Log in

View Full Version : Criminalizing the Consumer



Lemur
04-28-2007, 20:11
There's a darn good piece on DRM in The Economist (http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/techview/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9096421&fsrc=nwl) this week. I would have posted this in the Tech Lounge, but it verges over into law, piracy, corporate controls and policy, so I guess it's Backroom material. Reprinted below the spoil since Economist articles lapse into subscriber-only land.

Criminalising the consumer

Apr 27th 2007, From Economist.com

Where digital rights went wrong

IS IT legal to make a copy of that DVD you’ve just bought so the family can watch it around the home or in the car? In one of the most watched copyright cases in recent years, a judge in northern California ruled last month that copying DVDs for personal use was legal, given the terms of the industry’s licence and the way the copies were made.

The wider implication of the ruling remains clouded—not least because the DVD Copy Control Association, the loser in the case, has 60 days to appeal. But whatever the video industry may like to think, the writing is on the wall for copy protection.

Copyright is a tricky thing. It protects only the way that an author, designer, photographer, film-maker or composer has expressed himself. It does not cover the ideas or the factual information conveyed in the work.

What constitutes fair use or an infringement is trickier still. Much depends on the purpose and character of the borrowed material’s use. Limited reproduction for the purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research is considered fair game. But the wholesale repackaging of the content for commercial use is a flagrant infringement.

In America, the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 made it legal for people to record copyrighted radio broadcasts for personal use. But while the act said nothing about making digital recordings, ripping copyrighted music tracks off CDs and storing them on an iPod has become an everyday occurrence. Despite the number of iTunes downloaded for a fee, Apple would be in trouble if people were prevented from transferring legitimately owned CDs to their iPods. The software Apple gives away to iPod customers is designed to let them do just that.

Most people think it ludicrous that they can’t do the same with the DVDs they own. Now it seems, despite squeals from the movie industry, the law is finally moving in the video fan’s favour.

The issue in the recent case was whether Kaleidescape, a maker of digital “jukeboxes” that store a person’s video and music collections and distribute the entertainment around the home, had breached the terms of the DVD Content Control Association’s CSS (content scrambling system) licence.

A Kaleidescape server stores digital content ripped from CDs and DVDs on its hard drive. The content is then encrypted and fed to various screens and speakers around the home by a secure cable. Kaleidescape claimed that content distributed this way was even safer than it was on the original polycarbonate disks. The judge not only agreed, but couldn’t find any breach of the copy-protection licence either.

If the case ends there, to all intents and purposes the notion of fair use would appear to apply to DVDs as well as CDs. The movie industry, which nowadays depends as much on DVD sales as on box-office receipts, still seems to think that making life difficult for its customers is a recipe for success.

After likewise shooting itself in the foot for ages, the record industry is now falling over itself to abandon DRM (digital rights management) on CDs. A number of online music stores such as eMusic, Audio Lunchbox and Anthology have given up using DRM altogether. In a recent survey by Jupiter Research, two out of three music industry executives in Europe reckoned that dropping DRM would improve sales.

The latest music publisher to do so is EMI, which announced in January that it had stopped producing CDs with DRM protection. “The costs of DRM,” it declared, “do not measure up to the results.”

In an open letter entitled “Thoughts on Music”, even Steve Jobs, Apple’s charismatic boss and chief evangelist, recently called for the elimination of DRM. From this month, Apple’s iTunes will sell EMI’s highest quality recordings (those with sampling rates of 256 kilobits per second) without DRM for a small premium.

Belatedly, music executives have come to realise that DRM simply doesn’t work. It is supposed to stop unauthorised copying, but no copy-protection system has yet been devised that cannot be easily defeated. All it does is make life difficult for paying customers, while having little or no effect on clandestine copying plants that churn out pirate copies.

Now the copy protection on DVDs is proving just as easy to bypass. The biggest flop has been the CSS technology featured in the recent Kaleidescape case. It was first cracked back in 1999 by a Norwegian programmer called Jon Lech Johansen, who showed, in a few short lines of elegant code called DeCSS, just how trivial such lauded protection systems really were. Since then, even the DRM used to protect the new high-definition video disks (the Blu-ray format from the Sony camp and its HD-DVD rival from the Toshiba alliance) have been cracked wide open.

While most of today’s DRM schemes that come embedded on CDs and DVDs are likely to disappear over the next year or two, the need to protect copyrighted music and video will remain. Fortunately, there are better ways of doing this than treating customers as if they were criminals.

