Your Movies Are About to go Ultraviolet

[Hooch Tan]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2010/07/dece-moving-forward-with-beta-tests-but-still-sans-apple.ars' target='_blank'>http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news...-sans-apple.ars</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"The Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem (DECE) is moving forward with a brand name and a beta test for its cloud-based "digital locker" system. The name for the technology will be UltraViolet and the beta test will begin this fall, while the specs and licensing details are expected to be ready by the end of 2010."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/dht/auto/1279718568.usr20447.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #d2d2bb;" /></p><p>It seems as if there will be a perpetual effort to implement DRM in almost any content.&nbsp; The video industry has made many attempts at doing this before, but this time, it looks as if a larger group of them have gotten together for something close to a single solution.&nbsp; DRM has never been easy.&nbsp; Before the usual rants going off about how DRM is bad, DRM is there to protect the content creator.&nbsp; Much like copyright, it allows a creator to have some degree of control over what they make and what is done with it.&nbsp; Yes, the movie industry has taken it to the next step as a way of maximizing profit as well.&nbsp; The problem is that it is a balance.&nbsp; How do you prevent your content from being distributed in a fashion you do not want (and presumably, without any profit) while allowing legitimate customers access with a minimum of fuss?&nbsp; Almost everyone I know of wants control over their things.&nbsp; That is why they have a lock on their door.&nbsp; It keeps those they do not want out, but lets them in fairly easily.&nbsp; Previously, this was much easier as the barrier for theft or copying was either high or at least a little inconvenient.&nbsp; As CD burners and computing technology advanced, this barrier got lower and lower.&nbsp; Now it seems all that is left is some sort of software or network based solution.&nbsp; From the sounds of it, this DRM may be a step forward, in that it is, hopefully, a single solution for all movie publishers (almost) but the need for a persistent, or even an intermittent Internet connection sounds like a potential hassle.&nbsp; Depending on the actual implementation, I probably will find myself spending my entertainment dollars elsewhere.&nbsp; What about you?</p>

[whydidnt]

While in theory this is better than what we've seen previously, the fact that it phones home for validation makes it a non-starter for me. We've already seen instances of DRM providers deciding it wasn't worth their time or hassle and close up shop, leaving our purchases worthless.

I have to take issue with some of your comments though, we hear over and over again that DRM is there to protect the content creator, but the reality is that it is there to protect the big business interests that are distributing the content. In many cases the lock down on content hurts the actual creator, since funny accounting often moves financial benefits away from the creator, with wider distribution, more folks might pay to see the musician live. That's a huge difference, and one that most in the media always report incorrectly. The real problem is that DRM in every shape, form or incarnation is a colossal failure! It has never protected content from being shared against the will of the content companies, it has only been a serious pain-in-the-ass for consumers, that only want to PAY for the crap being locked down, but don't because they can't use it the way they want.

If companies would quit making it so damn hard for consumers to use products they legitimately purchased, then more consumers would have less incentive to use an unauthorized (and non-paid for) copy.

[Hooch Tan]

I have to take issue with some of your comments though, we hear over and over again that DRM is there to protect the content creator, but the reality is that it is there to protect the big business interests that are distributing the content. In many cases the lock down on content hurts the actual creator, since funny accounting often moves financial benefits away from the creator, with wider distribution, more folks might pay to see the musician live.

You're quite right. When I think creator on this scale, I have the image of the distribution companies, not the artist. I do think that copyright's initial intention was to proect the creator, but I agree with you that the whole system has been manipulated to just protect cashflow.

That's a huge difference, and one that most in the media always report incorrectly. The real problem is that DRM in every shape, form or incarnation is a colossal failure! It has never protected content from being shared against the will of the content companies, it has only been a serious pain-in-the-ass for consumers, that only want to PAY for the crap being locked down, but don't because they can't use it the way they want.

Well, with DRM being a failure, the only example I can provide where it has been more accepted is Steam. However, they do take a different approach, where while they do saddle software with DRM, they try to provide benefits to the system as well, like being able to install anywhere and (for some new games at least) a shared save game system. Without those kind of benefits though, DRM is just a restriction setup.

If companies would quit making it so damn hard for consumers to use products they legitimately purchased, then more consumers would have less incentive to use an unauthorized (and non-paid for) copy.

That does raise an interesting question though. Who has "rights" to the content? If one are not willing to pay the price (cost, it coming with DRM, it displays ads, etc), why does one still have a right to the content? That's the part that has always baffled me. I think people should be voting with their wallets instead. Otherwise, this battle will continue unendingly. What those people are saying is, "I don't like the price I have to pay, so I won't, but I'm going to take it anyways." People are not entitled to specific content. (Besides, there's lots of great free stuff out there anyways!) I'm not saying I agree with how DRM is being applied though. I understand the reasoning behind it, but it should be done in a way to be an incentive to go the legitimate route, not, as you said, a barrier that encourages people to go the unauthorized way.

