New FCC Order on CableCards re SageTV

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by sleonard

I'm trying to wrap my head around the above hi-lited text.

There's no contradiction. DRM can be effective at drastically reducing casual piracy, yet easy to bypass. How many non-techies did you know that copied or ripped CDs before the days of iTunes? How many non-techies do you know that rip or copy DVDs? I knew lots of the former, and very, very few of the latter. That's not exactly a scientific survey, but I suspect its pretty broadly accurate. I'm not sure how much of that can be contributed to the DRM and how much of that is simply less demand for movies, but I suspect the DRM did play a role. Outside of techie circles there just isn't as widely deployed hardware and software capable of copying/ripping DVDs as there was CDs.

[toricred]

@stanger89

I couldn't have said it better.

[sleonard]

Originally Posted by reggie14

There's no contradiction. DRM can be effective at drastically reducing casual piracy, yet easy to bypass. How many non-techies did you know that copied or ripped CDs before the days of iTunes? How many non-techies do you know that rip or copy DVDs? I knew lots of the former, and very, very few of the latter. That's not exactly a scientific survey, but I suspect its pretty broadly accurate. I'm not sure how much of that can be contributed to the DRM and how much of that is simply less demand for movies, but I suspect the DRM did play a role. Outside of techie circles there just isn't as widely deployed hardware and software capable of copying/ripping DVDs as there was CDs.

I would agree. I hope you noticed the smiley.

The storage and power for mobile video is now arriving and and will push up the demand for ripping movies but I suspect it will never be as big a market as music with all the iPods, phones, and mp3 players. For those few interested it is trivial to find out how and DRM presents only a modest barrier.

S

[JerryB]

Originally Posted by sleonard

Wow, where to start here. First, we are allowed to critique a piece of hardware whether or not our "experience" ranges from using 3 of them exclusively since they were first released (My "experience") to having done nothing but some honest research.

The Oxford dictionary defines critique is "a detailed analysis and assessment". I have no problem with an honest critique. I just don't believe that the statement "I don't think i have to go through the reasons why the HDPVR is a hack. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about." qualifies as a critique.

[Tiki]

Originally Posted by reggie14

There's no contradiction. DRM can be effective at drastically reducing casual piracy, yet easy to bypass. How many non-techies did you know that copied or ripped CDs before the days of iTunes? How many non-techies do you know that rip or copy DVDs? I knew lots of the former, and very, very few of the latter. That's not exactly a scientific survey, but I suspect its pretty broadly accurate. I'm not sure how much of that can be contributed to the DRM and how much of that is simply less demand for movies, but I suspect the DRM did play a role. Outside of techie circles there just isn't as widely deployed hardware and software capable of copying/ripping DVDs as there was CDs.

I disagree. I have found ripping DVD's to be no more difficult or "techie" than ripping CD's. Free software for ripping DVD's has been readily available for many years.

The main reason people don't rip DVD's as much as CD's is that the resultant files are huge, take up massive disk space, and take a long time to copy - especially over the internet. The only practical way to share them is using torrents, which is a little techie.

Also, I don't think people spend as much time watching full-length movies on digital players as they spend listening to music on digital music players.

If you are going to rip a movie for something other than just fair use in your own home, most likely you will end up burning it onto a blank disc to give to a friend. Since the blank discs aren't free and take time to create, you aren't likely to burn millions of copies to distribute to everyone you know. Of course professional bootleggers will make lots of copies, and since DRM doesn't seem to slow them down, but does make life difficult for legitimate users, DRM=Fail.

One last reason - iPods and other MP3 players have been ubiquitous for quite a while now. Portable digital movie players were not so common. I think in the past most people would use a laptop to watch a digital movie, but now with the growing smartphone market (iPhone, Android, etc.) it is getting much more common for people to be able to watch a digital movie. But, at the same time, DVD's are being phased out in favor of BluRay, which is even more difficult to rip and creates much much larger files that take up even more hard drive space and take even longer to copy over the internet. Oh, and ripping a BluRay for playback on a small screen is kind of silly - you end up having to scale it down and compress it massively to get it to fit.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by Tiki

I disagree. I have found ripping DVD's to be no more difficult or "techie" than ripping CD's. Free software for ripping DVD's has been readily available for many years.

