indessed roscivs

Recently, Steve Jobs wrote an Open Letter on Music and DRM. The gist of his letter was that DRM doesn’t work, and that the music companies should abandon it and let Apple and other companies sell music that will work on any mp3 player, not just iPods. The CEO of Macrovision, a company dedicated to providing DRM, recently wrote this response. Here’s my take on Amoroso’s letter.

We have been involved with and have supported both prevention technologies and DRM that are on literally billions of copies of music, movies, games, software and other content forms, as well as hundreds of millions of devices across the world.

Never once has any of Macrovision’s products managed to keep digital content from appearing without DRM on the Internet. The fact of the matter is that DRM simply doesn’t work. It depends on a fundamentally broken pattern of giving the user the cryptographic keys required to unlock the content you’re trying to prevent them from unlocking. As Steve Jobs puts it, “one must still “hide” the keys which unlock the music on the user’s computer or portable music player.”

the fact is that DRM also has a broad impact across many different forms of content and across many media devices. Therefore, the discussion should not be limited to just music. It is critical that as all forms of content move from physical to electronic there is an opportunity for DRM to be an important enabler across all content, including movies, games and software, as well as music.

Translation: if the music industry abandons DRM and discovers that life without it is great, then other industries may abandon DRM too, making our entire business model obsolete.

DRM increases not decreases consumer value –
I believe that most piracy occurs because the technology available today has not yet been widely deployed to make DRM-protected legitimate content as easily accessible and convenient as unprotected illegitimate content is to consumers. The solution is to accelerate the deployment of convenient DRM-protected distribution channels—not to abandon them. Without a reasonable, consistent and transparent DRM we will only delay consumers in receiving premium content in the home, in the way they want it. For example, DRM is uniquely suitable for metering usage rights, so that consumers who don’t want to own content, such as a movie, can “rent” it.

This is pure nonsense, mixed in with a little bit of fact. I’ll accept the idea that DRM is a useful way of “renting” content. But it does not follow that movies or music that you buy should be DRM-encumbered. It does absolutely nothing to prevent Internet piracy, but does a lot to prevent legitimate uses of the content that are protected by Fair Use provisions in copyright law.

Similarly, consumers who want to consume content on only a single device can pay less than those who want to use it across all of their entertainment areas – vacation homes, cars, different devices and remotely. Abandoning DRM now will unnecessarily doom all consumers to a “one size fits all” situation that will increase costs for many of them.

Translation: abandoning DRM will remove our ability to charge people multiple times for music and movies that they’ve already payed for.

Copyright law (and common sense) already dictates that once a person has purchased a copy of a song, or a movie, or a book, they are free to “format-shift” and use that same copy “across all entertainment areas”. They legally don’t have to purchase it multiple times. So the “one size fits all” situation is mandated by law, and will decrease costs for most people.

DRM will increase electronic distribution –
Well maintained and reasonably implemented DRM will increase the electronic distribution of content, not decrease it. In this sense, DRM is an important ingredient in the overall success of the emerging digital world and especially cannot be overlooked for content creators and owners in the video industry. Quite simply, if the owners of high-value video entertainment are asked to enter, or stay in a digital world that is free of DRM, without protection for their content, then there will be no reason for them to enter, or to stay if they’ve already entered. The risk will be too great.

Bollocks. Given the choice between making some money without DRM, and making no money by not publishing at all, “owners of high-value video entertainment” will inevitably choose the former. But given the opportunity to use DRM to remove Fair Use provisions and charge people multiple times for the same content, content owners will frequently choose the latter, no matter what it costs the legitimate user. This is no surprise. But to paint DRM as a win for the “consumer” is simply dishonest.

DRM needs to be interoperable and open –
I agree with you that there are difficult challenges associated with maintaining the controls of an interoperable DRM system, but it should not stop the industry from pursuing it as a goal. Truly interoperable DRM will hasten the shift to the electronic distribution of content and make it easier for consumers to manage and share content in the home – and it will enable it in an open environment where their content is portable across a number of devices, not held hostage to just one company’s products.

Translation: we don’t want DRM to be controlled by other companies. However, we would be more than happy if this “truly interoperable DRM” were completely owned and patented by Macrovision.

The fact of the matter is that DRM cannot be “open”. The secrets must be kept secret, which is a nigh-impossible task even if a single company controls all the secrets (simply because the secrets must also be on the users’ devices). “Interoperable DRM” is a contradiction in terms.

At Macrovision we are willing to lead this industry effort. We offer to assist Apple in the issues and problems with DRM that you state in your letter. Should you desire, we would also assume responsibility for FairPlay as a part of our evolving DRM offering and enable it to interoperate across other DRMs, thus increasing consumer choice and driving commonality across devices.

This is ridiculous. “Assuming responsibility for FairPlay” means nothing to Apple when FairPlay is inevitably cracked as a result of Macrovision taking control. Apple loses its bargaining chip with the record companies, the record companies lose their one DRM stack (Apple, iTunes Music Store, iPod) that actually works relatively well, and the only winners in this game are Macrovision.

With such an enjoyable and revolutionary experience within our grasp, we should not minimize the role that DRM can and should play in enabling the transition to electronic content distribution. Without reasonable, consistent and transparent DRM we will only delay the availability of premium content in the home. As an industry, we should not let that happen.

Reasonable, consistent, and transparent DRM is an impossible pipe dream. Telling content producers and content owners to wait to license their content until this pipe dream is available will only delay the availability of premium content in the home. We, as an industry, and as the people who support that industry, should not let that happen.

This entry was posted on Saturday, February 17th, 2007 at 2:34 pm and is filed under movies, computers, music. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.