How Important Is Protecting Streaming Media? 182
spaj writes "In the ongoing battle with the MPAA and RIAA, there seems to be an ongoing argument about who is to blame. If you leave a $20 bill on the sidewalk, can you report it stolen when someone takes it? Of course you can, but will you be taken seriously by the authorities? When my car was broken into, I was told by the responding police officer that I might have prevented it by keeping my seats and visible areas clear of junk that would entice criminals. So, who is at fault when it comes to users abusing their right to capture streaming media for personal use? According to Applian.com's Legal FAQ, the RIAA will not come after you if you make a recording for your own personal use. I have often been torn on this issue, and I am looking for input. Adobe recently released a new format of their widely used streaming protocol, RTMP, that includes 128-bit encryption (RTMPE). I can only interpret this as an attempt to prevent capturing of the streaming media content for personal use. However, Applian has already circumvented the RTMPE protection, and you can read about it on Adobe's forums, where some users seem quite dissatisfied that their content is not protected enough by Adobe's technology. I think the main question boils down to: Who is to blame? Can you blame Adobe for not making a better encryption? Or do you blame Applian for bypassing such security features? Or do you blame the authors of stolen content for leaving the security of their material in somebody else's hands?"
RTMPE (Score:5, Interesting)
After searching around, it looks like RTMPE is nothing more than a transmission encryption that prevents a stream from being intercepted by a "middle man", analogous to wifi encryptions that prevent others from capturing your wifi network packets. If my understanding is correct, then this doesn't actually have anything to do with "stolen" content, right?
One view of importance (Score:5, Interesting)
7 years ago now I worked for a streaming media company in the UK who did pretty much all the promotional streaming for the labels. We'd put pre-release music on-line weeks before it was due for release; and, if the customer wanted it, made it available for download as well. All the tracks were free but DRMed to switch off on the day the record was released. Sometimes you'd have to enter some marketing details (although there was always an opt-out checkbox and we'd never pass details on if that was ticked).
One thing sticks in my mind. At the time Microsoft had just released the ability to DRM live streams and a particular heavy metal band wanted to play a charity concert with the proceeds going to a UK charity for a kids charity, I believe because one of them had a child afflicted by illness the charity was raise funds for. It was a small concert, tickets sold out partly because they have a huge following and partly because they were cheap, £5 if memory serves. The band knew there was a large audience for it; so they paid us (and we didn't take a profit on it) to stream the concert live. We discussed it with them and DRMed the live stream and made an archive of it available for a month afterwards. All at no cost to the viewer, not even marketing information, although at the end the band spoke about the charity for 5 minutes. When the month was up the band were going to release a DVD of the concert for sale; with all profit going to the charity. The DVD was pretty cheap too, I think around £8.50 including shipping.
The month expired and the streams were taken down, and the DRM kicked in (because stream rippers ripped the DRM as well *grin*). For the next month the band's official band bulletin board was filled with fans complaining that the streams they had ripped no-longer worked. It was pointed out the DVD was available, it was all for charity, and they'd had it free for a month, but no, lots of whining and sulking and demands that it should be free for ever.
Now you may argue that DRM is bad; and in a lot of cases I'd agree with you; but when it protects something that was free so after a while charities can make some money; well then frankly you can't complain and you're nothing but a freeloader.
Still annoys me now.
Re:Nobody is to blame (Score:5, Interesting)
DRM may not work, but that's just the band aid. The problem the content providers really face is that we all grew up. When we were children, if we found a $20 bill on the sidewalk, we would have handed it in. We believed in doing the right thing. As we grew up, we watched our heroes (eg; the people we looked up to) throw away their ideals in the name of pragmatism. We watched wars, and death, and crime, and no one seemed to be punished for doing "bad" things.
The problem that content providers face is that we don't care anymore. Times have changed. We have watched them rake in money for thirty years, and now they want to give us toys, make us pay for them, and then take them back. That isn't going to work. We don't value them that much, and if we feel a small twinge of guilt at keeping it, then that is oh so easily justified by the way in which we have been treated.
How's that for a hypothesis?
Interactivity defeats the analog hole (Score:3, Interesting)
Sound waves cannot be encrypted - where there is a will, there is a way.
What happens when the work that makes the sound waves is interactive [wikipedia.org]? In that case, the instructions to make the sound wave don't ever need to leave the player. Capturing the sound wave just captures one playing of the work, and replaying that over and over can get boring.
Re:Nobody is to blame (Score:5, Interesting)
You can have a completely secure chain from the music store to your speakers, but as soon as it gets to your speaker wires it's in a form where someone can record it.
Back in the '90s, CDs came with an early form of DRM. Each CD had two flags, a copy and a copyright flag. You were allowed to make digital copies of copyrighted CDs, but not copies of copies of copyrighted CDs. I recall reading a review of a CD recorder which enforced this. It had a single cable connecting the two drives together. If the copy and copyright flags were both set, it would flip a DAC and an ADC into the circuit (one at each end). Even back then, the resolution on these was sufficiently high that in listening tests no one could tell the difference between an analogue and a digital copy of the music.
Since we're discussing analogies (Score:3, Interesting)
I've got one that relates to the RIAA. I had my storage locker broken into with literally _every_ box (a lot -- think Rubik's Cube with U Haul boxes) opened and ransacked in '06**, but since I could not think of even ONE THING in the whole mess that was _missing_, the police couldn't think of what crime to pursue. So when a file is copied, what is _missing_?
** an entirely different discussion in paranoia in the year of our Lord Dubya, but I digress
Re:One view of importance (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh and that's fine; when you pay for it. I don't like DRM on games because when I'm working away from home I don't want to have to bring the darned DVDs with me. However when you're getting something for free then the restrictions placed on you shouldn't be complained about as much as some of the "fans" did. And of course it's their computer; but then they didn't have to watch, or use Windows Media player. The site hosting it and the band were very upfront about it; there was even a "warning" that the streams were protected and ripping them wouldn't do any good; but there's always someone out there who believes they deserve something for nothing; it's just thankfully a minority of people.
Re:Nobody is to blame (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember the old analog copy protection for VHS? The VCR would mess with the blank space between frames, which TVs ignored, but another VCR would gag on it and you would get a garbled signal. It would be unable to sync the frames. Without any encryption or anything sophisticated the manufacturers were able to stop VHS copying (at least until people found a way around it). Remember, this was the "last mile" so to speak, the last part of the chain going to the output device.
I think the whole idea is silly. I would leave the whole chain wide open, and rather than spend money on ineffective copy protection, I would invest in more, better movies; better television shows (I canceled digital cable partially due to time, partially due to the shitty quality of 95% of what is on it); and making customers happy. By providing customers with DVRs (which most cable companies do) that have features customers want, by providing high definition movies on demand for a reasonable price, customers will be more likely to spend money with the cable company (and to the content providers by proxy) and less effort on copyright infringement because they will be less motivated. I for one am willing to pay for these services if the cost is reasonable, even if I could get the same thing for free.
As for music, I think the middlemen (e.g. iTunes) are moving in the right direction by selling albums and songs in digital format with or without DRM (preferably without). If I can get a song for free via file sharing or spend a dollar to get a good quality version and "do the right thing," I will spend the dollar.
Re:Blame? (Score:3, Interesting)
Of COURSE content authors have to put trust in somebody else.
The key word there is "trust".
Basically, you have on one hand some people trying to extract as much money out of their "creation" as possible for the least cost. And on the other hand you have somebody that says they can help you do that, for a price.
There is no honour amongst thieves.
OK, maybe thieves is a bit strong, but the music industry isn't exactly "a fair days work for a fair days pay" is it. There is no DRM at live concerts, but that's too much like hard work, they want to record a song, let someone else sell it and then sit back and rake in the royalties for the rest of their descendants lives.
Now that is being a thief.
Now if the band were to get mugged as they were leaving a concert and all their takings were stolen, I would have some sympathy, but complaining because they "might" be losing out on an extra $1M somewhere due to filesharing is just plain greed, and deserves no respect.
Re:The last one (Score:3, Interesting)
Heh. Exactly.
DRM is an exercise in futility. Protecting streaming media is exactly as important as protecting radio broadcasts, i.e. not at all. Completely unimportant. It's a waste of time and money that could be better spent making higher quality programming. It does nothing to prevent people who are determined to capture the audio program, and no matter what they change in the DRM tech, it cannot prevent it).
Unfortunately, it does do lots of harm in other areas; it causes unavoidable compatibility problems, prevents average people from format-shifting to devices like iPods for listening at their convenience, prevents average people from time-shifting pseudo-broadcast content to a more convenient time, and in general, massively erodes at every aspect of legitimate fair use without actually providing any provable benefits in preventing "piracy".
IMHO, the Audio Home Recording Act should be expanded to cover digital broadcasts/streaming media in any sane universe. The term "piracy" should not even apply to non-purchased media that is freely provided for download or streaming, so long as that media is only copied for personal (defined as non-commercial) use. We need to nip this stupidity in the bud.