inhuman). Once people make statements that are demonstrably crazy, and start taking irreversible courses of action based on said crazy beliefs, then i've got problems (and you should too).

Let me state to all who haven't realized yet: This is a crazy, crazy world.
I find your statements entirely consistent with mine.

Oh oh... (3, Funny)

freeze128 (544774) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061166)

Just think of all of history's warfare that could have been prevented if if were a legal requirement that translations always be presented side-by-side with the original.
This is a good idea, but what if the original was copyrighted? Then it might be infringement to publish it alongside the translation. This is affecting our copyright. What we need is some way to prevent that. Maybe some sort of way to MANAGE what RIGHTS the translators have....

I'll get my team of lawyers to work on this Monday morning....

Text (0, Redundant)

UglyTool (768385) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060488)

All copyrights etc., Daring Fireball [daringfireball.net]

I would like to start by thanking Steve Jobs for offering his provocative perspective on the role of digital rights management (DRM) in the electronic content marketplace and for bringing to the forefront an issue of great importance to both the industry and consumers.
Fuck you, Jobs.

Macrovision has been in the content protection industry for more than 20 years, working closely with content owners of many types, including the major Hollywood studios, to help navigate the transition from physical to digital distribution.
We've been helping and encouraging the entertainment industry to annoy its paying customers for more than 20 years.

We have been involved with and have supported both prevention technologies and DRM that are on literally billions of copies of music, movies, games, software and other content forms, as well as hundreds of millions of devices across the world.
Remember those squiggly lines when you tried copying a commercial VHS tape? You can thank us for that.

While your thoughts are seemingly directed solely to the music industry, the fact is that DRM also has a broad impact across many different forms of content and across many media devices. Therefore, the discussion should not be limited to just music.
We recognize that if getting rid of DRM works for the music industry, it's going to open the eyes of executives in other fields, and it could unravel Macrovision's entire business. DRM increases not decreases consumer value. Up is down. Black is white.

I believe that most piracy occurs because the technology available today has not yet been widely deployed to make DRM-protected legitimate content as easily accessible and convenient as unprotected illegitimate content is to consumers.
I have, to date, succeeded in convincing the entertainment industry that DRM can stop piracy.

The solution is to accelerate the deployment of convenient DRM-protected distribution channels--not to abandon them.
The solution is more DRM. DRM everywhere.

Similarly, consumers who want to consume content on only a single device can pay less than those who want to use it across all of their entertainment areas -- vacation homes, cars, different devices and remotely. Abandoning DRM now will unnecessarily doom all consumers to a "one size fits all" situation that will increase costs for many of them.
Abandoning DRM will prevent us from forcing our customers to keep paying us over and over again for the same movies and songs they've already paid for.

Well maintained and reasonably implemented DRM will increase the electronic distribution of content, not decrease it.
I am high as a kite.

Quite simply, if the owners of high-value video entertainment are asked to enter, or stay in a digital world that is free of DRM, without protection for their content, then there will be no reason for them to enter, or to stay if they've already entered. The risk will be too great.
If it weren't for DRM, no one would attempt to sell video in digital formats.

I agree with you that there are difficult challenges associated with maintaining the controls of an interoperable DRM system, but it should not stop the industry from pursuing it as a goal.
Just because we have sold the entertainment industry on the pipe dream of "interoperable DRM" that can't actually be implemented does not mean they should stop paying Macrovision in a futile attempt to make it happen.

Truly interoperable DRM will hasten the shift to the electronic distribution of content and make it easier for consumers to manage and share content in the home -- and it will enable it in an open environment where their content is portable across a number of devices, not held hostage to just one company's products.
Magic interoperable DRM would give people all the features and capabilities they get with DRM-free media.

At Macrovision we are willing to lead this industry effort.
If we could get everything under our control we could make a lot of money.

We offer to assist Apple in the issues and problems with DRM that you state in your letter. Should you desire, we would also assume responsibility for FairPlay as a part of our evolving DRM offering and enable it to interoperate across other DRMs, thus increasing consumer choice and driving commonality across devices.
I realize Apple is never going to work with Macrovision, so I have decided to insult you and your company by insinuating that your "Thoughts on Music" open letter was an expression of frustration at technical hurdles Apple just can't figure out on their own.

With such an enjoyable and revolutionary experience within our grasp, we should not minimize the role that DRM can and should play in enabling the transition to electronic content distribution. Without reasonable, consistent and transparent DRM we will only delay the availability of premium content in the home.
Without DRM we don't have control over what people can do with their media. As an industry, we should not let that happen. As a company whose only purpose is to provide copy protection, we can't let that happen.

Daring Fireball? WTF? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18060492)

I'd rather not visit a website that calls itself "daring" anything little known "daring fireball". I thought we purged all the web idiots during the nuclear winter period.

