[IP] A Rant against DRM and the companies that collaborate with the RIAA/MPAA
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Robert J. Berger" <rberger@xxxxxxx>
Date: October 25, 2004 3:26:24 PM EDT
To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Farber
<dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: A Rant against DRM and the companies that collaborate with the
RIAA/MPAA
Prepare to get screwed by digital rights management
Rant of the Weekend It's not good for capitalism
By Charlie Demerjian: Sunday 24 October 2004, 12:53
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19246
A FEW MONTHS AGO, ironically on July 4th, I ranted a bit about
Sony (See here), and how it was shooting themselves in the foot
with the ATRAC garbage it was trying to foist off on
unsuspecting consumers. I got a bunch of letters from a bunch of
different sources, from burned consumers to a member of the
Digital Home Working Group (DHWG) a consortium of 'over 160
member companies, with more being added daily'.
Before I get too deep into this, let me start out with a letter
I got in the middle of June. It was the catalyst for all of
this, both the Sony rant, this one and the ones that will
inevitably follow. Nothing has been edited, only the names have
been removed.
Read your review about AnyDVD. Sounds great, but here's my
problem:
I purchased a $2,000 Gateway Media Center PC a few months ago
for the express purpose of 1) recording my favorite HBO shows
(Sopranos, Six Feet Under, etc.) and burning DVD's for my
private collection; and 2) converting my home videos to DVD. All
has been going fine, until 2 nights ago.
I recorded Six Feet Under and then opened up Sonic MyDVD, as
usual, to import the video, edit out the beginning and ending
junk, and burn a DVD for my personal use.
I got a message saying it couldn't be done because the file was
copy protected! Huh?
Turns out that a couple of days ago, HBO started encrypting all
of its programs with CGMS-A. They allow you to "copy" a program
that you record from their signal once. The trouble is that they
consider that one-time copy to be recording the program onto
your hard drive, not taking it from the hard drive to a
DVD. THAT SUCKS OUT LOUD and I am extremely angry, as you can
imagine. The files are HUGE and, even though I have a 200 gb
hard drive, I can't keep them there forever. MediaCenter records
tv shows with a dvr.ms extension.
DO YOU KNOW OF ANY SOFTWARE THAT WOULD GET AROUND THE CGMS-A so
that the programs can be burned onto a DVD from the hard drive??
I just want to burn copies for my own use. I don't loan them
out, I don't sell them. I think HBO's scheme is a total rip-off
and if I weren't so addicted to The Sopranos and Six Feet Under,
I would tell them to put their service in a location where the
sun would never find it.
THANKS in advance for any info. you might be able to share.
This got me thinking, and reading, and the more I researched,
the more I realised that the record companies, and all content
providers for that matter, are greedy, arrogant and stupid. They
don't care about anything other than squeezing the most money
they can possibly get out of you, everything else be damned. If
your rights have to be trampled through the use of large bribes
(called political contributions nowadays) to get laws changed in
their favor, so be it.
The DHWG is trying to be a mediator here, making the walled
gardens of the content providers interoperable. It is for your
benefit, really, and what is worse, they will tell you that with
a straight face. Needless to say, they are wrong, and all they
are doing is window dressing. None of the '160+' companies have
anything resembling a spine, balls, or guts. They are caving in,
screwing you, and pretending to be on your side. I think I
prefer the naked greed.
One very important thing to note, nothing in the above letter
mentions piracy, selling, depriving the precious content
providers of money, or anything else that is not completely
legal under fair use laws. If the letter writer attempts to get
around the copy protection to burn the things he recorded to his
own DVDs for his own personal use, under the DMCA, he is a
criminal. So, HBO in one fell swoop pissed off its customers by
screwing them, potentially made them criminals, and saved
themselves nothing. Brilliant plan, eh?
So, what is this person to do? I told him about Overnet/EDonkey,
and now the P2P service has another happy customer, and he has
his shows, burned to his personal DVDs for his personal
use. This may fall under fair use, it may be a criminal act, and
with insanity like the INDUCE act moving forward, it sure as
hell will be criminal to so much as think about it in the near
future.
If this person had done exactly the same thing on a VCR without
Microsoft's , Gateway and Sonic's tender attentions, it would
have worked, and HBO would most likely have one more
customer. Now it is borderline criminal. Any reasonable person
would tell you that it is completely OK to do this, legal or
not. RIAA and MPAA lawyers however would love to crush you under
their heel and dance about on the bloody stain that you
become. Which outcome embodies freedom and democracy again?
Which outcome involves bags of cash and campaign managers? Which
do you think will win?
Enter the digital music rights companies of the world. Not only
do these weasels want to screw you with the 'protection' schemes
they are hatching, they want to use them to control all other
content providers. That is why I kept going back to the walled
gardens theme, Sony is trying to build them, as is Apple, Real,
MS and everyone else. If you put any execs from these, and many
other companies in a closed room, and get them talking about
user screwing, err, content protection schemes, they stand a
fair chance of drowning in their own drool thinking of the
money. The world would win that one, but they are smarter than
that, but not wiser.
Enter the DHWG, or the Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA)
(here) as they are now known. They are composed of the biggest
companies in the industry, everyone is there, and a presentation
I was sent came from one of the 'big boys' of the bunch. While
it was meant to help me understand their point of view, all it
did was scare the hell out of me, and convince me that they are
collectively doomed to failure. The sad thing is that you and I
will pay the price for it while they flail their way into the
grave.
I will not name this company, mainly because it is nothing it is
doing in particular. It is simply promoting the spineless,
myopic 'vision' of the consortium in a sheeplike fashion. The
whole group is either actively evil, stupid, or a combination of
the two. There is nothing that they are doing that will benefit
you and I, but just about everything will hurt us.
