Briefly About the Show

In a recent online debate between Fritz Attaway, a senior executive with the Motion Picture Association of America, and Wendy Seltzer, a law professor who specializes in intellectual property and First Amendment issues good old Frtiz proves that age does not always bring with it wisdom.

These two offered opposing points of view about whether or not DRM (Digital Rights Management) was effective or stifling. Here's Fritz's opener...

The answer to the question, "Is digital rights management being implemented in a positive way?" is a resounding yes. Positive, but not perfect. Let me explain.

Digital rights management is the key to consumer choice. The better the DRM, the more choices consumers will have in what they view, when they view it and how much they pay for it. The only valid criticism of DRM is that some of the DRM technology currently in use is not sophisticated enough. But it is getting better. Users of next-generation DVD technology will have more choices than they do today because the DRM technology will be more sophisticated.

Why is DRM the key to consumer choice? Because it allows content owners to tailor their offerings to what consumers want. Unless you believe in the tooth fairy, you understand that in order to make movies, which today average around $100 million in production and promotion costs for major studio releases, there must be a return. In other words, you must be able to get people to pay for the privilege of watching them. Many consumers want to own a permanent copy of movies. Others are only interested in having an opportunity to watch a movie once. DRM technology allows studios to offer copies of movies that consumers want to own, and a viewing only opportunity, usually at a much lower cost, to those who don't want a permanent copy. It is a win/win proposition for both the owner of the movie and the consumer.

Our reply here at ZeroLogik? Fritz, you're dumb. Simple as that. Have you actually used any media with DRM protection in place?

Scenario: I want to purchase a legal download of a movie to watch on a trip.
What I get: I go to CinemaNow.com - can I get a movie? Nope. Why? DRM. CinemaNow offers DRM that's only for Windows users who have the "latest" media player. I have a Mac and don't want a Windows machine. Choice? Nope. Okay, now I have Windows, can I burn my $19.99 movie download to a DVD? Nope. Choice and convenience for the consumer? Nope. Fritz, hello?

Scenario: I bought one of Sony's music CD's in the last year.
What I get: Something called a rootkit which installs itself silently on my computer which opens up my computer (permanently) for attacks by viruses and other malicious software. What if I remove the rootkit? My DVD player won't work any more. What does Sony call this? DRM. Choice, convenience for the consumer? Nope. Fritz? See a pattern chief?

Then Fritz movies on to address the claim that the DMCA stifles innovation. He claims that DRM + DMCA actually stimulates innovation. His examples?...

Just look at some of the new viewing opportunities that have become available to consumers in the past few months:

• Warner Brothers partners with Free Record Shop using P2P distribution
• Disney offers feature length film on iTunes
• CBS delivers college basketball "March Madness" online
• ABC offers free downloads at ABC.com
• Google Video beta launched -- essentially going with a wholesale reseller model -- creating an iTunes-like store.

Ah, so innovation to Fritz has to do with how the "huge" corporate entities behind all the DRM restrictions are able to offer crappy "new" services that are one tenth what they could be. Let's recap Fritz's points...

Free Record Shop? Okay, saying the term P2P doesn't make you an innovator. The files are still restricted and only work under DRM. Again, limited choices and complications.

Disney movies on iTunes. I'm literally laughing. These movies are low-quality and restricted to playing on 5 computers. I don't want to buy a movie and "only" play it on my computer Fritz. Especially when it's less than half DVD quality and still costs $10. Yuck.

CBS delivers March Madness? Oh, so now I get to pay for what's normally a free broadcast "and" I get to watch it in a tiny window on my computer. Awesome. Now that's innovation!

ABC offers free downloads? Fritz, downloads are videos that you store locally on your computer and can play over and over again. What ABC does is "stream" videos. This means you can NOT save them locally and cannot play them at all if you don't have an active and fast connection to their site. And you're lucky if you make it through a whole episode without skipping from network issues. Yeah, real great!

Google video beta. Oh, right, this is like YouTube where you sue people who put up crappy videos of them dancing to a copyrighted song or ask them to remove their creative contribution. But hey, at least I can buy a REALLY crappy quality download of a TV show for $3.99.

Now let's talk real innovation. Real innovation is offer the consumer something they want that matches or exceeds the quality offerings that exist now. The "only" place I've seen this kind of innovation is in the illegal area that you're trying to shut down. Using BitTorrent or another P2P network I can get full quality copies of DVDs that I like and I can burn them or re-encode them so I can take them with me to other computers or TVs. You offer me a service like that for a reasonable cost and THAT's innovation. That I'll buy.

Interesting how you only mention big studios in your innovation rant. That's what we're saying. The little guys can't innovate at all because you sue them.

And now finally - my favorite Fritzism...

With regard to your comment that many DRM technologies can be circumvented by commercial pirates, you are correct, but DRM is not intended to prevent commercial piracy. It is intended to insure that most consumers will keep the deal they make with movie distributors. Like the lock on your door, they are not a guarantee against theft, but they "keep honest people honest."

Hey Fritz. You don't have to keep honest people honest. You know why? Cause they're honest. That's flat out the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Essentially the MPAA has come right out and said what we've all known all along... DRM isn't meant to kill commercial piracy (thieves & crooks) - it's meant to label all of their consumers thieves.

Here's a secret that most of the people like Frtizypoo don't know. When a customer wants a service that's easy to use, unrestrictive and affordable and you don't offer them that. And instead you offer the opposite. They "will" go and find that system and make use of it - whether you think it's legal or not. That's why (what you call) honest people are downloading your films. They want an actual good option. You don't provide them with one.

For the full Wall Street Journal debate, go here.