What is Digg?102 Comments
- xrisnothing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+53Summary: I get money from preventing consumer choice. Feed the beast.
I hate engadget. Just link to the letter.
http://www.macrovision.com/company/news/drm/response_letter.shtml - crunky, on 10/12/2007, -5/+51what a crock.
- ajb2015, on 10/12/2007, -6/+47what a ***** moron
- fjvwing, on 10/12/2007, -4/+42His response basically does not engage Steve's point about how difficult it is to create robust, transparent, consumer-friendly, secure, interoperable DRM Systems. It's like Steve wrote a letter saying "The Music Industry wants something impossible, like a unicorn" and the Macrovision response is "Yes! Yes! A unicorn with pink wings! Make us one now!"
Do I have to take the response seriously from a DRM company whose DRM has always been easily subverted? - jmkiii, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32Wow, the guy even looks like a douche!
DRM is a disgusting thing, made my disgusting people! - ndonohue, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31Did you actually expect him to agree? His business IS DRM. Its not like he could go out and say "We suck". It would be bad business practice to do so. Its like Kutaragi and the Sony execs. They KNOW what they say is *****, they just cant admit it.
- koonchu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28Wow. That entire letter smells of rabid PANIC.
- JESUSREAM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25post deleted by macrovision protection due to unauthorized content.
foiled again! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26Direct Link
http://www.macrovision.com/company/news/drm/response_letter.shtml - metalica77, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26wow this is total *****. I have to say when would they get there heads out of there asses and admit defeat. YOU LOST ! deal with it.
- ionchannels, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Fred Amoroso is double plus ungood.
- Mudcrutch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18"We offer to assist Apple in the issues and problems with DRM that you state in your letter"
Maybe he should go to Apple headquarters and sit in the lobby for as long as it takes. Steve Jobs will be amazed at his persistence and meet with him personally! - TheBeaver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Let me tell you something about Macrovision. They suck ass. I purchased some software (Monet by Imagineer Systems - good planar tracking program) and they used Macrovision's licensing software to protect it from piracy.
Our IT guy was on the phone all day with Macrovision and Imagineer, trying to get this ***** to work. At the end of the day we discovered they were telling us how to do everything wrong. Macrovision doesn't even know how to install their own software. It would have been much, much easier to just crack the software, and though we had purchased a licence, we were about to go that route out of sheer necessity.
So Mr. Fred Amoroso, if this is how well your DRM works, we are all royally screwed if your ***** software makes its way into the music industry in any major capacity. - courtarro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16The point is that DRM doesn't actually do this. Instead, it just makes it harder for honest people to use legitimately acquired music/data. DRM provides no hindrance to piracy, and this is the point Jobs is trying to make. Sure, perfect DRM would be completely transparent, allowing all honest actions while preventing all illegitimate ones, but this is inherently impossible because the two goals are mutually exclusive. As long as you can listen to music it will be possible to create unauthorized duplicates of that music. Since this perfect DRM is impossible, Fred Amoroso is claiming to be able to produce something that can't exist.
- totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Yeah, there's an unbiased voice of reason.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Hey Fred, thanks for looking out for my best interests...now go take your antipsychotics.
- uoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Fred.Amoroso@macrovision.com and/or Alfred.Amoroso@macrovision.com should be contacted for comment. (wink.)
- lateralus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14He'll be hearing from my Nigerian business partners.
- DirkBelig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14This toolbox is lucky that God didn't strike him dead as he typed this part:
=========
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.
=========
How is selling *broken* music which may only play on certain brands of players helping when customers can either buy unprotected CDs - root kit infected Sony ***** notwithstanding - or steal MP3s off teh Intarwebs?!?
The War on Consumers that the RIAA, labels, greedy bastard bands like Craptallica, have been waging for the past eight years has only alienated and emboldened the people. If all these greedheads would sell music unencumbered by C.R.A.P. (aka DRM) for 25-50 cents per track, they would be sitting on a pile of cash that Scrooge McDuck would covet, the bands would be able to make a living and customers would be able to have the music they want legally and fairly.
Only fascists like Mr. Macrovision believe that the solution to their business woes is MORE restrictions on content and punishment of their customers. I hope he gets eaten alive by rabid badgers. - colincsl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Musicians do get paid. I am happy to pay $30 for a concert because I know the artist is going to get a large portion of the the money. When you buy CDs they are barely getting any money anyways. I'm sure you've read countless articles on the topic...
DRM is based on a similar ideology as non-DRM enabled music, it's just is much more protective and takes away rights of the user. The point of DRM is to stop people from trading. This doesn't work. It has the same effectiveness as music with no protection. Therefore there is no reason for it. - ewhac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Yeah, that's FlexLM for you. Utter *****. Also, it won't completely uninstall itself, so if the installation gets b0rk3d for any reason, recovery is impossible. Your machine is effectively *damaged* by their copy-protection regime, and the only way to fix the broken installation is to reformat the HD and perform a complete system re-install.
The one the grinds my gears is the NO_TS bit, which prevents the software from working over Remote Desktop/Terminal Server. Some vendors are nicer than others about turning this bit on for you in the license key file. - jbelkin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12The three most successful entertainment formats of all time do not have DRM - TV, LP's and Cd's.
And the most successful selling VHS tapes do not have DRM (the studios eventually used Macrovision only on tapes they sold at full price for rental since if they sold 10 million copies of something, they would owe Macrovision something like $.35 on each tape- the studios realized that no one would bother copying them if the tapes were just a couple bucks more than the price of a blank).
Macrovision adds nothing to society - they are essentially parasites and without DRM, they have ZERO business. They are the green food coloring on pistacchios where people eventually go - WTF is this glowing green crap? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@EntropyFan
Funny that this wasn't such an issue when everyone I knew used to make cassette tape copies of music. The music industry managed to survive (thrive) then. Yes, it's easier and on a larger scale now...funny how DRM hasn't changed a thing although it's managed to piss off customers who are legally and honestly purchasing music. Pure genius.
The answer is to remove all protection from music and offer it in it's original audio-quality state. More people would purchase music online. Nothing will ever change the people who never intended to purchase the music anyway. - acetv, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14It's. Not. Worth. It.
- Kuipo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11You really don't understand that Macrovision is lying when they say that? Let me put it in plain english, even though so many other people in the comments have already done it...
What Macrovision claims they can make... is impossible.
Now.. let that sink in a minuet or two. Now think about this... If they could make the perfect DRM that they claim and it would be some gigantic breakthrough in technology... why wouldn't they have made it by now? - mesoed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12That's assuming that artists actually MAKE money from deals with big labels. The label's biggest argument is "it's all for the artists", but in reality, very little of the money gets to them.
- catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15-5 for a ridiculous defense of DRM
+1 for pointing out Steve Jobs' hypocrisy - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Looks like points form power point slide which he presented to hollywood studios.
- Ribald_Jester, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11He's the CEO of a company that makes sure consumers are limited in what they can and cannot due with their products (be it a VCR, Software Package or Media). It's in the interest of his shareholders and his boss to counter the anti-DRM surge that's hitting the media now. Otherwise, it's lights out for his particular brand of poison.
Granted, I would absolutely love to see Macrovision and all other DRM/Spyware/Bloatware companies go out of business. - bluejet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Some ***** broke into my house one time and stole $3,000 worth of my music CD's. According to the copyright laws, I purchased the rights to possess those music recordings. I bet if I called the music distributors to get new copies of the music recordings (or license) I purchased they would laugh at me. DRM and the RIAA and the laws they get passed are there solely for the fat cats...not for the consumer, not even for the artists or the retailers.
If it's illegal for us to share and trade music, it should be illegal for them NOT to honor my copyright license if my music is stolen! - monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10It's like everybody and their mom says that Cigarette smoking will reduce your sperm count, and volume of ejaculation.
But the Tobacco companies will say that's total BS, cigarettes actually enhances your chances of getting laid.
