Translation of Macrovision Response to Jobs on DRM 284
BoboB-69 writes "Daring Fireball has posted a humorous, and accurate PR-speak to Plain English translation of Macrovision's CEO's response to Steve Jobs' Open Letter on DRM. Highly recommended reading for slashdotters everywhere."
that's beautifully worded (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fairly amusing but not overly informative (Score:5, Interesting)
Dream the impossible dream (Score:5, Interesting)
Until that time, I am forced to live in a world where I can listen to an MP3 file at home on 'Player A'. I can also take and use 'Player A' in my car, round a friend's house (and let them listen!), whilst shopping, on the train, plane etc., but heaven forbid I should try and copy or move my MP3 file from 'Player A' to my in-car 'Player B' which is designed to be operated whilst driving, unlike player A which is about as big as a small box of matches and is bloody dangerous to fiddle with whilst on the move.
Jobs in plain English (Score:4, Interesting)
why is this tagged as humo[u]r? (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems like a truly accurate translation from business-doublespeak into plain English, and as such is insightful and scary, not humorous.
Re:the text (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why it's always a good idea to present the original texts alongside a translation. Sure, as in this example, most people won't be able to read and understand the original. But some will, and (again as in this example) those people can help verify that the translation is accurate.
Just think of all of history's warfare that could have been prevented if if were a legal requirement that translations always be presented side-by-side with the original. Holy books would always include the original, so the mistranslations would be visible to those with a bit of knowledge. Politicians wouldn't get away with "straw-man" distortions of their enemies' statements, because the distorted version would be accompanied by the original.
But I guess we know why such an idea couldn't possibly be accepted, especially not by our religious or political leaders. Probably not by our corporate leaders, either.
Ultimate DRM (Score:4, Interesting)
It may be shameless self-promotion but I made a visualisation of the Ultimate DRM [deviantart.com] just the other day. What happened to giving the customer what they want?
Re:I like this blurb best (Score:4, Interesting)
An online store can be much easier and more convenient than tracking down music on the current P2P networks. More than enough to make up for the inconvenience of having to enter credit card details, and paying a few cents per song (or per-month).
Re:Explain? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I have a translation process constantly running (Score:3, Interesting)
As somebody with a foot in both camps (I design RAS compliant solution architectures for business enablement - ie.. I'm a tech in a suit), "solution" is my current most hated word. It's a redundant tag added by people who think using more words makes them sound brighter. In a way, it does, because their audience is often just as fucked as they are.
If I design a storage or network infrastructure to address a number of issues subject to a number of constraints then, yes, technically its a solution to a problem. Its definitely not a Storage Network Infrastructure Solution. It may be a Solution to Business problems, but its not a Business Problem Solution.
Also, have you noticed how solutions are always complete? Who would advertise offering only a partial solution? Nobody. (That would be an Integrable component solution... or maybe a Complete point solution.)
This is not restricted to IT. Recently I've seen advertisements for "complete lawn solution", "complete pest solution" and "complete outfit solution". There is even a barber around the corner proclaiming to offer "complete hair solutions".
As long as I come out of my MBA with my grasp of the English language intact, I'm assured that I can make a positive contribution to the demanagerialization of verbal communication channel protocols".
Re:that's beautifully worded (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, mostly.
I'm not really against DRM per se, but I am against how it's currently implemented.
In my opinion, if DRM existed just to prevent me from sharing my content with somebody else, that would be OK with me. As long as it lets me format-shift it to any device or future device, make self-destrutable copies for a friend that blows itself up, say, 3 days after being watched (like lending a DVD), and generally stays out of my way, I'm fine with it.
Unfortunately, they can't figure out how to do that, so instead they give us draconian content locking.
But what I _do_ agree with is that companies are now, for the first times, starting to realize it's not going to work.
Who remembers SDMI? The Secure Digital Music Initiative was created right about the time the labels sued (unsuccessfully) to have the Rio pulled from the market. It was a consortium of all the big companies--MSFT, SONY, etc. Probably no apple back then, tho--and they took like 18 months to come out with this way to "protect" music and, I swear to god, it was broken in like days.
The reason I bring this up are two fold:
1. It was the first crack at DRM and the first time DRM was cracked.
2. Maybe if it hadn't been cracked, things would be marginally better now. Just a thought, but maybe we'd have a single standard.
Point one is significant because every time DRM has failed the makers say "We've learned from our mistakes, wait until you see the NEXT version"
And now, finally, after hearing these promises from the likes of Macrovision, the industry has FINALLY started to get fed-up. When their hundreds of millions spent on securing HD content was just evaporated in the first few months of comming to market I swear you could just smell 1000 execs puking in their mouths.
The DRM battle has been a horrible experience for both consumers and content companies. The companies, each go around, get their hopes up. They're psyched to go out drinking. They slap hands, talking about all the bitches they'll pick up. All the fun they'll have. They change their shirt 4 times and use a can of Pomade in their hair. But every single time, without fail, they wake with a serious fucking hangover.
Meanwhile, Macrovision and the ilk already collected their huge development and licensing fees. To hell with the fact that what they produced doesn't actually _work_.
It would really be funny to watch the content companies in this self-destructive behavior if it wasn't such a shitty deal for consumers.
Re:No you can't (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I should back-pedal a bit on that...it can work as well as any other economic system we've devised. Once you start allowing fiat-monopolies (copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc.) things quickly get more comples, and it's not honest to call the resulting system capitalism. Also, the evidence for capitalism working fine is limited. It's limited to low density populations living in areas with poor transportation. This naturally results in all companies being of limited size.
I'm specifically NOT including cases where governmental troops suppress the populace into subservience to the company as examples of capitalism working fine. Those are example where it has DRASTICALLY FAILED. (You don't need to read much history to find lots of those cases.)
N.B.: I'm not insisting that the populace was always right when it got so angry that it was willing to rise in a mob and attack a company. I'm merely asserting that capitalism had failed. Usually the specific remedies advocated by the populace were short-sighted. This doesn't mean that they system was working, it means that BOTH (all?) sides were wrong.
E.g., the luddites. They were treated very unfairly, in many diverse ways. The "solution" of destroying the machines wasn't a proper way out, but neither was the governmental exclusion of the folk from the lands that they had held for generations. Neither was the arbitrays increase of the rents until they couldn't pay. Some people got very rich by using the power of governmental force to abuse others. This was a failure of something that can't rightfully be called capitalism, but is usually considered to be such. Once assymetric governmental force is invoked, you don't have capitalism. (Governmentally mandated "cooling-down" periods may well not be violations of capitalism, but if one side is assymetrically penalised, then they violate it.)
P.S.: Capitalism isn't all that great. It's just the best that can be done in an anarchistic state, or in a state where the government doesn't get involved with economics. One could argue that all taxes represent governmental interference...but while that's true, it is also omnipresent. So you'll never see pure capitalism unless you vist the Kalahari bushmen (perhaps) or deal in illegalities (drugs, theft, etc.). Note that quasi-governmental groups start forming immediately, and they impose "taxes" of their own.
So one will never see pure capitalism. Ever. It's an abstraction, like a mathematical point. I'm not sure, though, that it's as useful an abstraction. It seems to me quite plausible that it represents cutting economics along a non-optimal partition.
Re:that's beautifully worded (Score:4, Interesting)
I think Steve Jobs actually did a good job of pointing out the problem with DRM. DRM can never work unless you require the device to be networked so that it can check back with some central server for the key (and even then that's not infallible, just a bigger challenge). Without that, you HAVE to put the key to unlock the content right on the media and the player has to know how to find and use that key. This is true for DVDs and DVD-HD, protected CDs... it's inherent in the nature of the produce. Content that can't be viewed is useless to the consumer, so the device has to know how to play the content. Somebody will ALWAYS be able to crack any DRM scheme no matter how sophisticated, in less time and at less cost than was put into developing the scheme.
Every version of Macrovision has been cracked in a fairly short period of time. DVD encryption was cracked. DVD-HD hasn't been fully cracked, but enough to allow unprotected copies of HD DVDs to already exist.
This shouldn't be a moral discussion, it should be a practical one. So far, CEOs have been gullible enough to be believe Macrovision and other companies' claims that they can "protect" content. They can't, but they've made a lot of money by convincing people that they can, but unfortunately, that's all starting to unravel.
The funniest thing about Macrovision's letter is the suggestion that Macrovision can "help" Apple. Apple, despite it's public stance, has done as good a job as anybody at implementing DRM. Yes, you can get around it, but at least they evolve their DRM whenever somebody cracks it because there are actually implications to not doing so... unlike Macrovision who is still raking in gobs of money for protection schemes that have long since been cracked.
Re:Jobs in plain English (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually there is a different lock-in, and I would really like to know how strong it is.
iTunes (the jukebox software) can encode your CDs to AAC, which (a) has much better sound quality at the same bitrate compared to MP3, and (b) plays on the iTunes. My CDs are all encoded in AAC for reason (a), which "forced" me to buy an iPod. ("Forced" is a bit strong, because (1) I liked the iPod that I bought, (2) I caused the situation myself and (3) every other manufacturer could have got a license for AAC. )
For me, buying a player that doesn't play AAC would be a major pain, and I don't want a Zune. I looked a long time for a CD player that could play AAC (plenty of them can play MP3), but I couldn't find one. I'd like to know what percentage of buyers are in the same situation with huge amounts of AAC files.
