DRM in MCE Rollup 2
I was posting to TheGreenButton.com and thought I'd save myself typing the same thing again, since it's good info, even if I am restating/repackaging existing opinion. The following is a response to people who thought for some reason that Rollup 2 was applying DRM to things that it did not before:
Rollup 2 did not substansively change the way that we determine whether something should be copy protected or not; what it did was change some of the infrastructure of the underlying protection scheme. Basically we revved the DRM version and refined some of the business rules that determine what level of DRM a piece of content gets.
Whether something is protected by DRM depends on whether the broadcaster sends us CGMS/A (Copy Generation Management System / Analog) flags on Line21 of the analog signal. This is *not* the (in)famous "broadcast flag". If you want to know more about how CGMS/A works, there is plenty of material on the net. Another factor is Macrovision (software and/or hardware), or in Europe, the CP flag.
CGMS/A can set 4 different modes: CopyFreely (i.e. no protection), CopyOnce, CopyNoMore (i.e. it used to be CopyOnce, but you made a copy... so you don't get to copy it again), and CopyNever (no copies at all). Since our whole business is built around timeshifting content, we don't count the one stored version as a copy at all, though in CopyNever circumstances the license is generally good for only a limited time.
<soapbox>
I'm not a big fan of DRM, but I do see the business need for it. Microsoft makes a big, inviting target for lawsuits if we even appear to be soft on protecting copy protected content. That doesn't make me happy, since it attempts to restrict what I can do with "my" content, and no matter how much I am told (and cerebrally understand) that it's not mine at all, but I'm just licensed to view it, I still persist in thinking of it as "mine". After all, I paid for it! As a consumer, I want complete freedom in what I do with my content. As a stockholder in Microsoft, I want to both protect from lawsuits and grow the consumer market, which seem to be opposing goals.
So what we have is a compromise: DRM. We have encryption technology strong enough to make it not worth cracking (by the time you have cracked it, you've spent more than it would have cost to just go out and buy another copy of the content... probably many hundred/thousand/million times). With the technology also comes the ability for us to open up windows to use the content in limited ways... hopefully the ways that consumers really want to use it. Of course, you can't just send copies around to everyone. But you CAN (or should, if it's working right) put the content on a portable device. Or make a DVD backup.
There's more to this than most people realize, though. Not only do companies like Microsoft and Apple have to guard against lawsuits, etc., but they have to make the studios and other content producers happy enough with the DRM solutions that they will go *farther* and give us more content in more flexible ways. Do you think that Comcast, DirecTV or EchoStar would agree to attach a digital tuner to a PC that can decode their signal without an ironclad guarantee that the content would not just end up on the net? They are terrified of that prospect... and with (arguably) good reason. DRM is what we need to open up PC-based solutions for all of our content. I don't want to pirate my Comcast Digital Cable feed... but I *do* want to watch it! In high-definition and on my Media Center. If the DRM gets out of my way, and lets me burn a DVD for my collection (hard drives are finite, after all), then I'm game. I don't care if I can't just post a video of some HBO movie on the internet. I don't really have the inclination anyhow.
I know there are a lot of folks out there who vociferously oppose DRM on principal. The "information should be free" crowd argues on the principal that you cannot own information, and content is just information. That isn't reality, though, and the courts and laws agree that people who create content can sell it. I won't pontificate further on that, but leave with a parting piece of information relating to the prior paragraph: if the "no DRM" crowd wins, we won't have lots of content with no DRM suddenly... what we'll have is broadcasters and content creators that won't have any reason to share their content. Hollywood will release it's next generation of DVD replacements, this time with something less laughable than CSS protection, and that'll be it. No PC viewing of digital content, just analog. Depressing to me...
</soapbox>
This is just my opinion... I'm not a policy setter, and not on any DRM or Copy Protection team. Fill in all the other disclaimers about my opinion not being my employer's, and all that. ;)
Comments
Anonymous
October 21, 2005
"CopyNever circumstances the license is generally good for only a limited time."
Can you elaborate on this, especially the "limited time" part?
ThanksAnonymous
October 21, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 21, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 21, 2005
Jason: I posted a follow-up with more details about how we apply DRM. If that doesn't address your question, please let me know.Anonymous
October 22, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 22, 2005
"I won't pontificate further on that, but leave with a parting piece of information relating to the prior paragraph: if the "no DRM" crowd wins, we won't have lots of content with no DRM suddenly... what we'll have is broadcasters and content creators that won't have any reason to share their content."
I understand your side of the argument, but I disagree with your analysis. If DRM did not exist you are trying to say that Hollywood would stop making movies because they could not protect their content. I find that almost laughable. It's as if the media companies are some big kid that will take the ball away if we don't agree with their rules. Trust me, someone will play - there is too much money at stake to take the ball and run home. By agreeing with their DRM requirements we are placating a spoiled kid that increasingly demands to control how, when, and where we view content that we pay for.
Again, I understand your argument, but I don't buy it. Trouble is when hardware and software manufacturers cave-in to shallow threats, we will just never know.Anonymous
October 22, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 22, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 22, 2005
The Copy Protection flag can be set in PAL broadcasts. It's basically like CGMS, except instead of 4 different levels, it only has On/Off. MCE treats the flag, if enabled, as equivalent to CGMS' CopyOnce.Anonymous
October 23, 2005
Ugh, do you mean MCE actually looks at the WSS bits (ETSI EN 300294) and restricts copying according to WSS bit 13? I think Microsoft is the one and only company who does that...
That's not the way to compete with standalone DVR devices which don't care what the WSS bits say.
So Microsoft's product is DRM-locked, while all competing products (as far as PAL/SECAM is concerned) are not...Anonymous
October 23, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 24, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 24, 2005
"Viewing license? You've got to be kidding me, I buy a DVD I own it, period. That's how it's marketed, 'Own your copy today.' not licensed."
You own the copy. The physical media. You do NOT own the content. Hard concept for some, but for crying out loud it's not that difficult. It's the core issue of intellectual property rights. The laws preventing you from making copies of movies have been around for decades If you actually read the post, you'd see that I am not a "DRM fanboi" by any stretch of the imagination. Unlike you, apparently, I live an work in the real world where I can grasp the concept, as hopelessly technical and advanced as it might be, that there exists a way to let me use something that I do not own.
"Show me where a court has said I can't time/format shift and if you can I'll show you another politician bought and paid for."
Leaving aside the inappropriateness of mixing of "politician" and "court" in the U.S., this is not about timeshifting, or using your license on other devices. DRM prevents you from neither... what's your true beef?Anonymous
October 24, 2005
"There's another way to look at the non-implementing competitors products: if and when the EU mandates compliance [...]"
You're not familiar with the EU, are you? ;) But you may be aware that even in the USA, a court said that the FCC does NOT have the authority to mandate compliance witht he "broadcast flag".
As far as the EU concerned, our politicians wouldn't even dare to try something like this. Maybe you've been misled by the tough rulings of the EU against Microsoft, but they in fact show that the EU is more on the side of the citizens and less on the side of big corporations than the US government is. The EU parliament stopping the introduction of software patents in Europe is more proof of that.
In short: The EU is not in the business of mandating how users handle the broadcast signals they receive. The scenario you pointed out is EXTREMELY unlikely. And even if that ever happened, Microsoft's software-only MCE would make it as simple as it gets to roll out a software update. Your argument does not stick at all. WSS restriction was a WRONG decision by the MCE team.Anonymous
October 24, 2005
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. You did not address my core question, so let me restate it with more clarity:
How is MCE's compliance with the PAL Copy Protection bit impairing your fair use of the content you have recorded?
Arguments in the abstract are fun, and I enjoy a good debate as much as the next guy, but can you honestly tell me that you're being unfairly and adversely affected by our WSS compliance? (I still haven't groveled through the code and compared it against the WSS specification, so I am presuming that is the one we've implemented.)Anonymous
October 24, 2005
You can continue arguing about DRM, I'd rather be interested in what the VODish future will hold. Will I be able to get a 1080p or better stream from the net without advertisements, or nothing/less for one with advertisements. Offering new shows and ads with them would probably take some example from Amazon. No need to try push content at random when one can push what others with similar taste liked and thus create even better profiles. Given so huge benefit to advertisers, why they seem negative about video ipod? In IPTV, easy ad-paid access to long tail of entertainment, who will bother to think about freeloading the content if one can get anything even produced in full quality for almost free if they will accept watching few highly targeted ads? With proper pricing I don't see many people, except those who do it as a hobby, freeloading the content.
Funny thing is, 'HD-VOD' has been around on the p2p in some sense for some time now and in HD like quality. I did a comparison once and a 700 MB hdtv-rip is actually better than DVD when doing side by side of the same clip in hd-rip and dvd. The technology has been around for a while now. Why I can't stream 1080p WMVHD directly from Amazon? I just purchased some WMVHD and had to wait weeks for international shipment of a plastic disc that is now buried under ton of other plastic cases and discs.
I am hopeful that MS will push the buttons of Universal, Paramount etc. so that with Vista I'll be able to stream even the old cancelled tv shows whenever I wish. 5 minutes free from the beginning and one click select whether I want to watch the rest with ads, no-ads (pay), multiple times, or unlimited times license.Anonymous
October 24, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 24, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 24, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 26, 2005
Eric: dvd's can be displayed in 1080i/p and and you can burn dvd directly from the MCe user interface.Anonymous
October 26, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 26, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 26, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 26, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 26, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 26, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 05, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
May 07, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 30, 2007
PingBack from http://movies.247blogging.info/?p=364Anonymous
June 07, 2008
PingBack from http://seanlatestnews.phreesite.com/howdoiremovedrmprotectionfromdvrmsfiles.htmlAnonymous
January 21, 2009
PingBack from http://www.keyongtech.com/2804643-warning-rollup-2-will-preventAnonymous
May 29, 2009
PingBack from http://paidsurveyshub.info/story.php?title=16-7ms-in-the-life-drm-in-mce-rollup-2Anonymous
May 31, 2009
PingBack from http://portablegreenhousesite.info/story.php?id=5378Anonymous
June 01, 2009
PingBack from http://woodtvstand.info/story.php?id=1713Anonymous
June 01, 2009
PingBack from http://portablegreenhousesite.info/story.php?id=15001Anonymous
June 08, 2009
PingBack from http://quickdietsite.info/story.php?id=3838Anonymous
June 09, 2009
PingBack from http://jointpainreliefs.info/story.php?id=1919Anonymous
June 15, 2009
PingBack from http://einternetmarketingtools.info/story.php?id=3916Anonymous
June 18, 2009
PingBack from http://thestoragebench.info/story.php?id=2254Anonymous
June 19, 2009
PingBack from http://debtsolutionsnow.info/story.php?id=10228