Re:Daring Fireball? WTF? (1)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060558)

I'd rather not visit a website that calls itself "daring" anything little known "daring fireball"
Apparently though you had no problem visiting a Slashdot article about an article on daring fireball to offer this gem of an insight.

Re:Daring Fireball? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18060678)

Right, no problem at all. If you can't talk-back to Slashdot to let them know that these kinds of articles are unwanted then they'll keep commin' at you until Slashdot truly becomes a total waste of time.

Re:Daring Fireball? WTF? (1)

JensenDied (1009293) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060958)

So would you say this is part of the cancer that is killing /. ?

Re:Daring Fireball? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061104)

One thing repeatedly complained about on Slashdot in regards to linked articles is the high ad to content ratio, with text usually split over multiple pages to maximize page hits.

Go ahead and take a peek at Daring Fireball. Even just for a sec.

Thing of beauty isn't it?

Re:Daring Fireball? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061242)

Please $god tell me you didn't phonetically confuse "little known" with "let alone." Please?

Dream the impossible dream (4, Interesting)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060496)

If I could implant all my media devices with a unique-to-me identifier and then transfer any content I have paid for *from any source* to any of my devices then I'd be happy with such DRM. Trouble is, this implies all companies with a vested interest in DRM cooperating and the system actually working.

Until that time, I am forced to live in a world where I can listen to an MP3 file at home on 'Player A'. I can also take and use 'Player A' in my car, round a friend's house (and let them listen!), whilst shopping, on the train, plane etc., but heaven forbid I should try and copy or move my MP3 file from 'Player A' to my in-car 'Player B' which is designed to be operated whilst driving, unlike player A which is about as big as a small box of matches and is bloody dangerous to fiddle with whilst on the move.

Re:Dream the impossible dream (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18060756)

I have been just as adamantly opposed to DRM as the next slashdotter, but truthfully, I wonder if some kind of subscription based DRM could really be a legitimate business model that doesn't force consumers or corporations to bend over and take it.

What would happen if (when wireless access is literally everywhere) I could simply play any digital content on any kind of terminal (PC, phone, PDA, car nav system, airplane screen) for a flat, non-astronomical, yearly subscription fee, or something along those lines? Obviously, there would need to be a lot of ad content to drive this, but if is done elegantly, it would be as innocuous as search engine results that, and it could point you to merchandise, or some kind of premium content (director cuts/commentaries, deleted scenes for movies, rare versions or other gimmicks for music, etc). That would be pretty cool, and if I could then watch TV, movies, and listen to music virtually anywhere I went on any device I wanted, I think I wouldn't be the only one willing to pay for such a subscription (with possibly an alternative pay-to-play option for premium content).
I just thought of this while reading in the bathroom one day, and there are clearly numerous technical and bureaucratic issues that need to be worked out, but could this not be a way DRM could work in the future? Just in case you're worried, I have zero affiliation to any company, I'm just a college kid who wants to watch tv on his computer.

So... Cable TV? (2, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061288)

I bring this up because even if your solution works, it takes control out of our hands.

I don't mind Google, because if they ever start being obnoxious in their search ads, I can easily switch to some other search engine, or even attempt to build one myself.

What you're talking about implies a lot of industry cooperation, which also implies that there'd be a monopoly on this service. Which means it would be overpriced and under-featured. They'd arbitrarily move normal content to "premium", and you wouldn't be able to do anything other than cancel and slowly try to save up and re-buy the stuff. They'd be able to set prices wherever they want, with the same result. They'd advertise just as much as Cable TV -- have you seen those fucking things? Can't even let you enjoy the 5-10 minutes of the show you get between ads without sliding in some little ad that takes up a quarter of the screen, animates, and makes an occasional sound or two. Except that with Cable and Satellite, if I get sick of it, I can cancel my subscription and go buy a DVD, which won't have ads...

Which brings up another thing: DVDs can have unskippable ads. You can skip them in VLC, but only because VLC cracks the DRM.

So, the only way I would ever subscribe to something like this is if they gave everything to me DRM-free. If they could manage a distribution system which is faster and better than the existing networks (think BitTorrent), and if they would actually just give me the DVD in, say, a matroska file, I'd subscribe and stay subscribed. Yes, of course this means I could just share the file with all my friends, but I can do that anyway -- have music execs even looked on peer-to-peer networks lately? DRM ISN'T WORKING! It also means I could just subscribe and download as much as I could in a month, then unsubscribe -- which is, after all, what they deserve; they should be making enough new content to keep me interested -- I would subscribe to cable or satellite TV to watch a show I like, so what makes them think I wouldn't do the same over the Internet? MythTV already makes it ludicrously easy for me to share that show of cable or satellite, why do they think the Internet will make it any easier?

And if you really have zero affiliation to any company, why are you posting as Anonymous, you Coward?!

