The Near Future of Digital Rights Management
Pages: 1, 2
Changing the Business Model
Tim O'Reilly presented the perspective of a copyright holder and a content owner. He asked what happens to all of the good content that can't be read because it just isn't available. A few thousand of the one hundred thousand books published each year have significant sales. The rest of them might sit on the shelf for three months and then what? The publisher doesn't return the rights to the author, so the book doesn't make it back into the public domain. O'Reilly suggested that for many of the books that disappear into oblivion, piracy would have been a blessing.
In his keynote earlier in the day, O'Reilly had explained that, "Piracy is progressive taxation. If no one cares about you then they won't pirate you. How do you know to look for someone unless you're well known. It's a tax on the most successful content providers." He polled the audience to see how many used free television and how many used cable. He then asked how many people paid for an ISP (Internet service provider) and how many created their own network connection. He said that this showed that many consumers will choose a compelling service that is reasonably priced over one that is free and ad hoc."
Online piracy changes the notion of who's a publisher. O'Reilly reminded the audience that in the early days of the Web there was an idea that everyone would be a publisher or a content provider. Everyone would put up their own Web page. But how do you find the information you want? You go to Google or portal sites or big sites that have the information you want. O'Reilly explained that "The Web publishers are the ones who manage to accumulate eyeballs. A publisher is an aggregator."
Using a book analogy, O'Reilly said that there are plenty of potential authors and plenty of potential readers. You can't just hope that they'll find each other. Book stores and libraries aggregate customers while the publishers aggregate authors. Instead of trying to hold onto their current model, Hollywood and the music industry could reposition themselves as publishers. So long as we can keep the entertainment industries' suggested restrictions from being hard-coded into law, O'Reilly thinks that eventually the providers will understand how to give consumers what they want.
Hollywood's Nightmare Device
Victor Nemecheck is director of marketing for El Gato, the company that makes the EyeTV Digital Video Recorder. Victor's bio in the program highlights the core issue: EyeTV [allows] Macintosh customers to watch, record, and pause "live" TV, skip commercials, instant replay, or archive shows. In some ways, this is a natural extension of the VCR offerings that the entertainment industry unsuccessfully fought 20 years ago. You can see why the entertainment industry might feel threatened by such devices. The answer isn't to stop innovation but to change its business model.
|
Related Reading
Web Privacy with P3P |
Nemecheck said that their team discussed carefully whether they should produce such a product. Their concern was that a movie studio could hire lawyers and shut them down. The EyeTV was released in July and the response has been great. Although people could use the EyeTV to break laws, most people are using it for legitimate purposes. People are recording televisions shows and watching it when it's convenient to them. They've also heard from kids who play PlayStation and are using EyeTV to record their games and go back and watch them again--some parts in slow motion.
Nemecheck was later asked what is considered piracy with a television show. He answered that it clearly would be illegal to record a program and package it and sell it. On the other hand, recording and giving it to someone else isn't illegal. Moderator Gillmor added that if it's illegal to copy a show and give it to someone else, he'll miss all of the "West Wing" this fall because he'll be in Hong Kong. He announced that "my brother is taping them for me--so sue me." O'Reilly added that television isn't necessarily just supported by commercials. HBO is supported by subscriptions and by selling its shows on DVDs at video outlets. He advised the entertainment industry to "move forward and seize the opportunities and not try to maintain the past." In response to another question, Nemecheck said "we have not heard from lawyers yet--and that surprises us in a way."
Taking Action
Cory Doctorow, Outreach Coordinator of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, began his presentation by asking if people who skip commercials are thieves. His organization is involved in lobbying politicians and bringing law suits to highlight the legal issues in the digital rights management arguments. He worries that if the entertainment industry succeeds, it will be the death of technology.
Doctorow explained that the reason that Hollywood has such leverage is that by 2006 America wants to have digital television. A strong motivator for this is the revenues that are available by selling the current broadcasting spectrum. According to Doctorow, "Hollywood says we're not going to make our movies available to digital TV unless you can let us determine which technologies can be in any box that can touch the signal."
If this restriction is legislated then computer companies won't be able to include technologies such as EyeTV that your customers might want unless Hollywood approves them. Not only that, but the devices will need to call to check if they are still compliant. If you build in a capability that is later banned it could be remotely disabled. In addition, because open source technology can't be controlled, it will also be banned from these devices.
Doctorow was asked what we should be doing. His advice was that you should tell three friends about what is going on. Too many technologists aren't aware of the issues. He said that when the entertainment industry tried to block VCRs, the VCR technology companies stood up. The difference now is that technology companies don't understand the threat and are, by and large, going along with this legislation. He advised that when technologists, a 600 billion dollar industry, go on the offensive against Hollywood, a 35 billion dollar industry, technologists win.
Daniel H. Steinberg is the editor for the new series of Mac Developer titles for the Pragmatic Programmers. He writes feature articles for Apple's ADC web site and is a regular contributor to Mac Devcenter. He has presented at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference, MacWorld, MacHack and other Mac developer conferences.
Get more conference coverage here.
Return to the Mac DevCenter.
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a talkback.
Showing messages 1 through 11 of 11.
-
ITS HAPPENING !!!!!!!!
2003-07-02 04:45:11 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
The worst thing about all these restrictions is that it is well on its way to being reality - Its known as TCPA and is supported by Microsoft and all major hardware manufacturers - the worry is that these restrictions will be built directly into the CPU and other chips - making them impossible to remove or disable - and essentially allowing your PC to be controlled remotley by the companies - including the destruction of all your data
go to http://www.againsttcpa.com/ for more details and how it will affect you
-
Simple answer... Already tried...
2002-11-25 13:52:48 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Circut City's DIVX... Any questions?
-
Hollywood's Apocolypse (behind the screens)
2002-11-25 13:50:28 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Yes, they are in fear for their current business model, but clearly their efforts to thwart the innovative pirate will fail. Hollywood may be able to stop the 'fair use' of protected media, but hardware hackers will always find work-arounds. This is where China's economy will shine, many companies will continue to market tools that allow fair use without worries. Still not convinced that Barney Fife, I mean Hollywood will do something stupid with that loaded gun? Examine the history of development of the SVCD standard. Super Video CD came as the cheap man's way around the DVD consortium. The Peoples Republic of China funded this baby because of licensing woes tied in with the DVD consortium. Look at a movie in SVCD format, examine the format, and you'll find that the picture quality is running a very close second to DVD. This indicates to me that cunning wins out over marketing. Right now the economy is not very good, and I have a hunch that it's because Hollywood's kitty is out of the bag. Does anyone here remember Napster? I still have yet to Buy a CD since the closing of the service. The RIAA stepped on my rights, and now I see the MPAA's boot coming. My purse strings are drawn tight on these matters, as I believe everyone else should be very wary. Final comment, share this issue with your local representitives. Let's get big business back into the board room and out of our living rooms.
-
Hollywood's threat has no teeth
2002-11-06 11:29:53 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Why is technology worried about catering to Hollywood?
The digital market is going to be HUGE. Hollywood could try to boycott it for a while, but they're just shooting themselves in the foot if they do.
Meanwhile, independents will take advantage of Hollywood's absence to get their material out to a hungry audience. They'll make a bundle while Hollywood bangs its head against the wall.
Eventually Hollywood will have to give in and distribute digital content, because they can't afford not to!
Hollywood is in no position to demand anything. If you build the technology, they will come. Let the market do its thing, and make the legislators get out of the way!
-
Simple solution
2002-10-19 23:52:34 mclucy [Reply | View]
All digital media content (DVDs, VHS, Digital TV, CDs, mp3s, etc) will have embedded "usage signatures". The original sale price would be enough to cover material production costs (real cheap these days). All digital devices will be able to connect to the internet, announce their signature, and the registered owner of the device, who will have an account, will be debited a nominal fee for each use. The fee will decline to virtually nothing after X years of usage. Copies will reproduce the signature. People without internet access will use prepaid phone-card type devices that slip into their players/computers like an ATM and subtract the appropriate amount. The central authority(s) who collects the fees will subtract admin costs and send payments to the authors/producers.
-
Apple Laptop Keyboards Unsuitable for Unix Users
2002-10-12 10:30:32 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Apple laptops are effectively unusable for unix users.
I am a long-time Unix user. That means I need to have the Ctrl key to the left of the A key. This is a genuine need, not merely a want; it is based upon ergonomics. The Ctrl key is heavily used in unix, and it must be easily accessable. It cannot be off in the lower left corner of the keyboard where it is difficult to get at, and where it distorts the position of your left hand such that you can't easily type other keys while holding the Ctrl key down.
