Word of the Day: ptarmic - substance causing sneezing - Sheesh! That pepper is really ptarmic, man!
|
|
|
DivX firm claims future DRM will be tied to codecs and not files
VIDEO CODEC FIRM Rovi claims that so-called 'digital rights management' - which The INQUIRER and others call 'digital restrictions management' (DRM) - will move from per file encryption to codec licensing, claiming it will give consumers greater freedom.
Rovi, owner of the DivX video codec, has recently inked deals with consumer electronic giants LG and Samsung so that all of their future televisions and smartphones can play back video encoded in DivX format. According to Richard Bullwinkle, chief evangelist at Rovi, owning a codec such as DivX is vital to enable DRM to become more consumer friendly.
Bullwinkle was surprisingly candid with his views on DRM and said, "no one has ever gone into a store and asked I want a really good DRM." Instead Bullwinkle said that customers "want to be able to play the software anywhere", adding that done properly "you'll never know about DRM".
The seamless integration of DRM has been talked about before but what Bullwinkle proposes is the ability to limit content playback to devices that support a particular codec. Essentially the licensing fee paid by manufacturers such as LG and Samsung and eventually passed on to consumers can subsidise the cost of content, with codec owners such as Rovi also picking up a piece of the action.
Bullwinkle said that while some of the services powered by Rovi's technology, which include Apple's Itunes, Spotify and Pandora, do impose limits on the number of devices on which users can play back purchased content at any one time, the nonimated devices can be changed.
Most consumers of media appreciate that in order to keep prices at anything like reasonable levels, there will be some limits on the number of people that are allowed to listen to the music track or watch the video. The problem was that previous incarnations of DRM essentially tied files down to specific devices, on the assumption that one person will only ever use that device. That assumption is correct in most cases, but as online streaming services have shown, people want to listen to music or watch video on a several devices without having to pay for every device.
Rovi's tweaking of DRM is perhaps the most logical solution, according to Bullwinkle, one that not only meets the needs of most consumers but gives the MAFIAA the win that it so wants, and puts an end to the practice of speculative invoicing.
Bullwinkle's second point about the cost of music tracks and video titles being subsidised through the device vendors' cost of licensing a codec also serves as a good half way house for consumers, he claims, because many of them are perfectly willing to put up with sensible DRM in order to get cut price music and movies legally.
Perhaps Bullwinkle's comments are a sign that the music and film MAFIAA cartels have finally realised that being reasonable with consumers could end up increasing their revenues. What all this means is that owning a codec could become just as profitable as owning the content itself. µ
Tags: Software
Share this:
Share
I thought they just listened to it freely on the officially sanctioned YouTube channels, or one of the build-your-own-internet-radio-station sites. Now that the copyright holders are collectively building a massive, free music warehouse on YouTube, the old days of Napster seem quite rough. I can't legally download it, but that would defeat the purpose of having someone else store it for free.
Considering that they still haven't managed to get a player out for a mobile platform that doesn't hammer the battery and slowly desync the video from the audio as it plays, I think we can take what they say with a pinch of salt.
XviD has taken over on the desktop and mp4 is already there and working fine on devices. I'm surprised they're still going.
.....Instead Bullwinkle said that customers "want to be able to play the software anywhere", adding that done properly "you'll never know about DRM".
Hmmm is he talking about done properly as in the Sony root kits ?
Took a while for customers to figure that one out.
Rovi and Bullwinkle? Wasn't that the name of a cartoon series.....
Apart from the disgusting DRM aspect, DviX IS essentially dead. It was excellent way back when, but it is based on the ancient mpeg4 Part 2 spec (h.263 compatible), circa 1999, with a supposed max resolution of 1920×1080@30fps (according to Wikipedia) although I've only personally seen 720 x 1280 DviX examples.
Nowadays most video media is encoded with mpeg4 Part 10 spec (h.264), a newer and superior video compression algorithm already long in the tooth itself. Since h.264 is a native codec for BluRay and can achieve 4096×2048@30fps it will probably be around for awhile.
I guess I can understand DviX trying to make a deal with the Movie-Mafia-Cartels as no one else would be remotely interested in such antiquated technology. DviX might as well be tilting at windmills.
Most of todays music is total rubbish except for a select few bands. I don't use any of the DRM'd legal services and can't be bothered researching new bands.
I occasionally use btjunkie.org for movies and software, but not music.
I just listen to radio 2 or Kerrang radio most of the time and BBC Introducing on my local station.
Bands I like, I'll go see live.
Divx is still kicking? I seriously thought it was dead like 4-5 years ago. But okay...whatever, this effects me 0.
Well, that about does it for that codec. Oh well, everyone has moved on to MKV and h264 encoding since DivX went to a licensing strategy. DivX will be relegated to the ultra-violet media buying sheeple. It's nice to hear a standard will be accepted for digital content, but injecting DRM into it is the wrong move. All it means is encoding will move to a new format (as it already has) and new open source codecs will have to be developed (which they are). When the media mafia offers ungodly amounts of money to control MKV or other codecs, the masses will migrate to new ones. This won't stop anything, certainly not piracy and definitely not tech-savvy individuals wanting to encode their media for other devices. The only thing about this that makes me cringe is that it introduces a potentially new media of distribution (full digital already lossy encoded) which really doesn't need to happen. Thankfully there's enough elderly people in the world who struggle to grasp the concept of a DVD that the disc will be a standard for at least another decade (albeit in blu-ray/ultraviolet form).
The entire problem is the price people have to pay for music. It's simply too high. That is what make people pirate stuff. Same for movies and software.
Make the price low enough and people buy it.
Companies only protect digital stuff to keep the prices high, there is no other reason.
Pirates won't buy it anyway and normal people skip buying because it's too damn expensive.
You would think that someone in power would have realized that DRM doesn't work to begin with. There is enough demand and enough people with time to crack every DRM scheme they come up with.
The fact is that any DRM is only restricting legitimate customers and is merely a (minor) setback for those who will pirate anyway.
Contrary to the article, music with DRM was never cut-price. Consumers were expected to pay the same amount, but give up the opportunity to transfer the content to any new devices or formats that may come along. Music downloads with DRM are even worse, since you give up the opportunity to sell the music in the used market in addition to all the other restrictions.
I don't pirate music, so that isn't my objection to DRM. I am unhappy that I have to give up valuable capabilities of existing media without any compensation.
If the media companies were to actually lower prices on DRM media, people might be happier than the current situation where DRM removes valuable capabilities without any compensation.