Just go DRM Free. (2, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061210)

If I could implant all my media devices with a unique-to-me identifier and then transfer any content I have paid for *from any source* to any of my devices then I'd be happy with such DRM. Trouble is, this implies all companies with a vested interest in DRM cooperating and the system actually working.

It's not just impossible, it's an undesirable loss of control. For any DRM to work you have to surrender your ability to copy files. Each and every time you try, the DRM would have to check and grant you permission. Any limit you put onto the power of that copy is arbitrary and won't really protect the user from abuse. Imagine you could restrict the copy control to files of a particular type in a particular location. For this to work, each time you tried to copy or move a file the computer would have to make sure your file was not of that type or in that location. Further restrictions could be added at any time, so you should never accept even the mildest set.

Until that time, I am forced to live in a [DRM world where I can't copy between devices]

That's only true if you buy into DRM systems, so don't give up while things are looking good. Right now, you can buy commercial music on CDs, and most music on players still gets there that way. You can also get more free music than you can ever listen to at archive.org or magnatune.com, which should be good for music sales by the artists there. If enough people reject DRM, DRM won't happen because people making money will all be DRM free. That is why the majors are all thinking hard about it.

The ultimate dream here is greed. DRM is about control by a few big dumb companies who want to "transition from physical to digital distribution" with their broadcast monopoly intact. Without lots of bad laws, that's the really impossible dream.

Re:Dream the impossible dream (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061216)

If I could implant all my media devices with a unique-to-me identifier and then transfer any content I have paid for *from any source* to any of my devices then I'd be happy with such DRM.

So would I.

Trouble is, one of those devices is my Linux desktop, and I currently play all my media with mplayer and other similar programs. I would accept DRM that these could handle, as long as you realize that this automatically means that I can decrypt it out of the DRM anyway.

And no, no proprietary forks of mplayer. I can and do play with the source code on all parts of my system. I can do things that the content providers may not have thought of, but if we're using DRM everywhere, pretty much by definition, I can only do things that content providers have thought of. As a simple example, when ripping a DVD, I can either leave it as a DVD image (and play it off my hard drive as if I had the physical DVD there), or save some space by re-encoding to h.264 in an MKV, and using optical character recognition to convert subtitles. With all subtitles in a text format, aside from simply being able to use whatever font I want and put them wherever on my screen is convenient, I can then do a full-text search of DVDs!

Re:Dream the impossible dream (2, Funny)

binarybum (468664) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061354)

heaven forbid I should try and copy or move my MP3 file from 'Player A' to my in-car 'Player B' which is designed to be operated whilst driving, unlike player A which is about as big as a small box of matches and is bloody dangerous to fiddle with whilst on the move.

  indeed, but not as dangerous as stealing from the record industry and macrovision at the same time by not using DRM'd media. Sure you might end up in a horrific MV accident, but there's your soul to think about to, have you thought about your soul?

This is great! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18060508)

This is great material for our open source group-think campaign. I love it when people tell me what my opinions should be!

You are... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18060894)

quite possibly, the most hyper-sensitive geek on /. Boo!

The Memo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18060512)

So, basically I should fucking hate Macrovision now?

Damn, ever since I started reading Slashdot, my short list has gotten awful long.

This is a heavily debated issue. Isn't it trivial to spin it one way or the other. I mean, I can make it sound like evil fascist DRM wielding maniacs out to rip us off in one breath and make it out to be a proper way to ensure the capitalistic market is protected while reserving the rights of the people who make the media in the next breath.

Big deal.

Re:The Memo (1)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060536)

Regardless of your position on DRM, you should hate Macrovision. They are as destructive to the entertainment industry as lobbyists are to the federal government.

Re:The Memo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18060782)

I should hate Macrovision....I should hate Macrovision....

Opinions successfully installed! Anything else?

No you can't (0, Flamebait)

Tony (765) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061018)

I mean, I can make it sound like evil fascist DRM wielding maniacs out to rip us off in one breath and make it out to be a proper way to ensure the capitalistic market is protected while reserving the rights of the people who make the media in the next breath.

Not convincingly, you can't.

First, you'll have to convince me that one can "own" an idea, or even an expression, the same way they can own a car, or a knife, or a gold-plated frisbee. And that'll be a hard sell, my friend. I doubt very much you could convince me that DRM has anything to do with capitalism, and everything to do with greed and the desire to control citizens.

The attitude you express is part of the reason I distrust capitalism. Like communism, it sounds good on paper, but there's just no fucking way it can work. Human nature gets in the way every time.

Re:No you can't (2, Insightful)

Toba82 (871257) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061258)

I think capitalism works pretty well. That's why it's been in use for the majority of recorded history.

Re:No you can't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061316)

DRM is not about capitalism. Capitalism thrives on competition and free market. DRM and monopolies (or oligopolies) are about control and does not really fit into capitalism (though monopolies can be the end result of a competition in a free market). In a pure capitalistic society, DRM is not needed since the enforcement of DRM depends on the state protecting the businesses. In a truly free market, businesses must change its business tactics and models to compete on anything, including the rights they give to customers. The fact that oligopolies (RIAA) managed to bribe lawmakers to shoehorn/change laws (DMCA) to protect their outdated businesses or a monopoly (Microsoft) is practically tapped on the wrist after blatant illegal tactics to abuse their monopoy status shows that capitalism is on the decline in the US.

Re:No you can't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061348)

The thing is, following copyright and patent laws, you can't own an idea. The deal is that you make it freely open for all to see or encourage the author to publish it- not locking it away or turning it into a trade secret- in exchange for a period of right of control on how it's distributed before eventually falling into the public domain.

I see little wrong with the basic principles. It's aimed at encouraging authors and inventors to make their works fully public while guaranteeing them some control of their works, allowing them to obtain recompense for their time and effort spent. It's an attempt to make things fair to the creators and to benefit the public at large, if you look at it closely. Even the GPL and ilk make use of the copyright laws to get the job done the way the OS people want.

The problems arise when you start oddifying the laws, granting special consideration to some specific party or type of thing or allowing them to be used as a hammer to beat up the competition for its milk money.

I feel the principles are sound. It's the implementation that needs a lot of work. The current USPTO has become an unfunny joke and copyright law is often abused into being used more as a weapon than a protection.

And I find it kind of funny, I find it kind of sad (-1, Flamebait)

johnwbyrd (251699) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060532)

If I could moderate Slashdot itself down for posting this crap, I would. Stick to Linux distro reviews and USB coffee warmers and leave the ham-handed irony to the late-night TV shows, eh?

Re:And I find it kind of funny, I find it kind of (2, Informative)

JrOldPhart (1063610) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060566)

Just like a radio or television if you don't like the content go somewhere else.

Jobs in plain English (4, Interesting)

solevita (967690) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060534)

Of course, you could also argue that Steve Jobs' letter [theregister.co.uk] said little in plain English apart from "Hey Europe, don't get upset with me, the content producers make me do it". Norway saw through it [theregister.co.uk] and actually replied in plain English (Norwegian?) when they said "Jobs, stop making excuses, you're still breaking the law by selling your lock-in products in Norway".

Re:Jobs in plain English (4, Funny)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060676)

Apparently you didn't see through the Norwegian response though. Let me translate for you:

"It's quite clear that the record companies carry their share of the responsibility for the situation that the consumers are stuck in. However, no matter what agreements iTunes Music Store have entered into, they're still the company that's selling music to the consumers and are responsible for offering the consumer a fair deal according to Norwegian law."

Apple is making it difficult for other companies to offer DRM infected media to Norwegian citizens. This is unfair, as all companies doing business in Norway should be allowed to screw our citizens equally.

Re:Jobs in plain English (1)

solevita (967690) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060736)

Great post - thanks for explaining it to me.

Silly me though; when I read it I thought that the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman was acting to protect the consumer, I forgot that it was the big multinational money printers that need a government's protection.

Re:Jobs in plain English (1)

Poltras (680608) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061188)

Good kings are slaves, and their people are free. As long as I'm going to see a government with more freedom than me in their pockets, I'm not going to believe what they say, as they are themselves proof that they don't protect the citizens, but merely the interests of a minority (which they include themselves in).

Re:Jobs in plain English (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061418)

If Apple withdraws from Norway, is the consumer being protected?

Choose your battles... (4, Insightful)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060706)

If you accept what Steve was saying was true, about how the risk/reward simply wasn't worth it for Apple, it's clear that both parties were simply explaining their respective positions without giving ground. There is no need for your "saw through it" bias.

What Norway was saying is "it is illegal for you to do business in the way you are"
Jobs replies "this is the only way that makes sense for us"
Norway replies "it's still illegal, you're going to have to fix it or withdraw"
[expectation: Jobs replies "Ok then, we'll stop doing business in Norway"] ... and Jobs gets to blame it on the various label companies - it was a pre-emptive strike at managing the fallout when Apple stop selling iTunes in Norway. He added a sufficient number of things to make the "story of the day" not be this, of course. Now it's firmly in the subconscious that DRM is not Apple's fault, I expect the next salvo to be "and we made it as easy on the customer as the labels would let us" - that is, if the labels have the stomach for the upcoming fight.

Jobs' vision is of making consumers products (and computers, for that matter) that people lust after, while making money of course. He's not interested in getting in their way - a few years ago, I think the iTunes DRM effectively helped Apple, but now I genuinely think the market is theirs to lose, and they have a track-record of making very *very* attractive and successful products in the music market.

