Login:
Password:

CES Trend #9: Will CE vendors start steering clear of DRM?

By Jacqueline Emigh, BetaNews

December 31, 2007, 12:00 PM

Our countdown to next week's CES centers now on whether the CE industry will at last reach a solution to the DRM conundrum. The new trend toward DRM-free music doesn't appear to be shaking the Blu-ray and HD DVD folks, who continue to cling to proprietary disk formats. Will consumers seek a video alternative, and might it come from China?

At the upcoming Consumer Electronics Show (CES), there will be abundant evidence of at least some exhibitors, perhaps many, abandoning their dependence on digital rights management technologies in favor of spurring more digital music downloads.

But DRM is likely to remain a bugaboo for some time to come in the area of high-definition digital video, where an emerging standard from China might actually bring the best chance of squelching the ongoing proprietary struggle between the HD DVD and Blu-ray camps.

As CES gets ready to unfold in Las Vegas, a surge of recent changes is giving welcome relief on the music download side, which seemes to have been seriously hampered until quite recently by the DRM restrictions of Apple's iTunes.

According to research by JupiterMedia, digital music downloads have been much more popular so far with teens than with adults. Further, a lot of those teens are downloading tunes from iTunes on to Apple iPods, said Mark Best, a JupiterMedia analyst.

Best theorizes that adults are avoiding iTunes and similar Internet-based services because they prefer to "own" their music instead of just renting it, and also because they like to have content that they can "hold in their hands."

But although there's a lot of truth to that argument, could it also be the case that adults are more averse to DRM's technologically-imposed rules and regulations, for whatever reasons? Maybe grown-ups are less likely to want to run out and buy an iPod simply to hear a single tune. Or possibly, people of more advanced ages feel more responsible about sticking to agreements they've made?

Let's face it: Teenagers have always liked to share music with each other. So if some of today's teens are the ones taking advantage of workarounds to Apple's DRM restrictions, as often reported, they might rightfully feel that the process of copying music downloads and CDs for friends isn't all that different from what their parents did -- at the time, quite legally -- when they made copies of music cassette tapes for their own buddies back in the heyday of analog audio.

In any event, with sales of music CDs actually on the wane, it would only make sense for musical content purveyors to try to expand the market for digital downloads, perhaps by reaching people -- of whatever age -- who have held back so far, largely or at least in part because of their resistance to DRM.

Apparently, more of these companies are finally figuring that out.

Next: The lustre comes off the promise of DRM

Continued. . .
1 | 2 | Next >>

Add a Comment (23 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By Grazer

posted Jan 2, 2008 - 12:41 PM

"In some senses, the picture seems brighter for streaming high-def video content than for HD disks....
...tough technology challenges loom ahead for streaming high-def video in the home, largely around distribution of high bandwidth video over low bandwidth pipes.
...remember Marks' observation about content that you can "hold in your hands?" Well, that preference seems to apply not just to the digital music, but to video, too, including the high-def variety.
"

Did I miss something? What exactly is painting the picture "brighter" for streaming?

Score: 0

By JamesKatt

edited Jan 1, 2008 - 4:43 PM

With regard to Blue-Ray versus HD DVD, I highly doubt that the CH-DVD format will help anything.

You have to convince the movie producers for the utility of using High Definition of any particular format. Each has chosen one camp or the other - or none at all (e.g. Fox studios pulled off all their movies from high definition when it was found that hackers broke the encryption). CH-DVD will further fracture the market.

It costs producers a lot to make a high definition disk of either format. Therefore, choosing to come out with movies in both formats will cost even more. Three formats would be highly unlikely.

Since there is so little market presence for high definition hardware, there is little incentive for both consumers and producers to provide movies for hi-def format.

One of the biggest problems is cost. Hi-def movies cost a lot more than DVDs. Hi-def players cost at ton more than DVD players - which can cost as little as $30. This is more than the vast majority of consumers will pay.

What spurred the VHS format were cheap players - such as from Panasonic - compared to Beta. This isn't happening with either Blue-Ray or HD-DVD because both formats are expensive. Yet if there was a price war, both formats can also be inexpensive - so it is a tie - and consumers are still stuck with high hi-def content costs and so will still shun the format.

Until producers are willing to sell hi-def content - such as old movies - for $5 - just like low priced DVD movies, then consumers will continue to stay away. It is too high a price for admission. Consumers are highly used to cheap DVD prices - especially for used DVDs and old movies.

The best hardware makers can do to ameliorate the problem of having two different but equivalent hi-def formats is to create players which can play both formats. Then consumers don't have to make a choice when it comes to their hi-def content investment.

The absolute best solution is for one camp or the other to give in. I doubt we will see this since it involves giving up a lot of patent income with each format. Of course, if they agree to split the patent income and cross-license the patent, then perhaps there is hope.

In either solution, there is no room for CH-DVD. Why would national entities such as Sony and Phillips want to cede royalty payments for their patents to the Chinese. Bah. In won't happen.

Score: 0

By Hocuspokus

edited Jan 2, 2008 - 1:57 PM

"With regard to Blue-Ray versus HD DVD, I highly doubt that the CH-DVD format will help anything."

- The big deal about 'HD DVD China' (it is no longer called CH-DVD) is that it is identical to 'our' HD DVD except for a firmware and a case badge.

Being Chinese it means a guaranteed home market of many multi-millions and tbh they could give a flying f*ck about Hollywood and it's output
(as their recent spat with the MPAA demonstrates only too clearly).

The big deal about 'HD DVD China' is that it means a tidal wave of new brands of regularly priced (not holiday special) sub-$100 HD DVD hardware for our markets.
We already know sub-$100 HD DVD sell as fast as they can be stocked.

(They will also be phasing out production of their upscaling 'regular DVD players' - that still outsells high def of either format - for their new upscaling DVD players that also happen to play HD DVD discs; all at the same kind of money as before.
It has 'winner' written all over it.)

HD DVD Chine launches in march from which point onwards HD DVD will take the mainstream a/v mass-market.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Jan 1, 2008 - 4:39 PM

DRM is a poor choice simply because you have no guarantees that what you own/rent now will work tomorrow. Authentication and verification systems are broken or abandoned (playsforsure/Google Video.) This was a concern 10 years ago and it'll be a concern 10 years from now. I will never own a DRM circular system, however I have no qualms recommending them for business use, given critical data is in an open source available format.

Score: 0

By VampireFrost

posted Jan 1, 2008 - 1:22 AM

I think DRM is dumb for several reasons.
I buy songs and video off of iTunes as well as a few other sites but because my iPod will not play .WMA formated files I have to use another player like Zune to play them. If Apple would support more formats other then their .M4P format I think they would sell alot more music and video.
There are 3 major compeating formats .Mp3 .Wma and .M4p when Apple was the only player in town it wasn't so bad but now that there are compeating formats, some one will be a looser, and with Apples record I feel they will be the looser. That is probley why Apple is fighting to get all their music DRM free. DRM does not stop and will not stop pirating of music. The only people that DRM effect are the ligitmate users of the music. It force people like me to have 2 music players or take the extra time to convert the file format. This like Blue Ray and HD battle one will lose and lets face it Micro$ost has allot more money to toss behind their format and then that will make Apple a loser again.

Score: 0

By JamesKatt

posted Jan 1, 2008 - 5:12 PM

DRM does help prevent pirating - particularly with laws such as the DMCA which have severe legal punishments for pirating copyrighted works.

A problem is that so many countries have a blind eye to pirating. For example, for years Chinese pirated more than 99 percent of the content they had.

Another problem is that children are far more likely to pirate than buy. This attitude has permeated to young adults as well - such as college kids.

If there is no DRM, there is no reason to not pirate. Once a person has one pirated work, they are less likely to buy it. For example, if one watched a pirated movie, why buy it? You already know the plot. People tend to watch movies only once. As another example, if one already has a pirated son, why would one buy the non-pirated version?

It is a universal problem for copyrighted content. How does one stop pirating particularly when it is so common place.

The problem of pirating will kill the music industry in that eventually, artists will make little income from their music. The days of the millionaire music artist will soon be gone. If the big four music companies die, then there is no big money for marketing new artists, and thus no new big music artists. Music will deteriorate to only being a hobby.

The movie industry is more complicated in that it may take hundreds of people to make a single movie. Thus pirating a single movie may hurt hundreds of people, not just one music artist.

