Technology

The business and culture of our digital lives,
from the L.A. Times

Category: DRM

BitTorrent users spend money, too

June 3, 2009 |  8:31 am

Vuze logo Vuze -- the company that's trying to sell licensed, high-def videos to users of the BitTorrent file-sharing software -- has spent much of the past two years trying to persuade Hollywood that its users are customers, not thieves. So far, however, the major studios have entrusted little to Vuze beyond movie trailers and other promotional videos. Now Vuze is trying to prod Hollywood with some eye-opening data about its clientele's buying habits and purchasing power: in addition to being copyright infringers, they spend a lot of money on movies and movie-watching gear. Said Vuze CEO Gilles BianRosa, "Those users are actually Hollywood's best customers."

Yes, that's a self-serving comment. But BianRosa's assertion is supported by a survey by media consulting firm Frank N. Magid Associates of about 1,300 Internet users between the ages of 18 and 44, nearly 700 of whom use Vuze. The survey, which Vuze released late Tuesday, included the following insights about the members of the company's audience:

Continue reading »

Watermarks, a friendlier DRM?

May 28, 2009 |  8:38 am

digital watermarks, piracy, file sharing, BitTorrent, illegal downloads, iTunes The Digital Watermarking Alliance, a group that encourages content owners to embed unique identifiers in media as a way to combat piracy and promote new distribution models online, released a study this morning on the prevalence of illegal downloading and the motives behind it. (Download the .pdf here.) Done by market research firm Interpret, it used an online survey to gauge how many U.S. residents were downloading media legally and illegally. Then it did what amounted to a push poll of 996 downloaders (again, both legal and illegal) ages 13 to 49, exploring their behavior in more detail and measuring their reaction to watermarking technology. Not surprisingly, given who was paying for it, the survey found that embedding watermarks (called "digital serial numbers" in the survey) could deter people from sharing content online. In particular, a third of the downloaders said they definitely or probably wouldn't use file-sharing services to obtain content if watermarks were deployed, and half said the same thing about uploading.

I take some of the  findings with a grain of salt, such as the assertion that using watermarks would lead illegal downloaders to buy more content from legitimate sources. Watermarks may very well drive some people away from file sharing, but they won't stop them from going to sites that stream free songs or bootlegged movies. As the survey points out, multiple factors influence how people choose to acquire content. Nevertheless, the study provided a number of intriguing insights, including the following:

Continue reading »

Napster: Buy MP3s, get free streams

May 18, 2009 |  2:02 pm

Napster logo Now this is truly "PlaysforSure." Subscription music service Napster has come up with a far cheaper alternative to its $15-a-month plan, which allowed people to download an unlimited number of DRM-wrapped songs that worked only on devices equipped with Microsoft's "Certified for Windows Vista" technology (better known as PlaysforSure, although that was a misnomer). Starting today, consumers can sign up to hear unlimited songs on demand from Napster's online jukebox for $5 a month. The price also includes five MP3s, so the streams are effectively free (or even better, considering that new hits often sell for $1.29 each at iTunes or Amazon). There are no "tethered downloads" and no fears about paying for songs that might not work on your favorite player.

This is close to a breakthrough offer. Microsoft tried something similar when it altered its $15-a-month Zune Pass service in November, throwing in 10 MP3s to go along with unlimited streams and tethered downloads. But $15 is far more than the average consumers spends on recorded music each month, and the tethered downloads work only on a Zune. Napster's new price is so low, it could change the way people evaluate a subscription-music service. Instead of wondering whether it's worth paying a monthly fee for something with no residual value (i.e., the tethered downloads and the online jukebox), would-be subscribers simply have to decide whether it's worth buying five MP3s a month from Napster in exchange for access to that jukebox. To make the decision simpler, the company offers three-, six- and 12-month plans (for $15, $30 and $60, respectively) that give subscribers more flexibility over when they use their MP3 credits.

I'm willing to pay for access to a fully stocked online jukebox; that's why I've been subscribing to Rhapsody for lo these many years. But most people aren't. (See below for the numbers.) That's why Napster and its music-industry partners have to come up with a dramatically different value proposition if they're going to attract a mass following. The new Napster offer is far more compelling than the old one, but there are still some non-trivial problems....

