April 2006

Thomas Giovanetti: Victim of DRM

by on April 11, 2006

I couldn’t help but chuckle at Tom Giovanetti’s post today concerning his inability to back up his favorite shows from his PVR, which crashed last night. As he laments:

The problem is, we have been using the PVR to record 2 years worth of a Spanish language curriculum that is broadcast over an educational channel, and we’ve been using this content to teach our son Spanish. Now the curriculum is gone. It’s not like I’m just inconvenienced in not being able to watch my “24” episodes. An educational curriculum is lost.

For those who aren’t familiar with Mr. Giovanetti’s work, he’s a frequent and pugnacious commentator on intellectual property issues, and an avowed supporter of the DMCA and digital rights management technologies. He’s a frequent critic of “IP skeptics” and “commonists” who argue that copyright law–and the technological measures designed to protect copyright–have gone overboard.

Today he discovered that sometimes, technological measures designed to deter piracy are a pain in the ass for ordinary consumers–like him.

Here’s a radical proposition: Mr. Giovanetti should be permitted to make a backup copy of the television programs on his PVR, as long as his use of that mateiral stays within the bounds of copyright law.* Moreover, someone else should be permitted to sell him a device allowing him to do so. And finally–here’s the truly radical part–it should be legal to manufacture such a device without getting a license from Dish to do so.

That’s precisely what HR 1201, Rep. Boucher’s DMCA-reform legislation, would permit. Giovanetti’s organization published a paper by Prof. Richard Epstein cricizing Boucher’s bill. Epstein wrote that there “isn’t much of a case” for reforming the DMCA.

I’m not sure what to think about all of this. We DMCA critics find it awfully frustrating when DMCA proponents paint anyone who wants to circumvent DRM as amoral hackers bent on undermining all copyright. Yet Giovanetti (perhaps without realizing it) has just discovered that he, too, would like to circumvent a DRM scheme for a perfectly legitimate purpose. Yet any company building the backup hard drive he seeks would probably be guilty of a felony under the DMCA.

I hope this incident will lead him to take the concerns of DMCA critics–who are inconvenienced by DRM in situations quite analogous to his own–more seriously.

* It’s worth mentioning that Mr. Giovanetti was probably breaking the letter of the law by keeping an entire season of copyrighted television shows on his PVR, as the Supreme Court’s ruling that “time shifting” was fair use was based on the assumption that the content would be viewed once and then erased. But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that his library of educational programming is in fact a fair use.

SHARE:

Young Turks on Tech

by on April 11, 2006

Here’s a pair of tech articles released this week by young libertarians. First, my former flatmate Julian Sanchez has an engaging take on network neutrality in Reason:

Take heed, unsuspecting Web surfer, for the end times are upon us! Lo, your Internet Service Provider shall open the sixth seal, and the moon shall be as blood; and there shall be voices and thunderings and excessive white noise on your VoIP phone; and Google shall be devoured by locusts–or at least load really, really slowly.

Well, maybe it’s not that bad, he says, questioning the wisdom of getting the government involved this early in the game.

Secondly, Peter Suderman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has a great article on the French DRM legislation over at National Review:

Somewhere in between the U.S. and French approaches to DRM lies an appropriate middle ground. The DMCA makes DRM far too strong, but the French proposal renders it nearly useless. Individuals ought to have control over their media, but digital-music vendors like Apple ought to be allowed to protect and control their property. Vive la (digital) revolution!

Quite so. Read the whole thing.

SHARE:

DRM for Linux?

by on April 10, 2006 · 10 comments

ZDNet Australia has a very confused article about the merits of supporting digital rights management technology in Linux.

Jeff Ayars, a vice president at RealNetworks, said in a talk at LinuxWorld in Boston on Tuesday that if Linux does not offer support for DRM, people will not be able to run restricted digital content on the operating system, which will damage its success in the consumer market.

“The consequences of Linux not supporting DRM would be that fixed-purpose consumer electronics and Windows PCs would be the sole entertainment platforms available,” Ayars said. “Linux would be further relegated to use in servers and business computers, since it would not be providing the multimedia technologies demanded by consumers.”

He pointed out that Microsoft Vista is implementing a number of digital rights technologies, such as Protected Media Path, Protected Video Path and Protected User Mode Audio. “I would like Linux to be able to do that as well,” he said. The support must be included in the Linux operating system, as a DRM system would not be able to trust drivers that were separately installed, according to Ayars.

The article continues with a garden variety back-and-forth about the merits of DRM, with the Free Software Foundation saying consumers don’t like it, and Ayers insisting they do. What neither side seems to understand is that it’s impossible to offer “DRM support” (in the sense Ayers means here) in an open source operating system.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 10 comments

Hollywood vs. Its Customers

by on April 10, 2006 · 2 comments

A couple of months ago, I blogged about the pointless restrictions imposed by the latest video DRM schemes. Today, in the Washington Post, Rob Pegoraro writes about another digital video device that’s getting a “lukewarm reception.” It’s got similarly pointless restrictions:

Eight of these movies were also available in high-definition format for an extra $1 each–making MovieBeam the only way to rent a flick in high-def at the moment.

But you can only see that extra resolution if your HDTV is new enough to provide an HDMI digital input. And if it does, everything MovieBeam rents will look about as good–the receiver automatically “upconverts” every release to a high-definition resolution. (The MovieBeam box also includes analog component-video outputs, plus S-Video and composite jacks for older analog TVs.)

I wish he’d expanded on this a little bit, because the vast majority of HDTVs in homes today are not “new enough to provide an HDMI digital input.” For those poor saps who purchased an older HDTV. (and here “older” means roughly pre-2004), they’ll get no better quality than if they’d bought an old-fashioned low-def TV.

I’m sure the response of the HDMI folks would be that this is just a transitional issue–that once everyone’s upgraded to “secure” digital formats everything will work with everything else. But that’s not the way things are likely to shake out in the real world, at least not if they’re serious about preventing piracy. Because a DRM scheme is only as strong as its weakest link. As soon as someone finds a fatal flaw in a version X of HDMI, it will be necessary to cut off compatibility with that version to prevent that vulnerability from undermining the security of the whole scheme. Yes, there are provisions for firmware updating of compromised devices, but that will only work with certain kinds of security vulnerabilities, and what consumer wants to worry about whether he’s installed the latest firmware upgrade on his Blu-Ray player?

Fortunately, I don’t think Hollywood or the consumer electronics industry has the stomach for that kind of confrontation with their customers. More likely, after a few years of constant compatibility problems, they’ll come to their senses and scale back their DRM schemes to “speedbump” levels. They should focus on deterring casual copying while admitting that they’re not going to be able to slow down determined pirates.

Update: Mike at Techdirt notes that this is the second attempt at launching this service. The first version was a Disney-centric device that had even more irritating restrictions. It folded around this time last year.

SHARE: 2 comments

France: Good Intentions, Bad Implementation

by on April 10, 2006 · 2 comments

I’ve got a new article up at Brainwash about the new French copyright legislation:

French legislators were rightly concerned that enacting the EUCD into French law would stifle such intra-platform competition in the market for digital media devices, just as many charge has occurred in the United States. But in stereotypical French fashion, the legislature overreached. The legislation does much more than permit reverse engineering; it requires companies to share the technical details of their software with competitors and vests the French courts with the power to prod recalcitrant companies into disclosing the workings of their software. Such a mandate is likely to have unintended consequences, as the French courts could end up second-guessing the design of Apple’s products. And the rule is also likely to be abused by competitors seeking confidential information about their competitors’ products that isn’t necessary for interoperability…

Libertarians envision the state in the role of an impartial referee. On social issues such as contraceptive sales or the teaching of evolution, liberals and conservatives commonly urge the state to impose their social agenda on society. But libertarians insist that the state ought to remain strictly neutral. The same logic applies in this case. The state ought not to take sides in the debate between open and closed systems. Instead, permit both proprietary technologies and reverse engineering, and let consumers–not judges or bureaucrats–decide which is superior.

