What is so special about HD content that it needs protecting? It's just a way to put a false value on something so the public buy into it. Why not protect colour or stereo sound? On that's right the boat has sailed.
Warner Bros. and 20th Century Fox have said they are working on yet another DRM technology for HD video, this time with the support of storage companies WD and SanDisk. The endeavour is codenamed 'Project Phenix' [sic] and if it won't do much for consumers' ability to spell, it will, the principals promised, give them "an …
There seems to be absolutely nothing in this for the consumer, and it is just more trouble. Why don't they realise that DRM only inconveniences the paying punter, while making the pirate's experience better by comparison.
In this particular case I wonder how one goes about backing up that ever-so-precious content to a NAS or new HDD, and how one recovers the data in the event of the HDD (and thus one presumes the encryption key) failing?
Or is that the scam, get punters on to an HDD-based key that fails at 1-3% per annum, and the roger the unfortunate ones that have it fail in the time scale where they wanted to 'own' the media?
And to answer the question about HD being precious - it isn't - it is just a new set of media & standards that the content industry believes it can DRM-encumber in ways that have failed for the original 'SD' of free-to-air TV and the weak CSS of DVDs.
It's the movie producers.
"Free" movies seem to give them nightmares. They'll pull out every DRM trick in the book, including watermarking ("So we know you're the one who torrented that movie, Mr. Smith..."). Personally, I think they'd rather shut the doors than let them loose. Don't like it, well BOO HOO no more movies for you (and we'll lock up all the OLD movies, too).
Back in the day (2001), the 4C Entity consortium (an organization formed by IBM, Intel, Matsushita, and Toshiba) tried something similar.
The public caught wind of it pretty quickly, and it went over like a lead balloon. After a very loud outcry, the T13 subcommittee of the International Committee for Information Technology Standards voted against implementing the technology as part of the (then dominant) ATA interface specifications.
One can only hope that the same thing will happen again this time...
"an easier and faster way to organise, store and move their HD digital movies and TV shows across multiple devices"
What...Easier copying than drag/drop
Faster copying than FTP/Samba/USB3/SATAxxx
Easier organisation than XBMC library
What they really mean is "way to copy files between (some supported) systems using a (proprietary) tool/technology that checks (slowly) for licence existence (and needs an internet connection) and then organises (completely messes up, a la iTunes) your media library".
Lets face it, even iTunes is pretty rubbish at all 3, and that doesn't even have DRM to worry about.
Remind me why we need this again...oh yeah. that s***ty DRM thing. Sorry I don't do DRM.
This whole initiative is going to cost those that join up $$$$'s, and they've not asked the fundamental question, who will buy?
The public right now seem pretty happy with 1080p MKV's of the latest movies with Dolby Digital and DTS sound, and increasingly TrueHD and DTS-MA, if the numbers of these files being downloaded is anything to go by. People are used to the freedom this gives them, so the question becomes, what does the user gain from this? Forget about selling most users on the whole 'It's licensed by the movie makers" line, most of the public don't care, they just want a high quality file that they can play on their big screen TV, Tablet and laptop, if it does that, they really don't care where it comes from.
This is yet another standard set to die like Ultraviolet and "Triple play" sets with time limited digital editions.
That is the rub, recalling that the studios (and Microsoft) said sometime ago that delivery media not withstanding, you are buying a limited use license and nothing more.
This is a system about rights denial and if it ever gets common acceptance than I'm sure that it is designed to have that license for use amended remotely and without notice.
1) New DRM scheme hits the market.
2) Within a month or two, new DRM scheme is cracked and no longer poses a problem to copyright infringers.
3) Paying customers continue to have headaches caused by the DRM for years. Their new videos won't play on their old devices, they risk loosing their video collection because the DRM prevents them from making easy backups, and thousands, if not milliions, will buy a new device only to get it home and find out it doesn't support the DRM in thier videos.
4) New DRM scheme hits the market because someone finally realized that the last one they reseased was cracked years ago.
5) Lather, rinse, repeat. Paying customers have to pay more to cover the cost of the DRM, those copying media before continue to do so with no problems, and companies waste time fighting a war they can never win.
Conclusion: DRM is a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
Hold the phone on that. Some of the newer DRM schemes don't seem to have been broken wide open yet. After all, I've yet to hear Microsoft complaining about someone breaking their Windows Media encryption, nor Apple with their FairPlay scheme (all the "crackers" I've seen depend on having legal access to the file at least once, so they don't really count as breaking the scheme). As for BluRay, BD+'s ability to keep updating means it's still an ongoing arms race.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020