| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ)Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ)Posted Mar 4, 2011 17:29 UTC (Fri) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020)Parent article: Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ)
"We are effectively a convenience store" for licensing patents, said Larry Horn, MPEG LA's chief executive. "We have no dog in that fight."
He is correct. They don't care who wins, as long as everyone pays their protection money.
The problem (for them) is that Google doesn't want to pay, so they try to shake them down by threatening them w/ their patents.
The article's author spins this as a battle between Google and Apple/Microsoft. I don't see it this way at all. Apple and Microsoft aren't members of MPEG LA because they want to be. They are because they HAVE to be or they cannot play in this market. It is the big content producers who are controlling MPEG LA.
Hopefully, the DOJ understands what's going on here.
(Log in to post comments)
Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ) Posted Mar 4, 2011 18:23 UTC (Fri) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link]
Is there something preventing Apple from *also* supporting WebM? (This is a serious question about their contracts with MPEG LA.) Because if there isn't, your point is invalid.
Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ) Posted Mar 4, 2011 18:25 UTC (Fri) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link]
Apologies if the answer is in the article. I've been boycotting the WSJ for a couple of years now.
Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ) Posted Mar 7, 2011 0:45 UTC (Mon) by alsuren (guest, #62141) [Link]
Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ) Posted Mar 7, 2011 1:30 UTC (Mon) by alsuren (guest, #62141) [Link]
Okay, that was a bit harsh. Sorry about that. I know that you might not respect the journalistic integrity of wsj, but commenting on things without taking the time to become well-informed makes it harder for other people to also become well-informed.
Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ) Posted Mar 4, 2011 19:32 UTC (Fri) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048) [Link]
Not really. If you pushed they'd claim that they didn't want to undertake any additional patent exposure, but consider that they ship an enormous number of things which potentially create exposure (including the prior On2 codecs) this would seem disingenuous.
Apple has always been unhelpful with third party open media formats. If you believe this to be a result of their astonishing NIHness or something more diabolical is more a question about you than a question about apple.
My favourite example is lossless compressed audio. Although flac was available for years and fairly widely adopted, Apple created ALAC— which provided somewhat worse compression with worse computational complexity (http://members.home.nl/w.speek/comparison.htm), yet was still using the same general class of techniques (and lossless audio isn't a particularly hot patent area). Since the quality of lossless is always perfect licensing, compatibility, compression, and cpu usage are really the only things worth worrying about.
So, rather than something open and widely adopted (with a BSD licensed reference implementation) they used something worse in every important way except the "Invented by and proprietary to apple" metric, and possibly by a lines of codec metric.
Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ) Posted Mar 4, 2011 20:07 UTC (Fri) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]
Why would they support WebM also? It's just more work for them and gets them in hot water w/ MPEG LA.
Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ) Posted Mar 4, 2011 20:12 UTC (Fri) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]
Once you are a member of the cartel, it's just much easier to stay a member.
Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ) Posted Mar 4, 2011 20:15 UTC (Fri) by rillian (subscriber, #11344) [Link] It is the big content producers who are controlling MPEG LA. Rumour has it that many publishers are convinced that MPEG codecs are important, because they've conflated patent licensing with proprietary and proprietary with DRM support. At least as of a few years ago. Otherwise, I think this is only true if you consider Apple a content producer, in light of Steve Job's letter from a year ago.
Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ) Posted Mar 4, 2011 23:39 UTC (Fri) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148) [Link]
Well in the case of proprietary vs DRM,all drm implementations are neccessarily proprietary. An open source drm scheme cannot work.
Content holders probably ser patenting as one of the easier ways to monetize computer-viewed content
It's the other way around... Posted Mar 5, 2011 9:02 UTC (Sat) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] Why do you think so? DRM is security and it's well known fact that open-source security software is more reliable. You'll need to make sure some parts of the system can not be tampered with (at least for some time: as time goes on reverse-engineering art improves so you can not ever have 100% unbreakable DRM) but most of it can be open-source.
It's the other way around... Posted Mar 5, 2011 16:34 UTC (Sat) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link]
The reason open source security software works is because the users WANT to be protected by it, so they don't bother to modify the code to remove the security protections and recompile their own broken version of it... With DRM, the users don't want it, and so they would do exactly that... With security software, the idea is to protect the user against outside threats; with DRM, the idea is to protect outside interests (record/movie studios) against the users... If the users can modify their DRM-infested software, they can remove the DRM...
It's the other way around... Posted Mar 6, 2011 0:26 UTC (Sun) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Even while the "infestation" is open source, the "infestee" can very well be totally closed...
This is not true... Posted Mar 6, 2011 10:02 UTC (Sun) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] If the users can modify their DRM-infested software, they can remove the DRM... It can be done (and was done) with closed-source software as well. To make DRM work you need some protected part which can not be changed. So you need specialized hardware - that's obvious. If you still can publish sources for that part - and open source will make it easier to fix bugs in that part. DRM is broken when you hardware protection is broken OR when people find a bugs in software component. While hardware attacks usually come first (think GeoHot's hardware glitch) they are mostly useless unless they can be used to find bugs in software (think fail0verflow). Open source can be used to prevent (or at least postpone) second step.
This is not true... Posted Mar 6, 2011 14:47 UTC (Sun) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link]
> It can be done (and was done) with closed-source software as well.
Oh, absolutely... I was merely responding to your claim that DRM was akin to security software, not trying to claim closed-source was any better... DRM is a very different beast in that it's trying to restrict (you could say even "harm") the user rather than protect the user... So, the user is actively going to fight against it rather than embrace it...
> To make DRM work you need some protected part which can not be changed. So
Well, in that case, I'd say it's the hardware implementing the DRM, not whatever software may exist... I mean, if it's impossible that modifying the software in any way could bypass the DRM scheme, then for all intents and purposes the software is not part of the DRM scheme at all...
Why said software is not part of the solution? Posted Mar 7, 2011 8:28 UTC (Mon) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] I mean, if it's impossible that modifying the software in any way could bypass the DRM scheme, then for all intents and purposes the software is not part of the DRM scheme at all... You can not modify the software, but you can not run the modified software. Simple example: Cell. It has 256KB of protected memory and you can stuff anything you want there. Some DRM schemes can be implemented this way. But you can be clever: store signature checked in it and then the actual DRM program will be large (for example 16MB large) program. Before you'll try to execute it you'll need to check that it's signature is valid and store checksums for all blocks in protected memory. If program will be split in 32KB blocks then 512 sha512 sums will take 32KB. After that any changes to the program even hardware ones like GeoHot's glitch will be detected and ignored. You can introduce multi-DRM scheme (in this case there are lots of DRM providers and the main, hardware protected part only makes sure current DRM scheme is "legal"), etc. Basically 99% of you DRM will be open-source (bt Tivoizated) with only tiny hardware-protected component. It'll be eventually compromised (all DRM schemes are compromised in the end), but if it'll work for a few years - it'll be enough. Especially if you can change DRM at will (as with "pluggable DRM" scheme).
Because DRM is a form of attack, not defense Posted Mar 10, 2011 17:54 UTC (Thu) by david.a.wheeler (subscriber, #72896) [Link] The fundamental "problem" is that DRM is a form of attack on users. Users don't want to be attacked, so if they get OSS with DRM, they can just remove the attack. There are ways to try to "lock down" software with remote attestation, etc., but these are just more complicated ways to fail. DRM is fundamentally untenable for streaming audio and video. It doesn't matter if the implementation uses proprietary software or OSS. Just stick a video camera or microphone near the output, and all that DRM is useless.
Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ) Posted Mar 7, 2011 1:15 UTC (Mon) by PaulWay (✭ supporter ✭, #45600) [Link]
They obviously left off the other half of the comment:
"We have no dog in that fight, but we claim to own the rights to control which dogs can fight at all."
Horn went on to say "So no-one else better be supporting anyone else's dogs or we might come after you. And we may not do that right now. We may wait until your dog has won and you've won some money - then we'll come after you for triple damages. We don't even need to send the boys around with the baseball bats - we'll impound all your products and stop you earning any money until you cough up. And we don't even have to tell you what we control, or what we'll do - we can keep that totally hidden. We're just claiming to have those dog licenses, we don't want to show you them at all, because chilling effects are too much fun.
"But if you support our dog and pay us some money, we'll let you go free - for now. Then in a couple of years time we might find some other licenses that you have to cough up for. Or someone else will - so you won't even know if you've paid everyone by coming to our 'convenience store'. So paying us might not even be the end of your problems. But, hey, at least we'll get to smile and say how wonderful and superior our dog is."
At least the journalist could have quoted him fully. Looks like he was just cherry picking the sound bites. (Mmmmm, cherries :-)
Have fun,
Paul
P.S. What is it with these people and analogies? Convenience stores? Dog fights? It's worse than putting all your black kettles in one basket and bringing a knife to break eggs.
|
|
||||||||||||