SHARE: 2 comments

Broadband Competition: An Anecdote

by on April 7, 2006

Who says there’s no broadband competition? While reading up on franchise reform, it occurred to me that I hadn’t tried the “threaten to switch and get a discount” tactic on my broadband provider, Charter. A 10-minute conversation with an extremely helpful gentleman cut my monthly bill nearly in half, from $52.99 to $29.99 in exchange for a one-year contract. And I only paid the $52.99/month for one month, because the first six month I was paying $26.99 in a 6-month introductory offer.

This was for “naked” broadband–I don’t watch TV and I’m cell phone-only. And it’s no doubt a result of AT&T’s aggressive $12.99 DSL offering. Cable Internet is considerably faster than DSL, so I’m happy to pay a moderately higher price for the faster speed. I remember paying over $50/month for a significantly slower DSL connection as recently as 2002.

Could things be even more competitive? Sure. But I think this illustrates that a duopoly is dramatically preferable to a monopoly. The best way to help the consumer is by cutting red tape for cable and telephone companies so they can continue undermining each others’ monopolies in voice, video, and data.

Oh, and if you aren’t currently getting some sort of discount from your broadband provider, give them a call and threaten to switch to the other team. Chances are you’ll get big savings on your monthly bill.

SHARE:

Selective Morality at PTC?

by on April 7, 2006

This week, the self-appointed moral guardians for the masses over at The Parents Television Council gave its “Seal of Approval” to “The Chronicles of Narnia” even though it contains, in the PTC’s words, “Realistic, graphic and violent King Arthur-like battle scenes with axes, swords, and hatches. Beheadings, stabbing and wounding is rampant during the fight scenes.” Moreover, at one point in the movie the PTC notes that “Susan and Lucy witness Aslan’s murder and go to the body after he is dead. Also, the moments before he is killed are cruel, sadistic and humiliating as his mane is clipped off and he is tied up and dragged up the steps to the stone table where he is killed.”

Despite this, the PTC states that “The over-all and continuously uplifting message of this fine film, far outweighs any negative content” and awards it its Family Seal of Approval. The PTC’s website says that “This award is given to worthy television programs, made-for-TV movies, motion pictures, video games, and advertisers that help parents by providing/sponsoring entertainment suitable for the entire family.”

I’m sorry, but I don’t get it. PTC routinely asks the FCC to censor much less violent fare that appears on network TV, but “beheadings, stabbing and (rampant) wounding” is “suitable for the entire family.” Seems a little inconsistent to me.

You should also check out their review of ABC’s new remake of “The Ten Commandments,” which they blast mostly because it presents a more realistic, faithful interpretation of Biblical events. Here’s my favorite line from the review: “While ABC’s ‘The Ten Commandments’ incorporates incidents normally overlooked and is technically more “accurate” to the details given in the Bible, it completely lacks any sense of respect for or understanding of the Biblical story.”

SHARE:

A Correction

by on April 7, 2006 · 2 comments

Steve Wildstrom, who to my mind is the savviest tech columnist in the mainstream press, flags an error in my DMCA paper, on page 12:

Did banning DeCSS at least make it more difficult to pirate movies? There’s little reason to think so. The CSS system prevents playback of DVD movies, but it does nothing to prevent duplication of the scrambled data. A pirate can make a perfect copy of a scrambled DVD without ever cracking its encryption. No circumvention software is needed to download CSS-scrambled video, burn it to a DVD-R disc, and play it in any consumer DVD player.

Via email, Wildstrom writes:

This is inaccurate because of a secondary, little-known protection scheme. Writeable DVD media come in two types, designated A (for authoring) and G (for general). A CSS encoded DVD can only be copied bit-for-bit onto Type A media, and by means that I don’t understand, the industry has managed to maintain extremely tight controls on the distribution of Type A disks. That is why commercial DVD copying software like 123 Studio’s DVD X Copy (forced off the market by DMCA litigation) was not able to make exact copies of commercial DVDs. The same is true of the numerous non-commercial programs still available on the Internet. Because CSS is trivially broken, the unavailability of of Type A media has probably done more to prevent amateur copying of DVDs than has CSS.

I did not know about this distinction, but I’m inclined to believe him, especially given that another fellow wrote to make the same point. So my apologies for the error.

I think it’s worth pointing out, however, that (at least based on my admittedly limited knowledge of the underlying technologies) this objection would apply only to burning DVDs, not to pressing them. Commercial pirates are far more likely to use the latter, so CSS isn’t going to prevent commercial piracy. I hope someone will correct me if I screwed that up as well.

Also, while I’m on the subject of Mr. Wildstrom, he’s got a great column up on the mess DRM is making of digital video.

SHARE: 2 comments

Is the Internet Apocalypse Near?

by on April 6, 2006

Supporters of network neutrality regulation have been deploying a lot of apocalyptic rhetoric. For example, before yesterday’s Commerce committee vote on network neutrality regulation, Rep. Markey warned, “We’re about to break with the entire history of the Internet.” And in the same article, we learn that Rep. Eshoo thinks that “this walled garden approach that many network providers would like to create would fundamentally change the way the Internet works and undermine the power of the Net as a force of innovation and change.”

This is ridiculous. In the first place, the Internet is much bigger than the American broadband market, to say nothing of any one broadband ISP. Even if all of the major American telcos were to simultaneously cut American broadband users off from the Internet (which would obviously never happen), the rest of the world can perfectly well carry on operating the Internet without us, and we could pass network neutrality legislation at that point to force the telcos to re-connect us to the real Internet.

In the second place, it’s important to keep in mind the kind of network discrimination the telcos are likely to use. They’re not going to block users’ access to the Google website unless Google coughs up an access fee. That would be financial suicide. What they’re interested in doing is setting aside some of the new capacity they’re building to deliver their own services. For example, they might build a 25 Mbit fiber pipe into a consumer’s home, and reserve 20 Mbits of it for their own video applications. Now, I think that would suck. But it doesn’t “change the nature of the Internet,” any more than it changes the nature of the Internet when Comcast uses the bandwidth on its coax pipes to deliver video content to its cable subscribers. In this scenario, I’d still have 5 Mbits of “network neutral” access to the Internet. I could do everything on that pipe that I’m able to do today. So the issue isn’t about “the nature of the Internet.” It’s about whether Comcast has the right to decide how to use the infrastructure it deploys.

Finally, if anything, the apocalyptic scenarios run in the other direction. If Congress does nothing this year, they’ll have every opportunity to step in next year, or the year after, to stop any nightmare scenarios that might unfold. On the other hand, if network neutrality regulations are passed and they turn out to be a disaster, they’re unlikely to be repealed. Bad regulations are never repealed. Instead, they spawn endless litigation and “reform” proposals that are even more intrusive. Once we give the FCC authority to regulate the Internet, there’s no going back.

There’s no looming crisis here requiring Congressional intervention. If the pro-regulatory folks turn out to be right, we can always come back and have this debate again in a couple of years. But it’s extraordinarily premature to create a new regulatory framework for technologies that are barely off the ground.

SHARE:

Singleton on Build Out Requirements

by on April 6, 2006

Solveig Singleton has a great post over at the PFF blog setting the record straight on build-out requirements. She really should have posted the post here herself, but since she didn’t, I’ll do it for her:

This whole debate is saddening, and a little surreal. Here are some basic realities about build-out:

Whether or not an area can be profitably built out has to do mainly with population density. Low-income areas tend to be high-density (at least in urban centers) and therefore historically the tendency has been that these areas are built out well before more sparsely populated suburban areas. Furthermore, lower-income areas have had a pretty healthy demand for tech services. The odd thing is that legislators such as Rep. Markey, who have been around the tech legislation scene for years, really should know this.

The second fact is that build-out requirements have a rather sad history themselves: As economist Tom Hazlett has thoroughly documented, these requirements were rarely imposed on the first entrant into the cable market. Generally it was rare for such entrants to build out into the entire market immediately, it usually took a few years. The idea that first entrants have labored under such requirements is a myth, a myth fostered largely to present formidable obstances to the entrance of a second competitor in the market.

The more I learn about the issue, the more amazed I become at how weak the arguments of franchise reform opponents are.

SHARE:

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →