INTERACT FORUM

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Digital Rights Management  (Read 4801 times)

Sesam

  • World Citizen
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Digital Rights Management
« on: March 02, 2016, 02:25:11 pm »

This was real wake-up call, to me it is bizarre that DVD/Blu-ray decrypting software is even considered illegal.

I mean it appears like the movie industry believes AnyDVD magically makes pirated movies appear from thin air. But people using the software to decrypt a disc, must obviously have the physical genuine copy in order to do so. So why is it so bad that we can watch our movies on any media player we want  :-\
Logged

Vocalpoint

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2005
Digital Rights Management
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2016, 04:07:44 pm »

So why is it so bad that we can watch our movies on any media player we want 

Because the movie industry wants you watching "their" movies - by "their" rules. As in - using a standard hardware device like a bluRay player etc.

That said - the industry probably could care less about users that use Slysoft the way many MC users use it - as a decrypt engine for use in MC (whilst the physical disc is in play).

They are really after the software makers to ensure folks (who have different ideas about how to use Slysoft) can't create perfect decrypted copies of the latest bluray for free download via the net.

VP
Logged

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Digital Rights Management
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2016, 05:02:35 pm »

Because the movie industry wants you watching "their" movies - by "their" rules. As in - using a standard hardware device like a bluRay player etc.

That said - the industry probably could care less about users that use Slysoft the way many MC users use it - as a decrypt engine for use in MC (whilst the physical disc is in play).

They are really after the software makers to ensure folks (who have different ideas about how to use Slysoft) can't create perfect decrypted copies of the latest bluray for free download via the net.

That's what the industry would have you believe (that they are out to stop piracy), but the real reasons have nothing to do with that.

It is about controlling the content distribution channels, so that the studio system is still required to produce and distribute a mass market movie. That makes sure that the next JJ Abrams can't just sell their content directly on their website, and keep all the profits. It is about all the money that AACS-LA makes "certifying" players and selling licensing for their ridiculous system. It is about making sure that true competition doesn't exist in the market, to keep out small entrants, which stifles innovation, but protects the status quo. It is about making fair use (particularly for criticism) difficult. And it is about selling us the same exact content over and over again on different "platforms". And they do all of this to ensure they always get their (immense) slice of the pie.
 
And, they get to use their distribution platform to make most users sit through ads, in order to "sell" them more ad-filled crap.

Making life difficult for pirates is, at best, a nice bonus. That's not, of course, what their lobbyists and PR departments say, but that's why they do it. And, by those standards, little guys like AnyDVD HD being used to play commercial content on JRiver Media Center is absolutely a "threat". They'll use piracy as the excuse, but that's not the reason.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

blgentry

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 8009
Digital Rights Management
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2016, 07:46:27 pm »

That's what the industry would have you believe (that they are out to stop piracy), but the real reasons have nothing to do with that.

Your argument is interesting.  I'll have to read it again tomorrow when I'm in a different frame of mind.

But it implies that piracy isn't a problem financially.  Which doesn't make sense to me, because it's nearly ruined the music industry.  Plus, almost everyone I know is rather cavalier about the source of their music and movies.  I know a number of people with rather large collections of music and movies that didn't pay for 99% of what they have in their collections.

Now I understand the math that:  value of pirated collection (does not equal) money the industry would have gotten .  But it's rather obvious that the ubiquity of content that people don't pay for impacts the revenue of the industries that produce the content.

If the content producers don't make money, the content will not exist.  I'm not trying to argue with you.  I'm just addressing a point that wasn't clear in your presentation.

Brian.
Logged

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Digital Rights Management
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2016, 09:16:07 pm »

The music industry's revenues aren't down because of piracy (at least, not substantially). The music industry's revenues are down because of quite a few convergent factors, all having to do with disruptive technologies causing social change:

* The RIAA member companies, up until 2005 or so, made the vast majority of their money from album sales. Album sales were driven, in the later-vinyl and CD eras, primarily through a scheme of mixing a few well produced hit-tracks in with filler (and heavily promoting the hits through payola to the radio stations). It was inconvenient and not cost effective to buy singles during these eras. The digital music revolution eliminated all of that, and people largely started buying singles of only the "good" stuff. This is where most of their revenue loss has gone. Single-track sales have, nearly entirely, replaced the "album".

