digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Macrovision, the original DRM company, replies in open letter to Jobs

engadget.com — Fred Amoroso, CEO of Macrovision, the original DRM company whose fair use crippling technology dates back all the way to 1984 (no joke), Replies to Steve Jobs' "Thoughts on music".

show profanity settings
expand all
  • crunky, on 10/12/2007, -5/+51what a crock.
    • ajb2015, on 10/12/2007, -6/+47what a ***** moron
    • GoatBnn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26Direct Link

      http://www.macrovision.com/company/news/drm/response_letter.shtml
    • jman8888, on 10/12/2007, -23/+2wast the first mac in 1984? Hmm..
    • 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.
    • cooldudevamsee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Looks like points form power point slide which he presented to hollywood studios.
    • jmkiii, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21984 huh! Big brother for a profit!
    • fauxXenophanes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yep, no DRM on the internet means a " one size fits all " harddrive - infinite !
    • 6cyV7dpXUrZomP3, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8LOL! Fred Amoroso can SUCK MY *****!
    • 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!
    • 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?”
    • Jowsley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Quix

      That quote from Daring Fireball is great. Go ahead and bury this, but that gave me a good laugh.
    • Refrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6http://daringfireball.net/2007/02/macrovision_translation

      Daring Fireball with an excellent translation of Macrovision's response.
    • RiverBelow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We actually learned about this in English class today. Its called "Faulty Reasoning".
    • clackerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i know my life wouldn't be complete without DRM. thanks fred, we customers hate expecting a music or movie file to be just a music or movie file, even when we pay for it. what fun is it knowing i can listen to my music on a cd, as a cellphone ring tone, in my mp3 player of choice, in my car, or on my computer? DRM, like salt, is the spice of life. only with DRM do i feel every conceivable emotion, from hatred, to fear, to utter enjoyment when things finally work. without DRM, i am just a lazy slacker. with DRM, every day is an adventure.
    • sh4rkb1t3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What a load of ***** blogspam. Digg seems to have turned into a place where a couple of bloggers can advertise their sites.
  • 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.
    • fulldecent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You can see how powerful Jobs' original post was because of how many direct responses it has elicited. Unfortunately an important category of people, artists, have yet to make notable comments on it.
  • 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
  • Mc_Carter, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7Viva la Sealand!
  • 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?
    • brendanc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Right, but instead of saying something to the effect of "Yes! Yes! A unicorn with pink wings! Make us one now!", why don't they make this "free and open" solution they so wonderfully tout? Then we'll see who's *****.
    • 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.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2"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!""

      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. So, maybe it looks like a unicorn to you, Jobs, but for saying this you're either ignorant or a liar.
    • 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.
    • masgrada, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3But I don't want a pink unicorn. :(
    • MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So, uh, geekee. You're in FAVOR of DRM? Or is it just because it's Apple you're bent out of shape. Take your pick, either way you're a troll.
    • MotionAesthetic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You may bash Ubuntu or like Sony, but one thing you NEVER do here is support DRM.

      Sorry dude.
  • ionchannels, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Fred Amoroso is double plus ungood.
    • Buttercup, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1... is that a pihkal reference?

      +++ for you, good sir.
    • Charron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"... is that a pihkal reference?

      +++ for you, good sir."

      ....dear Lord.
    • Schrodinger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It's a 1984 reference.
  • totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Yeah, there's an unbiased voice of reason.
  • koonchu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28Wow. That entire letter smells of rabid PANIC.
    • ohpreis, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0I love you comment. How perceptive.
  • 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!
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Steve Jobs is not interested in having his DRM problems solved. He likes thing just the way they are. His letter is pure BS intended to blame everyone else for Apple's lock-in practices.
    • 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?
    • MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2warragul, nicely said. geekee can you reply in a non-rantish way? Or do you just love DRM? Jobs said he would get rid of DRM if allowed by the content copyright holders. If taken at his word, he should immediately remove the DRM from labels that do not require it. The only possible hold back would be if he isn't allowed to sell non-DRMed audio because of contractual agreements with the other studios. I've asked this a few times, but can anyone verify one way or another if this is the case?

      If Jobs and Apple CAN sell it without DRM when allowed by copyright holders and doesn't relatively soon, then his whole open letter means nothing.
  • JESUSREAM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25post deleted by macrovision protection due to unauthorized content.


    foiled again!
  • EntropyFan, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5I know people love to bash DRM, but how else do you attempt to make sure that someone who works (like an artist) gets paid for their work, and not just ripped off?
    Napster proved that the masses are willing to take a free ride.
    I feel DRM, especially in its current form, is ***** idiotic and next to useless, but if you want to get rid of DRM, there needs to be a system or guarantee that people will get paid for their work.

    Ideas, anyone?

    • 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.
    • DvS01, 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.
    • 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.
    • MScrip, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3> "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."

      I am happy to support artists on tour as well.

      But, what is the money breakdown of the other people who work on the tour? A band may have 5 members... but what about the bus drivers, sound men, light men, tour managers, travel coordinators, assistants, costumers, crew, etc...?

      I guess that mainly applies to huge tours... but, there are usually more crew than band members.

    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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?
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6@loup

      DRM allow APPLE to control how you use your music. The industry wants to make the DRM more flexible. Jobs does not. He says all or nothing knowing nothing isn't an option. He a master of marketing, and a real jerk.
    • 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.
  • DvS01, 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.


  • catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15-5 for a ridiculous defense of DRM
    +1 for pointing out Steve Jobs' hypocrisy
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Exactly. Most of what he said was BS, but he did offer to help Jobs with his DRM woes if he really wanted to license it to competitors. Of course Jobs has no intention of doing this, nor does Jobs want DRM to go away. It's all just a bluff that Digg has bought hook, line, and sinker.
    • Tenareth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Steve is a business man, most studies show that removing DRM will boost sales, this would be good for Steve. I know you want to look for another reason for his letter, but it really comes down to the same answer to any businessman: Follow the money.

    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4"Steve is a business man, most studies show that removing DRM will boost sales, this would be good for Steve. "

      Removing DRM will boost sales for Apple competitors, and force Apple to lower their prices in many cases. They will also have more competition for mp3 players since everyone's player will work with any music. They will lose control of the market, and jobs loves to control a product. Keeping proprietary DRM is in Apple's interest, just like the proprietary doc format was in MS's interest
    • Tenareth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1True, but Steve already has "Cool Factor". He'll have to decrease costs, but that is coming anyway... he knows he can't control the market much longer, so he wants the playing field changed.
    • LiquidPenguin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Tenareth

      A study found that 95% of all survey and study results are made up on the spot, including this one.

      For every "study" I've seen citing a DRM-free market boosting sales, I've seen corrosponding "studies" saying the opposite.

      I'm not for DRM and I'll fight tooth and nail to ensure the market doesn't bear out to the outragous DRM environment the *AA is looking to build. But I don't delude myself in believing that we'll reach a utopia DRM-free environment or the fact that such a marketing environment would boost entertainment sales without actually seeing it first hand. This is a war that we, the consumers, will be fighting for years. Our grandchildren will likely be fighting this as well.

      If having a DRM-free market does boost profits for giants like Sony, then all's well that ends well and "our" study was right. If, however, Sony and all the major studios collapse into a dusty pile of rubble, then "they" were right and we'll be left to pick up our entertainment pieces. But you know what? I don't care what happens one way or the other as long as consumers regain control of what's rightfully theirs. I was perfectly content buying movies and not having to worry about whether my right to watch that movie would be taken away or dealing with some sort of ***** up DRM scheme that makes enjoying it a pain in the ass.
  • epithius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Shouldn't they be the original ARM company?
  • dportola, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7One thing I actually agree with is that lack of DRM leads to one-size-fits-all. You can't do 48-hour rentals, etc. of non-DRM'd content, cause there's no way to timeout. That means that the movie studios would have no option but selling movies to own - at a much higher price than a 2-day rental. From that standpoint, DRM does give the movie companies the ability to provide more options to us.
    • acetv, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14It's. Not. Worth. It.
    • 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.
    • benger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1or you keep DRM on 'rented' content and remove it on everything else...
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2Apple called out on their bluff about wanting to open their DRM to make it interoperable. Jobs is an idiot, but everyone believes his bs about licensing DRM being too hard.

    FTA
    ""We offer to assist Apple in the issues and problems with DRM that you state in your letter. Should you desire [Steve], 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.""
    • 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?
    • MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Kuipo,
      geekee is just another Apple hater. If this was coming from anyone other than Steve Jobs, he would carry it himself down the mountain top. Don't bother trying to argue with him, he's a troll of the worst magnitude. He actually is arguing FOR DRM. Amazing.
  • 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!
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3You don't understand copyright laws. It very simple. Only the copyright holder gets to make copies. They are not obligated to replace your copy if you lose it, however. You aren't buying a license. You are buying that copy, and that copy only.
    • TheBeaver, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5No, you're both wrong. You're buying the collective schlong of the RIAA, and sticking it in both ears at once.
  • 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.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1You can't rent music and movies without DRM so it can add value in some cases to content providers and consumers.
    • 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.
    • rabidbadger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And I'm hungry, too.
    • madchemst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How the ***** do you know if that's even financially viable? Not every artist is as rich as "craptallica" and for emerging artists, they need at least a dollar a song to be viable. I could break down the costs for you but I imagine you'd just pick that apart as well. You'd be amazed at what the record companies keep and how you don't even make more than a well paid employee until you go Platinum. Know your facts before you run your mouth about ***** you don't understand.
  • 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.
    • 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.
  • 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.
  • hourog, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2HooRay for www.CDBaby.com
  • 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.
  • 91degrees, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1To be fair, Macrovision has based their business on retrofitting largely compatible protection on unprotected formats. Their video protection system exploited a design feature in VHS. Their other protection mechanism generally cause no problems on the vast majority of systems. (and Macrovision had nothing to do with Sonys rootkit). They may well be able to come up with some hack that would work with almost all mp3 players yet somehow lock the music to a PC.

    Of course, personally, I'd rather they relied on the whole "trust" system that protects so many works sufficiently that most artforms are possible, but Macrovision's entire business model is based on not trusting the end user.
  • 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?
  • dportola, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2One thing I find funny is that over in Second Life, where individual folks like us are making cool builds, textures, etc. there is a huge concern over people ripping them off and them not getting paid for the stuff they make. They want Second Life to ADD drm to SL. Seems like the situation is different when you are getting yoru content ripped offer rather than a big faceless studio :-)
    • 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.
  • venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Can anyone actually offer a solution to piracy?

    *ducks*
    • 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.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yes, I can:

      Price music so it is too cheap to steal.

      Nobody steals long distance phone service any more. It costs about 5% what it used to cost, or less.
    • remotecontrol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+01 possible solution is to digitally watermark files. the watermark would not include any personal info (that's bad for privacy). however, they would contain copyright information and the point of purchase (ie online music store). the watermark would not impact the quality of playability of the media.

      this way files could be audited. if i've got thousands of files on a sharing site watermarked for an online music store, but there is no record of purchase - i could be prosecuted.

      of course this could be easily overcome by transcoding the files (which may reduce their quality). that's also possible with any of the available drm technologies, so what's the difference?

      a watermarking system that doesn't impact playability but provides an audit trail on purchased media would discourage sharing of original files (just as well as any current drm without limiting playback to specific devices).
  • jeffeb3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think you need to look at this in a different way. If you want to change people's opinions about DRM, you need to know what the other side thinks about it. I look at this and see a few flaws.

    - DRM is broader than just music - agreed, but you can have separate rules for each one. I'm not going to argue this because I'm not sure why it matters.
    - DRM increases customer value - your examples show some interesting ideas that were tried before (divx - not the codec, the DVD player) and the industry tried to abuse them. That's what would happen if you tried this. Really, they're going to charge extra for full rights, and the same for limited rights.
    - DRM will increase electronic distribution. That's probably true, but this seems to be at the cost of the consumer's rights. What Jobs' was trying to say is that if people would distribute without the DRM, things would definitely be better for the consumer, and because of that, the copyright owners would get more money (which is what they really want anyway)
    - DRM should be interoperable. That's sounds expensive. Who's going to pay for that? Not me, I hope. I don't want to pay to have more restrictions on my rights. That also sounds like the easiest way to get that would be for one, experienced, DRM focused company to manage it. One company that would earn a lot of profits. Hmmm...

    If you want to convince someone something, you have to tell them why their ideas don't work, not just that they don't or else it looks like you aren't listening.
  • 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.
  • GregR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Check out http://daringfireball.net/2007/02/macrovision_translation for a translation of the double-speak into English.
  • 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.
  • pmsyyz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2pranavchavda, don't be an Engadget whore, use a direct link.
    • Refrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'd rather not allow Macrovision to think that the public really supports them by all of the hits their response is getting.

      Thanks for linking to Engadget instead. Although, I think Daring Fireball would have been better.
  • zdiggler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Basically he's think everyones is thief.

    Dugged down for making me click twice to get to the actual link.
  • Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Those MUST be dentures!
  • nace33, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Macrovision, did you step in dog *****?
  • jubbjubb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2DRM is so dumb because it actually paralyzes advancement. It lets stupid RIAA executives decide what happens in technology.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.