What is interesting about movies, however, is that if DVDs and Hi-def content do not sell well because of pirating, then they can at least refuse DVD releases and return back to showing movies only in theaters or eventually on television or cable. If this happens, then there will be fewer content in the future for us all.

In regard to formats, .WMA is not a standard format - it is Microsoft's illegal monopoly created format. The monopoly is the only reason .WMA is commonly used format. .MP3 is a common format - but it is not free of patent rights. There are many companies who own the patents to .MP3 thus companies that don't license these patents are getting sued. .MP4 is a world-wide standard format. It has very reasonable licensing terms for its patents. Apple is only using a world-wide standard format. The only reason .WMA is still existing is because of Microsoft's monopoly. If Europe or (unlikely given the lack of backbone) the U.S. forces Microsoft to stop using .WMA as a format it its operating systems, then .WMA would die.

DRM affects both legitimate and pirate users. Legitimate users have to buy more hardware to play all formats. But then this is only a matter of cost then. Poor people need not apply. Pirate users are being sued for big bucks. The fear of lawsuits will eventually reduce pirating. Not all pirating since many countries don't care about copyright and allow their people to pirate with impunity. For example, all you have to do is walk on the streets of Spain and Italy to see pirated movies on DVD on sale.

Score: 0

By pridewalker

posted Jan 2, 2008 - 10:49 PM

I'd like to tackle a few of the points you raise, here...

DRM does not prevent piracy. At best it's only a temporary deterent to a pirate. Every system that has been put in place (so far) has been cracked. If anything, DRM has created criminals, since the DMCA only allows fair-use rights for non-protected material.

Foreign countries do not even have to acknowledge the US's copyright laws if they choose not to. Furthermore, China is a communist state (although they do show quite a few capitalist tendencies). In essence, there is no such thing as 'pirating' in a communist state, since all property is community property.

There is a certain sense of entitlement among the young. The only difference between a kid ripping/burning a mix cd today, and when we did it with cassettes (back in my day), is that the quality doesn't deteriorate with repeated copies. IMO, this sticks in the RIAA/MPAA's craw as much as anything.

Without DRM, people are not criminals for using the media they've purchased, as they see fit (providing a person doesn't profit from it). The AA's are against disc burning, yet they get a few cents for each blank disc sold (hell, a few of them are involved in the manufacture and sale of burners...Sony, for instance). They would have you believe that instead of purchasing a pre-recorded disc, you're only purchasing a license to view/listen to the material on that disc. It's insane. DRM only limits legitimate users...no one else.

Piracy will not kill the music industry, as the RIAA would have you believe. It's a fairly well known fact that artists only make a few cents per CD sold (even less on digital sales); with the majority of their income made up in ticket and merchandise sales. Some of the biggest acts in music not only allowed recording of their shows, but actively encouraged and facilitated it (the Grateful Dead and Metallica were never negatively impacted by 'bootlegging'...).

Your movie industry arguement is pretty weak also. Millions of people still go to the theater to see movies, or purchase the DVD. A pirated movie is in no way quantifiable as a 'lost sale'. There is no means, whatsoever, to prove that someone who downloaded a movie would have paid to see it in the first place.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jan 2, 2008 - 3:36 PM

"In regard to formats, .WMA is not a standard format - it is Microsoft's illegal monopoly created format. The monopoly is the only reason .WMA is commonly used format."

Now why do you open that can of worms? I used MP3's exclusively up until a couple of years ago because I prefer WMA's--nothing to do with monopolies.

Presenting opinions as "facts" will only deter from your main points. I was actually listening to you until you wrote that garbage in there.

Score: 0

By VampireFrost

edited Jan 13, 2008 - 2:20 PM

"In regard to formats, .WMA is not a standard format - it is Microsoft's illegal monopoly created format. The monopoly is the only reason .WMA is commonly used format."

