What do you clever people make out of this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/54643129@N00/152429072/

Multiple processors, video/audio encoding/decoding, genlocking, 3D graphics engine, etc. A new POWER SoC processor coming?

(Hmm, I meant to post this in hardware, but it might perhaps fit here as well ...)

[ Edited by takemehomegrandma on 2006/5/26 17:56 ]

BTW, it's coming from this blogpost:

http://bbrv.blogspot.com/2006/05/arockalypse-now.html

(for the correct context)

Yes, it is our intention to develop this SoC with IBM and Fairchild.

We will probably write a blog titled "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself." Here "right" means as we want it to be.

R&B

This is really nonsense.

I'm sure a handful of people will still make millions after convincing
some big record label or movie giant that they have "the solution".
But it's not ever going to work. Anything that can be viewed, can be
copied. And as long as the industry and lawmakers keep their current
attitude, piracy will only increase.

There's no reason to believe most pirates aren't perfectly willing to
pay creators of music, movies, etc. In fact, I'm willing to bet that
there is a very strong correlation between people buying a lot of
music and movies legitimately, and people pirating a lot of the same
stuff. Too bad there doesn't seem to be any studies to check for this
correlation.

Today, the industry have started what could perhaps best be
called a "war on consumers". Surely people want to pay a musical
artist, but how many of us want to pay greedy companies so they can
afford more lawyers to sue little girls and other average consumers?

And no, the "war on consumers" is by no means limited to people who
get both pirated and legitimate material. In fact, as disturbing
as they are, these lawsuits are very rare. You're probably worse off
if you only buy things legally. Copy protection - which is of course
not present in the pirated versions - make life hard for you. You may
not be able to play CDs or movies with the devices you want to play
them, because of region protection or "side effects" of some
copy-protection. Forget making back-ups. You may have to
watch stupid anti-piracy "commercials" which are of course removed in
pirate releases (although some of the most funny examples circulate
separately due to their comic value).

Last year Sony was exposed for installing harmful software on your
computer, without asking, if you wanted to play some of their music
CDs. They'll be sued no doubt, but this seems to be getting much
worse. The industry's current big project is the HDMI movie format
which involves complex protection in both movie players/computers as
well as monitors/tv screens. At the heart of the system lies the
possibility of "revoking" functionality for devices that have been
compromised. In other words: If your TV manufacturer leak their secret
encryption key, you'll find that your TV won't be able to
display new movies. Maybe not, though. Since several encryption
experts have claimed that the system is readily breakable, it's
possible that the system won't be used as intended and will end up
doing nothing.

But if it does work, there is a simple solution for people who don't
want to worry if their particular movie player AND their particular
display device will both be capable of watching some new movie. They
can get a pirated version, which will of course work perfectly
everywhere.

So the bottom line is: the industry is whining about pirates, but
most of their action will actually only harm legitimate consumers, not
pirates. Even if you buy the legitimate original, it's often
convenient to get a pirate release of the same thing because the
original is so crippled.


While the industry is shooting themselves in the foot, lawmakers
aren't doing better really. In most western countries at least, laws
have in the last decade or so been passed that make normal cultural
exchange illegal. If I like some song, I can't legally send a copy to
my friend anymore. Lawmakers have determined that everyday
cultural intercourse is a threat to culture!
(Of course, when the politicians say "culture", they actually mean the
big movie and music companies, but I'm not sure if this is an
intentional euphemism or if the average lawmaker simply doesn't know
any other form of culture.)

But humans are cultural animals, and so it happens that most
people just don't care about such silly laws. So the laws don't really
have much effect except undermining the public respect for laws in
general.


Well then - is it true that piracy hurts artists? I don't know. But
again I'm willing to bet. I think that it really does harm big artists
who sell millions of records. They have nothing to gain and the
fanbase is not proportional to their sales. But small or medium
artists probably gain at least as much as they lose. What they lose in
sales is probably made up for because they get more fans as their
reputation spreads from mouth to mouth - or from hard disk to hard
disk.

