The economical DRM equation

Bhima

Mon May 14 00:09:49 -0700 2007

manage

Hey!  That's not "Digital Rights Management" it’s “Digital Consumer Enablement”!

 

 

 

The economical DRM equation

MadJo

Mon May 14 00:14:32 -0700 2007

manage

Happy Fun Media Surprise (according to Buzz Out Loud)

The economical DRM equation

Procrastinator

Mon May 14 01:46:29 -0700 2007

manage

Publishers are thinking medium term here, not short term. Their very existence is based on maintaining the "intellectual property" system as far as possible beyond its use-by date. To them, DRM is a matter of keeping up the pretense that copyright could work. They won't mind some losses in the short term

The economical DRM equation

bill_mcgonigle

Mon May 14 10:10:18 -0700 2007

manage

I largely agree with your train of thought here, but it's not so much about copyright working (watermarking can handle that) but using that as an excuse to re-sell the same property over and over again, therefore obviating the need to produce new content.

I blogged about this a little while ago (slightly more cohesive thinking there).

The economical DRM equation

Uncle Entity

Mon May 14 17:03:10 -0700 2007

manage

So, the obvious solution is to make each media file unique, and trackable. The tool to do this comes from the field of steganography and is called Audio Watermarking. The theory goes like this: an amount of data is hidden in another amount of data, in this case the digital data of an audio (or video) file.

That would only work for something bought from somewhere like iTunes. If I was to buy a CD, rip it, convert it to mp3 and put it on a p2p network there is no way they could track who did the original copyright violation. The only people that would get caught under the watermark system are the folks who don't understand how it works and would be made examples of...kind of like the RIAA's mass litigation fear campaign. It's pretty much pointless to use DRM or a watermark or anything at all unless you control the whole system with something like TPM and even the value of that is questionable because of the existence of older hardware and free software. So either they sell their media only under DRM and no other way or they just give up and accept the fact that the technology for your average person to commit large scale copyright violation is out there and is not going to go away.

...but using that as an excuse to re-sell the same property over and over again, therefore obviating the need to produce new content.

Royal Enfield has been selling essentially the same product over and over again for 50+ years and it seems to work for them. There's nothing stopping me from taking my VHS copy of 12 Monkeys and burning it on a DVD, I have a tv tuner card and a DVD burner, but it would look like crap compared to going to wallyworld and buying it for less than $10. People believe they're *entitled* to something because they bought a previous version. I can't take my 1990 Kawasaki ZX-10 up to the local motorcycle dealer and demand a 2007 ZX-10 because I have in my possession an older version so why should I be able to take my copy of 12 Monkeys to the video store and demand a DVD version?

It really comes down to this, they own the content and can do anything they want with it and all the whining in the world can't change that. Yes they have political power and can change the market dynamics to favor them but there is *nothing* that says that people have to buy their products. I have a 30g ipod that is almost full and there isn't one DRM song on it. So there ya go, vote with your pocketbooks and when they see their profits falling and buying legislation doesn't help they will be forced to change their ways or go out of business.

The economical DRM equation

bill_mcgonigle

Mon May 14 18:16:32 -0700 2007

manage

That would only work for something bought from somewhere like iTunes.

Right, that's the premise - online sales. CD sales aren't covered here. The MAFIAA is worked up about DRM for online music, not on CD.

The only people that would get caught under the watermark system are the folks who don't understand how it works and would be made examples of...

I expect through education (how about an explicit instruction dialog in iTunes?) the normally good people will just not want to 'share'.

kind of like the RIAA's mass litigation fear campaign.

Sure, people should be afraid of breaking the law. No? I think explictly knowing they can be traced will stop most people from doing it in the first place, hence no litigation campaign required.

It's pretty much pointless to use DRM or a watermark or anything at all unless you control the whole system with something like TPM and even the value of that is questionable because of the existence of older hardware and free software.

I know why DRM is useless without TPM-ish hardware, but why do you feel watermarking is?

Royal Enfield has been selling essentially the same product over and over again for 50+ years and it seems to work for them.