I hate to even sound like I am standing up for micro$oft but you don't think iTunes .m4p is not an illegal monopoly format? you have to license the right from Apple. That is one reason why you don't see many other players that play songs from iTunes. Go count how many players can play .wma formats over Apples .m4p.
DRM does not prevent piracy the only people it effect are the real user that is tied to something like there iPod because of DRM. I think DRM cost companies more money then it could ever save because you get people calling up or emailing because they cant get that new song they paid for and downloaded to work.
Companies spend millions of dollars each year to protect their stuff with things like DRM. Instead of prosecuting the offenders and making the ones that steal their stuff know there will be legal and financial cost to their choice. Companies coming down on things like torrents saying they do nothing but promote piracy is stupid that’s akin to saying that the internet promotes piracy. Companies are now starting to realize that its costing them more to create stuff to stop piracy. If any of you are old enough to remember back in the early 80’s when there were lots of different computers and computer companies, software houses would add stuff to there programs to prevent people from coping there stuff. Well there was one company that made their program so copy proof that people that bought the program couldn’t even get it to run and there was a big law suite and they had to refund millions of dollars and closed up because of it. That is one reason why I will not buy a program that requires me to have the cd/dvd in the drive to play. If I pay there price to play their game or use their program then I should be able to use it unencumbered, and I should have the right to use it and install it on every system I have. I have many computers and will work on something on one then get tired of the area and get on my laptop and work on it outside and I should have that right.

On a similar note (but not quite DRM), you know the ads at the beginning of DVDs? the ones that say "You wouldnt steal a handbag, You wouldnt steal a car, so why steal a movie?" .
"So who does it punish by forcing a legitimate, honest dvd buyer to watch the junk at the beginning?"
I agree you spend $19 or more to get the DVD and then you are forced to look at this. I am sure the ones that pirate the DVD's just remove that and laugh at it. If you go by how the RIAA/MPAA puts things even if you lisson to a song on the radio or have more then one person in the room when watching a dvd your braking the law.

Oh and correct me if I am wrong but is't there some law suite in England, that they are suing some Gas Station because one of the mechanics had the radio up so loud that others could hear it? I wonder if they will sue these people that drive around with there car radios up so loud that you can hear it a block away?

Score: 0

By joolz

edited Jan 2, 2008 - 12:46 AM

I have purchased the entire Metallica collection + dvds, hat, belt, posters after owning first the mp3 versions of nearly all of the albums. It all started with one download.

DRM is evil because it treats consumers like criminals. Restricting you to convert or watch the way you like it.

On a similar note (but not quite DRM), you know the ads at the beginning of DVDs? the ones that say "You wouldnt steal a handbag, You wouldnt steal a car, so why steal a movie?" .

Ironically you can't skip these portions of the disc.... unless you have stripped it of its protection.

So who does it punish by forcing a legitimate, honest dvd buyer to watch the junk at the beginning?

Score: 0

By flibberyGiveIt

posted Jan 2, 2008 - 3:57 PM

"So who does it punish by forcing a legitimate, honest dvd buyer to watch the junk at the beginning?"

It ticks me off, makes me want to break the law
by removing those protections.
And of course if I went to that much trouble I'd
have to share. Not out of a desire to share
but out of ticked-off-at-'em for calling me a
thief.

Score: 0

By superdragonpoop

posted Jan 1, 2008 - 9:32 PM

You've got a pretty queer view of the world. I fail to see many of your points though.

Your assertion that no DRM == no reason to not pirate is the kind of tripe that the **IA would say.

I could pick apart each of your assertions one by one, but I'll just cut to the chase and say that your DRM view is not on par with Joe Q Public. Your average consumer doesn't care if there is or is not DRM. They just want to play the music they've paid for at every location they used to play their old CD's/tapes.

Your contention that music will "deteriorate" to being only a hobby is absurd. Music was around in the days of the caveman. There was no need for a caveman pop star. The only reason that large music industry exists today is mega dollars. Before there was radio, people would go to a gathering to enjoy music. We've got social networking sites that do this for us today.

Your assertion that DVD's and HD content not selling well because of piracy is also an extension of the Joe Q Public's desire to decide when and where to consume his content. HD content isn't selling well because consumers don't want to buy into a format that will become obsolete. This is akin to their experiences in buying music for their media players.

In regard to music formats, where are you coming from calling WMA an "illegal monopoly"? That statement just sounds more like some personal vendetta than anything bsed on fact. This is even more apparent when you say Apple is "using a world-wide standard format". As far as I know, there has been no world wide vote on an accepted standard.

I also don't know where you're coming from when you say "the U.S. forces Microsoft to stop using .WMA as a format it its operating systems, then .WMA would die". WMA is not part of the OS. It is not required to perform any function, except to listen to wma music. More to the point though is that m4p(not mp4 as you call it) is nothing more than a proprietary Apple format. It is no more standard than a Chevy is compared to a BMW.

To quote you once again..."DRM affects both legitimate and pirate users. Legitimate users have to buy more hardware to play all formats."
I agree DRM affects both legitimate and pirate users. Now consider the removal of DRM. The consumeris no longer tied to the original file type. The consumer is free to convert the file to whatever he should choose. The consumer no longer has to "buy more hardware to play all formats" because all formats are an option for the consumer to convert into.

Score: 0

By billsheasf

edited Dec 31, 2007 - 2:38 PM

Bulls***! I'm 62 years old, love music of all stripes, own an iPod Nano and an iPod Shuffle and to date have downloaded 220 songs from the iTunes Store. Am I the exception or are you just dealing in stereotypes about what "old people" do? BTW, I have two iPods because I use the Shuffle while working out at my health club. What? Old people work out? OMG.

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

edited Jan 1, 2008 - 2:41 PM

The average person your age does it. That doesn't mean everyone your ages does.

Calm down.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Jan 1, 2008 - 1:15 PM

"Bulls***! I'm 62 years old, love music of all stripes, own an iPod Nano and an iPod Shuffle and to date have downloaded 220 songs from the iTunes Store. Am I the exception or are you just dealing in stereotypes about what "old people" do? BTW, I have two iPods because I use the Shuffle while working out at my health club. What? Old people work out? OMG. "

Wow...do all "old people" get as defensive as you??

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Jan 2, 2008 - 1:13 AM

Nah, I'm betting he's the exception... in much the same way that someone 62 years old has two iPods that weren't for his grandchildren.

Score: 0

By kiwiiano

edited Jan 2, 2008 - 12:11 PM

62yr-old with iPods an exception? You jest of course. I have 3 here and of my circle of friends in their 60s & 70s, most would have at least one. If there is any restraint on the number of tracks we download from iTMS, it's the gawd-awful crud that claims to be music these days. It takes a real effort to find the pearls among the pig-poo.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Jan 2, 2008 - 11:24 PM

Actually, that was a joke. I meant no harm. :)

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Dec 31, 2007 - 2:41 PM

I think users have always been wary of 'purchased' products with drm. I personally have purchased maybe 1 or 2 mp3 tracks with DRM, the majority I've purchased from sites that for a long time have offered DRM free, not so much because of being afraid of being locked into 1 player but moreso that the licensing of the files will 'die', get lost somehow or by some resort fail to work in the near or far future. I purchase more now that several companies and services have embraced a drm free nature, and so I think this will be the trend. Sure, some people out there will always steal or find a way to steal digital media, but there's also a large group, I'd say the majority who prefer to know they are supporting the artistes and production crew that are a part of making this media.

On the other hand, I also look forward to subscription services that use DRM. It's only fair. If you 'rent' something, then it should be protected somehow to safeguard the property holders from users that would simply keep the files and not pay. I almost prefer subscription movie and music services where I can download unlimited music for $x.xx a month, because then I'm not worried about buying music or movies that I'll end up not wanting.

In short, I'm a fan of non drm for media that is purchaseable, and a fan of drm to keep subscription 'unlimited' download services around. But I do think the public will embrace and move more toward DRM free when they're purchasing files.

Score: 0

By DavidB55

edited Dec 31, 2007 - 12:54 PM

Regarding the issue of why older people are less likely to download music from sites such as itunes I think we (at least I) have more a sense of short term fads vs long term usage.

We do not want to purchase something that will only play on a single product that we will probably want to move away from (I know, I know – hearsay) in a few years.
We have been through the LP, the 8TRACK, the walkman products of the past and see beyond the pretty ipod interface.

We want music in a format that is interchangeable with multiple products and still usable 10 years from now.

Score: 0

By xeorex

edited Jan 6, 2008 - 8:24 AM

We want music in a format that is interchangeable with multiple products and still usable 10 years from now.

Well, they don't (Production Companies)!

Score: 0