The only difference is, some consumers actually like cigarettes, but no one likes DRM. - pt4117, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Steve complained about having to constantly update the DRM when it was cracked, and that letting others use their DRM would cause it to crack more often. What this guy said was, we'll solve both of your problems. We'll update fairplay as it's cracked, and we'll work with others so that everyone can play these songs.
The guy is a total douche, and is trying to jump on a big market, but he is responding to a couple of Steve's complaints. - Tenareth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8You could solve it with an appliance, there would be a few hardware hackers that would break in... but who cares, people that really want to steal something will. You want security to stop casual theft, not the professionals. Hmm, TiVo...
Anyway, blockbuster does a pretty good business and copying a DVD is not all that hard these days, same with NetFlix. All these businesses succeed despite the ability to steal from them. - 91degrees, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Well, what typically happens is you sell the content add a copyright notice, and rely on the legal system to deter thse who would wish to abuse the trust, and get recompense from them.
I've purchased some "They Might Be Giants" mp3s. I could share them, but why would I? I paid for them. I could have downloaded them, but why would I? I like their music. They deserve to be paid. No DRM. The artists got paid.
If they didn't offer to sell them, then I'd have still had the option of downloading them. They were on all the file sharing networks long before they put them on sale.
So, would DRM have done, apart from make me choose not to buy them, on the grounds that they wouldn't work with all my mp3 players? - whisperedlie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"Macrovision has been in the content protection industry for more than 20 years, working closely with content owners of many types, including the major Hollywood studios, to help navigate the transition from physical to digital distribution."
sounds like Macrovision owes someone a refund. - KyferEz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@geekee
Yes we can. Don't be stupid - DVDs are essentially completely DRM free (because everyone now knows how to copy them with a few simple web searches) and a LOT of people copy their rentals. Yet rental businesses and sales of DVDs STILL THRIVE.
Don't be so stupid. - colincornaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"Steve claims the music industry wants a unicorn, and Macrovision says, no, they want a horse, and they exist, and we're very good at breeding and training them."
But they're not good at what they do. - Quix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Next up, a similar letter from Microsoft.
John Gruber of Daring Fireball said it well a while back (speaking as Microsoft addressing the record companies):
“So we hear that you’re worried about the growing leverage that Apple is accumulating in the digital media space, and that you’re looking for a partner who can be trusted not to use such an advantage unfairly or to bludgeon competitors. How about Microsoft?” - roxics, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@ndonohue
I totally agree, but at the same time this guy didn't have to go out of his was to answer the letter.
It's clearly a marketing move. Just as Steve Jobs was trying to convince the public "hey we're all cool, we're on your side", this guy is trying to convince the industry DRM is good. This letter is not aimed at the public at all. What consumer is asking for DRM? - Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I like the RIAA logo. It looks like a record label -- with the hole way off-center.
Appropriate! - KyferEz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Yes, it's VERY easy: Offer high quality audio and video at REASONABLE prices WITHOUT DRM, and release TV episodes without DRM at reasonable prices the SAME DAY they air on TV (for people that hate commercials). Do that and MOST people will NOT rip off content because it won't be worthwhile.
- epithius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Shouldn't they be the original ARM company?
- Refrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6http://daringfireball.net/2007/02/macrovision_translation
Daring Fireball with an excellent translation of Macrovision's response. - loup, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8You do realize that most of the public is willing to purchase music and movies through legal channels rather than steal them right? If you find someone infringing on your copyrights you then take appropriate, legal action. DRM isn't there to make sure the artist (or monolithic copyright holder as the case may be) gets paid for their work, it's there so that large companies can ensure you're only using the movies and music in the way they see fit.
- LiquidPenguin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6From the letter,
"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."
WTF?? Using entertainment across multiple areas _IS_ the future. I want a "one size fits all" scenario because then I know I can use it in anything I want, however I want, whenever I want. I'd rather pay $20 ONCE for a movie that I can play anywhere anytime instead of being nickel and dimed to death trying to buy all the different rights "packages" that are bound to appear with your scheme.