* The CD-era was also a once-in-a-lifetime boom of sales, as people format-shifted from tapes and vinyl to higher-quality and more convenient CDs. This will never happen again, just like the first-time-ever conversion of the entire world to smartphone users won't ever happen again. They've been trying to get it to happen again ever since, but it won't. CD-quality audio is "good enough" for most people, and the only thing "more convenient" than digital audio libraries (on iPods and smartphones and whatnot) is streaming subscriptions, but those further erode revenues! You never get to sell anything ever again (but at least you trade in consistent ongoing revenue).

* Like basically all traditional media, they ignored the Internet until it was too late. They should have been selling online seriously at least 8-9 years before iTunes. Napster filled a void that wouldn't have existed had a legitimate market existed.

* Figures bandied about are for RIAA member companies. But the same digital music revolution that happened in music consumption, happened in music production as well. Making a high-quality recording no longer required $14M recording studios, and distributing content to the entire world no longer required factories making plastic discs, radio station DJs on the take, trucks, and a network of record stores across the nation. Being an independent artist and making a living at it was finally possible, and artists no longer have to sign away all of the money (and most of the rights) to the corporations, who as-often-as-not left them bankrupt in the end. The "music industry" (as defined by the RIAA) is smaller because people don't need them as much anymore.

* The Internet gave us a ton of new ways to entertain ourselves, and music just isn't as important as it once was.

* DRM, when implemented, did not help "stop" the piracy. The pirates, as always, could crack it, and it just made the experience terrible for everyone else, which damaged the legitimate markets.

And... That last point brings us to the best reason of all that proves that piracy is not the reason for DRM:

If it was, and if piracy was really causing all of the damage to the RIAA member companies, and DRM was about combating piracy, then why did they respond to it all by selling music DRM free? Why are they still selling it now?

Now, am I suggesting that rampant piracy didn't hurt them at all? No, not at all. Certainly the 5 years or so of Napster ascendancy caused a ton of damage and devalued their product. But, they did that to themselves, by refusing to move into the modern era. And, in any case, DRM did not help, and only made it worse. But, is real loss from piracy (defined as sales they would have made if we had some kind of dystopian alternate-present where they had managed to quash all major piracy) the major cause of their woes?

No. Even they don't think so, and their behavior bears it out. They mainly blame Apple for "forcing" them to allow $0.99 singles of every track, which screwed up their whole "push the album" bit. But what they're ignoring is that when Apple built the iTunes store and tied it to the iPod and actually drug them (kicking-and-screaming) into the century, they were falling off a precipice. Apple didn't destroy the industry, they saved them. From themselves.

The television and movie industries are heading off of exactly the same cliff. They've largely been protected until now because their data sizes were bigger, and tools remained expensive longer.

Side Note: I'm not sure how old you are, but... For the record, high-levels of piracy among the youth in music is nothing new. When I was a kid, we all did it with tapes. That's because kids are poor. The music industry's bet all along has been that they'll get addicted as kids, and become buyers later when they get jobs.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

flac.rules

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1260
Digital Rights Management
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2016, 01:45:37 am »

Your argument is interesting.  I'll have to read it again tomorrow when I'm in a different frame of mind.

But it implies that piracy isn't a problem financially.  Which doesn't make sense to me, because it's nearly ruined the music industry.  Plus, almost everyone I know is rather cavalier about the source of their music and movies.  I know a number of people with rather large collections of music and movies that didn't pay for 99% of what they have in their collections.

Now I understand the math that:  value of pirated collection (does not equal) money the industry would have gotten .  But it's rather obvious that the ubiquity of content that people don't pay for impacts the revenue of the industries that produce the content.

If the content producers don't make money, the content will not exist.  I'm not trying to argue with you.  I'm just addressing a point that wasn't clear in your presentation.

Brian.

I don't belive piracy is a financial problem, because what matters is how much people are willing to spend on culture, which seems to not be sinking over time. But even if it is, anyDVD does prevent piracy, it justs makes it more of a hassle for the people making the copy of the film, the people downloading will just download the film as a single file as always.