Re:that's beautifully worded (Score:3, Interesting)
The people that advertise by MySpace, YouTube or any other social site won't need to sign with a label so much. Usually it's the "replacements" that change how things are done, not the "old guard". I can see the transition taking a long time because the old guard often has to just die out or fade away, but revolutionary changes are possible too.
I'm afraid that the battle over DRM is about to morph from a guerilla action to mutually assured detruction, and the Copyright Industry may prefer the latter in the end to actually sitting down with their enemy (the customers) and coming up with a reasonable solution.
I don't even see how that is possible. How can a solution be agreed upon? I'm not sure if a social contract can be struck because the customers are an extremely diverse group of people.
For example, some here suggest that recordings should be free of copyright, considered advertisements, and that concerts should be the sole way that artists make money. The problem is, maybe I'd like to support a big name artist, but I won't pay hundreds of dollars for a tiny seat in a two hour concert in a neighboring city.
Re:Great.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Worked for a small company of about 11 people - an IBM Series 1 VAR and PC VAD.
CEO brought in a new guy. Held a party. Told us everything was great - company profitable. The new guy was going to be CEO, the old CEO was going to be Chairman of the Board.
A week later, they fired six of the 11 people (not including me - they sent me home that afternoon to avoid the bloodshed).
Week later, the new CEO moved on to Honeywell.
A couple months later, I moved on, having seen the writing on the wall. And that was after he'd sent me back to Atlanta to go through IBM PC tech school. I came back, new job waiting for me, I reported on my experience at the IBM school - and then, "Oh, by the way, I'm quitting!"
He offered me a significant raise to stay on.
Yeah, right, asshole CEO. Sayonara!
Anybody who believes anything a manager says is seriously naive.
The icing on the cake is that this guy got his MBA on a thesis about "employee relations" - and he was one of the biggest assholes I ever worked for in any company. I mean, not just because he fired everybody. I mean, he was a SERIOUS asshole in normal conversation. Everybody at the company couldn't stand him.
Re:I like this blurb best (Score:4, Interesting)
They pay for ACCESS to music - whether that is going to a club and paying for access to a band, or buying a phonograph record when there were no cassette radio recorders, or buying CDs when there were no P2P systems or legal downloads.
That's exactly why Apple's iTunes took off. It's a hell of a lot easier than:
1) Install P2P software (assuming the user even has a clue about what it is and where to get it.)
2) Read ridiculously bad documentation on how to use it - assuming said documentation even exists.
3) Search for content.
4) Out of a thousand search results, find one that actually currently exists and can be accessed.
5) Get in queue behind 300 other people for the file.
6) Wait six days to become number 1 in queue.
7) Discover all sources of the file have shut off their machines or stopped providing the file. Bittorrent is notorious for this! Just try to find a seeder 24 hours after a file has been posted! It's over - you're late - you lose!
8) OR discover file is a virus-ridden phoney that hoses your machine. I've had two clients with this problem from Limewire - somebody via Limewire took over their machine, loaded it up with crap files full of trojans, and now their machine is moving like molasses because they're serving these files up to everyone else on the Limewire network.
8) Go back to step 1 or 3, depending on whether your machine still works.
9) Rinse and repeat with some other P2P system.
I've used them, don't get me wrong, but compared to legal downloads, they are a frikkin' nightmare designed by "frikkin idiots" (to use Dr. Evil's term).
It's no surprise that, according to most studies, P2P has little effect on CD sales, because the only people who would use those things are people who simply can't or wouldn't buy CDs anyway.
Re:that's beautifully worded (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's my reasonable solution: The industry allows me to use their product in whatever personal way I see fit, like I can with a standard audio CD today, and I'll buy their product.
It seems simple but the industry wont agree to it. I think the reason is the industry doesn't like the market the way it has been. They don't like one-time revenue. What they ultimately want is a per use charge on all media, but since that would involve setting up a micropayment system, they do what they deem to be the next best thing: lock the usage of the media in the most artificial ways possible so ultimately the easiest legal solution for the consumer is to simply buy a copy for every device they use it on.
The recording/motion picture industry doesn't seem to understand one fact of business: theft happens. Wal-Mart doesn't add RFID tags to every candy bar, owners of boutiques may watch the door closely, but they both expect to have a little shrink every year (Wal-Mart actually has quite a bit). In both these retailers' situations, the cost of the theft is less than the cost of preventing it (like extra personnel to stand right by the door all day, or RFID tags on items costing less than a pay phone call to begin with, or the cost of frivolous lawsuits when you attempt to capture thieves with force).
Rather than sink millions of dollars into DRM that doesn't work or causes class action lawsuits, the labels need to live with the theft that happens and try to reduce expenses other places to make themselves more profitable. Some of these are: