Media Wonk

Link This | Email this | Comments (0)

False alarm on managed-copy - July 3, 2008

OK, I take it back. Turns out the proposed managed-copy amendment to the CSS license circulated by the studios yesterday in advance of the upcoming DVD-CCA meeting is just for tourists, not a serious effort to develop an industry-standard protocol for allowing DVD content to be transferred securely to other devices. According to Media Wonk's sources, the proposed amendment would leave it up to individual studios to determine which titles are eligible for managed-copy and the studio gets to determine the DRM used to secure the copy.

As for the hardware makers and IT companies that are subject to the CSS license, the proposed amendment would not obligate them under the terms of the license to support any particular managed-copy solution.

In other words: no standards. Studios wouldn't be required to make managed-copy available on any particular title, if they do they don't have to make it compatible with any other title or device, and device makers don't have to support it anyway. For consumers looking for a consistent experience across all titles and all devices, their best bet would still be to download DVD Shrink and rip their own copies--the industry standard by default.

Why bother with a non-binding amendment? One reason could be that the studios have gone on the record with government authorities regarding their commitment to managed-copy and they need to look committed. In Australia, for instance, where the government is considering an amendment to that country's copyright law to allow private copying of DVDs for format-shifting purposes, the studios have clearly been talking a big managed-copy game in an effort stave off government action, as this report (PDF) on the proposed change prepared by the Australian Attorney General's office makes clear.

From the report:

5.1 In general, submissions from organisations associated with the film industry argue that section 110AA [which allows analog-to-digital copying of non-encrypted content] should not be changed [to allow digital-to-digital copying of encrypted content]. These organisations include bodies representing international and Australian film makers and distributors as well as owners of a cinema chain.

5.2 The Australian Visual Software Distributors Association (AVSDA) argues there is no need for the Government to support changes to section 110AA. The submission states that the film industry has a philosophy of ensuring that its content can be viewed by the consumer in whatever way the consumer wishes to acquire and purchase the content in order to maximise consumer enjoyment and commercial return. It points to continuing efforts to develop new distribution models for film and TV products which will meet consumer needs.

5.3 The AVSDA submission argues that consumer practices such as those which lead to the introduction of a wider format-shifting exception for music (s 109A) do not apply to film. It refers to the recent attempt to launch ReelTime Media that offered new release audio-visual content for download in the Australian market. AVSDA goes on to state that ReelTime Media went into receivership [bankruptcy] in February 2008, implying there is a general lack of demand for this type of digital product at this time. This example is given as evidence of the willingness of the film industry to support new markets but also, in contrast to music, the lack of significant demand at present by Australian consumers to pay for legal downloads of film material over the Internet.

5.4 The AVSDA submission outlines a number of current and forthcoming business models that would provide new DVD products. The Department notes that some of these models are expressly designed to allow consumers to make managed copies of content in different formats. ‘Managed copy’ is the film industry’s term for an authorised copy of film made in a different format from a legitimate original DVD where the copy has technological protection applied to it (i.e. to prevent further unauthorised copying and distribution). The film industry believes that the provision of managed copies will substantially meet legitimate consumer expectations as to choice and flexibility. For example, the film industry suggests that Australian consumers who wish to own a copy a film in a Windows or Apple format for use on a portable player will soon be able to buy DVDs that allow that kind of managed copy to be made [emphasis added].

5.5 The new business models go beyond DVD products. They include the possible use of set-top boxes capable of receiving content that is downloaded or streamed over the Internet or rented downloads carried in a portable device.

5.6 AVSDA and AFACT argued that the film industry depends on technological protection measures (such as CSS and AACS) for the distribution of DVDs for home use. They express concerns that the widening of format-shifting exceptions to include digital-to-digital copying would encourage the circumvention of such measures.

When you're making those sorts of promises to the government you'd better at least look like your trying to deliver.
[Consumer Trends]  [Content Protection & Management]  [Discs]  [DRM]  [Regulation & Legislation]  [Trade]   LEAVE A COMMENT