The problem is, the software that does ripping and/or copying doesn't come with new computers, or commonly used software. I suspect things would be different if iTunes included the ability to automatically rip DVDs. DVD ripping isn't really the sort of thing that users will come across when using the software they're familiar with. They have to know its possible, and seek out the tools to do it.

Originally Posted by Tiki

The main reason people don't rip DVD's as much as CD's is that the resultant files are huge, take up massive disk space, and take a long time to copy - especially over the internet. The only practical way to share them is using torrents, which is a little techie.

Also, I don't think people spend as much time watching full-length movies on digital players as they spend listening to music on digital music players.

I suspect you're right that there simply isn't as much demand for ripped DVDs as there is ripped CDs. But between video iPods, iPhones, iPads, etc., I do think there's some demand. And in that niche you don't have the problem with files being "huge", although it does take a while to encode the resulting video file.

Originally Posted by Tiki

If you are going to rip a movie for something other than just fair use in your own home, most likely you will end up burning it onto a blank disc to give to a friend. Since the blank discs aren't free and take time to create, you aren't likely to burn millions of copies to distribute to everyone you know. Of course professional bootleggers will make lots of copies, and since DRM doesn't seem to slow them down, but does make life difficult for legitimate users, DRM=Fail.

I only said DRM is effective against casual piracy, like copying discs for friends, not large-scale piracy for profit. I don't know how much it impacted the music industry's bottom line, but that sort of piracy certainly happened with CDs. DVD-Rs aren't that much more expensive and they don't take that much longer to burn. I think the recordable DVD drives have been common in new computers and laptops for quite a while, and the media certainly isn't hard to find.

The main difference is that software isn't as easy to get. Computers aren't coming with Roxio Easy DVD Copier software, but they did some with CD copying software. The big software vendors for CD/DVD burning software do/did sell DVD copying software, maybe even in the big-box stores, but they didn't include the ability to copy commercial discs. People had to figure out that they needed something like AnyDVD to strip the DRM, or use a free tool like DVD Decryptor which added a middle step.

There probably isn't quite the demand for copied DVDs as copied CDs. Movies don't really have the same level of replay value as music. But I still think the demand was high enough that it would have happened a lot more if it was legal to distribute DVD copying software in the US.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by reggie14

The problem is, the software that does ripping and/or copying doesn't come with new computers, or commonly used software. I suspect things would be different if iTunes included the ability to automatically rip DVDs.

It should though, that's the problem. So should Windows Media Player/Windows Media Center. Logitech should be making Squeezeboxes that play DVDs, etc, etc.

DVD ripping isn't really the sort of thing that users will come across when using the software they're familiar with. They have to know its possible, and seek out the tools to do it.

Then how did DVDXCopy and the like get so well known.

I suspect you're right that there simply isn't as much demand for ripped DVDs as there is ripped CDs. But between video iPods, iPhones, iPads, etc., I do think there's some demand. And in that niche you don't have the problem with files being "huge", although it does take a while to encode the resulting video file.

There would be a lot more demand if companies could make ripping/archiving products without being litigated indefinitely for trying it.

I only said DRM is effective against casual piracy, like copying discs for friends, not large-scale piracy for profit.

It's only really effective at stopping innovation, forcing small players out of the market, and forcing people who are happy to pay for things to find "alternate" means of doing what they want.

I don't know how much it impacted the music industry's bottom line, but that sort of piracy certainly happened with CDs.

Not enough for them to keep DRM on digital downloads

The main difference is that software isn't as easy to get. Computers aren't coming with Roxio Easy DVD Copier software, but they did some with CD copying software.

Maybe not, but you could buy DVDXCopy off the shelf at Best Buy.]

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by stanger89

It should though, that's the problem. So should Windows Media Player/Windows Media Center. Logitech should be making Squeezeboxes that play DVDs, etc, etc.

No argument here. All other things being equal I'd rather things be DRM-free too, but that's not the choice we're given.

Originally Posted by stanger89

Then how did DVDXCopy and the like get so well known.

Well, partly by, as you pointed out, being widely commercially available, and partly by being involved in a high-profile lawsuit. And look how well that worked out for 321 Studios.

Originally Posted by stanger89

There would be a lot more demand if companies could make ripping/archiving products without being litigated indefinitely for trying it.

I fully agree.

Originally Posted by stanger89

It's only really effective at stopping innovation, forcing small players out of the market, and forcing people who are happy to pay for things to find "alternate" means of doing what they want.

I'm inclined to agree that DRM stifles innovation and creates a huge barrier to entry. And I'm inclined to think that DRM does more harm than good. I'm not inclined to agree that a terribly significant number of people are forced into pirating media. I'm sure some do that would otherwise buy DRM-less digital media, but I doubt its very many.

Originally Posted by stanger89

Not enough for them to keep DRM on digital downloads

Just in time for it to be practically a non-issue, given Apple's stranglehold over the digital music player market.

I'm not sure how much you can use the digital music market as a predictor for video. Video has been DRM encumbered, whereas music had CDs. I think its a bit different when you're selling $1 songs than $15 movies.

We'll see. Maybe video will be sold on iTunes without DRM some day too. But I suspect that won't happen until one company (i.e. Apple) has near-complete control over the digital video market, giving them the ability to dictate terms to content creators. Part of my pessimism is I don't quite understand why Apple gave up DRM. Given Apple's business practices, I have a hard time believing it was a principled stand against DRM. I suspect they were concerned about possible DOJ action related to the fact that they were selling music that only played back on iPods. They probably thought they either had to open up Fairplay, or just go DRM-less, and decided just going DRM-less easier (and let them squeeze 30 cents more per song from customers).

[src666]

Originally Posted by reggie14

I only said DRM is effective against casual piracy, like copying discs for friends, not large-scale piracy for profit.

When you look at the media industries' rhetoric when pushing for DRM, they usually talk about preventing commercial piracy, which _everyone_ knows isn't affected by DRM. They talk about the "benefits" to their customers. About how it "allows them to enter markets" earlier than they would without "protection". About how it opens up whole new options and choices to the consumer.

The only people that DRM affects are honest customers. The people who walk into a store and buy a disc, or buy a DRM locked piece of digital media (Kindle books, iTunes movies, etc.)

Those are the people who aren't allowed to skip the big FBI warnings, who have to sit through mandatory previews, who can't move the book/movie/whatever to the device of their choice. Paying customers are _always_ directly and negatively impacted by DRM. I would challenge anyone to demonstrate a single real "benefit" a paying customer derives from DRM.

Everyone else gets to do whatever they want. They get the ripped file without DRM. They get movies that can be put on any device, that don't make you watch warnings and previews, etc.

By paying for media, we are actually _hurting_ our own interests. We are telling the industry that they can nickle and dime us to death, that every use of their product should fall under a different license, and thus incur a new fee.

I'm not telling everyone to go out and pirate everything, but we need to face reality. And meanwhile, when I have to switch to DRM protected recordings using CableCard (or whatever), I can guarantee I will be implementing a solution that strips the DRM. Unfortunately, that will have to be under Windows Media Center since Sage can't handle encrypted video streams.

So you guys can keep talking back and forth about whether or not you "do" DRM - I have to live in the real world, where it exists and is becoming more pervasive. If Sage wants to continue playing in the DVR space, they need to move forward, bite the bullet, pay the fee, charge their customers and get certified.

Because in the small fraction of the market that will pay hundreds of dollars to do a homebrew DVR, there's an even smaller fraction that will accept being limited to OTA and HD-PVRs. And with the providers moving more and more to encrypt everything but OTA, there's just not a lot of room for a system that won't handle the whole thing.

[TheraEdge]

On DRM I'm going to have to side with the crew that feel it does do quite a bit to help content creators. I believe anyone ignorant enough to think DRM is completely broken and only hurts the 'honest customers' is kidding only themselves. I'm not saying I like it, but to be sitting on the high horse that casual piracy was not ridiculously rampant before the days of DRM is far fetched. As many other people have evidenced with their experiences, everyone they knew and their neighbor practically had a decent pirated music library 10 years ago. It was so easy. I agree, today, it isn't that hard for someone with a certain level of technical knowledge to easily defeat the DRM on video discs etc. But in my small sample of acquaintances I only know of one person that rampantly rips video disks like in the old days, and another one that does it from his personal collection for playback in sage. It is a daunting task for the every day user, especially when they find out the best solutions cost money, even if they are worth it. As everyone else on this side has said, it isn't like we are advocates for it, but we understand it.

