Flixster brings UltraViolet to Panasonic VIERA Connect HDTVs and Blu-ray players (1 Viewer)

[Sam Posten]

True, Ultraviolet isn't ownership, although the original idea was a lot closer to ownership that the eventual result. Actually, I have only ever heard of one real ownership model, the proposed IEEE P1817 Standard for Consumer-ownable Digital Personal Property..... DPP will work for movies, music, books, games, and who knows what other future product types.

More DRM is not the solution. We've proved this with music and it's time other media realize it. http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/02/03/you-will-never-kill-piracy-and-piracy-will-never-kill-you/ When will Apple pen it's "More thoughts on DRM" that seal this for movies the way they did music?

 

[paulsweazey]

True, more DRM is not the solution. Neither is abandoning all DRM, or making meaner DRM, or kinder, gentler DRM, or distributing all content as plain files (with or without EULAs or a Creative Commons License), or draconian legislation, or gestapo enforcement, or abandonment of copyright, or better services, or lower prices, or…. There is no one solution, just as there is not just one problem. We don't need to eliminate the options available today; we need more options. The biggest missing option — the one that some suppliers fear most, and that they want you to think is impossible — is big-brother-free consumer ownership. We synthesized intellectual property rights with copyrights and patents as called for (in the US) by our Constitution. They exist to enhance our general welfare (although they are admittedly often abused). Similarly, we synthesized the concept of monetary currency for the good of society, and we all count on it (although there are counterfeiters and perpetrators of fraud). Even more applicable to the digital content, we synthesized digital money to represent bills and coins that can be protected and exchanged by electronic means via online banking. Our bank balances, once markings on ledgers, are now just a digital sum in a database, protected by banks. We agree to honor these synthetic limits because they are in our collective and individual interest — they empower us far more than they hinder us. Likewise, there are means by which we can synthesize digital objects (movies, music, books, games) that are de-tethered from their suppliers, that retain all of the advantages of digital copying, storage, processing, and transmission, yet that also preserve the principle that for each purchase there should exist only one singular, resellable product item in the field. Lots of consumers are demanding their rights as purchasers and owners of digital products. It is time for us to consider solutions that do just that, yet also preserve our collective notion of copyright – that for our common welfare we pass to copyright holders the right of redistribution to the public (to strangers), even as we reserve for ourselves the right of unfettered private use and sharing with whomever we choose. If people could opt to buy and truly own, if there were no big brothers to register with or ask permission of, if sharing were unmonitored and unrestricted, and if giving and reselling represented a true loss by the giver and a true gain by the receiver, then services (including DRM-restricted ones) would just be a way to save money or simplify our lives.

 

[Sam Posten]

I disagree in principle but I guess I have come to accept at least one DRM scheme that I haven't completely written off in Steam, so maybe. But even that system has problems including MASSIVE privacy issues and putting all the eggs in one basket, so personally for me the only GOOD DRM is no DRM. Well this is going to look bad for me, but Paul I had a look at your post history and your two posts were in this thread with no introduction from you to the forum. So I googled you. It looks like you are actually involved (and not just aware) in this process from the IEEE side, if this is you: http://mesalliance.org/blog/tag/paul-sweazey/

Working group chair Paul Sewazey distinguishes the IEEE effort from studios’ Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem thusly: “DECE is a great project, aimed at erasing as many of the barriers as possible to giving consumers that ownership feeling and sense. It will not, however, give consumers actual ownership of products.”

So, if i read that quote right you aren't exactly following the DECE party line but actively helping IEEE work on the issue? http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1817/pub_docs/TowardDPP_01.pdf http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/NewsBreaks/Group-Seeks-to-Set-Standard-for-ConsumerOwnable-Digital-Property-67854.asp I applaud organizations like IEEE and ACM and others trying to help create a practical and workable solution but we've been banging our heads on this for 30 years and it simply has not worked to anyone's satisfaction. Demolishing DRM has worked for Music, maybe not to the extend the labels would have liked but it has let them survive in the face of piracy and there is more music actually being sold than ever today. The time where the size of files was the prohibitive factor against film and TV piracy is long over. Those content creators can choose to either adapt and survive or die trying to make DRM work, the longer they try to force these stupid systems down the consumers throats the harder the fall is going to be. When the pirates have a better experience than a paying customer there is something dreadfully wrong. We knew it with music and moved on, it's time for the rest of the content creating world to get on board.

 

[Towergrove]

Originally Posted by Sam Posten

I disagree in principle but I guess I have come to accept at least one DRM scheme that I haven't completely written off in Steam, so maybe. But even that system has problems including MASSIVE privacy issues and putting all the eggs in one basket, so personally for me the only GOOD DRM is no DRM.
Well this is going to look bad for me, but Paul I had a look at your post history and your two posts were in this thread with no introduction from you to the forum. So I googled you.
It looks like you are actually involved (and not just aware) in this process from the IEEE side, if this is you:
http://mesalliance.org/blog/tag/paul-sweazey/

Working group chair Paul Sewazey distinguishes the IEEE effort from studios’ Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem thusly: “DECE is a great project, aimed at erasing as many of the barriers as possible to giving consumers that ownership feeling and sense. It will not, however, give consumers actual ownership of products.”

So, if i read that quote right you aren't exactly following the DECE party line but actively helping IEEE work on the issue?
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1817/pub_docs/TowardDPP_01.pdf
http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/NewsBreaks/Group-Seeks-to-Set-Standard-for-ConsumerOwnable-Digital-Property-67854.asp
I applaud organizations like IEEE and ACM and others trying to help create a practical and workable solution but we've been banging our heads on this for 30 years and it simply has not worked to anyone's satisfaction. Demolishing DRM has worked for Music, maybe not to the extend the labels would have liked but it has let them survive in the face of piracy and there is more music actually being sold than ever today. The time where the size of files was the prohibitive factor against film and TV piracy is long over. Those content creators can choose to either adapt and survive or die trying to make DRM work, the longer they try to force these stupid systems down the consumers throats the harder the fall is going to be. When the pirates have a better experience than a paying customer there is something dreadfully wrong. We knew it with music and moved on, it's time for the rest of the content creating world to get on board.

+1 great post Mr Posten!