Stupid dinosaur, go back to the 80's. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It's a 1984 reference.
- warragul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The lock-in looks a bit loose. Given that the huge amount of music sold by iTMS represents a single-digit percentage of the potential disk space on ipods sold, most music on iPods is probably non-iTMS (and so non-DRM). Add to that the people like me who play their music mostly on a conventional computer and the potential disk space available for music is astronomical, further diluting the DRM percentage. None of my music is DRM'd from anywhere.
The lock-in would exist if the only music an iPod would play was from iTMS. The Fairplay DRM can be legally circumvented. Yes, it's less than wonderful but what other DRM offers anything similar? Try circumventing WMA's DRM and it's DMCA for you, sonny Jim.
The real danger with Fairplay is that it's so innocous that most people are unaware of it. If it was more obvious then people might care. If people are convinced that DRM won't interfere with their enjoyment of the music why should they care? - Kuipo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Or the people who play SL are where the music industry is right now... they don't realize that the DRM won't stop people from copying content.
- alricsca, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You know, I keep reading statements along the lines of, "If we do not use DRM, how will we make sure artists get paid and prevent piracy?" Does anyone realize the flaw in that whole concept? Does anyone even bother to question it? Did we pay for the works of Mozart, the Mona Lisa, the Statue of David, or any of the multitudes of great works of art created through the ages? Real artist perform their works as an act of expression and may or may not hope to be recognized for their talents. People choose to show their appreciation for this work by becoming their patrons. While some would say this is a form of payment, I disagree. A patron's favor is a choice that one makes out of respect for an Artist's work not to simply purchase it. That is not to say that one cannot choose to commission a private work or to sponsor a public one. At some point in the modern era with the development of mass distribution and the need for middle men these concepts got lost and now art is treated the same way as we treat a bag of grain, as a commodity. The irony is that the Artists may be doing themselves a great disservice by not trying to return to the old ways now that the Internet has made that possible. Without a middle man and with the power of the Internet behind them to market and distribute their work, I suspect that the talented among us would not only be able to prosper in a DRM free world the very art they create might evolve and grow more than it has in the last 200 years.
It is insulting to the human race to imply that just because one can get something for free that people would not seek to compensate the Artist. I will not say that everyone will get paid, but if you look at history, to get paid as an artist you had to at least be good. Now you need only be mediocre or fit some prefab boy band marketing mold. Think of all the ways an artist can make money without DRM. For example, you do not need to place DRM on a live performance what about those thousands of paying customers? You can still sell many things such as related tangible goods such as music related paraphernalia, your brand, pre-made CD which people will pay for if only to avoid burning their own, you can seek commissions and sponsors, and yes you can sell MP3s on-line. One note, I have no problem with laws saying that no one else can sell or profit from your work. For those who are prone to not want to pay if they can find it somewhere else for free the inconvenience of needing to surf around to find something and a low costs should be more than enough to get them to follow along. I mean look it works now and we have DRM. It is important to realize that services like Napster would not have grown as much as it did if the music was cheap, easy to find and free. This combined with a simple law saying that commercial services must compensate the artist would keep them in check. Why wouldn't it, it is so much easier to type in the URL of you favorite band than search thousands of maybe matches on a open search tool. I can even see charging a minimum to an unlimited payment for work. I would hazard to guess that for a truly great artist you might be surprised who might be willing to pay a bit more to reward their efforts. The fact of the matter is that we will probably not have the mega rich, drug whacked, artificial, one gloved freaks we have now in this system but then who would want them. The other less obvious benefit is no more RIAA. With this system and modern technology they are not needed so why keep them around. I wonder, if there were no middlemen how much of that 99 cents people seem willing to pay now would go directly to the Artist? Art begs to be free because it is under freedom that it attains its greatest fruition. To reduce a persons work to grain in a bag and to place on society the label of thieves and the burden of DRM, now that is an insult. - fauxXenophanes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yep, no DRM on the internet means a " one size fits all " harddrive - infinite !
-
Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is