The second thing I wanted to say is simple and straight forward. I just want a PVR solution that is simple and works. I don't want to have to deal with coordinating the setup and maintaining an HD-PVR, I would really like to deal without a separate cable box as well. I don't want to have to pay a monthly fee when I can use spare computer parts laying around to build my own PVR. Because of these things I'm still in the dark ages watching SD feeds on my 52” HDTV with Sage. Cable cards aren't the best solution, but right now they are the one that would come the closest to what I want. I will be sad if the day comes that I decide I have to go away from Sage to move into the HD world, but it seems to be coming.

I know I am probably coming from the small world of not being at the mercy of a tyrannical cable company. I live in the world of a city owned coop utility with unbelievable customer service and decent prices. HD set tops are $10 a month, HD DVRs are $15 a month and Cable cards are $5 a month, so you can see the draw to get a cable card. Heck, every month they give me a list of all the HD channels they are adding to the current cable package that, unfortunately, many of, need decoding that I can't do yet without a cable card or set top box. Oh, and this month they are installing fiber optic service to all the houses in my neighborhood. So since I don't have to deal with Mediacom anymore I'm not planning on leaving my cable behind any time soon.

A cable/satellite poll would be interesting in this thread. I'm Cable obviously.

[SomeWhatLost]

Originally Posted by TheraEdge

On DRM I'm going to have to side with the crew that feel it does do quite a bit to help content creators. I believe anyone ignorant enough to think DRM is completely broken and only hurts the 'honest customers' is kidding only themselves.

you are right, DRM doesn't just hurt the consumer, it also hurts the content industry by giving them a false sense of security... and since they have that false sense of security they wont bother trying to connect with their fans, or give their fans a reason to buy from them... which will ultimately lead to their downfall...

Originally Posted by TheraEdge

I'm not saying I like it, but to be sitting on the high horse that casual piracy was not ridiculously rampant before the days of DRM is far fetched. As many other people have evidenced with their experiences, everyone they knew and their neighbor practically had a decent pirated music library 10 years ago. It was so easy. I agree, today, it isn't that hard for someone with a certain level of technical knowledge to easily defeat the DRM on video discs etc. But in my small sample of acquaintances I only know of one person that rampantly rips video disks like in the old days, and another one that does it from his personal collection for playback in sage. It is a daunting task for the every day user, especially when they find out the best solutions cost money, even if they are worth it. As everyone else on this side has said, it isn't like we are advocates for it, but we understand it.

by old days, do you mean the 'good old days' when the content industry was just rolling in the dough? how much did that 'rampant piracy' really hurt?

actually that's a good question to ask... how much does piracy really hurt? who is harmed? if you say "that's simple! it's the Content Industry that is harmed!" well that's all fine and dandy, now prove it... it shouldn't be too much to ask the 'side that is claiming it is being harmed' to prove it?
the whole Content Industry is harmed! statement assumes that in a world with no piracy, all those evil parrot wielding pirates would magically turn into cash paying customers...
you said it yourself especially when they find out the best solutions cost money most casual pirates are cheapskates... if they can't copy easily, freely, then they do without altogether, they definitely don't start paying for things... so its no 'lost sale due to piracy' as there never was, and never will be a sale anyway...

also keep in mind this is not any sort of "moral argument" here... its not the evil parrot wielding pirates VS the evil corporations...

at the end of the day this is just a simple economics...

pop quiz time! anyone remember econ 101? what happens to price on the nifty supply vs demand chart when supply becomes infinite?


note: I don't mean to sound like I am bashing or trashing TheraEdge in any way... I am just countering some well thought out points with my less than well thought out points...

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by TheraEdge

On DRM I'm going to have to side with the crew that feel it does do quite a bit to help content creators. I believe anyone ignorant enough to think DRM is completely broken and only hurts the 'honest customers' is kidding only themselves. I'm not saying I like it, but to be sitting on the high horse that casual piracy was not ridiculously rampant before the days of DRM is far fetched.

I don't think that's what anyone is saying. My question is, and has always been, what has DRM actually accomplished? Has it increased sales? I don't think anyone has presented evidence that DRM has helped sales.

As many other people have evidenced with their experiences, everyone they knew and their neighbor practically had a decent pirated music library 10 years ago. It was so easy.

I think we first need to define effective, because DRM isn't free. It cost the content creators in licensing and development costs, it cost end users in licensing and development costs, and it costs end users in terms of usability. IMO to be labeled "effective" DRM has to provide a positive return on that investment so as to offset those costs. To put it another way, it's not effective if it doesn't increase sales sufficiently to offset the costs.

Now, if DRM was so "effective", how come the music industry has all but abandoned it?

I agree, today, it isn't that hard for someone with a certain level of technical knowledge to easily defeat the DRM on video discs etc. But in my small sample of acquaintances I only know of one person that rampantly rips video disks like in the old days, and another one that does it from his personal collection for playback in sage. It is a daunting task for the every day user, especially when they find out the best solutions cost money, even if they are worth it. As everyone else on this side has said, it isn't like we are advocates for it, but we understand it.

The problem is you can't ignore the costs all honest customers are burdened with by DRM. The constant firmware updates, the restricted use, etc, not to mention the devastating reduction in innovation caused by DRM creating incredibly high barriers to entry (and restriction of use to an artificially limited preconceived not notion of what use is "acceptable").

To be a valid solution, DRM would have to show a measurable, positive impact on Sales. Standing on principal and stopping some random person from burning a copy of a DVD to give to a friend is all well and good, but given the costs that honest customers must bear, unless there's some significant upside in sales to the studio, I don't see how it can be justified.

And of course there's the business side, if it costs $1,000,000 to implement DRM, if you don't get $1,000,000 back in increased sales then DRM is costing you money and not a good business plan.

The second thing I wanted to say is simple and straight forward. I just want a PVR solution that is simple and works. I don't want to have to deal with coordinating the setup and maintaining an HD-PVR, I would really like to deal without a separate cable box as well. I don't want to have to pay a monthly fee when I can use spare computer parts laying around to build my own PVR. Because of these things I'm still in the dark ages watching SD feeds on my 52” HDTV with Sage. Cable cards aren't the best solution, but right now they are the one that would come the closest to what I want. I will be sad if the day comes that I decide I have to go away from Sage to move into the HD world, but it seems to be coming.

Personally, if I can't take full advantage of PC functionality (Showanalyzer/comskip, etc) then IMO there's no point. To put it in more concrete terms, I don't see a point to a DRM laden WMC or SageTV cablecard system over a Moxi.

[TallMomof2]

DRM is far more harmful and stifling for consumers. It does nothing to stop piracy. You name the movie, song, book, software, game, etc. and I can find it the same day listed on torrents. For the consumer we have to deal with BDs that won't play until a new firmware is released, music that can no longer be downloaded because the DRM server was taken down and you've got a new PC, books that can't be read on a new device because the book is locked into another device. (Also books that can't be downloaded because of the loss of the DRM server).

If I can't remove the DRM I won't buy the digital file (or if you read the terms, it's more like a lease.) My preference is to purchase/record without DRM.

[reggie14]

Maybe I'm late to the party on this one, but did anyone else see that SiliconDust seemed to confirm that the HDHR Prime would work in SageTV for copy-freely content. One of their employees said on their forums:

Originally Posted by nickk

Confirming, the HDHomeRun Prime (with a card installed) does not make a distinction between Unencrypted QAM and access controlled copy freely QAM. Both types will work with software supporting copy freely content.

There's still a bit of ambiguity there, but to me that sounds like confirmation that the HDHR Prime should work with SageTV. It almost implies that anything that currently supports the HDHR should work with copy-freely content on the HDHR, but that seems a little implausible. They very well might just be saying that any software can play back the files, but that doesn't necessarily mean that any software can control the HDHR Prime.

I know that doesn't help people with channels marked copy-once. But, as far as I know, Comcast is still copy-freely on everything except premiums. Assuming its supported in Sage, I'd jump on the HDHR Prime at $250, and I'd at least think about it if it doesn't get much above $300. I don't see Comcast suddenly deciding to flip the copy-protection switch very soon. I think if they were going to they would have when they switched to all-digital cable. Maybe they'll soon start turning on copy-protection soon in places that haven't gone fully digital yet, but I suspect I'm safe for a year or two.

[TheraEdge]

Well, I don't really want to get in to a philosophical DRM argument, just wanted to point out that I understand why it exists. And I'm not going to take anyone's opinion too personally, what fun would forums be without opinions, so don't worry to much about treading on me to hard.

I did have a couple more thoughts though, and I can't seem to stop myself.

Originally Posted by SomeWhatLost

the whole Content Industry is harmed! statement assumes that in a world with no piracy, all those evil parrot wielding pirates would magically turn into cash paying customers...
you said it yourself especially when they find out the best solutions cost money most casual pirates are cheapskates...

I would argue right there that DRM works in that case. Those people didn't pirate whatever they had intended to, and while they might not buy everything they intended to pirate there are those few items that end up being worth it enough for them to buy legally. Also I would say no one assumes all pirates will turn into paying cash customers, but in that perfect world I'd ask how the pirates ever get to see anything they want without turning into cash customers, But that the biggest thing that would stop would be pirated copies being made freely available to those people that wouldn't have pirated if it hadn't been so easy to download it from that pirated share along with the malware it was carrying. But I'm way off topic with that as I think both sides already agreed DRM doesn't do much to deter the tech savvy distro type pirate.

Originally Posted by SomeWhatLost

...so its no 'lost sale due to piracy' as there never was, and never will be a sale anyway...

also keep in mind this is not any sort of "moral argument" here... its not the evil parrot wielding pirates VS the evil corporations...

This argument is the most hilarious one I see time and again on message boards. If, DRM truly worked and it cut pirates off cold turkey they would be some really disconnected people if they didn't actually pay for a few items they had gotten for nothing before. I think back to my college days when I had a ridiculous collection of music. To say I wouldn't have paid for some of those if I hadn't been able to pull them off anyone's share is just nonsense. I wouldn't have had as good a collection, but I would have paid to get the songs I really wanted.

And to say there is no 'moral argument' her is another of the record industries proof that DRM is required. To say there is no moral wrong in getting something someone else created without paying for it just because you can't physically touch it shows how the concept of morality is a little skewed post Napster. I mean the $10 or so you pay for a CD isn't for the plastic case and disk, it's for the content on it that is intangible also. OK, maybe a little of that is for the cover art, but you get that with some downloaded content too.

Originally Posted by SomeWhatLost

pop quiz time! anyone remember econ 101? what happens to price on the nifty supply vs demand chart when supply becomes infinite?

OK, I'm trying to figure out which way you were arguing with this one. Because if supply is infinite (such as with piracy) then demand goes down and in parallel so does cost or in other words the suppliers can't make any money anymore. So you think they have a case against piracy? I thought you were arguing the other side :P

Sorry, didn't mean to rip into you either SWL.

And Stanger, I'm not even going to get into all that. I know there are all sorts of technical arguments here and there, but I have yet to see any evidence that really says one way or the other if DRM has done something or nothing, and which has cost the music industries more, fighting piracey or piracey itself. It comes down to without what happened in the days of Napster I'm guessing not a lot would have been lost to either. So what are the content providers going to do now? Maybe I'm just as nervous as all those big wig bottom line people, but if you let the whole world into Disney land for free how are you going to pay the staff and maintain the rides? I think if I were them, I'd have the nightmare too, that if they let go of their DRM Napster would happen all over again. Of course things are looking pretty good for the music industry still with the serious reduction of DRM. Maybe all the children are trying to be good so the bad men don't slap their hands with crappy DRM issues again.

Man, I gotta stop playing the other side of the debate team. Anyway, I agree, on the video disks, I'm kind of sorry blue ray won the battle because all the DRM and format stuff makes these things a bane. I miss the days of the simpler DVD that would just load right up and play. Waiting a minute or more for a blueray to load? And they couldn't figure out why it took so long to take off. That and finally they figure out people wouldn't pay $30 a disk typically.

And to address your final comment about DRM and sage, Stanger. Why does this all seem to come back to the assumption that Sage playing nice by the DRM rules for HD and Cablecard won't end up with an outside solution, for those that desire it (similar to removing DRM on disks) that would give you all the unladen content you so desire. I don't know that I would bother as long as I don't get shows with the play once or delete after a week thing in them, but I'd have to see how much they abuse that DRM power.


Anyway, like I said, I would still like to start with a Sage solution that lets me do the easy card thing like I have running now. Not that my IR blasters haven't worked good in the past with limited issues, but I just love the simplicity of installing a card and hooking up my cable and having it all just work and stay high def.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by TheraEdge

I would argue right there that DRM works in that case. Those people didn't pirate whatever they had intended to, and while they might not buy everything they intended to pirate there are those few items that end up being worth it enough for them to buy legally.

That's great in theory, but someone needs to provide evidence of that. The one real study I've found, showed that the effect of sharing on sales was statistically insignificant, and possibly positive (ie sharing increased sales).

Also I would say no one assumes all pirates will turn into paying cash customers, but in that perfect world I'd ask how the pirates ever get to see anything they want without turning into cash customers, But that the biggest thing that would stop would be pirated copies being made freely available to those people that wouldn't have pirated if it hadn't been so easy to download it from that pirated share along with the malware it was carrying. But I'm way off topic with that as I think both sides already agreed DRM doesn't do much to deter the tech savvy distro type pirate.

But that's the problem, to be effective, that is exactly who it does have to deter, the tech savvy type. All it takes is one tech savvy type to figure it out and post it, and then it's available for all the non tech savvy schmucks.

This argument is the most hilarious one I see time and again on message boards. If, DRM truly worked and it cut pirates off cold turkey they would be some really disconnected people if they didn't actually pay for a few items they had gotten for nothing before. I think back to my college days when I had a ridiculous collection of music. To say I wouldn't have paid for some of those if I hadn't been able to pull them off anyone's share is just nonsense. I wouldn't have had as good a collection, but I would have paid to get the songs I really wanted.

Except studies (at least one real one) have showed just that, that sharing has statistically no effect on sales.

And to say there is no 'moral argument' her is another of the record industries proof that DRM is required. To say there is no moral wrong in getting something someone else created without paying for it just because you can't physically touch it shows how the concept of morality is a little skewed post Napster. I mean the $10 or so you pay for a CD isn't for the plastic case and disk, it's for the content on it that is intangible also. OK, maybe a little of that is for the cover art, but you get that with some downloaded content too.

My point is from a business position, you can't make it a moral argument. You're running a business, you have to make your decisions based the return you get, and there's no evidence that DRM increases sales.

Let me turn this around on you. How did iTunes ever take off? After all what they sold was inferior in quality and DRM laden (it's still inferior in quality) to that available through nefarious sources. Yet millions and millions of people chose to purchase from iTunes rather than download for free.

Why?

It can't be for quality reasons, as iTunes is inferior to free sources.
It can't be for usability ones because (at the time) iTunes was burdened by DRM.
That just leaves, because it was "right" to buy it, and because it's easier to buy it.

And Stanger, I'm not even going to get into all that. I know there are all sorts of technical arguments here and there, but I have yet to see any evidence that really says one way or the other if DRM has done something or nothing, and which has cost the music industries more, fighting piracey or piracey itself. It comes down to without what happened in the days of Napster I'm guessing not a lot would have been lost to either. So what are the content providers going to do now?

Well the music industry has given up on DRM for one.

Maybe I'm just as nervous as all those big wig bottom line people, but if you let the whole world into Disney land for free how are you going to pay the staff and maintain the rides?

The problem with that comparison is Disney has a finite supply of rides. If they were to let people in free they would take away paying rides from people who "want" to pay. Digital content isn't like that.

I think if I were them, I'd have the nightmare too, that if they let go of their DRM Napster would happen all over again. Of course things are looking pretty good for the music industry still with the serious reduction of DRM. Maybe all the children are trying to be good so the bad men don't slap their hands with crappy DRM issues again.

I seriously doubt that. Sharing appears to be as rampant as ever, but it seems the music industry realized spending millions on DRM technology, and maintaining DRM servers, and licensing, was just costing them money.

Man, I gotta stop playing the other side of the debate team. Anyway, I agree, on the video disks, I'm kind of sorry blue ray won the battle because all the DRM and format stuff makes these things a bane. I miss the days of the simpler DVD that would just load right up and play.

HD DVD wouldn't have been any better in that regard, both rely on AACS which I believe is one of the driving forces in the restrictive licensing.

And to address your final comment about DRM and sage, Stanger. Why does this all seem to come back to the assumption that Sage playing nice by the DRM rules for HD and Cablecard won't end up with an outside solution, for those that desire it (similar to removing DRM on disks) that would give you all the unladen content you so desire.

Because I haven't seen it happen for non-disc based content. We are way too small a market to attract enough attention to bother IMO.

Besides, that's not really the issue, the issue is potential unwanted side effects. WMC's DRM support comes out to bite users who aren't even using DRM-requiring tuners. Would the same happen in Sage? I don't know, but it's possible.

[SomeWhatLost]

Originally Posted by TheraEdge

I did have a couple more thoughts though, and I can't seem to stop myself.

yea, its kind of like drugz/crack/something... its a bit addictive... especially if you are bored at the time

Originally Posted by TheraEdge

OK, I'm trying to figure out which way you were arguing with this one. Because if supply is infinite (such as with piracy) then demand goes down and in parallel so does cost or in other words the suppliers can't make any money anymore. So you think they have a case against piracy? I thought you were arguing the other side :P

um, don't take this the wrong way... but I think you may have failed econ 101...

so supply goes up, and price goes down... than demand goes up...
now in a real economy (ie the distribution of limited resources) supply would go back down and price would increase...
but in the real world that we all live in, supply will stay infinite, and price will remain $0... so how can an evil parrot wielding pirate be 'stealing/pirating' something with a price of $0... or put another way, how is taking nothing immoral?

now it is true that a price of $0 does not in and of itself present a very good incentive to create new content... but that is purely a business model issue, not a moral one... and not a particularly hard one to solve...
people have been watching FTA/OTA content forever... seems ABC/NBC/FOX/CBS has found some way to make content and give it away for free... of course, that would make anyone using comskip an evil parrot wielding pirate too? wouldn't it?

Note: I am just using network TV as an example of one business model that does work, it can be done... I am not saying it is the golden bullet for every form of content...
it is just that if our Benevolent Media Overlords spent as much effort trying to give us a reason to buy as they do trying to screw us over, they might actually find a business model that works...

also, FWIW, I buy all my Music on CD's, and all my movies on DVD's... I like getting a known quality every time, I like having a physical backup... I don't want to spend days torrenting something just to find out its a shaky cam cording of a movie playing in some Russian theater...

I just strip any all all DRM away once my disks arrive from amazon

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by SomeWhatLost

now it is true that a price of $0 does not in and of itself present a very good incentive to create new content... but that is purely a business model issue, not a moral one... and not a particularly hard one to solve...
people have been watching FTA/OTA content forever... seems ABC/NBC/FOX/CBS has found some way to make content and give it away for free... of course, that would make anyone using comskip an evil parrot wielding pirate too? wouldn't it?

This is specifically a bad example but I see your point. The major networks do make money, they don't just give things away. On top of the advertising dollars they make money by charging local affiliate stations to host their programming.

The local affiliate stations better fit your idea. Since they primarily air "for free" they must find ways to be able to pay the network for the right to show their programming. This probably primarily comes from advertising and more lately charging the cable companies and satellite providers for the right to carry their affiliate broadcast.

[SomeWhatLost]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

This is specifically a bad example

I was just trying to keep it super simple...
and just to be clear I am in no way saying that this model is perfect for anyone, or that it is some sort of golden ticket to success...
just that it is one example business model that is working for some...

[SomeWhatLost]

another fun side argument of DRM/Piracy/etc is the whole concept of "You Can't Compete With Free" that our Benevolent Media Overlords have come up with...

• like sitting at home watching a shaky camcorded movie on a 19" monitor is the equivalent of going out to the theater...
• or Bars cant compete with staying home and drinking/eating/watching the game/etc for free...
• or Bread companies can't compete with all those bake your own beard auto cooker thingys that are so popular now...
• restaurants cant compete with home cooked meals...
• there is no way Sage can compete with MYTHTV/GBPVR or any of the other Free PVR solutions...

and those are just a couple random ones that I just thought up... there have got to be thousands of other industries that are about to go out of business any moment now because there is just no way they can compete with that evil 'free'...

where is the outcry saying we need DRM for bread?!?!?! or even more important Beer!!1 I want my Beer DRM now!!! we must save the Bar industry!!!!