MPAA says it's committed to fair use, interoperability, and, uh, DRM

Uh-oh. Looks like MPAA boss Dan Glickman skipped over his pal Steve's open letter. Speaking at a LexisNexis conference on DRM, Glickman announced that the major studios comprising the MPAA have made a "philosophical commitment" to interoperability and fair use and announced a plan to let people rip DVDs to home servers and iPods. The goal, he said, is to "make things simpler for the consumer." However, Glickman also stressed that the studios were going to move forward "legally and in a protected way," meaning, of course, DRM. Hammering the irony home, the solution he proposed -- a "technology summit" of academics, tech companies, and content producers to develop a workable DRM system -- is exactly the sort of wasted effort Steve-O lambasted in his open letter. And while it's encouraging that Glickman recognized the "impatience" of consumers, he didn't give a timeline, instead saying that pricing and business models were "way beyond" him. Now, to be fair, Steve himself doesn't think TV shows and movies need to be DRM-free, but on the whole, Glickman's plan to solve DRM's problems with more DRM isn't exactly our favorite idea ever. Still, it's nice to see the MPAA finally recognize the importance of interoperability. Let's just hope they're actually serious about it -- we're not holding our breath.

[Thanks, Todd]

[andy @ Apr 27th 2007 7:41AM]

" announced a plan to let people rip DVDs to home servers and iPods"
that at the same time adds drm lol, at least its a step

[Chuckles McGee @ Apr 27th 2007 8:09AM]

The studios realize they can't stop file distribution completely, so they might as well try to make things difficult for people.

[Ryan @ Apr 27th 2007 8:25AM]

A little late since DVD DRM cracking is so easy now even your mom could do it. What's next? Are we going to hear that taping FM radio is okay too?

[ssuk @ Apr 27th 2007 8:31AM]

Since DVDs have been dumpable into NON-DRM formats for the longest of times now, what incentive is there for me to dump my DVDs into a DRM infested format where I'll not have the privalage of quality control and have the quality reduced when it's moved anywhere?

[Andy @ Apr 27th 2007 8:33AM]

I notice his "technology summit" doesn't include CONSUMERS!
If Mr. Glickman is really interested in making "things simple for the consumer" he would at least ask his customers what they want, and you can be sure the answer isn't protected music or movies, it's music and movies that I can do what the hell I like with after I've purchased them.
Oh well, I won't delete azureus just yet...

[Jeff C @ Apr 27th 2007 8:36AM]

You know...reading this...it immediately brings to mind a mental image of these guys sitting around a table much like Mel Brooks and Harvey Korman did with the "Gov's" cabinet in 'Blazing Saddles', with this guy ranting "We need to protect our phony baloney jobs gentlemen!" and the rest of them chiming in with "Harumph! Harumph!".

[Todd @ Apr 27th 2007 8:57AM]

EXACTLY Jeff C, perfect analogy!

But who/what will be our "Sheriff Bart" to get rid of these totally-out-of-touch-with-reality technocrats?

http://imdb.com/title/tt0071230/

[KR @ Apr 27th 2007 8:48AM]

I didn't get a harumph outta that guy!

Give the governor a harumph!

[Chicksta @ Apr 27th 2007 10:20AM]

It seems to me that if you want to 'get rid of' the current system, griping and breaking the law aren't going to further that cause. Where's your better solutions, your great ideas? Retail executives don't just shrug and sit around saying, well, people are gonna steal anyways, so we shouldn't bother trying to stop them. Retailers put merchandise in cases, in security boxes, they put sensor tags inside the packages; it's a little inconvenient for honest customers to have to wait for those things to be deactivated, but it's better than paying a higher price for the products because the theft ratio is blown up to overcompensate for its potential. So other than 'people are gonna do it no matter what', what do you propose? Have you created and given a plan to the labels and pushed for change, or do you just invent excuses to try to justify why it's okay to break the license agreements? Now of course the biggest difference here is that when you go to a store, you buy a product. When you purchase a CD or DVD, you do NOT own the materials on the disc; you own a license to use the materials on the disc as specified. You can do whatever you want w/the physical medium - break it, burn it, scratch it, whatever. But you do not own the music or the movie on it. The people that made it own it, and if you don't like their terms of license, you can choose to not buy their product, to let them know what you want, etc., but you have no entitlement to justify breaking the license agreement just because you want to. I would love it if these sorts of products would have more innovative and useful distribution methods and licenses, but there needs to be a way to do it that protects the rights of the content owner, and I guess no one has proposed a viable solution. Yeah, some people don't like change much and will not like new ideas, but if someone can prove another model works, they do tend to act like lemmings. I remember when they wouldn't go for digitizing music at all, nor allowing single-song downloads... they do eventually change.
And a separate note; while people may not like the MPAA or the RIAA or DRM or whatever, I don't believe that a person's job defines who they are as human beings (unless they choose to make it so). The thread about Mr. Valenti dying was appalling. That man was more than his job at the MPAA, and has done more honest, real work for charities and human beings than most people ever have or ever will. You don't have to like what he did for a living, but that doesn't define who he was as a human being, and until you do anything 1/100th as positive as the charitable things he's done in his lifetime, seriously, stfu. If you think that the MPAA, DRM, etc. is so bad, then why not come up with something better?

[johnnyg0 @ Apr 27th 2007 10:35AM]

to Chicksta :

There already is something better, its called good old clean drm-free DVDs and CDs and been sold for over 10 years.

... I've bought two DVD recently that just wouldn't play either in my computer NOR MY DVD PLAYER because of that stupid DRM. Do I need to tell you I'm not going to buy DVDs for a while?

[Dave @ Apr 27th 2007 11:06AM]

Chicksta is crazy. If I'm paying $20 for a license to watch the movie then the studios should give me another disc for $1 since I already own the license when the disc gets scratched. Instead they install crap DRM on new bond flicks to prevent them from being played on my dvd players. There's nothing on the box or inside the box that says I agreed to any kind of gay license agreement of that kind. GM can't make a car than runs on 98 octane gas that you can't buy in the states and say "We told you it ran on unleaded fuel(we just didn't say what kind). You agreed to the license when you opened the door and sat in the car. No money back for you, enjoy your undrivable car and have a nice day." Jack valentie can burn in hell. He was greedy media whore and nothing more. Nothing benefited the customer.

[Chicksta @ Apr 27th 2007 12:17PM]

If you have to begin your discussion with name calling, how seriously should you expect to be taken? While Valenti advocated for lots of intellectual-property-pro causes (which does not have to equal anti-consumer), DRM is created by tech companies, then sold to tech companies, then used by media companies, so why not direct these issues with technology at the tech people, not at committee executives? If someone made and pitched a better product, then that would cause a change. If he didn't know any better (because he's not a techie and might not 'get it'), who was trying to educate him? But as long as there's a company that will make something to meet the demands of uneducated media companies and they don't have a better alternative, what do you expect them to do? I really like the idea of the replace-a-disc-for-a-buck myself, but how much extra would that cost for me once they factor in the overhead? I also think it's great to not buy DVDs and, say, rent them instead because of those issues, so long as that means one isn't stealing them instead. The downside there is that if media companies saw a surgence of rentals and a decrease of purchases, they might make the assumption that people preferred the rental model and that would probably mean MORE DRM, as they'd make more subscription-based models. DRM is not the only reason discs don't work, but it can be one of the reasons. The manufacturer (not the retailer) should provide you with a replacement, refund, or alternate format either way.
While some people think pro-consumer has to be anti-business, there needs to be a middle ground that enables artists, technicians, software developers, gaffers, CD graphic designers, field reps, and all of the myriad people involved with the product manufacturing, creation, distribution, promotion, and so on to be compensated while allowing average-income people to purchase and enjoy their creations. Businesses who make other products are usually compensated this way. Arts are always tricky in that regard; while they give a lot to us in terms of lifting our spirits or impacting us emotionally, we don't tend to place much value upon them; we feel entitled to the works those people make. So is it the same as a car? No, in part because more people feel that they have to purchase a car and that it is a necessity to earn a living. But tangible goods are either sold or rented, they're not usually licensed. However, you ARE given a license to drive that vehicle, and if you violate that license it can be suspended, revoked, or have you arrested, depending upon the infraction (even if you paid for the license, you don't get a refund!). If you rent a vehicle, that is a sort of license agreement, and you can be given restrictions for how far you can take the car, etc. or you'll be charged with fines. So it's best to try and keep metaphors equal; tangible goods do not equal licenses.
I think it would be great if more artists became independent businesses, but that can't work for all of them, and it can't work for movies. Artists need promotion, management, and all of those necessary evils to compete in the marketplace. I think media companies are in need of a better business model, but unprotected media created a lot of problems too. I guess the reason they don't invite consumers to these things is because, first of all, if they say 'legal and protected' and that somehow automatically equals DRM, or something bad, then how is any progress going to be made? Why is legal and protected bad, if it does the things consumers want? He says he wants it to be easy for the consumer, but until someone gives them some choices for how that can happen without forcing me to pay extra to compensate for projected loss (and whether or not they feel that loss is moot; I ain't Robin Hood), then I'll just look it as a good thing that they're willing to at least look at options, especially once there are some.