But I'm sure there is one clear loser: the big record labels. The
current music industry has a winning concept, based on
economy-of-scale. They hype up a few "big" artists and do everything
they can to make everyone buy the same few records. The system is
tried and perfected: you can't avoid hearing these artists on the
radio (and you don't get to hear much else), you see them in
commercials, the artists get enormous coverage for their soap
opera-style personal lives (an artist with potential for great
headlines surely has much better chances of getting a record
released).

This way of distributing music is clearly an historical exception. The
modern trend of aquiring a taste for arts mainly through exchange with
personal friends and aquaintances is clearly nothing new. The
invention of mass media with few transmitters but many receivers
disrupted this for almost a century, but that time is likely to be
over soon.

A result from this is that people's tastes will continue to become
much more divergent. There will be many more "big" artists, and they
won't be as big anymore. And the big record companies, who rely on the
old form of distribution, won't be needed anymore.

And that's probably the cause of the problem. There's no threat to
culture. It would easily be possible to make most people pay a little
for downloading un-crippled music and movies. It would have to be
much, much cheaper than today of course. So while they could spread it
to their friends, it might not be worth the hassle. A good and
reliable download rate is worth something after all - and furthermore,
most people find it reasonable that artists should be rewarded for
their work. In fact, this system is likely to make everyone a winner,
except for the big labels and a handful of their chosen faces. And
that's why they are fighting with more and more desperate methods to
hinder this cultural development.


[ Edited by merko on 2006/5/29 17:15 ]

merko,

You make a good point... the biggest problem is with the Western
Corporate/government structure... too often they assume that might
means right.

No matter what they do, there will always be pirates...
if you make a perfectly secure system to control every media type from
being copied.. someone will design an alternative... like PNG and
Ogg...the battle will never end. Personally I think it is just a huge
waste of resources... more often then not, a well pitched well made
product will sell.

@merko

Quote:

That covers a lot of ground.

1. Money will be spent and made to find a solution. This has not changed.
2. The whole point of the SoC development is to link the hardware and software together in a manner to make decryption extremely difficult.
3. The industry must adapt and so too must the user and the lawmakers that are elected by the users to represent them.

Quote:

Did you read this: HRM. Can you see the irony in the title?

Quote:

You are correct. There are huge problems with the approach of industry. There are many examples of misjudgment. The Sony Spyware scandal being the latest.

Quote:

Yes, and you make the point of the whole discussion. A solution is only possible with user agreement.

Quote:

Perhaps, you should become a "lawmaker." How far does your sense of responsibility go? You made the effort to post this, perhaps you should consider your potential.

Quote:

Hence the requirement for a system that can be applied consistently throughout the world. Now, there is a challenge.

Quote:

Yes, Microsoft apparently encouraged the same process, but that really does not address the issue of creation and the management of distribution for profit. Legal profit is an incentive that is absent from an economy based on theft. That is a key point.

Quote:

Actually, the objective in doing this correctly changes the rules sufficiently to solve the problem you address. This will be quite humbling to the music industry - or any industry that digitally distributes a product.

Quote:

Free and fee. Things have not changed and will not.

Quote:

We agree. "Marketing" will take other forms and may move "fee" to "free" as it did with broadcast television in the beginning. It does the same thing with sports and their events. How do you think even the Olympics or the World Cup gets paid for?

Quote:

"...all pirates will be fans. There are ways to organize an economy around fans."

R&B

I must question some of your premises, though.

First, it is an error to confuse piracy as a whole with "an economy
based on theft". Certainly there are such economies, for example there
are many countries where pirated music and movies is mass-produced and
sold at a profit (though not for the authors). But the even more
widespread peer-to-peer piracy (not limited to modern p2p-technology)
is something entirely different. It's not an economy based on theft,
because it's not even an economy to begin with.

Second, I question the idea that money would be increasingly "lost"
through piracy. Maybe in the above-mentioned cases of mass production.
But the old bizarre notion that a company would "lose" an amount equal
to the sales price each time someone copies something, isn't something
worth taking seriously. If someone copies a song, becomes interested
and then buys the entire album, then money has been won, not
lost. Overall, I think it is reasonable to assume that the amount of
money spent on music or movies is fairly independent on the level of
piracy. Increased piracy is likely to increase consumption, rather
than to reduce spending in this area. But as usual for this topic,
there seems to be little serious research made.


But my main objection is the very notion that encryption can somehow
protect artists from piracy. On the contrary: the dependency on
organised piracy increases with the difficulty of creating copies.
With an unbreakable encryption, it's still possible to create very
good copies using costly high quality equipment. Computer software
cracker groups enjoy their special status (though rarely any
economic profit) from the fact that ordinary users/pirates need them.
Remove the protection, and the cracker groups disappear. Add new
protection schemes to movies and music, and a new breed of cracker
groups will appear instantly.

So once again: adding encryption to legitimately bought music/movies,
and the only thing you achieve is to make legitimate copies
less attractive, and pirated copies correspondingly more
attractive.


Let's think from another direction. How many movies do you think an
average consumer views per month, on TV or stored media
(pirated or legitimate). How many movies does the average user buy in
a month? Divide these figures. Now let's do a thought experiment: what
would happen if the price of a movie went down by almost such a
factor? Do you think people would spend less money on movies? I don't
think so - rather, people would buy many more new movies. Since the
choice of movies to view would increase enormously, it is to be
expected that people would view more movies, and also be willing to
spend more money, for something that now brings more value to them.

But again: I'm sure some people will make millions by selling copy
protection schemes to the industry as "the right answer". But by logic
necessity there can never be a "right answer", and if the industry
keeps asking an impossible question they will be doomed.

@merko

Quote:

We are not sure we have communicated the premise well enough for you to understand it yet, much less question it. That is our fault.

Quote:

Here we do not agree if the material being exchange is protected by copyrights. Piracy is piracy no matter how it is dressed up. That is what this discussion was about in Arockalypse Now:



The profit economy is what supports the development of the content. Think about "the arts" and how they have been funded historically.

Quote:

We think you are mixing two issues:

1. Theft and priracy
2. Market exposure and growth

Again (from HRM), "The easier it is to copy music or video or whatever, the less of a problem piracy really is. When piracy gets easier, pirates will have less to offer or said another way -- all pirates will be fans. There are ways to organize an economy around fans."

Did you read this: Enough Technology Already!

Quote:

Johan, you are not reading what we have wrote (again, from HRM):

The solution to DRM is a choice made in the name of a better technology inspired entertainment solution and user agreement.

Quote:

If we apply that reasoning to your home, we can leave off the doors and locks because it is better for every one else who wants to come in. Criminals may want to break in any way, but the threshold and crime is more difficult when you have doors and locks.

Quote:

That is exactly what Yalcin did. It works when you address supply and demand at the right levels. But, again, that is something different than discussing piracy.

Quote:

If we can create an environment that opens up a secure and accountable link between the artist and the audience they will both come. If we can create this possibility it will fuel the creativity to empower technology to meet a demand that won't go away. What we are doing is setting up an artist/audience oriented distribution network.

"That's the ticket."

R&B

Bill

Unfortunately, historically encryption and copy protection has done little for the consumer and plenty for the content owner. And NOT the artist, but the company who owns that artists content. Not only that, but look at the nightmare of dvd encryption even today. With Regions and the need for proprietary and licensed software packages (or hw based solutions) in order to view YOUR OWN DVDs. God Forbid if you yourself, the new owner of said content want to make a backup copy so when the disc eventually scratches you have another. (Or better yet, you put the original in storage and use the backup)

I'm afraid the moral issues are not so cut and dry as are the business opportunities for a company that can provide a "trusted community" or un-hackable/crackable encryption for digital content. As you yourself have been involved on high levels in this industry you know of what I speak of here.

All that being said, I do understand your arguments, and there is a serious need of this in the entertainment business. Anyone who can provide this magic key will surely reap huge financial rewards. Just look at Verisign. This does not mean its all rosy for artists and the so called consumer of the content. Quite the contrary in some cases.

magnetic

To shorten this discussion:

We need fair use - by every participant.

Publishers should stop crying whenever a single bis is copied, users should not forget to give the artists a revenue by buying their products.


To give and to take that is the way forward. Fair use and all are happy!

Technical restrictions will not work, but exasperating ppl.

Historically, artists have mainly been entertained by "great lords",
or they have been trying to get by on nothing. When it comes to music,
most artists either have a "real work" besides music, or lives on
giving concerts. Very few can survive on record sales alone. The
reason is partially the narrow distribution channels - to get a record
deal, artists have to accept deals which are really quite
unreasonable. More direct channels between artists and consumers would
remove this narrowness and would likely result in artists getting the
greater share of what consumers spend on music.


bbrv wrote:
> If we apply that reasoning to your home, we can leave off the doors
> and locks because it is better for every one else who wants to come
> in.

The analogy is flawed. It's more like my landlord putting an easily
breakable time-lock on my apartment's door, that won't let
me in after midnight "because only thieves are out that late
anyway". The real thieves will not be stopped for a minute by the very
weak lock, but it will be a big obstacle to me - the guy who
pays the rent.

No DRM scheme in the world will stop piracy. It's impossible, since
everything that can be viewed, can be copied.

bbrv wrote:
> If we can create an environment that opens up a secure and
> accountable link between the artist and the audience they will both
> come.

But you can't. It's technically impossible. We'll have to make it with
insecure and unaccountable links.

There may be only 2000 sales points for pirated DVDs in the
great nation of Turkey. But the development towards better internet
connections means that pirated material is getting easily accessible -
for free - in more or less every home. It only takes one
determined cracker anywhere to flood the world with a pirate copy of
a popular item in days. There is absolutely no way to stop this.

It's understandable that big record labels are panicking. After all,
they make money by ripping everyone off as well as they can,
especially their own artists. They naturally assume that people in
general are just like themselves. But it's not true. People in general
are not willing to go to great lengths to avoid spending a bit of
money on entertainment. The main incentive to piracy is not to save
money, but to get more variation for the limited sum people have to
spend. Given a reasonable legal alternative, people will most likely
use it. But not if this means getting DRM-crippled material that is
inferior to the pirated copies.

Zylesea has correctly indentified the issue on the user side of the conundrum: what is "fair use." About that there are many opinions. On the other side of the coin, there are different issues which touch on many of the matters Johan (merko) keeps addressing.

Johan, please read this:

If we can create an environment that opens up a secure and accountable link between the artist and the audience they will both come. If we can create this possibility it will fuel the creativity to empower technology to meet a demand that won't go away. What we are doing is setting up an artist/audience oriented distribution network.

We contend this is possible (isn't that what you just said you wanted?!). Look at the success of iTunes. It is an end-to-end solution that for many different reasons has been successfuly adapted to consumers. There are some key features:

1. the end user device that includes a hardware and a software component
2. a fee (be it patronage, subscription or advertising based)

Accountability is maintained and legal distribution works in a manner superior to alternatives available - at least that is the public perception. What is also important: a) ease of use, and b) quality of service. People will pay for these qualities and making a copy of something that can be viewed is not automatically going to produce the same result. Didn't you sat that? As you also mentioned: "The real thieves will not be stopped for a minute by the very weak lock, but it will be a big obstacle to me - the guy who pays the rent." That is it. And, as far as most of the rest, it seems we are in violent agreement.

The point of disagreement is whether or not this is technically possible. In the same way that you suggest that each successive technical innovation will be defeated, we are simply saying there will be progressive innovation. Neither the technology provider nor the technology corrupter will stand still. Herein, is opportunity no matter how difficult it is to provide (as magnetic/Thomas suggested). We think an SoC goes a long way to address the technical issues.

We think that the POWER Architecture can provide native security with hardware and software linked together, while others are only an add-on software band aide. Macrovision is the model to follow. Movie companies forced distributors of VHS tapes to buy Copy Guard at $1 per cassette. They made Macrovision very profitable despite the knowledge that the system was flawed. Ask why the Millennium Copyright Act resulted from Macrovision failure. We will come back to this.

