MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

All I heard was - "Let's protect stuff 'the right way' so we can overcharge for it."

Ass hole.

Is this guy in denial, or what?

"Macrovision has been in the content protection industry for more than 20 years"

WELL DUH!!! Would anyone think that Macrovision would be in support of dropping DRM and their principal source of revenue?

Get real!

Magic Word - heard I heard that Macrovision had a vested interest in DRM.

Here's a hint Fred, Steve would never partner with someone who right off the bat would take such jabs, albeit mostly implied, at Apple in public.

More FUD!

Let them flap thier gums.. If they are so good at protecting things then why are Movie studios adopting other means of copy protection? Oh it is because Macrovisions system was cracked the day it came out.. They are just mad cause the train left without them..

Significant Comedic Talent

WHAT CONTENT PROTECTION?!

Macrovision DRM schemes are the easiest in the world to bypass! (People tell me.) Even the great and omnipotent Sony's DRM, while frequently troublesome, can be circumvented with just a little extra effort . . . AND ALWAYS WILL BE!

All these guys are doing is screwing legitimate, law-abiding customers whose children eat DVDs like candy--and who can't back up their purchases honestly and above-board.

Bend over, consumer, and take one for the team.

Anyone noticed how as soon as Steve posts an open letter, everyone else is startingto.

Steve leads, everyone else follows.

Oh yeh, I almost forgot - DRM SUCKS!

Fred Amoroso,

This is why consumers hate you.

-c

This is great free image advertising for Apple. Steve has maneuvered the DRM loving Hollywood crowd into proving to Apple's accusers -- largely stupid Euro-socialists -- that Apple is not the problem in restricting choice or access.

A commitment to transparent, interoperable and reasonable DRM will result in it being cracked very quickly - to wit, the first successful bypass of the AACS DRM in one device was recently announced.


At Macrovision we are willing to lead this industry effort. Why not? It's what we get paid for. And the less it works, the more we'll earn work.

Actually, he makes a few good arguments, among the nonsensical ones. If DRM encourages content-owners to sell digitized content over the internet because it makes them feel safe, that is a good thing. It is normal for sellers to want to try to prevent theft of their content. It is normal for consumers to want the broadest possible usage rights (i.e., unlimited). And for neither to put themselves in the others' shoes to consider the merits of their position.
Personally, I'm undecided. As long as the govt. doesn't get involved to tip the scales in either direction, I expect the debate will sort itself out in a reasonably way.
Jake

Re: LinuxGuy and Mac Prodigal Son

You are absolutely right - the media companies have indirectly defended Apple against Euro-legistration. And, in the process, Steve comes out on top by defending the position held by most consumers.

"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. 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."

He really needs to look at what he is saying. Any sane person reading this can tell that this will only increase the cost to consumers.

Remember WWII? PBS and the history channel regal us with tales of "enigma" and others systems. Codes are made, then they are cracked. This is human nature and as long as this earth lasts it will never change.

The day we don't want in on "the secret" is the day we can expect secret codes to last. Of course, when we don't want to know "the secret" we don't need codes anyway. See how that works Fred? Your company exists as the faulty bridge between unsatified consumers and nervous content creators. Making money from both, providing good solutions for neither.

We wouldn't need DRM if there weren't so many content thieves out there. I'm looking at you.

All I can say is....guffaw.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair, 1939.

"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 thought is interesting. If someone other than Apple is responsible for maintaining the integrity and security of the DRM, that would satisfy the content providers as well as relieve Apple of the responsibility of ensuring that their DRM is secure (their excuse for not licensing FairPlay). Of course, then Apple would be unable to either lock in users or lock users out, which may not be much of an issue now, but it is sure to become an increasingly important factor in years to come.

It needs to be a lot of things but DRM only does one thing. It stops the legal consumer from enjoying what they rightfully paid for. Of course Macrovision would be against this as they are one of the soul providers of DRM technology and there profits are on the line.

"We wouldn't need DRM if there weren't so many content thieves out there. I'm looking at you."

Horse. Shit.

Media has done just fine for a gazillion years with no DRM.
They want it now just because they think they can have it, and it will be good for no one but media distribution middle-men.
DRM has not stopped rampant piracy in Asia, and no matter how hard you try, it won't.
It will just cause honest people to have to buy The White Album over and over again.
I've already paid for it 3 times. I won't buy it again.

-c

MW: 'plan' (to lock in future revenue will fail)

This is what you would call a totally biased opinion by one of the largest DRM providers in the business. Hardly an opinion that would be called fair as there profits are in jeopardy should companies give up on DRM (as they should).

"Abandoning DRM now will unnecessarily doom all consumers to a "one size fits all" situation"

Is this a bad thing? I mean, one size fits all seems to work well with other products. And I, for one, quite enjoy buying Mac OS X and getting the full meal deal. I'm still not sure which overpriced version of Vista I'm best suited for (not vice versa). Actually that's a lie, they all suck. And compare the price of the one size fits all Mac OS X and a the cheapest possible Vista. Not to mention how superior Mac OS X is to even Vista Ultimate. So that completely blows up their $hit that a one size fits all MUST of necessity cost more.

You're looking at me, are you? Get a dull knife and cut your crystal balls off.

In other news, Exxon states that extraction and burning fossil fuels hasn't contributed to global warming. In fact, to the contrary, the increased carbon dioxide emissions has allowed Coke and Pepsi to reduce costs (free carbonation) allowing more people to enjoy the beverages. This, in turn, allows more people to quench their thirsts, which is actually counteracting any real effect of this so called 'global warming' nonsense.

Sounds like a desperate cry for help to me.

Steve Jobs's open letter was called "thoughts on music." Macrovision should not be acting so paraniod... yet.

Chrissy,
"Media has done just fine for a gazillion years with no DRM.

DRM has not stopped rampant piracy in Asia"

- While those two statements are essentially true, they don't necessarily support each other.

Media has been created and provided in many ways, but only recently has the illegal copying and distribution of it become incredibly easy and cheap for anyone to do. The fact that something hasn't been used in the past is not in itself a valid argument for why it isn't necessary in the future. After all, business models, like everything else, evolve over time.

Likewise, the inadequacy of an idea's implementation is not in itself a valid reason for its abolishment. That is why people innovate instead of sticking their heads in the sand when confronted with a problem.

With that said, I firmly believe that DRM is not necessary on many of the things that it is currently being used with, but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary for all things.

Come on, they're a DRM company. What else would they say? "Oh yes, lets abolish DRMs! We were thinking about going the opposite direction and providing DRM cracking tools...this will work out great!"

Steve Jobs consciously limited his discussion to music because music is the area where a DRM-free solution makes the most sense (subscription services-i.e. a system requiring "metering usage rights"-are a failure because people want to own their music). This is also the least threatening to those content providers, some of whom are already dipping their toes in the water and whose entire catalogs are already being pirated (so what more do they have to lose?).

Fred Amoroso is consciously trying to broaden the discussion to include all forms of digital content because he knows that extensive catalogs of DRM-free music are a looming possibility and he's trying to hold the line on DRM. By tying the DRM discussion to different forms of digital content, he broadened the array of content providers on his side, including those like the MPAA who are scared to death of unprotected content floating around (even though it already is) and aren't as far along in considering the possibility of a DRM-free future. His line about increasing consumer value is only valid if content providers never consider the possibility of doing away with DRM and consumers consider receiving the same content in a slightly different form to be a benefit, when most consumers rightly look at it as the greedy providers just selling them the same thing over and over again.

I think most thinking people will see Amoroso's letter as the self-serving attempt to delude the public that it is.

DRM does not work. Crooks do whatever they want, honest people are inconvenienced.

I wonder how Macrovision stays in business. What do they tell their customers? Our DRM will protect your content? Yea right!

My mom might not know how to circumvent Macrovision products but she can't work her DVD player either.

Ask an 18 yearold if Macrovision or DRM is stopping them from watching or listening to whatever they want.

Macro what?

A large printed threat of law suit or fine on the packaging would do about the same as Macrovision.

FUD would be much more effective than Macrovision.

In other news, believers in global warming call those opposed to the theory equivalent to Holocaust deniers! See Ellen Goodman's recent column. (All of which goes to prove that theories based on computer models are a case of the tail wagging the dog.)

Macrovision shows that they can't read. The article was aimed at the music business. Do we need DRM? Only if people are going to rent digital downloads -- but I think that whole concept is fatally flawed. Downloading implies ownership (the file is now on MY machine) much more so than renting a physical object. The two models are just not comparable, and digital media companies have yet to understand that. Renting a physical object has thousands of years of human culture behind it, a set of obligations, contracts (both social and legal) and so forth. Downloading, however, implies both immediate usability and endless use.

What he want is me to pay more when enjoying a media on more than one device/location.

It's like this. When I see a newspaper that I want to take home to read, then I buy it and read it at home. Well, sometimes I don't have enough time to finish it, well then I will bring it to my cabin which I am going to this weekend. "HEY YOU! What do you think you are doing? You have to pay more if you want to bring that newspaper to your cabin this weekend." And guess what, this is one big newspaper, I didn't finish it. That will cost you. Because the newspaper drm-countdown will expire after 3 days. Last opportunity is to read it one the way back from the cabin, on the train/buss. Oh, a third location. That will cost you sir.

"Well maintained and reasonably implemented DRM will increase the electronic distribution of content, not decrease it."

Uh?

Fsking idiot. All the cash he makes from stifling content with DRM has twisted him beyond redemption.

Rock on Steve!

These people just don't get it - DRM is like a pothole on the road: an obstacle, NOT a "feature". Just like potholes, DRM adds no value to content. This guy is like a toll-collector demanding extra money for the potholes on the road...

Dear Fred:

DRM is hacked without mercy and it is plain to see that current DRM technology cannot guarantee anyone that intellectual property can be preserved absolutely. It seems that that persons who wish to use digital technology to sell products are at a constant disadvantage. Either businesses must assume that their customers are generally honest citizens who will gladly pay a reasonable fee for the product or are predominantly thieves who steal as a matter of fact. It appears that many in the business believe that most citizens are criminals. This begs the question, why do some people in the business continue to willfully engage in commercial activities with people with whom they obviously detest and mistrust? In other words, are these people stupid, naïve, greedy?

The best DRM ever created was invented by Thomas Alva Edison. It is called that phonographic cylinder. This was later modified to the phonographic disc. I would strongly encourage you to reconsider this “uncrackable” DRM. I’m sure life was grand when music was only available on vinyl. I’m being facetious, of course. However, I am still confused. Why it is that a person with your years of experience and many talents still hasn’t designed a DRM that is superior to all others. I mean, this is what you do to get paid, right? So, why the delay? In my opinion, you haven’t a clue how to build an uncrackable DRM that will be accepted by the consumer. I think that you’re just stringing the music industry along, feeding them shit, and getting paid well for it. Congratulations. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that you’re “stealing” from them, but that’s just me.

Sentimentalize all you want, you still can’t change history, the genie won’t go back in the bottle, and you know it.

Tony,

The term global warming' strikes fear in the heart of people every time you say it, but it's simply a rise in temperature over time, and it's happened before.

We have maybe 100 years of data on a rock that's 6 billion years old. Mother Nature tends to even herself out, and the fact is, the Earth is cyclical.

I have a file an inch thick from 30 years ago when scientists said the planet was cooling.

There was also a significant spike in world temperatures during the 1400s, well before the Industrial Revolution,. We haven't studied this long enough to know what causes global warming.

I'm not sure which is more arrogant for humans: to say we caused it or to say we're going to fix it.

YYAAAWWWNNNNNNNNNN

Move along citizens, nothing to see here.

OTOH, Who in their right mind would ever have thought a company that produces copy protection software would come out with a statement supporting copy protection?

The sky is falling

How come Steve posts an open letter to a broad industry, and then all the CEOs in that industry need to make their so-called response letter's to Steve entirely public. First, I don't believe that any letter is actually sent to Steve, and Second, if it was then making that correspondance public is pretty cheesy. If these guys want to enter the debate publicly, then they should address the broader industry as Steve did, not make this look like a CEO vs CEO fight. Don't they teach these protocols in CEO school any more?

An Open Letter Response to Macrovision and Fred Amoroso

As an industry, we can overcome DRM, period. A commitment to transparency, interoperability and DRM free content will effectively bridge the gap between consumers and content owners, eliminate confusion and make it possible for new releases and premium content to enter the digital environment and kick off a new era of entertainment.

At Apple we are willing to lead this industry effort. We offer to assist Macrovisoin in the issues and problems with DRM that you initiated 24 years ago. Should you desire, we would also assume responsibility for Macrovision as a part of our dismantling DRM plagued offerings and enabling them to interoperate across multiple platforms, thus increasing consumer choice and driving commonality across devices.

In summary, we are on the verge of a transformation in home entertainment that can be as significant as the introduction of the Macintosh into the home or the invention of the television. Already, Apple is introducing advancements in wireless connectivity (Airport Extreme 802.11n)and the interoperability of devices that are opening the door to new ways for consumers to acquire (iTunes) and view content (Apple TV) from many sources.

With such an enjoyable and revolutionary experience within our grasp, we should eliminate the role that DRM has played in stifling the transition to widespread electronic content adoption and distribution. Without DRM free media we will only delay the availability of premium content in the home. As an industry, we should not let that happen.

Thank you,
Steve Jobs
CEO & President
Apple, Inc.

Meteorologist,

Well, I guess we should just give up then. SUVs for everyone!!

Reads as foolishly as the proposed NY congressman's law against listening to gadget while walking across the street.

interoperable and open....

? ..wouldn't this be completely "interoperable" and completely open without the DRM ?
Creating the industrial oxymoron, MORON.

I would like to start by thanking Steve Jobs for offering his provocative perspective on the role of digital rights management (DRM) in the electronic content marketplace and for bringing to the forefront an issue of great importance to both the industry and consumers.

I don't trust this guy.

The solution is to accelerate the deployment of convenient DRM-protected distribution channels—not to abandon them.

I don't trust this guy.

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.

I told you I didn't trust this guy.

Friggin' weak... So in a nutshell this guy is saying, "You got it all wrong Steve. More and consistant DRM is necessary and lucky for you, that's what we do! So give us your DRM so that WE, and not you, can control the world of DRM and we alone will be the ones who decides who sells what where and who plays what where."

Lying business fuck... Does he really think that no one will be able to see through that thin fake veil of supposed caring. That he's actually concerned about consumers and not about his own agenda and bottom line. God! I hate lying business fucks!

To find out who the good guys and bad guys are in this saga of DRM, think of DRM as the ring of Lord of the Rings... Everyone greedily wants it so that THEY can control the universe of media and be the most powerful men in the universe, and they'll say or do anything to get there hands on it, whereas Steve and only a few others actually want to chuck it into the fires of Mt Doom and rid the universe of this evil once and for all.

"To find out who the good guys and bad guys are in this saga of DRM, think of DRM as the ring of Lord of the Rings... Everyone greedily wants it so that THEY can control the universe of media and be the most powerful men in the universe, and they'll say or do anything to get there hands on it, whereas Steve and only a few others actually want to chuck it into the fires of Mt Doom and rid the universe of this evil once and for all."

I like that analogy.

Ha, ha...MDN magic word: "control"

He says: "Abandoning DRM now..will increase costs for many of them (consumers)."

No surprise that he doesn't offer one line to explain how or why that might be!


THE MUSIC/FILM/PUBLISHING INDUSTRIES NEED TO CUT OUT 90% OF THEIR IRRELEVENT & PARASITIC MIDDLEMEN.

The video industry distribute the majority of their content DRM free - it is called Television. Television works because we can tape a movie and watch it later when convenient.

The Macrovision DRM on DVDs is not a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent DRM', but a pain that gets in the way of purchasers all the time. It cannot be licensed for 5 devices or for making copies to tape or any other media for legitimate purposes (e.g. watching at Grandma's).

I would be sympathetic if Macrovision matched FairPlay's capabilities, or Macrovision had made strides in the past decade to expand legitimate consumer's uses. Since it doesn't, this open letter is just snake oil from a snake oil company.

Um, yeah. Not a SINGLE argument Fred makes is compelling (or even true) for the consumer. What a coroporate wonk trying to peddle his snake oil.