Your product wears out. Digital media doesn't. Expecting a new bike is expecting the manufacturer to bear costs. Transcoding your media has 0 cost to the content producer, so it's not a valid comparison.

There's nothing stopping me from taking my VHS copy of 12 Monkeys and burning it on a DVD

Agreed (Macrovision aside, I'm talking Fair Use).

I have a tv tuner card and a DVD burner, but it would look like crap compared to going to wallyworld and buying it for less than $10.

Sure you can make that call - heck, I agree with it at $10. Not at $500, though. I have a box full of audio cassettes that are not in print on CD I still need to digitize one day. Yeah, it's a muddy sound, but it's all I have/can get. What happens when .wmv is passé (say with a Zune) and the track I bought in 1999 isn't available in a new format?

People believe they're *entitled* to something because they bought a previous version. I can't take my 1990 Kawasaki ZX-10 up to the local motorcycle dealer and demand a 2007 ZX-10 because I have in my possession an older version so why should I be able to take my copy of 12 Monkeys to the video store and demand a DVD version?

You shouldn't. Separate argument. I'm talking about the same data in a different format, not different data (DVD's are typically re-mastered, re-mixed, have extras, etc) on media with real cost that somebody else has to bear the costs of producing and distributing. To rephrase your statement: "why should I be able to take my copy of 12 Monkeys on VHS and make a DVD out if it?" - the answer is Fair Use, and it's essential to the societal bargain we call Copyright.

It really comes down to this, they own the content and can do anything they want with it

Of course they can - but we're not talking about limiting their right - we're talking about them limiting our rights - because it suits their profit motive.

and all the whining in the world can't change that.

Like in the Betamax case? If the whiners are politicians or judges then things happen. What the masses of people want to do is typically the right thing. I think Betamax showed this well.

I have a 30g ipod that is almost full and there isn't one DRM song on it.

Awesome. I think you're making the right decision, and I can see why you wouldn't want any DRM'ed media. But I'm curious - would you buy watermarked, non-DRM media online (for economy or convenience)? If not, why not? Think hypothetically - say you're not filthy rich and there's not a massive CD store right next to you.

The economical DRM equation

Uncle Entity

Mon May 14 19:45:21 -0700 2007

manage

Awesome. I think you're making the right decision, and I can see why you wouldn't want any DRM'ed media. But I'm curious - would you buy watermarked, non-DRM media online (for economy or convenience)? If not, why not? Think hypothetically - say you're not filthy rich and there's not a massive CD store right next to you.

I would, maybe. If they had what I wanted and it was convenient to use, as in I wasn't forced to use winders, I would probably buy a few tracks here and there. I have adapted my music listening to mostly free live shows from places like archive.org, and quite a few 'liberated' bootlegs.

I know why DRM is useless without TPM-ish hardware, but why do you feel watermarking is?

Watermarks are useless unless you can stop all other forms of getting the data into a computer. If someone burns a song from a cd they have effectively bypassed the whole reason of having a watermark - being able to trace the lineage of the media.

Transcoding your media has 0 cost to the content producer, so it's not a valid comparison.

This is why they lose all cases trying to stop fair-use. Mostly they harass other businesses hoping they will just roll over. Someone should beat their lawyers about the head and neck with a clue stick.

What happens when .wmv is passé (say with a Zune) and the track I bought in 1999 isn't available in a new format?

Don't fall for their trickery, caveat emptor.

The economical DRM equation

bill_mcgonigle

Tue May 15 15:21:33 -0700 2007

manage

Watermarks are useless unless you can stop all other forms of getting the data into a computer. If someone burns a song from a cd they have effectively bypassed the whole reason of having a watermark - being able to trace the lineage of the media.

Right, so it depends on the goal here. Two different goals are possible - #1 - to prevent music from being shared online. #2 - to prevent downloaded music from being shared online. My thesis is you can solve #2 without necessarily solving #1. Currently DRM is being foisted upon us as the means to solve #2, but it takes away our rights. I think watermarking can solve #2 without taking away our rights. It does not solve #1.

Someone should beat their lawyers about the head and neck with a clue stick.

Well, now you're getting to the heart of the matter. ;)