Calling Epson...

[Paul Leeming]

:blush: Aw shucks, thanks guys! I figured someone had posted a reply here when I got Graeme's order!!

I sincerely hope you do enjoy my movies - you can watch the second one (Birth) in low resolution via my website.

And you'll be pleased to know that "Maria", the third and final part of the trilogy, will be shot this year, on some form of Red camera, be it my Red One M-X, Epic-X or Scarlet 3D. Those of you ordering both films will get "Maria" on Blu-ray as a special trilogy disc for just postage costs when it's done.

As a bit of background, "Eve" was shot on Super16 (my first film btw so be gentle!) and "Birth" was shot digitally at 1280x720x25p on the JVC HD-GY-101E.

It was the fundamental limitations of both those formats that provided the impetus to put down a reservation on my first Red One, #378.

So in a way these films are directly responsible for me being here in the first place. Full circle!!

I just hope that maybe this little bit of exposure for me will make just one studio exec see the light and realise that treating your customers like criminals, funnily enough, tends to turn them into criminals! However if you treat people fairly and with respect (in all walks of life) they tend to treat you fairly and with respect. What an amazing concept!!

To all who have ordered, DVDs will go out on Monday as I'm shooting this weekend (well, that and the post offices are closed!).

Cheers from Tokyo!

Paul

 

[Richard Goodwin]

I hate DRM because even theoretically it can't work in any useful way to protect content, so it just adds many hassles ...

Can you show me a theoretical research paper that proves DRM is impossible. What you mean to say is you find it annoying. But that is not the same as a theory. It is possible, and there are many systems to enable it.

But DRM tries to get data from point A to point B, but control the way they use it. But the problem is that for the person at point B to see anything, there must be a key stored somewhere on their system, and the way the content is encrypted has to be standardised to have working players. So there will always be a way to get hold of the key, and therefore always be a way of cracking any DRM scheme.

All Encryption and DRM systems depend on common protocols and standards. So you cannot apply it to one and not the other. Key based encryption does not ensure absolute protection, the transmission of the keys has to be protected as well (which is what you are really attacking her BTW). And for many consumer oriented systems the encryption is only so effective, it is more of a deterrent. That includes the things that we somehow do accept such as online banking.

There is always a way to break many of the standard encryption systems in use today on the net. The point of DRM and encryption is not to make it impossible. Because theoretically many systems can be broken. The point is to discourage. The same is true with door locks, alarm systems, and many of the systems we all take for granted, and use in protecting our physical property. Most of them are breakable, in fact many pretty easily. But they create a barrier of basic difficulty to discourage and also to create a common awareness that a bit of property is private and protected.

No information system is 100% effective. So, to use that metric is an impossible argument. Of course it is commonly used against DRM. Because it relates back to a very corrupt tenant on the part of Open Content People that everything should be free.

So really, since DRM doesn't work conceptually, and the it worsens the experience of viewing content so much, I think it's worthless as technology. If the movie studios wanted to combat piracy, they should try making their product available in a higher quality and more convenient way than illegal downloads, as opposed to just piling it with DRM.

DRM does work conceptually and has practical and successful implementations. There are services such as Hulu, and Netflix Streaming that use it effectively and have a large and increasing customer base. For Cinema there is a broad range of titles available to watch at SD and HD quality. Just because you don’t like something or find it a bit annoying does not mean its no good. What disturbs me about this argument is that the theme, “it’s annoying and can never be 100% effective”, is what is used by a large contingent to say that therefore everything should be unprotected and free.

Frankly, if someone spends anyting from $1 to $100,000,000 to make a something they have every right to charge and be paid for it if that is what they want to do. Why is it unfair that the people who get to enjoy should have to undergo a very slight inconvenience to enjoy it. Now if a Creator does not want to charge that is fair too (EX: the poster above who is giving away the documentary to encourage DVD sales).

It should be 100% up to the creator of the work whether to charge or not. Many creators do want to recoup their investment by charging. For those that do there should be working systems in place to allow billing for, and protection of their works.

 

[Michael Tiemann]

Can you show me a theoretical research paper that proves DRM is impossible.

Happy to do so. Bruch Schneier is considered by many to be the expert on computer security. In 2006 he dismisses DRM as theoretically impossible, much the same way that a scientist would say "that requires you to go faster than the speed of light, which is impossible." No more elaboration is needed.

But here's another explanation.

And of course there's Wikipedia's explanation as to why DRM is impossible.

But I think that the fundamental proof of its impossibility is the fact that the government needs to pass laws against breaking it. If DRM were actually possible, in the same way that faster-than-light travel is prohibited by all accepted theories of physics, then nature herself could protect the bits and there would be no laws needed for anti-circumvention or technical measures.

So take your pick: a number of theoretical arguments that come down to "how can you secure a lock on content when you have to give the user, and his computer the keys?" and a much larger number of actual cracks, and zero (to my knowledge) examples of actual security.

There is always a way to break many of the standard encryption systems in use today on the net. The point of DRM and encryption is not to make it impossible. Because theoretically many systems can be broken.

You now contradict yourself, but at least now we agree: DRM is impossible because it cannot be implemented.

The point is to discourage. The same is true with door locks, alarm systems, and many of the systems we all take for granted, and use in protecting our physical property. Most of them are breakable, in fact many pretty easily. But they create a barrier of basic difficulty to discourage and also to create a common awareness that a bit of property is private and protected.

Would that that was all the DRM was supposed to do!

No information system is 100% effective. So, to use that metric is an impossible argument. Of course it is commonly used against DRM. Because it relates back to a very corrupt tenant on the part of Open Content People that everything should be free.

The corrupt tenet being that argumentation should be proper and that people should say what they mean and follow logic? I don't understand.

DRM does work conceptually and has practical and successful implementations. There are services such as Hulu, and Netflix Streaming that use it effectively and have a large and increasing customer base. For Cinema there is a broad range of titles available to watch at SD and HD quality. Just because you don’t like something or find it a bit annoying does not mean its no good. What disturbs me about this argument is that the theme, “it’s annoying and can never be 100% effective”, is what is used by a large contingent to say that therefore everything should be unprotected and free.

Actually, what I don't like about those who wish to impose DRM is that they want to do far more than restrict my ability to get access to content I've paid for. They want to control my freakin' computer. They want to make it a machine that controls me, instead of the other way around. To understand this point of view, read Ross Anderson (with special focus on economics here and anti-competition here).

The fact is (and this is exemplified by the DRM flowchart earlier in this thread) that when one party believes they have power, control, and immunity, they tend to abuse their position. And the DRM flowchart shows just how much crap we're forced to endure that is irrelevant to protecting their precious content.

Could you imagine how popular CDs would have been if each CD had been manufactured with its own 4 digit access code custom-printed on the liner of the jewel-case, so that in order to play the CD you had to enter the access code before playing it? We'd probably all still be listening to SONY Walkmans--not because we're criminals, but because we don't like jumping through hoops to use what we've already paid for.

Frankly, if someone spends anyting from $1 to $100,000,000 to make a something they have every right to charge and be paid for it if that is what they want to do. Why is it unfair that the people who get to enjoy should have to undergo a very slight inconvenience to enjoy it.

Thank you for making my argument for me! If you think a seller has the right to charge an arbitrary price for their good, which I agree with, then why don't you think a buyer has an equal right to enjoy it without having the FBI show up in their living room? Why can't a buyer expect to watch without the inconvenience of unskippable previews that may be inappropriate, offensive, or at the very least irrelevant? It's one thing to try to prevent unauthorized duplication of content, and it's another thing entirely to attempt to control people's behavior well beyond that specific point. That's what we hate about the way DRM is being used today--as a sword instead of a shield.

 

[Jay Gannon]

:blush: Aw shucks, thanks guys! I figured someone had posted a reply here when I got Graeme's order!!

I sincerely hope you do enjoy my movies - you can watch the second one (Birth) in low resolution via my website.

And you'll be pleased to know that "Maria", the third and final part of the trilogy, will be shot this year, on some form of Red camera, be it my Red One M-X, Epic-X or Scarlet 3D. Those of you ordering both films will get "Maria" on Blu-ray as a special trilogy disc for just postage costs when it's done.

As a bit of background, "Eve" was shot on Super16 (my first film btw so be gentle!) and "Birth" was shot digitally at 1280x720x25p on the JVC HD-GY-101E.

It was the fundamental limitations of both those formats that provided the impetus to put down a reservation on my first Red One, #378.

So in a way these films are directly responsible for me being here in the first place. Full circle!!

I just hope that maybe this little bit of exposure for me will make just one studio exec see the light and realise that treating your customers like criminals, funnily enough, tends to turn them into criminals! However if you treat people fairly and with respect (in all walks of life) they tend to treat you fairly and with respect. What an amazing concept!!

To all who have ordered, DVDs will go out on Monday as I'm shooting this weekend (well, that and the post offices are closed!).

Cheers from Tokyo!

Paul

Another buyer here, respect means a lot in our business and you have it in droves, keep it up man. I'll be waiting in anticipation for my package =)