The DLNA does not understand the fundamental problem, and how it
directly conflicts with capitalism and consumer interests. What
they are doing is making a single content protection standard
that will be compatible across all members. You plug in your DVR
to your TV and it works and that can stream to your wireless
laptop in the bathroom just as easily. Everyone is happy, and
the consumer benefits while the rights of the content providers
are preserved.
No one can argue with that right? I mean the poor multi-billion
dollar consortia are only out to keep from getting ripped off so
they can line the pockets of their execs and coked out
talentless dancers that masquerade as stars nowadays.
Really, what they are doing is trying to take the same old
walled gardens, and make them into one walled garden that only
the current members can play in. Instead of screwing you and
each other, they have started to realise that they will only be
able to screw you if they want to get away with anything at
all. For them, this is 'fair'.
The fundamental question is simply this. Why would a consumer
want to buy something that has more restrictions and less
functionality for more money than current solutions? I have
asked this question to junior members of the companies to the
very top CxOs, and from people on the street to fellow
journalists. No-one can give me an answer.
The only answer is greed. They don't give a rat's ass about you,
what you think, care or do, as long as they get your money. If
you don't want to give them your money, they will take it, and
make resistance a crime.
Several execs used me as a sounding board, some because they
knew I was an asshole and would give the answers they didn't
want to hear, and others because they were oblivious. I would
always ask them the question, and none would give me an
answer. No one of them could give me a single reason why DRM was
a benefit to the consumer. Think about this. You have 160+
companies all sitting in a room discussing you like you are dumb
sheep. The sad thing is that they probably have the consumer
sized up perfectly.
They can't answer the benefit part because there is no
benefit. Some execs tried valiantly and used excuses like 'well,
interoperability is better than many different incompatible DRM
schemes'. Nice try, but answer the question. The execs either
have the proverbial clue-proof coating applied way too thick, or
they don't get the idea. I don't know which frightens me more,
but I do know at least one electronics exec I talked to is
clue-proof, and the other is in the rapacious greed
category. Let's just assume it depends on the mustelid involved.
Hands up everyone who thinks the RIAA threatening to sue 12 year
old girls and octogenarians made them buy more records? Hmm, I
see no hands out there. OK, here's an easier one for you. Hands
up everyone who feels the poor underpaid RIAA members would
starve to death peddling $18 CDs laden with crap if they
couldn't trample your rights? Nope, no hands there either.
Now, how about this one. Hands up everyone who would buy more
CDs if they actually worked in your car without having to use
illegal programs to rip them? Wow, lots of hands there. How
about if they were forced to put out good music you wanted
rather than what they want you to buy? Wow, more hands. Think it
means something? If you are a record exec, or a DLNA member, it
means the thieves are barking at your door. Call the lawyers,
start the lawsuits
If the foisted, crippling, unwanted, unloved DRM isn't bad
enough, it gets worse. One of the key bullet points in an
industry presentation I was given said 'IP must be licensed
under reasonable, non-discriminatory terms'. On the surface that
is a fair sounding proposal because everyone get the same things
at the same price. The world is a happy, controlled,
interoperable walled garden. The execs get their money, and
drive around in large cars. What more could you want?
Well, if you run Linux, the ability to play the DVD you just
bought might be useful. The terms reasonable and
non-discriminatory are the same ones Microsoft used to shut
Linux out of several other markets. Now the entire consumer
electronics industry, hardware, software and content providers,
are all getting together and slamming the door on Linux, and
probably anyone else who dares fly the banner of the
consumer. They can and will shut you down, and if they can't do
it legally, they can spend you into the ground in court.
That brings us back to the whole question of what the DLNA does
for you. The short answer is nothing that would be considered
good by anyone who does not actively talk to their shoes and to
an occasional wall. It does allow DLNA members to control what
you do, how you do it, and how you will pay them for the
privilege. Comforting thoughts, don't you think?
Let me put a personal spin on this. I have not bought a CD since
1998. When the record companies sued Napster, I sat back and
said 'this is wrong'. I thought I would wait it out, and not
give them my money until a decision was reached. If the record
companies prevailed, I would never buy another CD or give any
RIAA member my money. If Napster won, I would go back to buying
more than the CD or two I bought every week.
Fast forward. The RIAA won and lost. They spent Napster into the
ground, and while I think the fight is far from over, Napster is
gone. Sticking to my morals, I have not bought a CD since then,
and I have the dubious honor of being able to say the last CD I
ever bought was Kid Rock's Devil Without a Cause. The sad part
is that I downloaded most of the album from Napster before I
bought it, and said 'hey, this isn't bad'. I then bought the
album. God, I need to bathe.
Overall, with the new wave of DRM infected consumer electronics
breaking over us, you stand to lose what few rights you have
that are not currently criminalised. The problem is a simple
one. The DLNA will not allow itself to admit that the only thing
that matters is giving consumers more for their money. Charging
them more so you can screw them harder does not work under
capitalism, so they are attempting to change the system.
Until they can answer the question, they are doomed to
failure. Can anyone in the DLNA answer it?
Here it is again: "Why would a consumer want to buy something
that has more restrictions and less functionality for more money
than current solutions?"
I just wish one of you spineless but very rich companies had the
balls to stand up and do the right thing for the consumer. Fat
chance, but I thought I'd ask.
--
Robert J. Berger - Internet Bandwidth Development, LLC.
Voice: 408-882-4755 eFax: +1-408-490-2868
http://www.ibd.com
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/