Re: Forwarded Invite to Discussion of EME at the European Parliament, Oct. 15, 11:00-13:00

cobaco wrote:

> wanting a general purpose computer that can't copy certain bits in certain
> cases is as fundamentally unsound an approach as wanting a printing press
> that
> can't print particular stories, or a xerox machine that can't copy certain
> books
>

I understand and agree with that from a technical and philosophical point
of view (I'm a fan of Doctorow).

However, that view doesn't take into account the business or legal factors
(or the psychology of the studio execs).

The business factors are that there is a demand for mainstream movies, and
there is a supply. Whether they use the web or other digital platforms is
up to the suppliers.

The outcome of not having DRM would not be to magically change an industry,
it would be for them to entrench their position and stop using digital
distribution. (At least on platforms where they feel they lack control.)

Yes, piracy will always be a factor, but there is nothing stopping them
from continuing to use the legal avenues to keep that 'leakage' as small as
possible.


>  Movies are, alas, very different in their pricing and consumption
> patterns,
> >  and the movie industry is not there yet.  I know you wish it wasn't
> true,
> >  and imagine a world where it's not true, but it is.
>
> they're not different in todays digital world:
>
> in both cases you're talking about something competing in the entertainment
> market
>
> in both cases people mostly, and increasingly, consume them on general
> purpose
> computers (of an ever increasing number of form factors and designs)
>

To some extent, but mainstream consumers are increasingly using
"appliances" like AppleTV, Roku, Chromecast which I would argue are not
general purpose.

The supply/demand aspect means that movies will continue to exist, even if
they are only released (legally) in theatres and on plastic discs. So long
as the studios see DRM and legal avenues as viable, this is an option for
them.



> It has been done before, Jobs Open letter [2] had Apple lead the way in the
> DRM fight with the music industry.  The rest of the outlet sector followed
> [3]
> [4] apples lead and the music industry changed its tune.
>
> ...Has apple lost it's spine with the death of Steve Jobs
>

Jobs was very much alive when Apple did not write a similar letter about
Movies. They have a different dynamic, different costs and different levels
of demand (per item). I remember reading about Jobs deliberately not taking
the same approach to movies because he didn't think it would work.

I see two routes from here:

1. Continue with status-quo, there is no method of using DRM on the web.
Movies are not released (legally) and plugins and proprietary appliances
continue to be required. IMHO that will be to the advantage of big business
because the demand for main stream entertainment will mean those plugins
and appliances flourish, continuing the status-quo.

2. Enable the lightest possible method of DRM through the web, so that (for
those with CDMs) the experience can be as frictionless as possible. IMHO we
are more likely to get past (the perceived need for) DRM in this scenario.

-Alastair