Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:06 pm

	Quote:
	He also claimed that without DRM to keep users from stealing content, the music and movie industry would pull their media from the market. In effect, he is saying that the entertainment industry sees all consumers as criminals out to steal music and movies.

This editorializing (2nd sentence) is so tiresome. No content producer that has sold a copy of their music/movie/software/etc. sees "all consumers as criminals". What they do see however, is the ability of a handful) of consumers to use popular Internet mechanisms to illegally distribute their work to thousands or millions. Ironically, Macrovision technology is mostly technically and market targeted at retarding illicit copying among friends (small darknets) rather than limiting distribution over file sharing networks.

Since there's no link to a source article, I can't judge how misinterpreted the first sentence is. Something to keep in mind though... DRM is not about enforcing any moral anti-stealing agenda. If any prong of IP enforcement is intended to do that, it's education. DRM is 100% about increasing sales. It is expensive to deploy, obviously has significant political downside. If it didn't result in net positive returns to content owners, they wouldn't bother. Perhaps that what Steve Jobs is suggesting to the labels. Software developers figured this whole DRM in the infancy of the Internet, and it still holds true today... A code enforced restriction on free use is an opportunity for a consumer to buy. Unlockable demos, etc. More of the right opportunities means more buyers.

Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:41 pm

First, Macrovision's existence relies on DRM. Second, people do not seem to get: Jobs did not say interoperability is not possible, he said Apple is not interested in licensing Fairplay to achieve it. Third, Macrovision's products stink, and often exclude Mac users (so much for interoperability).

Fourth, I feel no pity for content owners when people "steal" their content. Why? Because they are all thieves. Copyright protection in this Country used to be for 14 years. In addition, copyright holders would have to renew the copyright after I think seven years, or all the public gained the right to use it. This principle rewarded interested content owners a limited monopoly on their ideas, which often were based on other ideas, so that these ideas could eventually benefit the public by being placed in the public domain for all to use freely and build upon. Lobbyists, however, have talked Congress into rewarding copyrights for over a hundred years, and do not require renewal. That defeats the whole purpose of why the Founding Fathers included copyright protection in the Constitution.

So by "stealing" content, you are essentially claiming a right that should never have been taken from you. Also, let us face it, when you "steal" music, you are usually not hurting artists. Artists often make no money on the sale of their music, only on their performances. Artists make the least amount of money on digital downloads. Funny considering that is where the labels incur the least amount of cost.

Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:23 pm

Macrovision is a joke. They missed one of the most important points of Jobs' letter... That is that the DRM must after reaching some acceptable level of effectiveness, must not then be able to become permanently broken.

One might hate DRM and/or hate the restrictions of FairPlay, but Jobs is right in that because Apple controls it, it's *much* less likely to get openly hacked. (I'm talking pwned instead of the various work-arounds).

Of course Macrovision doesn't get this, thus Macrovision is a joke for pirates.

This is Macrovision telling Apple that they can make FairPlay both open and secure, but unfortunately for them, their resume has things like VHS, CD and DVD listed on it. All of which were copy protection failures.

Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:56 pm

	Terrin wrote:
	PS: Sad but true, you could spend more time in jail for "stealing" a song, then if you shot a person dead.

Since we're pretending like we're attorneys, let's be more accurate. Can you provide some evidence that this remarkable assertion is correct?

About the only ways that I (not an attorney) can figure that it might happen would be if you "shot a person dead" in some justifiable way (e.g., self defense) or accidentally in a way that did not involve negligence (manslaughter).

As far as I know, in most cases, copyright infringement is a civil, rather than criminal matter. Stealing A (one) song would almost surely not result in any penalty at all.

Exaggeration and irrational scare tactics hurt, not help, your argument.

Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:26 pm

As quoted in the article: "Similarly, consumers who want to consume content on only a single device can pay less than those who want to use it across all of their entertainment areas... Abandoning DRM now will unnecessarily doom all consumers to a 'one size fits all' situation that will increase costs for many of them."

A wonderfully spurious claim. I doubt the pricing differences that could emerge would be significant. Knowing the content providers I would venture that purchasing anything for use on just two devices would be more expensive than an unlimited license. Conversely...an unlimited license would significantly increase in price (as compared to today) and would therefore promote more pirating. The producers will never adjust their pricing models such that revenue could decrease - it's just not going to happen.