Apple desktop keyboards are now all USB. They are all OK. The CapsLock key can be re-mapped into a Ctrl key.
Unfortunately, even in this modern age, all Apple laptops have built-in ADB keyboards. The ADB keyboard is broken-by-design. It is, in general, not possible to remap the CapsLock key into a Ctrl key.
There are some exceptions, but they are horrible kludges. They are
horrible kludges because the original design of the ADB keyboard was a horrible kludge. The correct solution would be for Apple to re-design their laptop motherboards to use built-in USB keyboards. This hasn't happened yet. If you run Linux, use Debian's solution. For Mac OS X users, uControl works. There are no solutions (that I know of) for either NetBSD or OpenBSD. Please note once again that the "solutions" above are in fact kludges, because of the original bad design of the ADB keyboard.
Apple is (currently) ignoring Unix users! This is not merely speculation on my part. In an on-going email exchange I am having with an Apple employee (whom I won't name) in their marketing department, the Apple marketing person directly stated to me that Apple was catering to their historic Mac customers, and is purposely ignoring the Unix market. He also claimed that Apple would soon start paying more attention to the Unix market. I won't hold my breath. Apple has been ignoring Unix users for more than 12 years. I expect that trend to continue. (Also note that my Apple contact indicated that Macs would never ship with a 3-button mouse, even though Apple intended to port almost all X-window software and deliver it either on a CD/DVD or installed directly on each Mac's hard drive. How Unix friendly is a 1-button mouse with X programs that often require 3 buttons?)
Apple has now lost two opportunities to sell me hardware. I really wanted an Apple laptop for their superior battery life, and for the PowerPC with Altivec CPU. (The Altivec is vastly superior to the x86 line for DSP.) Because I can't live with the broken-by-design built-in ADB keyboard in all Apple laptops, Sony and IBM sold me laptops instead. If Apple fixes this problem, they will sell me a PowerBook next year; if they don't, I'll still be running OpenBSD on x86 hardware, and wishing I could use a Mac.
-
a few small corrections
2002-10-10 09:39:27 hayne [Reply | View]
Having just finished viewing the QuickTime version of this session, I noticed a few small inaccuracies in this article.
1) There is a paragraph referring to Tim O'Reiily's comments about the nature of publishing which starts with the sentence: "Online piracy changes the notion of who's a publisher." I think the word "piracy" in that sentence is a "typo" - O'Reilly's comments have nothing to do with piracy.
2) Cory Doctorow actually asked peole to tell 5 (five) friends - not 3 as reported in the article. Not a big deal - but why not be accurate?
-
Finding "good" politicians
2002-10-07 11:15:17 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Does anyone know where to find out which members (or prospective members) of Congress have received donations from the entertainment industry or plan to go along with this idiocy? I am about to become a single issue voter on this point. I just need to know who is on what side.
-
What's Good for Hollywood, Is Good for America
2002-10-04 06:10:36 10281028 [Reply | View]
That's just what they are selling....but does Hollywood contribute anything to technology?
No, I didn't think so...So they are just Users for Profit...another business...utilizing the benefits of technology. So They are Championing Artist's Rights for their own profit and Trampling on Consumers Fair Use Rights.
Hollywoods Attitude does not give creedence nor Respect to the consumer...their customer.
Fair Use Rights does not assume everyone Is A Pirate....No More Than Speedometers assume Everyone Is a Speeder.
Beware Congress...In The short term campaign donations, Do Not Guarantee Next Term Elections...Whats More...Hollywood Money will Limit You and your family's right of use.
To Sum It Up...Congress ASK YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS IF THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO GIVE UP FAIR USE OF THEIR VCR'S FOR HOLLYWOOD...NO I DIDN'T THINK SO!
-
DRM will kill the US economy!
2002-10-03 13:33:47 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
What many members of Congress don't seem to comprehend is that technology will continue to advance somewhere in the world. If Hollywood gets the legislation it wants the US technology industry will die costing our economy billions upon billions. Some country smart enough to resist this idiocy will reap the benefits. I consider the MPAA no better than the terrorists!






Most of the latest movie releases should be flushed and the latest CDs are hanging from a rear view mirror.
It took two weeks of withdrawl, but I've slain the tv beast. I just use the broadband at work and when I get home, I either read a book or go on a date. Wow, life without mindless drivel!
So, Greedywood can implode. I'll not even notice. Besides, its end will probably do society a favor.