Back to work!

R&B

Yes, I think we agree except for the technical (im)possibility of
using encryption etc to protect things like music and movies.

I also agree completely that ease of use and quality of service is
some of the two important things that can make people buy legitimate
copies instead of getting free pirate copies. But "quality of service"
very sharply collides with DRM schemes. I can't remember the exact
terms for iTunes, but it does cause trouble for users because you
can't easily use the music you buy with your favourite mp3 player,
etc. It's not that much of a hassle to circumvent this even for the
average user, but it still puts iTunes at a disadvantage compared to
pirate material. Ease of use and accessibility apparently make up for
this enough for it to be a huge success, but my bet is that this
advantage will shrink quickly as we go further into the
"information age". Napster and Audiogalaxy may be ghosts, but it's
really only a matter of time before similar services will reappear in
a less legally tangible form.


[ Edited by merko on 2006/5/30 19:44 ]

Napster may still be the #1 software program downloaded. We are not sure, but it has to be in the Top5 all-time.

OK, so back to the discussion...

About DRM:

1. It needs a new name.
2. It should be transparent to the user.
3. "Fair Use" has to be defined and easily understood. Or, it other words: users need to understand "what the deal is."
4. The privacy and security of the user should be respected.
5. If something goes wrong the user should still be able to use the content they own/license.

Flexibility is key. It should not be restricted to use in a particular OS or hardware platform. Having said that this would require users to be completely honest about use which is not happening today already. Change would be next to impossible without some new technical solution. MorphOS with an SoC would be a great combination.

The TiVO to Go model is the best we have seen to date. It is like FairPlay (used in iTunes), but more flexible in use. You can transfer recorded shows to DVDs, personal computers and mobile devices, including iPods.

Bottom line:

IP holders should be able to protect their property.

Users should be able to see, hear, do, what they want, when they want, how they want, where they want.

Technologists have a mission that requires more than technology. That is the challenge!

R&B

Quote:

Agree fully. So far it has been onesided when it comes to protections.. IP holders have tried, and in some light succeeded, to protect their propertly while the consumers have been assf*cked with constant harm (non-working media on certain hardware, limited usage, spyware, ridiculous license agreements etc.)

I just don't think there's a technological solution to this. Rather, I
think that the solution will have to be social, or perhaps we could
see it based on information theory.

Let me explain: Let's assume that music is sold very cheaply as
completely unprotected mp3 files. Would this work?

I say that it can work, if:
1. It is cheap enough - say 0.3 EUR/song or 2 EUR for an entire album.
Record labels will scream, but sales volumes would increase sharply,
and distribution costs are much, much lower anyway than for physical
CDs.

2. There's enough to choose from. The main advantage of buying music
over the net is *choice*. If you want the big artists, you can go to
the nearest gas station even. Over the net, even obscure artists from
the 60's may easily sell well enough that it's profitable to put them
in the catalogue. And it never ever makes sense to remove *anything*.

3. It is simple enough to use. Pay through your phone or upload some
credit through your bank card, then use it as a jukebox with a huge
selection. Let users rate songs and albums and run cross-checks to
suggest new music that they may like. Instead of buying an album now
and then at a big cost, work to make people buy music more or less
every day at a very small cost. Don't apply restrictions that make it
hard to move the songs to mp3 players or burn them to cd's.

4. Don't worry if someone gives a copy to a friend.
Sure, it can be done, and it will be done. But it's no big harm. The
friend no doubt has a different taste and will buy different music.
Realise that getting a recommendation from a friend in this way is
likely to cause further interest and thus increase revenue.

5. Forget the idea that "if we make it available unprotected, it will
spread all across the internet".
This happens regardless of protection. There is always one person
somewhere to circumvent the protection, and that is all it takes. Just
open your eyes - the "protected" material sold on iTunes already has
close to maximum spread!