I don't think he cares about DRM any more, in fact I think he'd swap the DRM for the risk of running iTunes as it is right now (with the sword of Damocles over his head if FairPlay is ever seriously broken). And I think he'll be more than happy to give up the tiny percentage of iTunes sales that Norway represents in order to remove that risk - "goodbye Norway, thanks for playing, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out"

Simon.

Re:Jobs in plain English (4, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060952)

I dunno. Maybe it is just an American vs European viewpoint thing, but I'd say someone who managed to understand the marketplace so well that they build a product that comes to dominate that market, and offer services that support only that device - well, that's a successful business person.

Yes, if Apple went to music distributors and said something like "distribute your songs exclusively over ipods or we'll ban you" that would be unreasonably using market dominance. But to claim that there's some unreasonable market behavior just because you make your products and services work with each other to the exclusion of others? That's just goofy.

Re:Jobs in plain English (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061092)

That's just goofy.

No, that's reality distortion, something which is intrinsic to Jobs' personality.

Re:Jobs in plain English (5, Insightful)

calstraycat (320736) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061106)

Of course, you could also argue that Steve Jobs' letter [theregister.co.uk] said little in plain English apart from "Hey Europe, don't get upset with me, the content producers make me do it". Norway saw through it ...

Over the past couple of weeks, I've seen this assertion made many times and I still don't get the logic. The implication is that Apple secretly wants to continue using DRM and is wrongly pointing the finger at the record companies to deflect blame. But the facts don't support that point of view. When he says the that the recording industry is to blame for the situation, he is, in fact, telling the truth and justifiably pointed the finger in that direction.

I understand that people who subscribe to the view that Jobs's statement was a cynical ploy believe that Apple secretly wants to keep DRM alive to "lock in" customers, but the evidence simply doesn't support that viewpoint. Ninety-seven percent of the music on iPods is DRM-free. Customers are not locked in. The lock-in argument is bogus. Furthermore, DRM is a pain in the butt for online music retailers and consumer electronics manufacturers. It is of no benefit to them. It increases the complexity of product development, increases support costs and makes for a poorer customer experience.

So, please explain to me why Apple would want to continue utilizing DRM when it of no benefit to them. Also, I'd be interested in what your response would have been had Apple announced that they would license Fairplay to third parties rather than calling for the end of DRM. Would you have preferred that? I just don't get it. A good portion of the ubiquitously anti-DRM Slashdot crowd seems to be implying that it would be better if Apple proliferated their proprietary DRM than call for the end of DRM. Is that what you want? Would you rather Apple appease Norway's regulators and further entrench DRM than getting rid of it completely?

Re:Jobs in plain English (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061176)

Yeah, and not to mention the fact that Apple must sign a legally binding contract to sell the tracks and the contract stipulates DRM. No DRM, no contract renewal. No contract renewal, no sales. Simple as that. It's up to the content owners to decide whether they want DRM or they want fairly treated consumers.

At this point, some would repeat that some small indie labels don't insist on DRM but Apple DRMed the tracks anyway. Well, we don't know what contracts Apple signed to get all major labels to play and Apple always insist on a uniform treatment on all tracks to avoid confusion. All are available at the same price, same burning right, same number of devices it can be played on, etc..

I have a translation process constantly running. (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060582)

I see these translations all the time, the process is always running in my head. I can't listen to a commercial on the radio, see one on T.V. or let just about any marketer get past me. This sort of thing is marketing. I can instantly tell if something in the mail box is junk mail, even with the modern attempt at moving away from slick flamboyant envelopes to fonts that look hand written on plain envelopes. I usually open those anyways just to be sure, but my instincts on this matter haven't failed me in years. I think the constant bombardment of information that has a sole purpose of deceiving me or molding me desires has evolved a "flinch" circuit in my brain.

On that note, I still admire ads with half naked women and will allow ads that are well done, non insulting, or just plain funny to work. We need more trunk monkeys, more Budweiser type commercials and less see how many times we can repeat a single line or phone number in a 30 second stretch, injection of "phantom noises", and voice tone persuasion/intelligence questioning.

As for corporate letters this translates into using plain speech. If corporate zombies could drop the use of buzz words (especially the word "solution"), intelligence questioning phrases and tones (thus increasing consumer choice and driving commonality across devices).

Bah, I'm on my kick again

why is this tagged as humo[u]r? (2, Interesting)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060600)

I don't understand why this is tagged as humour.
It seems like a truly accurate translation from business-doublespeak into plain English, and as such is insightful and scary, not humorous.

Steve Jobs (1)

nanoakron (234907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060646)

Can someone make sure Jobs reads this reply.

At least he'd have a laugh. Maybe it would spur him on to fight even harder.

Re:Steve Jobs (1, Insightful)

SolitaryMan (538416) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060708)

Maybe it would spur him on to fight even harder.

The thing I'd expect the least is Steve Jobs (whose company makes the most DRM-fucked up mp3 player in the world) fighting against DRM. Talk is cheap and I will not believe a word, unless I see the results.

iPod does not equal DRM (2, Insightful)

Shrubber (552857) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060768)

The thing I'd expect the least is Steve Jobs (whose company makes the most DRM-fucked up mp3 player in the world) fighting against DRM. Talk is cheap and I will not believe a word, unless I see the results.
People need to stop spouting this nonsense. The iPod is not DRM laiden. The iPod does not create DRM. The iPod does not do anything but play the files YOU give it. If you do not purchase music files that have DRM then you do not have to play music files with DRM. You can put any MP3s you want on the iPod, they won't magically become something different than they were before you put them on there.

Complain about the iTunes music store all you want, but direct your complaints where they belong.

Re:Steve Jobs (1)

Marcos Eliziario (969923) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060878)

I've never bought a single song from iTunes. And my pod happily plays all MP3s I feed into it (DISCLAIMER: ALL of my MP3s came from ripping CDs that I have legally purchased). If it weren't for the battery issues, I would even use Rockbox all the time, and then I could even play ogg files on it. So, I fail to see how the iPod can be classified as a DRM-fucked up player.

Re:Steve Jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18060822)

Maybe it would spur him on to fight even harder.
I can't believe how many idiots think Jobs is fighting against DRM merely because he posted some little public relations piece in an attempt to appease the Europeans. Tell me, where was Jobs fighting against DRM before the legal problems arose in Europe?

Apple has been one of the biggest proponents of DRM for years and there are really few people who benefit from it more. If he's so against DRM he could start by removing the DRM from the upcoming iPhone and AppleTV.

Re:Steve Jobs (2, Funny)

jc42 (318812) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060840)

I'd bet that Steve Jobs is right now wishing that people would just stop sending him copies of TFA. I mean, he probably really laughed the first time he read it, but by the 25th time ...

Almost, but not quite (5, Insightful)

DingerX (847589) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060666)

Cute little "translation", and it almost gets it.
 
"Black is White" is certainly the case of "DRM increases consumer value". But the point to:
 

Similarly, consumers who want to consume content on only a single device can pay less than those who want to use it across all of their entertainment areas.

Isn't simply: "Abandoning DRM will prevent us from forcing our customers to keep paying us over and over again for the same movies and songs they've already paid for."
  It's more pernicious than that. It reveals the fundamental difference in philosophy: we don't buy things anymore, we "consume content", and they "own content". Ownership is a social convention: in theory, we more or less agree what constitutes "property". Now they are trying to change the rules, claiming they own all the things we use, and we pay them whatever they deem fit. So we become intellectual sharecroppers: we own nothing and owe everything.
 
The beauty of the letter, however, really lies in how it reveals that the DRM proponents' own ridiculous notions of intellectual property prevent them from having their "DRM-laden paradise". For DRM to truly work, it has to be transparent to the user, interoperable, and add value, not remove it. And, wait! Today's technology can do that! But hold on: that technology is itself "High-value content", and as such needs protection through trade secrets, patents, and proprietary deals, and the resulting product is subject to the same market forces as the content it is supposed to protect. Dammit! The same logic we use to defend DRM shows us that DRM cannot work!

Re:Almost, but not quite (1)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060738)

Mod parent up, definitely.

You're absolutely right, especially in your analysis of the emerging DRM-centered philosophy of ownership. This is just a further continuation of the philosophy of leasing housing, transportation, and now - images, sounds, and ideas. In the end, all this means is that we will find ourselves yet again in a society where a microscopic fraction of the population owns everything, and by withdrawing the permission to use their "property" can effectively crush anyone they please. Considering that US was built on the concept of protecting the citizens against just that, it is ironic that we're leading the way in demolishing the very concepts that we fought so hard to sustain (granted, with a huge measure of hypocrisy, but nonetheless...).

And I hope you won't mind if I infringe on your intellectual property a little, and use the phrase "intellectual sharecropping". It's a very eloquent way of putting it.

Re:Almost, but not quite (1)

Nitewing98 (308560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060898)

DingerX wrote, "But hold on: that technology is itself "High-value content", and as such needs protection through trade secrets, patents, and proprietary deals, and the resulting product is subject to the same market forces as the content it is supposed to protect. Dammit! The same logic we use to defend DRM shows us that DRM cannot work!"
Beautiful! A recursive argument that shows that DRM is a logical fallacy that will never lead anywhere. Because to protect the content, we have to protect the DRM mechanism which means we have to protect the software that uses it which means we have to protect the OS that runs the software which means we have to protect the source code which means we have protect against our employees....etc.

Obviously DRM proponents never learned "This is the House that Jack Built" or "There was an Old Lady that Swallowed a Spider" when they were kids.

Re:Almost, but not quite (1)

roscivs (923777) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060992)

It's more pernicious than that. It reveals the fundamental difference in philosophy: we don't buy things anymore, we "consume content", and they "own content". Ownership is a social convention: in theory, we more or less agree what constitutes "property". Now they are trying to change the rules, claiming they own all the things we use, and we pay them whatever they deem fit. So we become intellectual sharecroppers: we own nothing and owe everything.

Exactly. Copyright law (and common sense) already dictates that once a person has purchased a copy of a song, or a movie, or a book, they are free to "format-shift" and use that same copy "across all entertainment areas". They legally don't have to purchase it multiple times. So the "one size fits all" situation is mandated by law, and will decrease costs for most people. (read more [indessed.com] )

Pretending like DRM increases customer value is just plain delusional.

Re:Almost, but not quite (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061338)

That quote really makes it clear that what they really want is to be paid every time you listen to the song, and the "pay more to have it on all your devices" is just an approximation. It's sort of like those zero-point energy people (cranks?), only it actually does give limitless replays of the same song, and the MAFIAA wants to be paid for every listen as if they are gods who created a universe where such a thing is possible. "We are the source of unlimited information!" Those old cassettes and CDs, those are the work of the devil, since they give the buyer way too much control over the content, allowing them to listen to it however many times they want without any negative consequences. With digital, that centuries-old loophole might be closed once and for all. </rant>

Re:Almost, but not quite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061394)

> "Black is White" is certainly the case of "DRM increases consumer value".

I'm not sure that I'd translate it that way.

I would translate it as: "DRM makes it slightly easier for us to strong-arm the consumer into paying more than what this content is actually worth."

I translated it as I read it the first time (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060700)

And the translation came out about the same. Written out the way it is now, it's funny. But you have to know, these jackasses are serious and care nothing of the damage they cause others. The translation, I believe, is actually quite accurate.

Ultimate DRM (3, Interesting)

Hennell (1005107) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060780)

I love the way that people involved in DRM think it adds to the product. You can do less with this product now! Whoo-hoo!

It may be shameless self-promotion but I made a visualisation of the Ultimate DRM [deviantart.com] just the other day. What happened to giving the customer what they want?

Re:Ultimate DRM (1)

eneville (745111) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060848)

I love the way that people involved in DRM think it adds to the product. You can do less with this product now! Whoo-hoo!

It may be shameless self-promotion but I made a visualisation of the Ultimate DRM [deviantart.com] just the other day. What happened to giving the customer what they want?
no i think that's ok. if you had put your page address or something else stamped all over the image then i guess that'd be self promotion. i think your image is quite a nice idea and does get the message across. you might find it worthwhile seeing if there is a campaign who would use it as their logo.

Re:Ultimate DRM (3, Informative)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061036)

I love the way that people involved in DRM think it adds to the product.


DRM does add costumer value to the product, for Macromedia's customers. Macromedia's customers, however, are not you and me. Most of Macromedia's customers are members of an organization that ends in AA.

Slight Mistranslation (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18060792)

He slightly mistranslates it.

"Similarly, consumers who want to consume content on only a single device can pay less than those who want to use it across all of their entertainment areas -- vacation homes, cars, different devices and remotely. Abandoning DRM now will unnecessarily doom all consumers to a "one size fits all" situation that will increase costs for many of them."

He translates to this:
"Abandoning DRM will prevent us from forcing our customers to keep paying us over and over again for the same movies and songs they've already paid for."

Instead of this:
"Abandoning DRM will prevent us from CONVINCING YOU THAT YOU HAVE A HOPE of forcing your customers to pay again and again for the same movies and songs, even though they won't pay once for them because of our DRM."

It's the 'can = hope' he missed, Macrovision want to convince the record companies there is *hope* of huge profits by pissing off their customers. They have to suffer the piss poor sales and annoyed customers now for some big payoff (in heaven? In Japan? How? No sales is no business, cult leaders are rich people, the idiots who follow them are poor.).

Explain? (4, Insightful)

springbox (853816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060810)

Macrovision says:

DRM increases not decreases consumer value

I know their entire business relies on DRM's success but every encounter I have had with it ended up being some sort of pain in the ass. How does DRM increase consumer value. Like, why should I be excited that I can't copy media from one format to another without it being a hassle? I wish Macrovision explained that statement.

Re:Explain? (1)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060850)

>> How does DRM increase consumer value.
It absolutely doesn't. Thats why they need to use all the business doublespeak to justify themselves in their reply.

>> I wish Macrovision explained that statement
They won't/can't ever do that because there's no rational argument to defend it.

Re:Explain? (1)

Dster76 (877693) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060916)

This is no way a defense of Macrovision's "please protect my business model" whining, but I think what they have in mind is the claim that without DRM, customers who wish to have the "fill up my napster player with music I don't own but merely license" service would be S.O.L. There would be no way to prevent users from keeping everything they preview. Please note: I think the Napster model is doomed to failure, and this is in no way an endorsement of it.

