Another nail, but is it DRM's coffin, or the consumers'?

[NatCh]

Managed Copy Spec for High-Def Discs May Be on the Horizon

E-Commerce Times is reporting that the new "Managed Copy Specification" for HDDVD and Blu-Ray disks that is expected to be released soon by the Advanced Access Content System (AACS), may allow for the consumer legally making a certain number of copies for "fair use." What a shocking concept. One of the things that appears to be delaying the release of the specification is that it's already being cracked -- yes, before it's been released.

The article spends a fair amount of time covering old ground about why providers want DRM and why consumers don't, old news to us here, then offers some examples of ways the managed copy spec might operate, none of which are surprising or particularly innovative.

One example is to let customers make a single backup copy that would require an Internet connection to a central site that would verify the copy and allow or reject it. Other options could be the ability to make copies for other devices at small extra fees, also with the likelihood of some kind of online verification and permission system.

Other examples include the ability to make a limited number of copies for friends or relatives, for example, by paying an extra price at the point of sale. Then there's the idea that ownership of the content is on the way out anyway, so any managed copying would have time-related limitations placed on it.

After that, it gets interesting with a few ... enlightening comments on their view of the purpose of DRM in this context:

(These comments are attributed to Mike McGuire, a research vice president for a company called "Gartner")

"The real reason for DRM is the notion that people will permanently own this content, and we're not convinced that for consumers, that the majority of video and TV content is going to be the kind of content consumers will want to permanently own."

Previous subscription models haven't taken off, but the future of video content won't likely be a traditional ownership model, which is at direct odds with the DVD-related industry.

It's not clear from the article who this Mike McGuire is in the context of content and DRM, nor why what he says should be of particular interest or value. "Gartner" appears, from their website, to be some sort of IT consulting firm, presumably they have some connection with the AACS and this copying standard.

So, then this would appear to be another shift in the tectonics of DRM, but the question I have is whether it's a genuine loosening of the DRM grip on content, or just an attempt to figure out how tight the grip can be without the market slipping through its fingers? Is this another step on the road to DRM completely going away, or will DRM diminish only to a point that most folks don't mind it, and get used to it, so that it remains at that 'comfortable' level?

Full Article here.

[RWood]

Gartner is a major, well respected research group that does a lot of industry studies and future projections. The US Government uses them a lot.

Since the recent court ruling that a video jukebox can make copies of DVDs and play them from its hard disk without the original DVD inserted in the system, the industry has been looking for the next best thing. They already have the ability to restrict play of HD/blu-ray disks if any piece of the playback chain has been compromised, so this is just another step in that direction.

Most of the new hardware (and computer playback in Vista) is designed so that if any part of the system is insecure (not even compromised) then the output quality drops down. This means that the fancy 1080 computer front end you built may drop to 480 in a heartbeat.

Once with music we could take an Lp album and make a cassette tape for our own listening. Later we could convert the CDs to tape and then make CD copies of CDs so the CDs that melted in the car did not result in a total loss of the music. After that we were able to make copies of the CDs on our hard disks and create custom CDs for our own use.

Many people want to watch their DVDs on portable devices including some handheld game devices and even the video iPod. The MPAA (movie version of RIAA) wants to have us pay again for each new format we view the movie on. (Along the same lines as the ebook DRM where you buy the same book for each new reader.)

Notice in their article the constant phrase "additional fee." Abilities we have now are things they wish to make additional revenue sources for them.

Under the guise of opening up they are waging another assault, another attempt to increase the DRM restrictions.

[rlauzon]

It's this quote that tells me that the industry still doesn't get it:

"The real reason for DRM is the notion that people will permanently own this content, and we're not convinced that for consumers, that the majority of video and TV content is going to be the kind of content consumers will want to permanently own."

Previous subscription models haven't taken off, but the future of video content won't likely be a traditional ownership model, which is at direct odds with the DVD-related industry.

As a consumer, when I pay money for content, there are basically 2 kinds of contracts that I enter in to:
1. Ownership
2. Rental

Ownership is forever (like getting a book or CD at the local store).
Rental is for a limited time (like NetFlix).

As a consumer, I expect to pay a great deal less to rent than to own.

The problem is that the entertainment industry expects consumers to pay the higher ownership price to get the rental contract.

No consumer wants this, of course. It's simply poor value.

but the question I have is whether it's a genuine loosening of the DRM grip on content, or just an attempt to figure out how tight the grip can be without the market slipping through its fingers?

There's an old saying that goes like this:
If you drop a frog into a pot of boiling water, he will jump out immediately.
But if you drop a frog into room temp water, and slowly raise the heat, he will allow himself to be cooked to death.

This latest change in the DRM strategy seems only to be an attempt to "turn down the heat" until people get comfortable so they can slowly turn up the heat later.

[NatCh]

Heh, I specifically had the "boiling frogs" thing in mind when I wrote that paragraph, rlauzon.

[RWood]

I think its PR and weasel words not a pot of room temp water. (Well maybe room temp in Hades.)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

"The real reason for DRM is the notion that people will permanently own this content, and we're not convinced that for consumers, that the majority of video and TV content is going to be the kind of content consumers will want to permanently own."

Previous subscription models haven't taken off, but the future of video content won't likely be a traditional ownership model, which is at direct odds with the DVD-related industry.

This, to me, is an incredibly silly statement, an indication that this is the worst kind of corporate justification for figuring out new ways to charge consumers for things they already own.

I have cases and shelves of movies and TV series, on video and DVD, just like a fair number of the people in this country, entertainment material bought and paid for, and watched often. These include four out of five Star Trek series, The Prisoner, UFO, Firefly, The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr, The Avengers (Emma Peel years), Fawlty Towers and Absolutely Fabulous, and episodes of anime series like Bubblegum Crisis and Ghost In The Shell.

Most of these TV series, for example, are not being played on television... I don't care how many channels you have on cable or dish. A lot of the movies I own are also not played on TV, or if they are, they are "edited for content and language and length," and often not worth watching. I consider this content to have value, so, since I cannot enjoy it on television, I BUY THEM, and watch them when and how I like.

And don't be fooled by the language... they WANT you to buy. They just also want you to pay for every subsequent copy you make, before they figure out how to make you pay for every viewing of it. Then they'll figure out how to have that content self-destruct after a period of time or a number of viewings, forcing you to BUY IT again. Disney tried that ingenious marketing method... and they were forced by consumer backlash to eat those DVDs.

Me? I'm warming up my backlasher.

[Bob Russell]

I think that when they say customers don't want to own content they are alluding to having access to large libraries of content and paid for on a subscription basis. No fuss (except the limited ways in which you can view the content because of DRM). No worries about backup or storage. Yes, we want that. But not in place of permanent access to content without being vulnerable to future costs or price increases or format changes.

In theory, that can be appealing to have a large variety at your fingertips, but as we've seen in music pricing already, the prices are quite high, and then after paying what could have built a rather large library of your favorite music, you are left with nothing if you stop your subscription.

But beneath the surface, we all know that content owners have one goal - maximizing their revenues. That mean, quite simply, that they want to remove as much of the money from your pocket as possible. If they have to give you some of what you want, they will, but better for them if they can give you what you want and still keep all the control over content and keep charging you over and over for it.

What they don't mention is that people do like to own content for their own purposes, no matter how appealing it might be to also have access to large libraries of rented content. Just because people subscribe to NetFlix or Blockbuster online doesn't mean that they don't want to buy DVDs also. And just because people read at the library doesn't mean that they don't want to own a book.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Bob Russell

I think that when they say customers don't want to own content they are alluding to having access to large libraries of content and paid for on a subscription basis.

The one issue I have with that is that someone else decides what goes into that "library"... not you. And the content owners are going to populate that library with what the majority of people want to see, and what will make them the most profit... but is not necessarily the best content, or the content I want. (Take a look at my list of TV series, for instance, and think about which ones would and would not end up in some content producer's "library." And as unique as my video collection might be, you should see the collection of movies I own...)

The subscription system is essentially like getting my movies from Blockbuster. Well, I think anyone who uses Blockbuster or a similar rental movie chain has had plenty of experiences with looking for an older, less well known, or classic movie, only to get weird looks from the staff and the story "We don't carry that" from the guy behind the counter. I don't care how many copies of MI3 they might have, if I'm looking for Shaolin Soccer and they do not carry it. That service is of little use to me.

That's why I don't want the "subscription" system, and would rather own the material I want to own, rather than what someone else decides I should rent. (That's also why I don't make many trips to the video rental store.)

[Robert Marquard]

Rental is very tricky for companies in Germany. The law completely revolves around renting your home which entitles you to immediate repair for malfunctions. The result is that no software rental is used in Germany and EULAs are effectively worthless.

[RWood]

If there is a constant stream of GOOD new releases of movies or music the companies seem willing to let us own the rights to view the content. When this stream stops and we stop buying the DVDs and CDs at the rate we once did they look to other routes to ensure that the revenue stream keeps flowing.

They are not content to receive a payment one time, they want a payment everytime we view or listen to something.

Most of us acquired our film, tv, and music libraries over the years. We paid then, we don't want to pay again. It was bad enough with the music when we went from Lp records (or 45 rpm) to 8-track to cassette to CD (and perhaps reel-to-reel thrown in there somewhere) as the quality improved and again with video when we went from VHS (or beta) to DVD and now they want us to buy it again in HD or blu-ray. They also want us to pay additional (or again) if we want to view it on a PSP or iPod.

This is a story of an industry that has a flawed business model (where have we heard that before) that spends more time and money thinking up new ways to restrict us than they do in developing and producing new and better products.

[nekokami]

Steve, the thing that amazes me is how much of the same stuff you and I have on our shelves... or at least have watched. We started our video collection because we couldn't find anime here in the US, and even now that it's more widely available, we still don't see much of the stuff we like on cable or in video rental stores. (Sometimes we don't see it for sale in English at all, which is why we have so much anime in Japanese and Chinese on our shelves. But that's another story.) A subscription service might or might not carry any of the content we're interested in at our house. That's why I'd just as soon keep copies of what we watch. The industry keeps trying to come up with technical means of keeping us from doing that, but all these methods are doomed to failure. I don't know if the industry will ever wise up, but I've started to care less and less.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

You're right... very similar tastes and attitudes towards the programming we like (although I never succumbed to buying anime that wasn't at least subtitled in English!).

And yes, as the industry concentrates more and more on their new content, most of which doesn't hold a candle to older content, it gets harder and harder to care about them, and more desireable to go looking for that older content in any medium that's convenient to us.

I've still got a good-sized list of DVD sets I want. Guess what? Very little is of content less than 5 years old. The industry needs to give up on this pointless effort, and concentrate on creating content that's actually compelling enough to watch, much less buy.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I've still got a good-sized list of DVD sets I want. Guess what? Very little is of content less than 5 years old. The industry needs to give up on this pointless effort, and concentrate on creating content that's actually compelling enough to watch, much less buy.

The problem is that the entertainment industry's desire to lock up and own content forever is keeping them from creating new content.

It used to be that the industry could tap into the public domain, re-mix, use a little imagination and create something new and exciting. But almost nothing has gone into the public domain for decades now because of their plan to bribe congress to lengthen copyright. All the works they want to remix have owners - owners that may not be known. It takes time and money to track down the owners and negotiate. That means less profits which means they won't do it.

[nekokami]

Eh, even when they get the rights, who wants to keep watching remakes of the same old stuff? I think if they'd stop worrying about locking down boring content and start worrying about actually making good content, they'd be in much better business shape.