6. Target commercial piracy.
Forget "friendship piracy" and direct forces to reduce availability of
commercially pirated material. It will never be completely successful,
but the goal is only to make it less attractive than the legitimate
alternative.


The basic philosophy here is that while it will be technologically
possible to pirate everything, it will not be convenient to do so. The
money saved will not offset the extra time required to find the music
you want and a reliable place to download it in pirated form.

Well.. that was the short/medium term idea. But to build such a system
for the long term, I think it would also pay to include artists
directly into the interchange.


1. Allow anyone to submit their own songs or albums.
Some checks must of course be made that the material doesn't contain
hate speech or similarly illegal things, but no quality checks should
be necessary.

People submitting eg covers of copyrighted material should not be a
big problem, it would be noticed if there was enough interest, and if
there wasn't too much interest then no real harm is done to the
original copyright holder.

Wouldn't all the crap drag down the impression of the quality
offered by the system? Not necessarily. Being available for purchase,
does not equal being easily purchased by mistake. Such material would
not really be visible unless actively searched for. Professional and
consumer reviewers would constantly rate material and what is rated
highly in general, and rated highly by reviewers with a similar taste
to users who submitted their own ratings, would be recommended to the
customer.


2. Offer a variable pricing strategy.
Charge from 0 to 50 cents for a song, let the artist choose. Unknown
artists would do wisely to initially offer their music for free. Once
the number of downloads reaches a certain volume, the price would be
raised to at least cover the cost of the bandwidth used. Hit songs
could be sold at a higher price such as 50 cents. Define automatic
price raises as the number of downloads increases. Never lower prices,
or at least only do it very slowly, for hit songs of the past.

Make it a matter of prestige for music fans to have bought a new star
cheaply, before they reached stardom.

Offer "automatic" record contracts to make a physical CD when an
artist has generated enough revenue.

Pulled from an email this morning...

Quote:

Nice email. Thanks "Ms. Anonymouse"...

R&B

@ bbrv

Quote:

Everytime a new technology is coming there are advantages and disadvantages involved.
Well, with the new digital networks the publishers are on the descending bough...

Once upon a time Gutenberg invented the printing. The ones who earned their bread by writing copies of books went bankrupt and had a problem. Bad luck for them indeed.
But in mankinds cultural evolution Gutenberg's technology finished the dark age and prepared the ground for free thinking, learning and information availablity.
Without easy availabliity of information we would never have seen somethimg like the enlightment ('Aufklärung', I. Kant etc.).
Now information availablility reached the next stage. There are loosers again, but also winners.
Publishers may lose, but most ppl may win.
OTOH ppl must learn that creative ppl must get revenues for their jobs.

Publishers must offer *something* to reach customers. And that is obviously not DRM or other restrictions or high prices. If they offer nothing, then they deserve to lose!

Piracy from little users is not the problem because Corportative Entertainment Majors rise the prices of products just those few cents needed to split the loss of little piracy on the shoulders of the vaste majority of regular buyers.

Just as is happens with little stolens in supermarkets.

(there is a word in english for little stolen in supermarkets, but I don't remember it)

Big problem is INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZED PIRACY from Mafia as in Naples where I live (Not Mafia but Camorra rules here) or from China, where Triads mafia and Piracy are an istituzionalized industry, or as in Turkey where Piracy is at all levels due to lack of laws.

And you could fight it NOT by introducing strange devices limiting freedom of the users, but with correct laws, investigations, and control of the territory as it is happening in Naples nowadays.

Also the renevues from the entertainment majors are not fair.

Great entertainment majors are a TRUST here in Italy rising prices of Audio CDs and Video DVDs twice more than other CEE countries, and our local ANTITRUST committee is hardly fighting versus their price trust scandals.

A new entry audio CD could arrive costing even 40 or 60 euro here in Italy or more.

While entertainment majors sure could gain even from cheap-price editions.

For example I buy only Cheap price originals CDs or DVD sold with Newspapers here in Italy.

5,90 Euro for a '80 greatest Hits Audio CD

or 7,90 for an Evergreen movie DVD

And both could be sold bundled with newspapers.