In other words, from Napster's FAQ [napster.com] ,

Why is a Napster Subscription Better Than Only Buying Music From an a la carte Music Store?

A Napster subscription gives you unlimited access to 3 million songs on your PC. For only a little bit more a month, a Napster To Go subscription allows you to transfer an unlimited amount of music to your PC and compatible MP3 player.

Think of it like a going to buffet. With all-you-can-eat music, you can try everything you want, whenever you want. One day you can take every album by Bob Dylan, Miles Davis, Gwen Stefani or 50 Cent. The next day you can download a whole radio station or every Reggae album you want. Your music doesn't have to be limited by your budget anymore. With Napster, the whole world of music opens up to you for the price of one CD a month.

Of course, all Napster subscribers still have the option to purchase music to burn to CD or just keep permanently in their digital music collection. Subscribers get up to a 20% discount when purchasing multiple songs with Napster Track Packs.

With a Napster subscription, you can try music before you buy it.

Re:Explain? (2, Interesting)

Hieronymus Howard (215725) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061078)

The only experiences that I have ever had with Macrovision are when it's prevented me from playing legitimately owned content. So I'd like to say a great big Fuck You to Macrovision for they way that they have 'increased my consumer value'.

Summary (4, Insightful)

JPMaximilian (948958) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060884)

I think that whole PR can be summarized as, "What Steve Said, if followed, will put us out of business, he was wrong, media companies really do still need us to protect their content."

Anyone surprised? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#18060900)

I mean, Jobs is calling for obsoleting not only the company, but the whole industry. No easy way to change markets there. If a politician said something like "public toll roads are silly and the overhead doesn't match the cost, we're going to just fund them over the national budget from now on" I sure know who's going to have a panic attack and say "yes it does". Even though that'd be a blatant lie too.

The sad part of the story (1)

Fantasio (800086) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061022)

Amoroso is full of it that I wouldn't be surprised if he believes in his own BS.

Woah, occupational flashback. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061144)


Sayeth Macrovision CEO Fred Amoroso:

DRM increases not decreases consumer value


Close to 10 years ago, in the capacity of a previous job, I found myself on a phone CC with several Macrovision employees.
One of those employees said to me, as near-to-verbatim as I can muster, "we recognize that the Macrovision process is value subtract, from the standpoint of the end user." I remember laughing because I had never heard anyone say that about their own product before.

But now that statement stands in stark contrast to their present CEO's own assertion of value-add.

Bill Gates (3, Funny)

BGatesFan (1065072) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061184)

I disagree with Bill Gates, as he wants to be rid of DRM, and recommends buying CDs. Now maybe I'll be a Fred Amoroso fan. As he seems to be more manipulative and greedy than Bill, maybe Bill has gone soft. I don't know. I like my Music and other Media formats DRM-Laden so that I can only use them on my Dell Running Windows Vista. Vista is the operating system of the future people, can't you realize that? DRM today, DRM tomorrow, DRM Forever! Michael Dell is cool too, especially when they started coming out with ink cartidges for their printers that only work with dell printers. I don't like being able to go to any computer store and buy standard ink cartidges. I prefer to give all of my money to Dell, so that Michael Dell will have enough money to buy Bill Gates.

Bill Gates is still more manipulative (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061428)

Bill Gates wants to be THE DRM vendor, he was the original pusher of DRM as the solution to piracy. Now he wants 'interoperable DRM' and if he can't get that, he wants them to buy CDs, but only because Windows is the major platform for ripping CDs into more useful formats.

What's more manipulative and greedy than that?

mod 04 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061204)

and arms and dick consistent wiTh the the wind appeared And dIstraction Engineering project

That is so awesome (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061270)

Spot on. Well done.

Im wondering (1)

AlphaLop (930759) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061286)

I think the P.R. Puke that wrote that response for Macrovision is the same guy that writes for North Korea..... They both sound a lot alike and make about as much sense....

I don't understand something (1)

danielk1982 (868580) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061378)

Why do we have to live in a world that has either no DRM or is all DRM?

Why not restrict DRM to rented content such as the Napster service that allows you to download and listen to unlimited amount of music provided you keep paying your monthly fee. I like that service and I don't want to see it go. On the other front, I also want to buy some music and movies to keep forever - so in this case, why not sell it to me DRM-free?

This sounds to me like a win-win situation and certainly a good compromise.

Oops, he got this one wrong: (3, Insightful)

Stephen Samuel (106962) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061398)

Magic interoperable DRM would give people all the features and capabilities they get with DRM-free media.
Magic interoperable DRM would give people some of the features and capabilities they get with DRM-free media.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>