One of the most promising is Audible Magic’s content protection technology. Google is currently testing this to find the “fingerprints” of miscreants who have posted unauthorised television or movie clips on YouTube.

The beauty of such schemes is that they don’t actually prevent anyone from making copies of original content. Their purpose is simply to collect royalties when a breach of copyright has occurred. By being reactive rather than pre-emptive, normal law-abiding consumers are then left in peace to enjoy their music and video collections in any way they choose. Why couldn’t we have thought of that in the beginning?

BigTex
04-28-2007, 22:10
There's a darn good piece on DRM in The Economist (http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/techview/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9096421&fsrc=nwl) this week. I would have posted this in the Tech Lounge, but it verges over into law, piracy, corporate controls and policy, so I guess it's Backroom material. Reprinted below the spoil since Economist articles lapse into subscriber-only land.

Criminalising the consumer

Apr 27th 2007, From Economist.com

Where digital rights went wrong

IS IT legal to make a copy of that DVD you’ve just bought so the family can watch it around the home or in the car? In one of the most watched copyright cases in recent years, a judge in northern California ruled last month that copying DVDs for personal use was legal, given the terms of the industry’s licence and the way the copies were made.

The wider implication of the ruling remains clouded—not least because the DVD Copy Control Association, the loser in the case, has 60 days to appeal. But whatever the video industry may like to think, the writing is on the wall for copy protection.

Copyright is a tricky thing. It protects only the way that an author, designer, photographer, film-maker or composer has expressed himself. It does not cover the ideas or the factual information conveyed in the work.

What constitutes fair use or an infringement is trickier still. Much depends on the purpose and character of the borrowed material’s use. Limited reproduction for the purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research is considered fair game. But the wholesale repackaging of the content for commercial use is a flagrant infringement.

In America, the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 made it legal for people to record copyrighted radio broadcasts for personal use. But while the act said nothing about making digital recordings, ripping copyrighted music tracks off CDs and storing them on an iPod has become an everyday occurrence. Despite the number of iTunes downloaded for a fee, Apple would be in trouble if people were prevented from transferring legitimately owned CDs to their iPods. The software Apple gives away to iPod customers is designed to let them do just that.

Most people think it ludicrous that they can’t do the same with the DVDs they own. Now it seems, despite squeals from the movie industry, the law is finally moving in the video fan’s favour.

The issue in the recent case was whether Kaleidescape, a maker of digital “jukeboxes” that store a person’s video and music collections and distribute the entertainment around the home, had breached the terms of the DVD Content Control Association’s CSS (content scrambling system) licence.

A Kaleidescape server stores digital content ripped from CDs and DVDs on its hard drive. The content is then encrypted and fed to various screens and speakers around the home by a secure cable. Kaleidescape claimed that content distributed this way was even safer than it was on the original polycarbonate disks. The judge not only agreed, but couldn’t find any breach of the copy-protection licence either.

If the case ends there, to all intents and purposes the notion of fair use would appear to apply to DVDs as well as CDs. The movie industry, which nowadays depends as much on DVD sales as on box-office receipts, still seems to think that making life difficult for its customers is a recipe for success.

After likewise shooting itself in the foot for ages, the record industry is now falling over itself to abandon DRM (digital rights management) on CDs. A number of online music stores such as eMusic, Audio Lunchbox and Anthology have given up using DRM altogether. In a recent survey by Jupiter Research, two out of three music industry executives in Europe reckoned that dropping DRM would improve sales.

The latest music publisher to do so is EMI, which announced in January that it had stopped producing CDs with DRM protection. “The costs of DRM,” it declared, “do not measure up to the results.”

In an open letter entitled “Thoughts on Music”, even Steve Jobs, Apple’s charismatic boss and chief evangelist, recently called for the elimination of DRM. From this month, Apple’s iTunes will sell EMI’s highest quality recordings (those with sampling rates of 256 kilobits per second) without DRM for a small premium.

Belatedly, music executives have come to realise that DRM simply doesn’t work. It is supposed to stop unauthorised copying, but no copy-protection system has yet been devised that cannot be easily defeated. All it does is make life difficult for paying customers, while having little or no effect on clandestine copying plants that churn out pirate copies.

Now the copy protection on DVDs is proving just as easy to bypass. The biggest flop has been the CSS technology featured in the recent Kaleidescape case. It was first cracked back in 1999 by a Norwegian programmer called Jon Lech Johansen, who showed, in a few short lines of elegant code called DeCSS, just how trivial such lauded protection systems really were. Since then, even the DRM used to protect the new high-definition video disks (the Blu-ray format from the Sony camp and its HD-DVD rival from the Toshiba alliance) have been cracked wide open.

