mpaa

 by Brendon J. Wilson

The Hard Way

It’s amazing to watch as the RIAA and the MPAA attempt to screw consumers even more than they already do. This week, Congress is set to consider legislation that would allow copyright holders to hack your PC to disable “publicly accessible peer-to-peer networks” with immunity from state and federal laws. Waitaminute. Isn’t this the same administration that made hacking a terrorist offence, punishable by life imprisonment?

This announcement is part of a multi-pronged attack on fair use, complemented by Microsoft’s proposed Palladium technology and proposed legislation to plug the “analog hole”. The part that leaves me dumbstruck is the sheer amount of money that’s being thrown at the problem of content piracy, while little attention is actually being paid to the one thing that might actually make piracy a redundant practice: giving the consumer value for their money!

Let’s examine the reasons that I might pirate content:

  • Price: For about $20 I can buy a CD that cost about two cents to manufacture. True, the manufacturing costs are miniscule compared to the actual production process, but how much of that money actually went to the production of the music? Chances are, most money went to the marketing, the distribution, and buying shelf space (yes, they have to do that) at Virgin. I, as, a consumer, don’t care about that. The only thing I’m interesting in doing is paying the artist for their music.
  • Choice: When I buy that $20 CD, what do I actually get? Probably 1 or 2 worthwhile songs, and 12 songs of “filler”. Why am I paying for filler? It’s like paying for the air in a bag of potato chips. In most cases, I’m interested in a specific song or two, not the album. That said, there have been times that the popular song has turned out to be the worst song on the CD.
  • Convenience: If I want new music right now my choices are: a) Leave work and go find a record store; or b) fire up Kazaa and download the song I want now.

Despite the Internet’s capacity to ruthlessly eliminate middlemen, I believe that media companies still have an important role to play in bringing quality entertainment to the public. However, their ham-fisted attempts to become players in the digital media marketplace has betrayed how little they understand or respect their customers:

  • Subscription-based music services: These services, such as PressPlay and MusicNet, offer the illusion of a product competitive with P2P download services, but fail to deliver. They fail to deliver convenience by using proprietary file formats that can’t be played on popular MP3 players (such as Apple’s iPod), and tie you to the service (once you stop your subscription, you lose access to the downloaded music). They fail to deliver on choice, providing a limited catalogue of artists.
  • DVD region codes: VHS technology suffered from the problem that you couldn’t take a tape from the UK and play it in the US. With the advent of DVD technology, a reasonable consumer would assume that they could now move freely around the world with their DVDs. Guess again. DVDs include a region code that specifies the region in which DVDs can be played, and manufacturers of DVD players are required by the DVD technology license to only play DVDs from their region. The restriction was incorporated to allow the movie industry to continue to release movies at different times in different regions without the risk that foreign DVDs cutting into domestic box office sales. Of course, this restriction means that a laptop DVD player is essentially useless when travelling to other regions.
  • Electronic Newspapers: The clumsiness isn’t limited to the music and movie industries. Newspapers, such as The New York Times, are turning to technology from NewStand Inc. to deliver electronic version of their newspapers. These electronic versions are identical to their paper-based cousins, with the exception that they can only be viewed for 21 days. And despite the fact that the electronic versions are probably produced for near-zero cost, the cost of a subscription is almost identical to that of a paper newspaper. Same price, less convenience.

The common theme here: the media companies are producing the same product, packaging it in a less convenient form, and charging the same price. Of course, these companies aren’t stupid. They realize that digital technology offers them the opportunity to reduce costs while maintaining (or even increasing) revenue. All they need to do is figure out how to make people buy their product instead of pirating it. They have two choices:

  • The Easy Way: First, media companies need to drop their prices in recognition of the cost-effectiveness of digital distribution. Second, they need to adopt standard technology that allows people to use the media they have purchased without restriction. Finally, they need to open their entire catalogue of artists and movies, and license them promiscuously. Taking these steps would allow the media companies to compete with P2P technologies by offering people what they want, at a reasonable price that is competitive with the cost of the time they would spend searching P2P services.
  • The Hard Way: First, restrict the capabilities of digital technology through strategic partnerships with manufactures and technology companies. Second, make it illegal to circumvent copyright protection by pushing through draconian legislation (such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). Third, create solutions that restrict fair use. Finally, lay back and count the cash as it rolls in.

Of course, the industry is choosing The Hard Way because, at the end of the day, they’re sure to make more money. Doing things The Easy Way would require the media industry to be producing a quality product by developing promising artists. Instead, The Hard Way allows them to continue to pump out the flavour of the week and not worry that people might just be deleting the songs as fast as they download them.

What a shame that The Hard Way is a sure way to Easy Money.

in Business / Entertainment / Politics / Technology 0 comments
 by Brendon J. Wilson

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

The media industry’s assault on fair use is now entering its final Orwellian chapter with the MPAA‘s latest suggestion to plug the “analog hole” by legislating manufacturers to incorporate watermark detection technology into analog-to-digital converters (ADCs). ADCs are hardware components that convert analog signals (such as the input into a soundcard) into digital signals suitable for storage on digital devices. By requiring devices to refuse to convert analog signals containing a watermark, the media industry would achieve complete control over all digital content and effectively eliminate consumer’s right to fair use of copyrighted material. As pointed out by John Gilmore, the consumer may have the protected right to fair use of copyrighted material but not the technological means to extract and reuse copyrighted material.

This move by the media industry should come as no surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention. For those who haven’t been paying attention, here’s what you’ve missed:

  • The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA): Designed to update copyright to address the new challenges posed by digital technology, the DMCA included provisions making it illegal to circumvent copyright protection technology. While this may sound reasonable, opponents of the law note the media industry is using the law to squelch legitimate security research. Front and center, the case of the RIAA versus Dr. Richard Felten, a case that illustrated the law’s deadly double-edge. Most disturbing is the fact that other countries, including Canada, are looking to adopt legislation similar to the DMCA.
  • The Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Act of 2002 (CBDTA): Introduced as a bill in March by Senator Hollings, the “Senator from Disney”, the CBDTA seeks to force all software and hardware to incorporate copyright control technology. This bill is a re-tooled and re-named version of a previous bill introduced by Hollings, the “Security Systems Standards and Certification Act”. The bill requires manufacturers to create a standard within 18 months of the bill becoming law; if manufacturers fail to agree on a standard, it will be up to the US government to set the standard.

With this latest suggestion, the media industry is illustrating how small changes, each perfectly logical, can result in a society where civil liberties and free will are next to non-existent. What’s to prevent the media industry to seek mandatory implantation of copyright protection mechanisms in humans once the appropriate technology is available? Sure it sounds crazy, but think of the advantages for media industry if every human’s sense of touch, taste, smell, hearing, and sight were regulated to squeeze out every last cent of profit from copyrighted material:

  • “Premium” experiences: While you may pay for food or clothes, the implanted technology could be used to prevent you from fully experiencing the taste of your food or the sensation of your clothes. Want that extra experience? It’ll cost you.
  • Don’t whistle while you work: Say you’ve got a cool song in your head, so you decide to whistle it. By doing this you’re reproducing a copyrighted work, so the implanted technology prevents you from doing so without paying a royalty. Even once you pay the royalty, the implants force the sounds you produce to contain an embedded watermark forcing anyone around you to pay a royalty to listen to you. Good-bye impersonations and catch phrases.
  • So much for casual teenage sex: Want to enforce teen abstinence? Install NetNanny software into the implants that prevent the teens from experiencing sex in any way!

Is this stuff far-fetched? Sure, but as pointed out in The Age of Access this culture of paid-for experiences is already exists today, even without the benefit of copyright control technology. If we give companies the tools to commodify our culture, our experiences, our very lives, they will use it. Companies exist for one purpose: to make a profit. And in the war of business, everything is fair game.

in Technology 0 comments