Continue reading »

DECE: No news is no news

May 6, 2009 |  8:09 pm

Given my obsession with DRM, I feel compelled to report every tidbit of news I come across about Hollywood's interoperable DRM initiative, the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem. Unfortunately, after attending a panel discussion at Digital Hollywood involving five participants in DECE's planning sessions, all I can report is that the group is closing in on a new name.

Mitch Signer, the Sony Pictures technology chief who doubles as the DECE president, said representatives of the roughly 40 member companies meet monthly and have weekly conference calls. But it has yet to publish any specifications for "DECE-compliant" products, services or content, or say when those might be available. Singer and Mark Coblitz, atop strategic planner for Comcast (and an active participant in the DECE discussions) flatly declined to give a date for, well, anything.

The group's goal is to make legitimate sources of content online more attractive to consumers than free, illegal ones by eliminating the worst features of the electronic locks used to limit copying. The underlying assumption is that some kind of lock, or DRM technology, is necessary to deter piracy, despite ample evidence that DRM on movie downloads and discs hasn't eliminated or, arguably, even reduced movie bootlegging. Regardless, it's certainly true that the major studios won't ...

Continue reading »

The Sims 3 won't have 'overly invasive' copy protections

March 26, 2009 |  4:47 pm
The Sims 3
The Sims 3. Credit: Maxis / Electronic Arts

Stung by the backlash from the copy-protection scheme it had for Spore, Maxis today announced it would not have the same system for its upcoming game, The Sims 3.

Instead of SecuROM, a program that required online authentication to prevent pirated copies from being played, Maxis said it would revert back to the disc-based copy protection it used for The Sims 2. As a result, the anti-piracy measures for The Sims 3, due out June 2, will require users to enter a serial code to play the disc. That means players can use that disc to play the game on any machine as long as they have the code.

Here's what Rod Humble, head of the studio owned by Electronic Arts, said:

We feel like this is a good, time-proven solution that makes it easy for you to play the game without DRM methods that feel overly invasive or leave you concerned about authorization server access in the distant future.

Players last fall rebelled against the SecuROM digital rights management system in Spore, which restricted to three the number of computers on which players could install the game. They punished the company by giving the game low marks in reviews on Amazon.com, driving down the average rating for the game. Two weeks after the game was released, Maxis loosened the locks and raised the limit to five computers.

-- Alex Pham


SXSW notebook: Panelists, audience have fun debating fair use

March 20, 2009 | 12:10 pm

It'd be cool to inhabit the mind of a present-day 16-year-old. Or terrifying. Either way, you'd probably get a stark sense of what, if anything, the new generation of media consumers thinks about copyright. If you're a kid with an Internet connection and unlimited access to a world of instant content -- movies, TV, music, words, images and everything else -- how much do you really understand the fuzzy and complicated  rules about what you're allowed to download, remix and republish?

Even adults can't agree on the answers to those questions -- including some who are paid experts in copyright law. Earlier this week at SXSW, Jason Schultz of Berkeley's Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic ran an entire session on the nuances of so-called fair use. Schultz played a series of online video clips containing repurposed material. After each one, he had a pair of intellectual property attorneys debate whether the filmmaker was an outlaw pirate or an artist engaged in protected creative expression. 

In the corporate corner was Ben Sheffner, an entertainment industry attorney whose client roster has included 20th Century Fox and NBC-Universal, and who worked on John McCain's campaign. And in the creative freedom corner was Julie Ahrens of Stanford Law's Fair Use Project. (The lawyers were arguing standard positions, not their personal opinions.)

After the arguments, Schultz took a vote to see where the 100-or-so-person audience stood on whether the video was fair use. Here's a thumbnail of the panel:

Video No. 1: Synchronized Presidential Debating from 236.com

Sheffner: "CNN or some of the other copyright owners that may have supplied this footage spend millions and millions of dollars on their news-gathering operations. They send huge trucks with lots of equipment and lots of technicians around the country and take these pictures. They need to recoup those costs. When people want to remix or reuse or rebroadcast that footage, they think someone should have to pay for it." 

Also: "What I found out during the campaign is that a lot of the motivation from news organizations making copyright claims is not really even about the money, it's that ...