While most of today’s DRM schemes that come embedded on CDs and DVDs are likely to disappear over the next year or two, the need to protect copyrighted music and video will remain. Fortunately, there are better ways of doing this than treating customers as if they were criminals.

One of the most promising is Audible Magic’s content protection technology. Google is currently testing this to find the “fingerprints” of miscreants who have posted unauthorised television or movie clips on YouTube.

The beauty of such schemes is that they don’t actually prevent anyone from making copies of original content. Their purpose is simply to collect royalties when a breach of copyright has occurred. By being reactive rather than pre-emptive, normal law-abiding consumers are then left in peace to enjoy their music and video collections in any way they choose. Why couldn’t we have thought of that in the beginning?

Wonderful news. Good to hear their finally comming to their senses.

rory_20_uk
04-28-2007, 22:43
I routinely copy my (already bought - just to clarify that!) DVDs. Why?

-The originals don't get scratched / lost
- I get rid of the up to 10 mins of junk at the start that I don't want. I am here to see the film damnit - not compulsory anti copying rubbish (which ironically isn't on copies, making them far easier to watch.

~:smoking:

HoreTore
04-28-2007, 23:15
Well, we are all lazy people. For example, the cd-player in my car usually trashes a cd after some time, so I have to make backups. Now, if there was a copy protection thingy in place preventing me doing this fast and easy, I'd screw buying the original cd and just download the songs illegally..

I like having a cd-collection, but if I had to wrestle them just to avoid buying them again every six months or so, I would stop buying cd's. But I wouldn't stop listening to music, which leaves only one alternative...

Lemur
04-29-2007, 15:26
Ars Technica is weighing in on the issue (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070427-distrust-and-piracy-go-together-like-pbj.html) as well.


Piracy is fueled by distrust, according to a report by PR firm Edelman. The entertainment industry ranks close to last among industries that 18-34 year olds worldwide trust, coming in after the insurance industry in some countries. This lack of trust in the entertainment industry leads many young people to download music and films illegally, according to Variety, because they don't feel that the industry is providing them a good enough value for their money.

Gregoshi
04-29-2007, 17:07
Ars Technica is weighing in on the issue (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070427-distrust-and-piracy-go-together-like-pbj.html) as well.


Piracy is fueled by distrust...

That sounds like a bunch of Bullster to justify an illegal activity. Put a "free" price tag on anything (legal or illegal) and people will go for it. It is just in our nature to do so. If there is a buck to be made or saved, many of us will go for it. It makes us feel special or, in this case, like we are getting one up on somebody else.

Lemur
04-29-2007, 18:09
I'm not in entire agreement. Free can be inconvenient, which it is. People will pay for convenience and an attractive interface. Think of the Starr Report as an example; you could download it for free from a government website, but people still paid to buy it in convenient book form.

It's an issue of knowing what business you're in. Music and moviemakers have existed in a scarcity market for decades, and it's very hard for them to realize that they're now in a convenience/trust market.

Gregoshi
04-29-2007, 18:44
Point taken on the convenience factor Lemur. I still question the distrust issue. Since you seem more knowledgable on this issue than I, do you think this is really an issue for Joe Blow consumer? I suspect it is more important to the younger, more tech saavy consumers though - a generalization, I know. I can't say I've ever felt like a victim buying and watching DVD/CDs, but am I just blissfully ignorant that I'm being taken to the cleaners by the industry?

Husar
04-29-2007, 19:12
Oh, the issues of trying to copy my movies onto my smartphone(yes, also legal movies, my smartphone has video playback capability but no DVD drive unfortunately).
I'd love to get rid of such stupid restrictions, most people have the same movies illegally anyway and if I used their illegal DVDs, I'd probably have my movies on my phone already...

Concerning the trust issue, that depends a lot, I've had people call me stupid because I actually pay for my software/CDs/DVDs. I don't think they will buy anything for money as long as they can get it for free(or almost free).

KukriKhan
04-29-2007, 19:31
I know we've been over this repeatedly in the past; but just to level out the discussion, I'll re-point out that the original content maker (writer, musician, filmer, coder) ought to be compensated for his/her effort.

The 'taken to the cleaners" bit seems to happen when the content supplier-marketer gets involved. Then, often, the maker gets less than he deserves, and the product buyer pays more than he deserves.

Many of us thought the internet would solve that dilemma, but it hasn't... yet. The content-makers still seem tied to their marketers, and I don't know why.

drone
04-29-2007, 19:58
Point taken on the convenience factor Lemur. I still question the distrust issue. Since you seem more knowledgable on this issue than I, do you think this is really an issue for Joe Blow consumer? I suspect it is more important to the younger, more tech saavy consumers though - a generalization, I know. I can't say I've ever felt like a victim buying and watching DVD/CDs, but am I just blissfully ignorant that I'm being taken to the cleaners by the industry?
Google "Sony rootkit" for a good intro into why some people distrust the industry. Sony, in particular, just loves to screw it's customers.

DRM will not stop piracy, and the industry has to know this. Before the intraweb, fairly simple techniques could be used to prevent "casual" copying. This would not stop the real pirates, but they still had to go through the hassle of distributing the content. Now, all it takes it for one person to break a DRM scheme, and the content is out there for anyone to get on the net. The industry still has the mentality that it has to stop people from copying CDs for their friends (there's a forest somewhere in all of those trees...), and DRM just makes it harder for the paying customer to enjoy the content. I know a few people who buy CDs/DVDs, leave them in their shrink-wrap, and download the content just so they can eliminate some of the crap (the FBI warning being one of them) and use it in whatever format they want.

Blodrast
04-29-2007, 21:15
Some of you may be interested in this (http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/04/riaa-goes-into-court-ex-parte-in-denver.html).
We have just learned that the RIAA made an ex parte application to a district court in Denver, Colorado -- where the RIAA's lawyers are located -- asking the Judge to rule that no court order is needed in order for an ISP to turn over confidential subscriber information to the RIAA.

The gov't still needs a warrant to get info on you, but the entertainment industry shouldn't need one... Does that answer your question on distrust, Greg ?~;)

Gawain of Orkeny
04-29-2007, 23:29
Would anyone like a copy of Spiderman 3? :oops:

Their about already.

But to me their crying over nothing the greedy bastards. Like their not making enough money?


I know we've been over this repeatedly in the past; but just to level out the discussion, I'll re-point out that the original content maker (writer, musician, filmer, coder) ought to be compensated for his/her effort.

Dont they get paid up front by their record company? After that they get a percentage of the sales but its really small.

I work for CD distributer and were hurting bad. Everyones going to IPODs and MP3s. Who wants to lug a cd player and a ton of CDs around with you? I would suppose the artists also get a percentage of the download money.

As long as people dont set up factories like here in NYC to produce these things I dont think they should worry about individual people copying things.

JimBob
04-30-2007, 04:43
Dont they get paid up front by their record company? After that they get a percentage of the sales but its really small.
The advance usually needs to be paid back to the company. Say you get a $1 million advance. Your album sells x copies for y profit. You get z% (minus a,b,c,d,e for travel, a&r costs, production, etc).

The Problem with Music (http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html)

Label Contracts (http://www.futureofmusic.org/contractcrit.cfm)

People don't trust the music industry because it has stagnated and not produced music recently. Ever since the punks proved that new and vibrant music could be made without the help of the big 5 bands have been drifting away from them. The internet and computer technology have made the big 5 obsolete, they just don't know it yet. Bands can now record, promote, distribute, and tour without some a&r man to tell them what to do.

Papewaio
04-30-2007, 06:02
I think the entertainment industry can be rightly accused of acting as a cabal in setting prices around the world. Introducing so-called protection mechanisms to artificially inflate costs. DVD regions for instance is purely a mechanism to gouge the consumers and stifle free trade.

Xiahou
04-30-2007, 06:50
I think the entertainment industry can be rightly accused of acting as a cabal in setting prices around the world. Introducing so-called protection mechanisms to artificially inflate costs. DVD regions for instance is purely a mechanism to gouge the consumers and stifle free trade.
Quoted for truth.

Yes, the artists should be fairly compensated for their work. But is that what happens under the current system? My understanding is that the studios take the lionshare of the money for themselves and only give the artists a small percentage. Maybe that made sense in the good ole'days, but today with the many marketing and distribution avenues available, it's starting to seem like they're screwing the artists (and consumers) just to line their own pockets. :shrug:

Spetulhu
04-30-2007, 07:53
I think the entertainment industry can be rightly accused of acting as a cabal in setting prices around the world. Introducing so-called protection mechanisms to artificially inflate costs. DVD regions for instance is purely a mechanism to gouge the consumers and stifle free trade.

Quite true. CDs are incredibly expensive here. So expensive in fact that it is often cheaper to order direct from the US even with postage and import tax! :furious3: