Ultraviolet DRM - The New World Order - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 154 Old 07-30-2010, 06:59 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
jmpage2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 77
There's been a lot of new information this week about Ultraviolet DRM.

I would recommend anyone interested in the future of media streaming playback and devices check into it.

It would seem to me that Ultraviolet will be the carrot towards DRM adoption in the video download world with the stick being that devices that don't meet their strict requirement will not be able to play back Ultraviolet films.

To those opposed to something like this, the best thing you can do is continue to BUY copies of the movies you love on Blu-ray and DVD. Sales numbers speak louder for keeping legacy physical formats around than when everything gets downloaded illegally.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/home-theat...the-cloud/3721
jmpage2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 154 Old 10-24-2010, 06:20 PM
Member
 
theslydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Some more info here:

http://www.fiercemobilecontent.com/s...try/2010-10-22

Defective by Design don't like it much though...
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/ultraviolet
theslydog is offline  
post #3 of 154 Old 02-08-2011, 11:14 AM
Advanced Member
 
mbryanr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
It appears the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem (DECE) is prepared for 2012...
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-...ie-rights.html
http://gigaom.com/video/ultraviolet-rental-vs-purchase/

"Ultraviolet should dramatically increase the appeal of owning movies,"
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...nd_Redbox/6276
mbryanr is online now  
post #4 of 154 Old 02-08-2011, 11:48 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
jmpage2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbryanr View Post

It appears the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem (DECE) is prepared for 2012...
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-...ie-rights.html
http://gigaom.com/video/ultraviolet-rental-vs-purchase/

"Ultraviolet should dramatically increase the appeal of owning movies,"
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...nd_Redbox/6276

Yes, the appeal of paying for a low quality copy of a movie that you can only watch on ultraviolet approved devices.

A copy you never own, can never loan out or re-sell.

The move to try to obsolete physical media has begun.
jmpage2 is offline  
post #5 of 154 Old 02-08-2011, 12:17 PM
Member
 
Slates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Not to mention that if your internet is down, no streaming for you. I can imagine this will also be a pain when it comes to family road trips and the like.

To me it will come down to price.. if its reasonably priced, fine, I could see myself buying SOME copies for a service like this. Problem is it would have to be a significant discount, and it seems like they studios will consider UV to be a significant premium.
Slates is offline  
post #6 of 154 Old 02-08-2011, 12:20 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
jmpage2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 77
If this gets even a little bit of traction then studios will cite distribution and production costs and start jacking up the prices for discs, in order to kill them.

Then, as you said, when you bought it on Ultraviolet you can forget about watching the movie under your own terms. You will watch it how hollywood executives and lawyers intend for you to watch it.
jmpage2 is offline  
post #7 of 154 Old 02-08-2011, 07:53 PM
Member
 
Geekonabudget's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I mean no offense, but this suspicion regarding the motives of the studios in their role in DECE and the development of the UV standard is some of the most uninformed and misguided speculation I've ever heard.

First of all, UV is not itself a DRM: it is a digital locker standard. If you buy a digital file of a movie in a digital store implementing UV (i.e. in the proper file format and utilizing one of the approved DRMs, and writing to and accessing the DECE database), you will be able to access that movie either via download, stream or PHYSICAL COPY from any UV-compliant device. Furthermore, the usage rules are even more flexible than iTunes.

If you look at these usage rules mandated by the standard, it will become obvious to you that UV is: (a) by no means meant to kill off physical media, (b) generous in its definition of an account "domain" where content can shared freely.

Overall, UV is the result of a very difficult compromise between the DECE members, who are the studios but also the CE manufacturers and e-retailers, both of who have the customer experience as their highest priority.

Once they get past the problem of serializing DVDs and Blu-ray disc copies, UV functionality will be a huge net benefit to the physical disc-buying consumer, offering convenience and flexibility far beyond the current discs including digital copies. How much extra the studios intend to charge for this extra functionality, however, is the one thing I worry about. This seems to me to be a tool to fight price erosion brought on by the big box stores.
Geekonabudget is offline  
post #8 of 154 Old 02-09-2011, 05:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Delaware - The First State (USA)
Posts: 9,786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geekonabudget View Post

I mean no offense, but this suspicion regarding the motives of the studios in their role in DECE and the development of the UV standard is some of the most uninformed and misguided speculation I've ever heard.

LOL . . . welcome to the world of AVS Forum.

- kelson h

The bitterness of poor quality lasts long after the sweetness of the low price is forgotten . . . life is too short to drink bad wine

Kelson is offline  
post #9 of 154 Old 02-09-2011, 06:14 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
jmpage2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Sorry I don't trust them. They are the same people who tried to push divx over actual DVD ownership and they ascribed pure motives to that too.
jmpage2 is offline  
post #10 of 154 Old 02-09-2011, 08:57 AM
Advanced Member
 
Hamilcar Barca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 662
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geekonabudget View Post
I mean no offense, but this suspicion
regarding the motives of the studios in their role in DECE
It's not suspicion. The actions of the studios (and their trusts, such as RIAA
and MPAA) prove it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geekonabudget View Post
Overall, UV is the result of a very difficult
compromise between the DECE members, who are the studios but also the CE
manufacturers and e-retailers, both of who have the customer experience as
their highest priority.
The requirement for Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) on any
media is conclusive proof that the studios do not have the customer
experience [sic] as their highest priority; in fact, they treat customers as
nothing more than revenue emitters who are privileged to get even
crippled media.

Does any CE manufacturer benefit from the increased hardware, software, or
licensing costs? Not in the slightest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geekonabudget View Post
... UV functionality will be a huge net
benefit to the physical disc-buying consumer, offering convenience and
flexibility far beyond the current discs including digital copies.
If the studios wanted to offer either convenience or flexibility to consumers,
they would simply forgo DRM encumbrence. Existing restrictions, such as
CSS, and new restrictions, such as UV and Cinavia, provide not even a
negligible benefit to any consumer.

It remains to be seen whether their massive investment in denying consumers
access to their lawful possessions will result in increased profits; thus far, at
least if we take the studios' financial press releases at face value, it isn't
working. Unfortunately, these press releases, making transparently false
claims about the causes and effects of purported copyright violations, are
not trustworthy.
Hamilcar Barca is offline  
post #11 of 154 Old 02-09-2011, 10:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Somewhatlost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: some small blue-green planet thingy...
Posts: 1,784
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geekonabudget View Post
offering convenience and flexibility far beyond the current discs including digital copies
I never understood the 'digital copy' thing... there already is a digital copy on the disk... the actual movie... why add another low quality copy? just doesn't make any sense...
as for flexibility, you already can do anything you want with the movie... once ripped, its just data without any DRM to get in the way...
how can adding any DRM, be it UV ,or DECE, or whatever actually be a huge net benefit to the physical disc-buying consumer ???
DRM by its very nature just tends to get in the way of flexibility/convenience of the consumer... has no effect on the pirate though?
so I guess DRM = punish the consumer, reward the pirates? seems like a slightly odd business model, but I guess it works?

NOTE: As one wise professional something once stated, I am ignorant & childish, with a mindset comparable to 9/11 troofers and wackjob conspiracy theorists. so don't take anything I say as advice...
Somewhatlost is offline  
post #12 of 154 Old 02-09-2011, 11:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Delaware - The First State (USA)
Posts: 9,786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somewhatlost View Post

how can adding any DRM, be it UV ,or DECE, or whatever actually be a huge net benefit to the physical disc-buying consumer ???

I would speculate that the vast majority of the buying public does not load their PC's up with ripping tools the way we do to get out from under the DRM. They just buy the disks and stick them in players. Even if the disks didn't have DRM they probably wouldn't know what to do with them other than stick them in a player. Something like UV will be new and cool to them and provide them with easily accessible features they probably never thought to want before.

For us, who want to rip and stream it's all pretty meaningless. The boys from DVD Fab and AnyDVD always seem to be right on top of the latest nuisance they throw out. It may take them a while (like it did to fully crack BD+) but eventually they prevail and we keep doing what we want to do with the disks we buy.

- kelson h

The bitterness of poor quality lasts long after the sweetness of the low price is forgotten . . . life is too short to drink bad wine

Kelson is offline  
post #13 of 154 Old 02-09-2011, 02:32 PM
Member
 
Geekonabudget's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
DRM adds benefits in that it gives you the ability to make the permitted number of copies as well as stream from multiple devices LEGALLY. Circumventing copy protection mechanisms on a disc is a violation of federal law, plain and simple. That may not mean much to some people, but it does to others.

Furthermore, CE manufacturers and e-retailers are HIGHLY pro-consumer. They oppose DRM and limits on usage as much as you do. The more functionality their devices can offer, the more of them they sell.

For their part, the studios are starting to understand that their models from the last few years cannot hold up (e.g. it makes no sense to ask a customer to buy a DVD and then charge them the full price to get a digital copy from iTunes or their Playstation, or whatever). That said, the desire to give the consumer more value for their dollar in order to make digital theft less appealing necessarily has its limits. Don't forget that films are assets with continuing (albeit eroding) value over time. If they sold DVDs with no DRM, the ongoing value of those assets would be reduced to zero, which essentially destroys what is already a tottering business model (9 out of 10 films lose money).
Geekonabudget is offline  
post #14 of 154 Old 02-09-2011, 03:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Somewhatlost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: some small blue-green planet thingy...
Posts: 1,784
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geekonabudget View Post

DRM adds benefits in that it gives you the ability to make the permitted number of copies as well as stream from multiple devices LEGALLY. Circumventing copy protection mechanisms on a disc is a violation of federal law, plain and simple. That may not mean much to some people, but it does to others.

I guess it does matter to those who bought and paid for said laws...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geekonabudget View Post

If they sold DVDs with no DRM, the ongoing value of those assets would be reduced to zero

how so? they still have the ability to put out higher quality (aka bluray)
they still have the ability to come up with a compelling d/load service... (aka Netflix) people will and do pay for real convenience

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geekonabudget View Post

which essentially destroys what is already a tottering business model (9 out of 10 films lose money).

that means so little considering Hollywood's wonderful legendary accounting skilz

NOTE: As one wise professional something once stated, I am ignorant & childish, with a mindset comparable to 9/11 troofers and wackjob conspiracy theorists. so don't take anything I say as advice...
Somewhatlost is offline  
post #15 of 154 Old 02-09-2011, 04:08 PM
Member
 
blargrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geekonabudget View Post

DRM adds benefits in that it gives you the ability to make the permitted number of copies as well as stream from multiple devices LEGALLY. Circumventing copy protection mechanisms on a disc is a violation of federal law, plain and simple. That may not mean much to some people, but it does to others.

Furthermore, CE manufacturers and e-retailers are HIGHLY pro-consumer. They oppose DRM and limits on usage as much as you do. The more functionality their devices can offer, the more of them they sell.

For their part, the studios are starting to understand that their models from the last few years cannot hold up (e.g. it makes no sense to ask a customer to buy a DVD and then charge them the full price to get a digital copy from iTunes or their Playstation, or whatever). That said, the desire to give the consumer more value for their dollar in order to make digital theft less appealing necessarily has its limits. Don't forget that films are assets with continuing (albeit eroding) value over time. If they sold DVDs with no DRM, the ongoing value of those assets would be reduced to zero, which essentially destroys what is already a tottering business model (9 out of 10 films lose money).

Umm, in some countries preventing people from making copies of media they puchase for thier own use could also be considered illegal, but I suppose when you're a multi billion dollar industry you only have to follow the rules that you lobby your government to create on your behalf and ignore the rights of consumers in places where the rules arent to your liking.

Also there is currently no DRM that prevents copying and people still buy dvd's, copying can't be any easier than it is now, maybe cinavia will change that for good, but it would be a first to really matter if it did.

I wonder how it is these poor companies manage to stay in business at all if 9/10ths of thier product is unprofitable, you would think that would be an impossible situation.
blargrog is offline  
post #16 of 154 Old 02-09-2011, 04:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pmcd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geekonabudget View Post

I mean no offense, but this suspicion regarding the motives of the studios in their role in DECE and the development of the UV standard is some of the most uninformed and misguided speculation I've ever heard.

It may be speculation but it is really not clear who is misguided. The video and music industry does not exactly have a great reputation at this point.

There is a struggle going on. I wonder if anyone has the consumer's interest in mind. In any case don't you find it a bit odd that Apple has stayed out of this? The studios and music industries have hardly been in the forefront of the digital shift. Perhaps their product is not quite as valuable as they think. Certainly, the TV studios seem to feel they should get more than $1 an episode. Should we really trust that they have consumers' interests in mind? I suspect not. People are quite fed up with the prices that have traditionally been collected for CD's then DVD's and now Blu-ray media. Especially since all along the companies have insisted that customers do not have the right to use the media on different devices.

I don't know but I find it difficult to take seriously any group that counts as losses media that wasn't purchased by someone who borrowed, downloaded, or whatever ...

It does seem as though the traditional business model is not working as well as many media companies would like. Perhaps they should examine their product and how it is distributed as opposed to coming up with schemes that will reverse time.

philip
pmcd is offline  
post #17 of 154 Old 02-09-2011, 04:36 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
jmpage2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geekonabudget View Post

If they sold DVDs with no DRM, the ongoing value of those assets would be reduced to zero, which essentially destroys what is already a tottering business model (9 out of 10 films lose money).

I'm sorry but that is a ******** argument. Jobs proved that is a ******** argument when he bullied the record companies into providing DRM free music on iTunes and it was quick that Amazon and others followed suit.

All it did when consumers were unencumbered by DRM on the files they purchased is they bought more files.

Please provide some evidence to the contrary if you are going to make such an outrageous claim.

There is absolutely NO REASON that studios could not do something similar with a movie file. Watermark it with the information about who purchased it, if it shows up on the internet then take legal action. The difference between going that route and the route they have now is that today once something is ripped it is totally anonymized as to who the person was who originally ripped the file.

It is very clear to me that the studio agenda is less about consumer rights and more about treating paying customers like low-lifes.
jmpage2 is offline  
post #18 of 154 Old 02-10-2011, 02:39 PM
Member
 
Geekonabudget's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
jmpage2 and somewhatlost -- comparing music to film ignores an important difference between the industries. Film and TV product is windowed for a reason: each window is carefully managed to preserve the value of the product for downstream windows. If DRM free video content is shared widely, it doesn't just affect DVD sales, it badly reduces the willingness of pay, basic and free channels (as well as new services such as Netflix) to spend big dollars to license that content for their services. It's no coincidence that movies stopped being shown on US TV networks when the home video market exploded -- the ratings went down and the acquisition costs could no longer be justified. Music, on the other hand, is a "buy once" product and is thus a much different animal. That's why Apple continues to abide by DRM requirements for video product.

pmcd -- nobody truly has the consumers' interests in mind. It's just that the device manufacturers and e-retailers are obviously much closer aligned than the content owners. Apple is an interesting and unique case -- as far as content goes, they are happy to commoditize it and drive prices down as far as possible in order to drive more hardware sales (that's where the real money is -- you wouldn't believe their margin on Nanos!). To Apple, growth in music and video sales is only really important insofar as it drives their main goal, which is to keep people in their hardware ecosystem. That's why they are pushing so hard for the switch to the 99-cent VOD model for TV series. When the EST market at $1.99 plateau-ed, they had to find a way to drive growth and so they reduced the price and called it a rental so ABC could still find a way to sell shows for their syndication run on basic cable and local stations.

blagrog -- the studios make an overall profit because the 1 out of 10 that does make money makes enough of it to hopefully cover the losses from the others. That's why studios are so "tentpole"-heavy these days -- they need to dependable box office hits to reduce the risk that they don't see the upside. I'll go even one step further for you (just in case you find this topic interesting). From a cash flow perspective, the film business just plain sucks. For any film, you have to put the entire cash outlay (and thus sign up for the risk) up front, with just the script and a bunch of people saying how great it is and what a fantastic job they are going to do with it. Then, you have to wait a few months for the film to come out and collect your theatrical receipts. Then, a few months later you get your initial home video and PPV/VOD revenues. If you're lucky, you have a rich deal with HBO which will bring iun more revenues a few months after that for Pay TV. Then you've got the rest of the TV revenues and library home video sales trickling in for the next several years. So even if you DO have a profitable product, it takes years to realize that product, costing you in terms of the time value of money and having cash on hand to make more movies. This is why studios co-finance so much of their film slates and why they often sell some or all international territories off before the theatrical release in order to reduce their risk. To paraphrase an old joke: you want to know how to make a small fortune? Get into the film business with a large fortune. How many major studios are standalone? Two-- MGM (bankrupt), and Paramount (owned by Viacom, which also owns CBS and a million cable channels). All the others are tied to television businesses, whether in content, distribution or both. I just took a quick look at Disney's quarterly report. Its cable networks represent over 45% of their revenue, and if you pull out the theme park revenues, they represent almost 60%!!! That means ESPN and Disney Channel are paying the bills, folks.

Anyway, all this is just a long way of saying I can understand why there is a desire to limit exposure of film content as it moves through its lifecycle. The studios are playing defense, not offense.
Geekonabudget is offline  
post #19 of 154 Old 02-10-2011, 02:43 PM
Member
 
Geekonabudget's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
jmpage2 -- one other thing: you make an interesting point about forensic watermarking, and its something the studios want very, very badly. However, they are getting stiff resistance from e-retailers and platforms. I'm not very clear on the reasons why (perhaps technical?), but I do know that the issue is one of the hot buttons between content owners and the distribution platforms.
Geekonabudget is offline  
post #20 of 154 Old 02-10-2011, 11:27 PM
Member
 
blargrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The people running the movie studios must be the worst business people on the planet, if 9/10 of their products lose money you would think they could eliminate most of the future obvious failures based upon past results and avoid wasting all that time and money. I guess they just want to make us happy with all that content despite it sending them to the poor house, how nice of them.

http://www.the-numbers.com/market/

Remarkably consistent numbers, no doubt they would do better if 90 percent of their production wasn't failing so miserably! cry me a river
blargrog is offline  
post #21 of 154 Old 02-11-2011, 02:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,056
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 376
"I'm sorry but that is a ******** argument. Jobs proved that is a ******** argument when he bullied the record companies into providing DRM free music on iTunes and it was quick that Amazon and others followed suit."

Aside from this not accurately reflecting how DRM left music (the studios gave it to Amazon first even though Jobs had asked for it for years), the truth is the music business is nearly worthless in its current incarnation. Legacy ownership of CD players, people over 40, and the ready availability of things like iTunes gift cards keeps the music industry around, but it has been years since anyone really made much money in the business.

And the trends are suggesting the business is worsening.

I have long argued the only way the music business could make money would be for someone with market power to convince a large number of people to subscribe to a very large music collection (i.e. Apple does Rhapsody). Netflix has arguably done with video content, even without any remotely current films in the library. UltraViolet sounds like a fine idea, but the implementation will determine whether it's stillborn or not.

And, yes, Divx -- the original disposa-DVD business -- was stupid. But I blame mostly Circuit City, a terrible company who's terribleness helped make it disappear.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #22 of 154 Old 02-11-2011, 07:51 AM
Advanced Member
 
Dr_Mark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Minneapolis MN
Posts: 769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 40
I am just a simple consumer. I used to buy almost every movie that was released. All this copy crap and stupid high prices for HD and blu disks has reduced my buying to only movies I really want.
Does this help the studios, I think not. If they want to get more movies in the consumers hands. Try dropping the price, remove the copy crap, and let me enjoy what I bought. If the price is right, I don't think the majority of people will pirate it. Just my opinion, but I would love to keep adding to my 1,000+ collection of disks i actually purchased.

Life is enjoyable with good quality
Dr_Mark is offline  
post #23 of 154 Old 02-11-2011, 08:37 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
jmpage2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 77
The music industry is still something like a 6+ billion dollar industry just in the US and of course there is still a viable market for US produced music in other countries.

Maybe the reality is that the current revenues reflect what music is really worth. Maybe albums are really worth only about $6 and singles worth .99.

An all you can eat monthly music subscription service makes by far the most sense, but there are logistical challenges for this. Will this be a streaming only service (like Pandora or Spotify) or will this be a service where a consumer can listen to as much music as they want every month, commercial free, as well as download copies for their portable devices, for a reasonable monthly fee?

And, it's worth pointing out that revenues of $6B a year are nothing to sneeze at. That doesn't even include revenue generated at live events, merchandise sales, etc (I realize that the industry doesn't see that dollars but the artists who actually make it all possible do). No one is starving in music land who is producing good work.

The arguments made for why the video industry is different do not hold water. The reason that they "must" do DRM and "must" do video sales the way they do is a product of their own doing. They can change the model anytime they want to. The theater business is already in danger of dying. Release in theaters and release to VOD 30 days later. Then 30 days after that release to your top tier cable outlets. Then 30 days after that release it as a direct download simultaneously with disc release.

The problem is that they are hardwired into the old way of doing things, the way they have been doing them since the late 1980's. They say they can't change, but it's because they don't want to change.

If making movies is such a terrible money losing venture then the future of the industry will truly be in privately produced films, or films that are funded directly by venture capital.
jmpage2 is offline  
post #24 of 154 Old 02-11-2011, 08:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
Hamilcar Barca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 662
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geekonabudget View Post

DRM adds benefits in that it gives you the ability to make
the permitted number of copies as well as stream from multiple devices

DRM doesn't give anyone any ability to make even a single copy. DRM doesn't
give anyone any ability to stream from even a single device. DRM plays no part
in either of these functions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geekonabudget View Post

Circumventing copy protection mechanisms on a disc is a violation of federal law, plain and simple.

Most of the USA's DMCA provisions remain untested, at least at the level of the
Supreme Court, so it's not plain, it's not simple, and it's not a qualified legal
opinion.
Hamilcar Barca is offline  
post #25 of 154 Old 02-11-2011, 09:58 AM
Member
 
Geekonabudget's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Wow. Hamilcar Barca, you've just won the "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" award for the day. To say that the DMCA is not the law of the land and that circumventing AACS or CSS (except when under one of the safe harbor exceptions) is not unlawful because it hasn't been tested at the Supreme Court level treads very close to the line of providing bad legal advice (and I'm guessing it's bad legal advice without a license to practice law). Might as well not pay taxes because the Roberts court might constitutionally invalidate the income tax system!

And then we move onto the area where "no knowledge is an amusing thing": those things are EXACTLY what DRMs do. Read the implementation rules for DTCP, or better yet, visit the Marlin community website which gives a terrific overview of how the Marlin DRM works in terms of working as a conditional access system and a copy management system.

jmpage2 -- you make very valid points. However, the truth is that the current windowing system has be transitioned over time for lots of reasons (management of existing relationships and the rate of technology adoption being two of the most important). VOD at home shortly after theatrical release WILL happen, my guess is that we will see an announcement from studios sooner rather than later. This will undoubtedly be aiming at a niche market, however: those people who will pay more not to have to leave their home. The pricing will reflect that convenience. Personally, my wife and I would be happy to pay $30 or even $50 to watch a film at home for 24 hours, and not have to worry about the babysitter, overpriced concessions, and chatty moviegoers.

What is really interesting is the subtle incompatibility between your vision and Dr_Mark's, which is what the video industry is really struggling with right now. You discuss the music business in terms of the new subscription models. This is exactly the right approach. With the continuing decline in music sales, both on disc and digital download, the focus is shifting to these subscription models (whether fully paid, free or "freemium"). The big bet here is that with music, consumers are moving away from "ownership" as a paradigm and toward "access" instead. Dr_Mark's response represents the ownership paradigm, and the question is whether it can continue based on whether the desire for ownership (and its corollary, the desire to collect) falls apart in the wider culture because we can only associate ownership with a tangible good. What happens if we turn back the clock and bring film and TV into the access paradigm? It's an exciting time to be in the business, if you like the "big picture" questions...

Rogo -- you have hit the nail squarely on the head. UV's success will rest on its implementation. So many players, with so many different interests and motivations.
Geekonabudget is offline  
post #26 of 154 Old 02-11-2011, 11:27 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
jmpage2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Why on earth would I pay $30 or $50 to watch a movie in my own home when I will be able to buy it just a few months later for $20 on BD?

$10 I could see, but I don't see paying the same price as it costs to go to the theater to watch at home.

And on the subject of DMCA being the law of the land, that might be true, but so is the right of first sale doctrine which has always been upheld at the top court.

You are a bit smug that DMCA would stand up to such a challenge. BD specifically tried to assuage these fears of violating first sale rights by offering up digital copy, but they never delivered on it in the true sense of the word.
jmpage2 is offline  
post #27 of 154 Old 02-11-2011, 12:05 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
jmpage2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Also, for anyone who wants an interesting read, there are several good articles out there discussing first use rights vs. DMCA, it is not nearly as air tight of a case as GeekonaBudget would have you believe.
jmpage2 is offline  
post #28 of 154 Old 02-11-2011, 01:21 PM
Senior Member
 
bwaldron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Brandon, FL
Posts: 281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpage2 View Post
... it is not nearly as air tight of a case as GeekonaBudget would have you believe.
Indeed.
bwaldron is offline  
post #29 of 154 Old 02-11-2011, 02:42 PM
Member
 
Geekonabudget's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Please send links or citations (with whatever detail you can pull off the top of your head) to these articles. I'm a copyright lawyer, and would be interested in knowing how recent circuit cases are being reported and talked about (I've got an idea I know what cases you've been reading about, but want to be sure).

I apologize if I come off as smug, but one frustration I have is that this is an emotional issue for a lot of people, which leads to confusion about what current jurisprudence has to say on this and other topics.
Geekonabudget is offline  
post #30 of 154 Old 02-11-2011, 02:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
Hamilcar Barca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 662
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geekonabudget View Post

Wow. Hamilcar Barca, you've

I fail to see any utility in personal insults. I was disputing only your technical arguments and meant no personal affront to you.

Here are my personal beliefs which I didn't state earlier. I won't try to prove them and I won't mention them again.
  • DRM is bad for the consumer.
  • DRM is bad for the electronics industry.
  • DRM is almost certainly bad for copyright holders.
Here is what I did try to say, although poorly.

The claim has been made that DRM is used to "enable" copying and/or streaming. However, no evidence is ever provided to substantiate this claim. So, it's impossible to draw any reasonable conclusion from the unproven premise. (Mathematically, a theorem with a false premise is always true regardless of the ridiculousness of the conclusion, but this isn't what we usually call a reasonable conclusion.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geekonabudget View Post

... those things are EXACTLY what DRMs do.

It is possible to copy and/or stream data unencumbered by DRM, while DRM is designed specifically to restrict access to said data. To demonstrate the claim that DRM enables copying or streaming, one must provide technical evidence; i.e., something which can't be copied (or streamed) in the absence of DRM can be copied (or streamed) when DRM is applied. Otherwise, regardless of any other effect DRM may have had, it didn't enable copying or streaming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geekonabudget View Post

... or better yet, visit the Marlin community website

At least part of the web site validates my statements.

http://www.marlin-community.com/benefits
  • Marlin meets the market needs for content distribution. Marlin enables content sharing.
  • Marlin offers a simple, open, and elegant solution. Marlin's features enable competitive business models with real-world application.
  • Marlin provides great flexibility and control. Marlin is a content sharing platform based on the fundamental notion that interoperability and openness are essential to commercial success.
They refer to a specification designed to appeal to copyright holders using phrases like "market needs", "competitive business models", and "commercial success'. As used here, what does the term "enable" mean? If it means nothing more than some copyright holders won't release their copyrighted material without DRM, then it disproves the "enable" claim. If it in fact means more than that, it remains to be proven.

On the other hand, I could easily have missed the technical evidence on the web site. If this is the case, would you point me to it?

DRM is a purported solution to an industry's economic problems. It is not a technical enabler. Clearly, whether you or I like or dislike DRM, it's here and it's getting stronger.
Hamilcar Barca is offline  
Reply Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off