[Trent @ Apr 27th 2007 1:44PM]

Chicksta, you're missing part of the equation. When did we give the MPAA and Studios permission to load DRM on our PC's? Hell Microsoft did not even suggest rootkits as they are dangerous to implement and remove. They just assumed a weak ass EULA would cover them. It didn't and still does not. I'm all for protecting copyright as an artist and musician myself, but do it in the court system with real pirates and bigger and larger fees for a deterrent. But don't under ANY circumstances make your PAYING customers suffer for MPAA insecurities regarding content. It's just dumb, they payed you money?!?! And the crappy DRM only affects the paying customer. The pirates are not affected in any way. Hell "power users" like us are deterred for all of the 15 seconds it took us to download the right tool to remove the DRM. Have I ever seeded or rebroadcasted it to anyone else. NO! And I never will. But that doesn't change the fact that if I want to rip a DVD to my Archos 604 then you better bet I'm going to crack that DRM so I can do it. It's my DVD, my Archos. The content may not be mine but I'm not violating their TOS because I'm only place-shifting in my own home.

I applaud your corporate allegiance but it is misplaced in this case.

I lost a hard drive to that cruddy Sony DRM removal tool and you know what, never again! DRM flat out stinks, and we should not purchase any product with it on there as it is anti-consumer.

[James @ Apr 27th 2007 4:32PM]

RandomThoughts: you've just described an unsolvable problem -- you know that, right? "DRM is needed, but a form that lets the customer do whatever they want with their purchase..." ...so, basically *no* DRM?... "...(except sharing it with others)..." ...ah, so that's the idea.

Of course, why didn't the movie industry think of that? We'll just *sternly warn* the files to work only for Johnny Jones of South Wichita Falls. It better not play for any other people, _or else_. Johnny can make a copy of the DVD, so that if it get scratched he still has the original, or rip it so he can watch it on his PSP, but if you rip it so Johnny's friend Jimmy can put it on *his* iPod, well, it won't work, right? ...Because of the *pixie dust*?

Seriously, DRM is hard, mostly because it's mathematically impossible to do 100% right -- it's not a matter of *if* DRM will be broken, but *when* (see the previous Engadget articles on AACS). The only variable is how valuable the protected content is: the more people think it's worth, the harder they'll work to break into it. Even if somebody could work out a perfect system -- say, distribute product that only works on a 100% closed, tamper proof system (ships with the whole motherboard encased in a block of epoxy!) -- you couldn't let the consumer do what they want with it, as that will inevitably require putting the content somewhere you *don't* control. See, freedom to do what you want with content you pay for is 180 degrees opposite from the copyright-holder's ability to control piracy. It's a line with your rights at one end and content-providers' rights at the other, and the best we can do is try to strike the right balance by setting laws someplace in the middle, at least until somebody is able to come up with a paradigm-shifting idea, something that changes the rules, so it's not a zero-sum game anymore.

Me? I'm not holding my breath.

[David Onigman @ Apr 27th 2007 5:26PM]

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005010.php

I hope they invite us to this "technology summit".

Sincerely,
David Onigman
Load 'N Go Video

[cromas @ Apr 28th 2007 10:53PM]

Also, Jobs article was called "Thoughts on Music" -- he was talking about DRM on music, not movies. He's said before that he thinks movies are a different beast, and I would actually agree with him. I want to own my music, but I'd prefer to rent my movies. Music is a different experience, and if an album is good, I want to listen to it over and over for many years to come. A movie, however, I will generally only watch once.

Particularly exceptional movies I will want to revisit as the years pass, but since technology advances so fast, it seems like a better idea to just rent the movie again later than to buy it now and see the format outdated in 5 or 10 years.

I don't think I own more than 30 DVDs, and about five of those came free with my first-gen DVD player. I just don't understand why you'd want to spend so much money for an item you're typically not going to use more than two or three times.