Logged

jmone

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 14276
  • I won! I won!
Digital Rights Management
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2016, 01:58:25 am »

I'm a simple sod.  I like to buy the BD's as they are the best quality you can get.  I just want to be able to play them in my player of choice (MC) and either from a Disc or from my Server as I have over 500 of them and managing a physical library is hard while organising them off the server in MC is easy.  DRM is a royal PITA as for some reason the powers to be don't think I should do that.  If progs like AnyDVD did not exist, I would not buy these discs and hence they would lose out and so would JRiver (as 95% of our viewing is BD).  These studios actually PAY $ to DRM their discs.  Go Figure that one out!  If I was their shareholders I'd be asking why the spend $ on something that does not work to stop piracy at all, piss of their real clients and reduce profits.  I'd rather they keep the $ spend on DRM as extra profits.... it must have been a tidy sum over all these years.
Logged
JRiver CEO Elect

blgentry

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 8009
Re: Digital Rights Management
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2016, 07:36:25 am »

I'm posting this separately as there seems to be some mild confusion about my position on DRM.

I think DRM is stupid.  DRM, in every form I've seen it in (with very few exceptions) only hurts consumers.  Those who are motivated to steal the content for free are going to figure out how and for good reason:  Physical access equals data access.

It's really weird that the content producers don't see that DRM really just gets in the way of the honest consumer that wants easy access to the content they have paid for.  In fact, you might make the argument that DRM encourages people to seek out illegal sources because it's more convenient than actually getting around the DRM on your own!

Brian.
Logged

blgentry

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 8009
Re: Digital Rights Management
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2016, 08:06:32 am »

The music industry's revenues aren't down because of piracy (at least, not substantially). The music industry's revenues are down because of quite a few convergent factors, all having to do with disruptive technologies causing social change:

Well, you can't really separate the two can you?  Go back to 1989 and ask the typical 20-something about their music collection.  You'd get an answer of something like 10 albums in some form.  Today?  Youtube, "nothing", or a massive collection of illegally obtained media.  Every now and then you'll find someone in this age group with legitimate music, but not often.  Pervasive illegal downloads have devalued music in the minds of many many people to such a point that they think they should NOT HAVE TO pay for it.  It's a "social problem", but it's rooted in piracy.

Quote
Album sales were driven, in the later-vinyl and CD eras, primarily through a scheme of mixing a few well produced hit-tracks in with filler (and heavily promoting the hits through payola to the radio stations).

Hold the phone.  Now you're saying "the content isn't any good anyway.  I just want the hits."  So "good albums" don't exist after some point in time?  Or are you simply not an album listener?  I know a lot of people that aren't and it explains MASSIVE music collections, because a lot of these people only want to listen to 1 or 2 songs per album and consider the rest junk.  As a music lover, I think you are very much missing out on the experience if you only listen to the hits on an album.  But that's a separate discussion unrelated to piracy.  Or are you saying some degree of piracy is OK because the albums aren't worth as much as they charge?  What's your point here?

Quote
The digital music revolution eliminated all of that, and people largely started buying singles of only the "good" stuff. This is where most of their revenue loss has gone. Single-track sales have, nearly entirely, replaced the "album".

You're saying there's some study somewhere that correlates single song purchases on itunes, amazon, etc with past album sales and says the number of consumers spending their money is the same?  Seems like a huge stretch to me.  How do you count someone buying 3 songs from one album for instance?  Do you have a reference for this?

Quote
* The CD-era was also a once-in-a-lifetime boom of sales, as people format-shifted from tapes and vinyl to higher-quality and more convenient CDs. This will never happen again,

Do you have data to back this up?  I didn't notice people around me replacing entire collections with CDs when they became available.  But maybe they did.  To be honest, I'm certain I bought *some* CDs of albums that I already had on tape.  So maybe this is more valid than I initially would have thought.

Quote
for most people, and the only thing "more convenient" than digital audio libraries (on iPods and smartphones and whatnot) is streaming subscriptions, but those further erode revenues! You never get to sell anything ever again (but at least you trade in consistent ongoing revenue).

Yes.  Another discussion too, because streaming (legitimately) isn't piracy.  But it's a horrible idea for everyone for exactly the reason you just said.  Plus it further devalues music in the minds of typical consumers.

Quote
Making a high-quality recording no longer required $14M recording studios, and distributing content to the entire world no longer required factories making plastic discs, radio station DJs on the take, trucks, and a network of record stores across the nation.

Well, yes and no.  Very, very few artists are going to make an album like Fleetwood Mac's Rumours in a basement or converted bedroom with a few thousand dollars in recording gear.

A member of my family is a mildly successful artist and owns his own VERY small record label.  A true independent.  But there must be some reason that it doesn't work as well as you might expect, because his band is now signed with a mainstream label.  A much smaller than average label, but still one you probably have heard of.  He still has his really small record label and produces other artists on it.  But *his* band, is now on another label.

Quote
* The Internet gave us a ton of new ways to entertain ourselves, and music just isn't as important as it once was.

I disagree.  Music is still entirely pervasive in the lives of young people.  Maybe more today than when I was in my 20s.  Headphones are EVERYWHERE you go.  People still listen to music in their cars.  I'm not in very many people's homes, so I'm not sure how much home listening goes on.  But home listening of music has been sort of secondary for a very, very long time now.

Music has been devalued.  People in general don't see the need to purchase it as much as they did in previous years.  Just ask anyone under 30.

Quote
Side Note: I'm not sure how old you are, but... For the record, high-levels of piracy among the youth in music is nothing new. When I was a kid, we all did it with tapes. That's because kids are poor. The music industry's bet all along has been that they'll get addicted as kids, and become buyers later when they get jobs.

I was a teenager in the 80s.  So yes, guilty as charged.  I had recorded tapes for sure:  many of them.  But I also had legitimately purchased tapes too (tapes were my main music collection when I was that age).  I always bought music as my (tiny) budget allowed.  I bought more when I got older and had more money.

The problem now is, young people don't "get addicted and then buy later".  They just keep getting music for free.  Or they go the ultra cheap route and stream.  Or stream "for free with youtube".  The model is not the same as it was.

If we want new music to be produced, the companies that make it have to make money.  It's as simple as that.

Again:  I'm not arguing for DRM.  I dislike DRM and I think it's ineffective.  I don't have a way to fix all of this.  But I think it's quite clearly broken.

Glynor, I think you know that I respect you.  The tone of this post reflects my shock at how you seem to think that the state of affairs with regard to digital media piracy is just fine and that the companies all deserve what they get.  I hope you'll take this in the civil way it was intended and continue to have a discussion about this.

Brian.
Logged

syndromeofadown

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
Re: Digital Rights Management
« Reply #9 on: March 04, 2016, 01:49:20 pm »

I think Glynor's coments are bang on.

Quote
Pervasive illegal downloads have devalued music in the minds of many many people to such a point that they think they should NOT HAVE TO pay for it. It's a "social problem", but it's rooted in piracy.
I wouldn't say they think "they should not have to pay for it", more like, they should not have to pay an unreasonable price and jump through hoops to get it.

Quote
As a music lover, I think you are very much missing out on the experience if you only listen to the hits on an album
Not if the album is terrible

Quote
I didn't notice people around me replacing entire collections with CDs when they became available.
I did. Tapes disappeared from stores and peoples homes immediately.
Blank tapes stayed around so people could record their CDs on them for use in cars and Walkmans and so the CD did not get destroyed (sounds very familiar). Weird how people tossed their tapes but held onto vinyl. People hate to rewind.


Quote
If we want new music to be produced, the companies that make it have to make money. It's as simple as that.
Artists make music, and they will continue to make it forever. If they are kind enough to record some and sell it to me on their website I will be grateful.
Companies make pop music. Justin Beaver, the grown up Disney Kids, One Direction, etc. are products from companies and are on the radio as advertisements for their product.
I can only fantasize about a day when their music is no longer produced.


Quote
The tone of this post reflects my shock at how you seem to think that the state of affairs with regard to digital media piracy is just fine and that the companies all deserve what they get.
Times have changed but the companies have not. The days of "sing into this can and get out so i can sell your record and keep all of the profit" are over. Record companies are not needed, they are obsolete. They will continue on as pop music facilitators.

DRM is defective by design. It is only tolerated because it is simple to circumvent. Look at DVD-Audio, it was dead on arrival because no one could do anything with them. They were expensive, needed special players, couldn't be ripped, and were mostly re-releases. If UHD blu-ray cannot be played on a HTPC, or needs an internet connection, it will die a quick death too.

As new laws and trade agreements are made that add criminal liability for breaking digital locks things will only get worse. Media companies seam to be at war with their customers. Why would anyone buy a disc if they can be criminally charged for using it incorrectly for personal use?

The biggest threat to the movie industry is Rotten Tomato, not piracy.
Terrible movies are not as profitable as in the past. There are exceptions, but generally speaking if a game, book, movie, or album is good and marketed properly, it will make A LOT of money regardless of piracy.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up