[whydidnt]

That does raise an interesting question though. Who has "rights" to the content? If one are not willing to pay the price (cost, it coming with DRM, it displays ads, etc), why does one still have a right to the content? That's the part that has always baffled me. I think people should be voting with their wallets instead. Otherwise, this battle will continue unendingly. What those people are saying is, "I don't like the price I have to pay, so I won't, but I'm going to take it anyways." People are not entitled to specific content. (Besides, there's lots of great free stuff out there anyways!) I'm not saying I agree with how DRM is being applied though. I understand the reasoning behind it, but it should be done in a way to be an incentive to go the legitimate route, not, as you said, a barrier that encourages people to go the unauthorized way.

Actually there are laws that determine who has a "right" to content. If I purchase content, there are established "Fair Use" rights that come along with that. Content providers have been attempting to usurp these rights for years, and nobody ever seems to scream about how they are "stealing" from us. Yet we continue to be bombarded by stories of pirates and stealing from the consumer side.

Anyway, my point isn't that a person has a right to content that is unnecessarily encumbered with DRM, but rather content providers are shooting themselves in the foot. Right or wrong, when it becomes too difficult to purchase content, people do find alternatives. How many Beatles songs have been downloaded simply because they refuse to sell them in MP3 form. You and I can agree that those downloading them don't have a right to do so, but we also have to be smart enough to know that it happens anyway. How much more could have been made if they had been offered for sale, like most other music? Instead in the interest of trying to "protect their content" it was taken from them.

I see this too often these days in all sorts of business and personal dealings - I call it the "That's not fair, syndrome". Too many decisions get made to prevent other parties from taking advantage of you, rather than improving your own situation. It's like people will spend thousands of dollars on security systems to protect $500 worth of stuff just to make sure you don't get it for "free". How much money have content providers completely wasted on ineffective DRM schemes over the last decade? How much on grandstanding lawsuits that never result in any real return? Why aren't their board of directors questioning this ridiculous expenditure of resources?

I really can't think of any legitimate reason to embrace DRM technologies. Their only purpose is frustrate the consumers who legitimately want to PAY for your content. Those who download unauthorized content will do so regardless of any DRM scheme, so all businesses are doing is making it HARDER for consumers to do business with them, and that is never a good strategy for success.

[Hooch Tan]

Anyway, my point isn't that a person has a right to content that is unnecessarily encumbered with DRM, but rather content providers are shooting themselves in the foot. Right or wrong, when it becomes too difficult to purchase content, people do find alternatives.

In that, I can wholeheartedly agree. The whole ethcial issue aside, it seems evident that it is a part of human nature (at least within our culture) to look for alternatives, even illegal ones, if we cannot get what we want. The big companies seem to both recognize this and detest it. I know that retailers often incorporate "shrinkage" as part of their margins, and while they work to minimize it, they accept that it is going to happen. The big distributors seem intent on thinking they can eliminate it, which seems unreasonable, and they fail to recognize that the illegal market in many ways, provides a superior product, since it isn't laden with restrictions.

How many Beatles songs have been downloaded simply because they refuse to sell them in MP3 form. You and I can agree that those downloading them don't have a right to do so, but we also have to be smart enough to know that it happens anyway. How much more could have been made if they had been offered for sale, like most other music? Instead in the interest of trying to "protect their content" it was taken from them.

That has always baffled me. I mean, like you said, they could make an incredible amount of money, yet refuse to do so. I don't know if they should just "give up" and do as the masses do, but surely they must realize they're missing out on a great opportunity.

I see this too often these days in all sorts of business and personal dealings - I call it the "That's not fair, syndrome". Too many decisions get made to prevent other parties from taking advantage of you, rather than improving your own situation. It's like people will spend thousands of dollars on security systems to protect $500 worth of stuff just to make sure you don't get it for "free". How much money have content providers completely wasted on ineffective DRM schemes over the last decade? How much on grandstanding lawsuits that never result in any real return? Why aren't their board of directors questioning this ridiculous expenditure of resources?

I would dispute the return on investment for a thousand dollar security system protecting $500 worth of material, as there are other issues involved when something is stolen, but I do get your point. There is an issue of diminishing returns and losing focus on what is most efficient. Recently in the papers ,the whole issue about the RIAA spending ~$58 million to get ~$1.5 million back. Even considering the side effect of raising awareness and fear factor, I find it hard to believe they got a good return on investment.

I suspect that the board of directors live in a completely different world with different reasoning. Part of it is trusting the wrong people, and part of it is probably being set in their ways, resisting the way the music industry has changed. They rose to power by learning how to enforce the old way of making money, and perhaps they do not know how any other way?