The MPAA has another reason besides piracy for trying to stifle open-source DVD player projects: if I can modify the code of DVD player software, then I can disable other key DRM features like region codes and UOP (user operation prohibited) flags. That means they wouldn't be able to force me to wait until a DVD is released in my region before I buy it, and they wouldn't be able to force me to watch additional advertising or the already boringly ubiquitous FBI warning.
Note that neither of these DRM features have anything to do with piracy, yet they are still protected by the DMCA, wholly at the legitimate consumer's expense.
Urijah
· 3 years ago
"If Xine and MPlayer weren't illegal in the United States, there's every reason to imagine they might offer a user-friendly Windows and Mac version, just as FireFox does. Apple might decide bundle it with its operating system. Google might distribute it with its Google Pack, as it does the FireFox browser. Linux distributions could bundle it with their operating system..."
Actually, there is another problem--MPEG-2 requires a royalty fee, $2.50 for each software installation. As far as I know, there is no open source-ware exception.
MikeT
· 3 years ago
How about the fact that commercial pirates don't use DeCSS and instead do high quality copies with professional DVD-pressing machines? DRM cannot protect against a machine that is capable of creating an exact replica of the media.
Doug Lay
· 3 years ago
Singleton's response completely ignores the argument made in your paper and elsewhere that the DMCA is essentially a protectionist mechanism - it protects established players against disruptive technologies. This, even more than the assault on Fair Use rights, is what has large segments of the technology community up in arms (increasingly large segments, I should say, since I don't think the CEA loudly opposed the DMCA back in the days of the DeCSS case).
eee_eff
· 3 years ago
Great piece, Tim. Well, I would second Doug Lay's comments.
I would though liike to comment further one one issue: Solveig states: "CSS is a standard like any other..."
Well no, it is not a standard. It is a legally sanctioned monopoly, exactly the opposite of a standard.
Note that many standards are open, for example .html. Usable, and one of the engines of growth of the internet.
GBGames
· 3 years ago
The region encoding turns the movie industry into the definition of a cartel, as a friend of mine likes to say.
I really liked this quote from Singleton: "The idea that there are two classes of content consumer, the determined pirate and the honest consumer, and nothing in between, is nonsense. There are in my experience precious few in the latter category, especially in certain age groups."
How about acknowledging the fact that most people don't like being considered a criminal first? Treat your customers like criminals out to rip you off, and you'll have criminals as customers.
Solveig Singleton
· 3 years ago
-Small point: LinDVD was also supposed to be released as software as well as for a box, not sure what came of that.
-Re Linux products, obscure and otherwise. If open source is inherently incompatible with DRM, well, there are going to be limits to the directions in which it will develop, DRM being but one application of some important security techniques. I don't believe it is, however, or there wouldn't be *any* licensed Linux players.
The larger point is THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that anyone involved in CSS licensing is suppressing Linux players or neglecting them.
And the really larger point: the fundamental reason that the Linux players need to refer to DeCSS or otherwise illegally decrypted content OR license CSS is that no one is funding the production of unprotected content on a large scale. Anyone is free to do so, but they aren't. That is the root of the problem. If you have a business model that relies on someone else's content, but can't or won't support payment mechanisms, how fair is it to complain you're being shut out of the market?
-Repeat myself again. If the DRM/DMCA is short-changing customers to shore up failing business models...
WHY are there no investors flocking to develop high-quality content that is not protected by DRM? IF there is another way, this is a HUGE opportunity for someone to make a lot of money. WHERE are the new business models? Grokster is just a distribution technology, it doesn't PRODUCE content.
How is one supposed to tie music or movies to services if anyone with a digital editor can untie them and post the untied content!!!!!
GBGames
· 3 years ago
I don't know, but audiolunchbox.com seems to be doing fine without DRM. Ask them how they manage to stay afloat when any of their customers can just redistribute their content.
Oh right. Customers. As opposed to acting like their customers are criminals out to rip them off any chance they get. Fancy that.
All Comments
Note that neither of these DRM features have anything to do with piracy, yet they are still protected by the DMCA, wholly at the legitimate consumer's expense.
"If Xine and MPlayer weren't illegal in the United States, there's every reason to imagine they might offer a user-friendly Windows and Mac version, just as FireFox does. Apple might decide bundle it with its operating system. Google might distribute it with its Google Pack, as it does the FireFox browser. Linux distributions could bundle it with their operating system..."
Actually, there is another problem--MPEG-2 requires a royalty fee, $2.50 for each software installation. As far as I know, there is no open source-ware exception.
I would though liike to comment further one one issue: Solveig states: "CSS is a standard like any other..."
Well no, it is not a standard. It is a legally sanctioned monopoly, exactly the opposite of a standard.
Note that many standards are open, for example .html. Usable, and one of the engines of growth of the internet.
I really liked this quote from Singleton: "The idea that there are two classes of content consumer, the determined pirate and the honest consumer, and nothing in between, is nonsense. There are in my experience precious few in the latter category, especially in certain age groups."
How about acknowledging the fact that most people don't like being considered a criminal first? Treat your customers like criminals out to rip you off, and you'll have criminals as customers.
-Re Linux products, obscure and otherwise.
If open source is inherently incompatible with DRM, well, there are going to be limits to the directions in which it will develop, DRM being but one application of some important security techniques. I don't believe it is, however, or there wouldn't be *any* licensed Linux players.
The larger point is THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that anyone involved in CSS licensing is suppressing Linux players or neglecting them.
And the really larger point: the fundamental reason that the Linux players need to refer to DeCSS or otherwise illegally decrypted content OR license CSS is that no one is funding the production of unprotected content on a large scale. Anyone is free to do so, but they aren't.
That is the root of the problem. If you have a business model that relies on someone else's content, but can't or won't support payment mechanisms, how fair is it to complain you're being shut out of the market?
-Repeat myself again. If the DRM/DMCA is short-changing customers to shore up failing business models...
WHY are there no investors flocking to develop high-quality content that is not protected by DRM? IF there is another way, this is a HUGE opportunity for someone to make a lot of money. WHERE are the new business models? Grokster is just a distribution technology, it doesn't PRODUCE content.
How is one supposed to tie music or movies to services if anyone with a digital editor can untie them and post the untied content!!!!!
Oh right. Customers. As opposed to acting like their customers are criminals out to rip them off any chance they get. Fancy that.