Continue reading »

Blockbuster + Sonic does not = Netflix

January 14, 2009 | 12:02 pm

online movie services, Blockbuster, Movielink, Sonic Solutions, CinemaNow, Apple TV, iTunes Store, Amazon, Netflix, DRM, PC to TV After having competed throughout the infancy of the downloadable movie market, Movielink (now Blockbuster OnDemand) and CinemaNow (now part of Sonic Solutions) are finally joining forces, kinda sorta. The alliance announced today (and reported by my colleague Dawn Chmielewski yesterday) will let Blockbuster deliver downloadable movies to far more portable devices, set-top boxes and TV sets. That's because CinemaNow has been busily striking deals to embed its software in consumer electronics and mobile devices. The CinemaNow platform also takes a less straitjacketed approach to DRM, enabling customers to view movies on multiple devices.  Sonic, in return, gets the nontrivial benefit of the Blockbuster brand, plus some of the exclusive content Blockbuster has (e.g., movies from Independent Film Channel). The result should be a more able competitor to the online movie rental services offered by Amazon and Apple -- but not to Netflix, despite numerous news accounts to the contrary.

online movie services, Blockbuster, Movielink, Sonic Solutions, CinemaNow, Apple TV, iTunes Store, Amazon, Netflix, DRM, PC to TV That's because Netflix's offering is a different breed of cat. Subscribers to Netflix's standard movies-by-mail service can, for no additional fee, watch an unlimited number of movies and TV shows that are streamed to them online. The no-incremental-cost approach is incredibly appealing, especially for avid movie watchers. IMHO, the Netflix business model (new movies by mail, older titles by stream, all for one monthly fee) will hold a significant advantage as long as the streaming or downloading option isn't the preferred route to watching a movie at home. And I think DVDs will remain the preferred route until streamed or downloaded flicks look as good and are as easy to use as movies on discs.

The main trade-off with the Netflix service is that the movies aren't new releases -- the studios make titles available for Netflix's streaming service in the same "window" used for cable TV's premium movie channels. That means they're weeks, and sometimes months, older than the ones newly available on DVD and in video-on-demand services (including Blockbuster OnDemand and CinemaNow). The subscription movie window is temporary, too, meaning that titles drop out as they get older. The result is that Netflix offers a much smaller library of streamable movies and TV shows than it makes available by mail. Another shortcoming for Netflix is the shortage of set-top boxes and TV sets that support its service, especially when compared to CinemaNow. But plenty of box and TV makers are looking to support for the Netflix streams to their devices, so that gap could soon start to close.

-- Jon Healey

Healey writes editorials for The Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division.


CES: Sneakerware 2009, Part 1

January 13, 2009 |  7:50 pm

Sneaker_graffeeti_dot_com LAS VEGAS -- Despite all the buzz at last week's Consumer Electronics Show about the connected home, some companies still believe the average consumer isn't ready for a world of DLNA, UPnP and MoCA. Just typing those acronyms makes me think they're right. Anyway, there were a couple of sneakerware-based offerings that caught my eye, one of which was from disk-drive-manufacturer Seagate.

Seagate_fa_theater_hero_white_2 Seagate has been pitching its FreeAgent external hard drives to consumers in sort of an eat-your-vegetables way, arguing that they need to back up their photos, music and other digital media in case their PCs fail. How ... compelling. To sweeten the deal, it plans to offer a $129 docking station next month called the FreeAgent Theater that will let users display the contents of their external (or USB) drives on their big-screen TVs. I saw a demo of the device at CES and was impressed by how easy it was to find media stored on a drive, play it and do simple productions, such as digital-photo slideshows with music. One caveat: The picture quality varied with the source material, with high-definition files looking very good on the big screen, the lower-resolution files less so....

Continue reading »

CES: A friendly DRM?

January 8, 2009 |  7:18 pm

Jon_healey_logo

LAS VEGAS -- The Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem announced six new members at the Consumer Electronics Show here, taking one more (small) step toward its goal of creating a standard way for consumers to acquire movies and other types of entertainment online. With the additions of two major consumer-electronics makers (Panasonic and Samsung), the initiative now has the support of five of the largest TV manufacturers, six Hollywood studios, five powerhouse tech companies, and an assortment of players in other segments of the industry's value chain.

The group has lots of heavy lifting still to do. Among other things, the companies have to settle on formats for streamed or downloaded media, a method to limit sharing and technical requirements for devices, said Mitch Singer, a Sony Pictures executive who serves as the DECE's president. A bigger challenge, though, will be getting the public to buy into what amounts to a very slick system of electronic locks.

As befits an initiative that began in Hollywood, the DECE is about making DRM systems work better for both consumers and content providers. It tries to remove the complexities and incompatibilities associated with DRM-wrapped files -- for instance, the inability to play a Bruce Springsteen video bought from iTunes on a Sony Ericsson music phone. It would do so by creating and operating a database of the music and movies people buy, as well as the devices they've registered. Under the DECE system, you'd be able to watch that Spingsteen video on your phone without having to buy it again or convert it into a different format.

Of course, files that have no DRM, such as the ones traded freely online through file-sharing networks, can be used on virtually any device and passed from one to the next. Singer argues that the DECE system will offer consumers something better than they can get for free (illegally): more convenient access to their media. By making it easier to watch and hear the content they buy on a wide range of devices, DECE will make that content seem more valuable to consumers, he said. It also could spur innovation by online retailers and media services.

Maybe. Hollywood isn't about to give up on DRM, and DECE's approach is much more user-friendly than the locks used on downloadable movies today. Still, it's hard to imagine the studios, which for years have pushed their customers to buy multiple copies of the media they own, embracing a system that enables consumers to buy a title once and play it everywhere they'd like. This is, after all, an industry that doesn't want to give people the right to make back-up copies of their DVDs.

It's also an open question whether consumers will consider any kind of DRM system a feature worth having. Would the DECE seal of approval make a Nokia phone more appealing than an Apple iPhone without it? Apple, which has a proprietary DRM, is notably absent from this initiative, just as it has stayed away from other efforts to make dueling DRM systems compatible. If the DECE system doesn't work with iPods, iTunes and iPhones, won't that make it a non-starter for millions of consumers?

-- Jon Healey

Healey writes editorials for The Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division.


Apple raises prices as music sales slide

January 6, 2009 |  2:12 pm

Jon_healey_logo

Yay, Apple granted my Christmas wish! OK, it was a little tardy, but that's not much of a surprise. Nor was the announcement by Apple that, in tandem with dropping DRM from all its tracks by the end of March (Universal Music Group, Sony BMG and Warner Music Group's labels had been the main holdouts), it would start charging higher prices for hits and lower prices for, err, the great mass of tracks that not many people buy.

The only real surprise was that Apple would begin selling DRM-free tracks to iPhone users through AT&T's network, instead of just through Wi-Fi. The move could crater AT&T's wireless-music offers from Napster and eMusic, which require users to pay a premium for tracks. Some label executives have clung to mobile as a last bastion for DRM-protected, premium-priced content; Apple's move makes that stance even less tenable than before.

As for variable pricing, I've weighed in before on the need for record companies to try to make more money by charging less for music. The deal with Apple is a half-step in that direction. But it's also clearly an effort to extract more dollars from those who are already buying tracks, rather than grappling with the bigger problem -- the steady reduction in spending on music. As the latest year-end results from Nielsen SoundScan show, the number of tracks sold, individually and collectively (in CDs, LPs or downloadable albums), dropped about 8.5% in 2008. That's marginally better than the abysmal results from 2007, when total sales were down almost 10%. But the fact remains that the rise in single track sales hasn't compensated for the decline in albums, and the trend lines don't suggest that it ever will.

You could argue that the demand for single-track downloads is less elastic (that is, less price sensitive) than the demand for albums, so raising the price of popular singles could, in fact, stop the slide in sales revenue. That's how Hollywood has overcome the slow but fairly steady drop in ticket sales at the multiplexes: by bumping up ticket prices. But there's a crucial difference between the labels and the studios when it comes to pricing leverage: If you want to see a new film on a big screen, you've got to go to the multiplex and buy a ticket. If you want to hear a new hit song, there are countless ways to do so online -- some of them free and legal. My guess is that the demand for music is pretty elastic, and that the labels would have more luck lowering prices than raising them. But hey, that's just my guess.

-- Jon Healey

Healey writes editorials for The Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division.



Advertisement







Archives