A thought about DRM/CableCard madness

[sean_snider]

So I've read lots of really interesting posts about the state of the state regarding DRM, CableCard, SatCard (for CableCard for directTV/dish), etc.

Here are the short points

1.) Everyone will somehow have to have Windows Vista too support DRM
2.) Cable companies still charge $n/month for a cable card. . . (isn't this illegal according to the FCC)

What I don't get is this. . .why do we need DRM?? Why can't someone pass laws to make ISPs develop ways to keep people from sharing copywrited content over the internet? Its not as hard as it sounds, but it wouldn't be easy either. . .if there's no drm, then there's no need to encrypt the signals once inside the home (e.g you can encrypt them up to the box outside)

The fact is that most people now know that sharing in that matter is illegal. . . and nobody is ever going to do anything about someone burning a DVD and taking it to a friends house b/c that's too snailish. . .

Doing something like having ISP watch upload traffic on known ports (80, 431, etc), and all traffic on unknown ports, counting simultaneous connections to servers, counting total connections, inspecting packet size, and referrer, etc, you'd think you could build a watch dog system, that once you had enough of a case built up the ISP could just send the user a cease/desist email once, and 3 strikes your out or whatever. . .

Thoughts?

[jkirk]

drm has nothing to do with protecting a copyright imo since a pirate WILL break it eventually. it has everything to do with these two things

1 if it is encrypted the cable company can charge for an external box and then charge more to record it temporarily with their pvr offerings.

2 the elimination of casual copying allows media companies to make more money selling dvd's that are also encrypted.this will continue to the point of eventually needing a license to play on each device/player allowing them to make even more money selling those licenses. so instead of buying the dvd and playing on your psp you instead have to buy the hd-dvd for 1 player only(additional licenses sold seperately) and buy the psp version and the ipod version, etc, etc ad nauseum. this is the ideal world the media companies want to live in.

in this situation drm will eventually turn everyone into pirates to an extent.

[sean_snider]

well. . . .

1.) this is on it way to becoming illegal. i.e Cable ready tvs. . .
2.) people will still buy dvds, just like people still go to movies. vcrs didn't top this anyway. what drm really prevents is more than just casual copying, it prevents large scale distribution, which is all they really care about. . .

take music as an example. . .
yes i can go onto bittorrent or whatever and get the latest music for free. . .
but i may or may not have to deal with the following. . .

1.) bad metadata tagging
2.) just bad file or bad quality file
3.) potential spyware. . .
4.) no guarantees. . .
5.) not always easy to find stuff
6.) i might get caught since big brother is watching. . .

movies are really no different. . . other than they cost more, so while it may make sense to copy-protect DVDs sold in the store, it doesn't make sense to copy-protect brodcasted digital content that people are already paying re-curring fees for, assumming that you just make sure they don't try to re-broadcast it/re-distribute, and especially as long as they can't make a buck off of it. . .

this is still possible without DRM, via methods I just said before, and you could still copy and do whatever the hell you want with shows. . .

in theory you could still burn multiple dvds, and then try to sell them somewhere, but that's illegal, and you'd most likely get caught unless you were doing it on a really small scale. . . and who cares about small scale since 90% of people will still buy it legally somewhere else. . .

not too mention broadcast digital copywrighted content could just simply have a marker in it when its broadcast by the Cable/Satellite provider, that are just hidden bits that don't mean anything in an mpeg, but someone burning dvds and selling them would for sure get caught. . .

[cfaslave]

DRM will be with us in some form forever I think. I personally would be okay with a DRM format that somehow hid a watermark wrapped inside the media file. This watermark could identify where the media was birthed (recorded originally) as well as mark any device that used it. Somehow marking who it was that illegally shared the content over the internet or otherwise. Why would I be okay with this? Only because I know there is a need to protect content from theft. With this type of DRM, there would hypothetically be no need for a cable box or special software/hardware that could only read certain content etc. It would (again hypothetically) open up content to be used by the person who purchased that content however they wanted - as long as it wasn't shared or sold illegally.

As far as the cablecard situation, I fear that only very large PVR companies will be able to support cablecard due to the very difficult to pass the "cablelab's seal of approval". To make matters worse for companies like Snapstream, the cablecard must be sold on a pre-built machine. That means BTV would need to be pre-installed on a PC sold from an official system builder. Makes it kinda tough for Snapstream since they sell their software separately at least for now.

I rambled on this topic a while back on my blog. If you want to read my even-more-overly-wordy rant on the topic it can be found HERE

[mayhem70]

Okay, this is DRM on crack.
http://www.webtvwire.com/more-crazy-...ock-your-vids/

[ZetaVu]

Favorite quote that applies to DRM

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

DRM is a waste of time, as proven over and over as EVERY LAST VERSION OF IT HAS BEEN CRACKED, in fact the only thing it is successful in doing is turning honest people into criminals (their words, not mine). If cable companies won't provide adequate access to movies, then the general masses will eventually migrate away to either legal or "illegal" options, which are impractical to police so become def act so acceptable, be it bittorrent or renting and ripping dvd's or whatever.

As I have said and continue to say, I prefer to pay a reasonable fee for access to content so I can watch where I want, when I want, etc. Failure to provide that and I will find an acceptable alternative, period.

Hopefully, BTV will continue to be on the forefront of user accessibility and rights when it comes to the pvr, and they will eventually provide alternatives to enable us to continue to record etc as satellite or cable goes hidef, otherwise I see no value in paying extra for hidef, and will find alternatives if needed.

[KGideon]

Originally Posted by sean_snider

well. . . .

1.) this is on it way to becoming illegal. i.e Cable ready tvs. . .
2.) people will still buy dvds, just like people still go to movies. vcrs didn't top this anyway. what drm really prevents is more than just casual copying, it prevents large scale distribution, which is all they really care about. . .

1) ?? no it is not, just because a TV supports cablecard/is cable ready, does not mean that your cable company has to support your TV...

2) DRM was never meant to have anything to do with large scale distribution, it only has to do with what Rights the content owners want the end users to be able to use with the content they have paid for.

[ZetaVu]

Actually, if the tv supports cablecard, then the cable company is I believe now required to support it (by support I mean provide you with a card that works with cablecard, not technical support your tv). That is the new law.

[jkirk]

Originally Posted by KGideon

1) ?? no it is not, just because a TV supports cablecard/is cable ready, does not mean that your cable company has to support your TV....

according to the fcc your statement is wrong
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-257519A1.pdf