AfterDawn: Tech news

Macrovision responds to Steve Jobs' open letter

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 18 Feb 2007 15:54 User comments (12)

Macrovision responds to Steve Jobs' open letter Macrovision has responded to an open letter published on Apple.com by Steve Jobs about digital rights management (DRM). In the open letter, Jobs recommended that record companies drop DRM completely and sell unprotected downloads, as downloads from stores like iTunes are not a source for piracy. He also highlighted the problems that DRM bring to consumers.
Many industry experts and consumers alike believe that DRM is a sad chapter in the history of the music industry, but Macrovision disagrees. The company that thrives off of content protection technology now contests that "DRM increases not decreases consumer value". The comment was made by Fred Amoroso, CEO and President of Macrovision.

He also thanked Steve Jobs for "offering his provocative perspective on the role of Digital Rights Management (DRM) in the electronic content marketplace and for bringing to the forefront an issue of great importance to both the industry and consumers." The company acknowledged that there are many problems with maintaining an interoperable DRM system, but says that the industry should still pursue it.

The company recommends that the industry make "a commitment to transparent, interoperable and reasonable DRM" to "effectively bridge the gap between consumers and content owners, eliminate confusion and make it possible for new releases and premium content to enter the digital environment and kick off a new era of entertainment."

Macrovision has offered to lead an industry-wide effort on DRM and address problems raised by Jobs and others. There is also an offer for Apple: "Should you desire, we would also assume responsibility for FairPlay as a part of our evolving DRM offering and enable it to interoperate across other DRMs, thus increasing consumer choice and driving commonality across devices."

Source:
Pocket-Lint

Previous Next  

12 user comments

118.2.2007 16:17

Quote:
"DRM increases not decreases consumer value"
Since when? It seems like macrovision would say anything in order to try and convice people that they preform a valuable service to the consumers!
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 18 Feb 2007 @ 16:17

218.2.2007 16:38

Of course they would disagree. It's in their best interest to do so...

318.2.2007 18:07

Quote:
"DRM increases not decreases consumer value".
I do agree with that comment. But thats only because people will buy or rent DVD's protected by macrovision because they are the easiest to backup out of all the protections that are out there at the moment. Macrovision has not impoved their protection. So thats why I agree with that statement :D

419.2.2007 7:22

Quote:
[quote]"DRM increases not decreases consumer value".
I do agree with that comment. But thats only because people will buy or rent DVD's protected by macrovision because they are the easiest to backup out of all the protections that are out there at the moment. Macrovision has not impoved their protection. So thats why I agree with that statement :D[/quote]lol

519.2.2007 8:44
webe123
Inactive

Sorry, but the idea that DRM increases ANY kind of value is STUPID in my opinion. Consumers are better off without it completely and until the companies that make products realize that all they are doing is ticking off their customers...they will continue to lose money.

619.2.2007 9:16
pigfister
Inactive

how much of the cost of a cd, dvd is to pay for the crappy, cracked so totally useless DRM?

719.2.2007 12:39

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA .........*gasp*.......whew......almost died laughing that time =]

819.2.2007 12:59

ah welcome to the rip they would go out of business if the corporations figured out that they waste more money paying for DRM than they would to take that and reduce the price of media or even take it and invest in quality of media.

920.2.2007 8:32

Originally posted by pigfister:
how much of the cost of a cd, dvd is to pay for the crappy, cracked so totally useless DRM?
Only a few cents...

Quote:
The licensor of CSS encryption technology is DVD CCA (Copy Control Association), a non-profit trade association with offices at 225 B Cochrane Circle, Morgan Hill, CA. There is a $15,000 annual licensing fee, but no per-product royalties. Send license requests to css-license@lmicp.com , technical info requests to css-info@lmicp.com . Before December 15, 1999, CSS licensing was administered on an interim basis by Matsushita.

Macrovision licenses its analog anti-recording technology to hardware makers. There is a $30,000 initial charge, with a $15,000 yearly renewal fee. The fees support certification of players to ensure widest compatibility with televisions. There are no royalty charges for player manufacturers. Macrovision charges a royalty to content publishers (approximately 4 to 10 cents per disc, compared to 2 to 5 cents for a VHS tape).

1022.2.2007 13:36

Originally posted by macrovision:
"The company acknowledged that there are many problems with maintaining an interoperable DRM system, but says that the industry should still pursue it..."
"... so we don't go out of business."

Originally posted by macrovision:
"The company recommends that the industry..."
"...keep buying our worthless products."

Originally posted by macrovision:
"Macrovision has offered to lead an industry-wide effort..."
"...to continue as an industry."

1122.2.2007 13:49

Quote:
[quote=pigfister]how much of the cost of a cd, dvd is to pay for the crappy, cracked so totally useless DRM?

Only a few cents...

The licensor of CSS encryption technology is DVD CCA (Copy Control Association), a non-profit trade association with offices at 225 B Cochrane Circle, Morgan Hill, CA. There is a $15,000 annual licensing fee, but no per-product royalties. Send license requests to css-license@lmicp.com , technical info requests to css-info@lmicp.com . Before December 15, 1999, CSS licensing was administered on an interim basis by Matsushita.

Macrovision licenses its analog anti-recording technology to hardware makers. There is a $30,000 initial charge, with a $15,000 yearly renewal fee. The fees support certification of players to ensure widest compatibility with televisions. There are no royalty charges for player manufacturers. Macrovision charges a royalty to content publishers (approximately 4 to 10 cents per disc, compared to 2 to 5 cents for a VHS tape).
Dosent the "industry" pay billions into flawed anti copying schemes?
would this money not be better spent on the media itself be it qauilty or price lowering or just doing a better job and not blame the consumer for not paying enough?

1222.2.2007 18:41

Let's not forget all the millions in re-creating discs that have crippling DRM and putting on even MORE crippling DRM.

And since when has Macrovision been a leading competitor in anything?

Heck, the only reason they would dissuade people is because they would have no lucrative product at all if no one used DRM. They would have to *gasp* make AN ACTUAL PRODUCT!

But you know, for Macrovision to actually be a lucrative business, and for other companies to be a willing participant in buying their product, you need to think about the intelligence of said companies :D

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 Feb 2007 @ 18:48

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive