Perspective: Can video iPod lead to DMCA reform?

Apple Computer's video iPod may not be the first portable movie player, but it is by far the best.

The one serious flaw in this svelte little device is how difficult it is to load with video. Apple's otherwise handy iTunes application flatly refuses to transfer a legally purchased DVD to the iPod.

Don't blame Apple for this glaring oversight. You can thank our esteemed public servants in Congress.

In 1998, politicians bowed to pressure from the entertainment industry and voted overwhelmingly for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Part of that law made it a federal offense to sell or distribute software that can rip DVDs.

In other words, believe it or not, Apple CEO Steve Jobs would be guilty of a federal felony if iTunes transferred DVDs to an iPod as easily as it can music from a CD.

While these Draconian penalties have angered digital-rights types for years, the prohibition really hasn't affected a broader audience. But the recently released video iPod changes this and--if we're lucky--will prove to be a flashpoint that sparks actual reforms.

"Our best hope for getting amendments to the DMCA is for more regular consumers to feel the pinch of the DMCA," says Fred von Lohmann, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Earlier legal tussles over the DMCA were more arcane and didn't cripple gadgets prized by millions of Americans. (About 14 million iPods, including the Shuffle, Nano and video versions, were sold in the last quarter of 2005.)

Take the court rulings against the now-defunct 321 Studios, which used to sell a DVD-copying program. A federal judge in February 2004 ruled that the DMCA outlawed it.

That decision was widely ignored outside of geekdom. So were legal threats against security researchers, DVD burning software, toner cartridge refills, computer-science graduate students, Russian hackers and Princeton researchers.

Credit: Declan McCullagh

Champagne was on hand in 2002
when politicians and lobbyists
gathered in Washington, D.C.,
to celebrate the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act.

There are some proposals in Congress that start to fix the video iPod problem, but the outlook is hardly sunny.

One bill is the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act, introduced by Rep. Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat. Another is the so-called "Balance" bill introduced by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat.

But there are some problems. The latest version of the Boucher bill seems to be watered down from an earlier one. (The new language is ambiguous but not as consumer-friendly as it was in the earlier version). And even if it were enacted, you could legally transfer a DVD to an iPod, but it would continue to be unlawful to distribute the software that permits the transfer to take place.

The Lofgren bill comes closer to the mark. It says that in some cases, it is legal to distribute software that can "circumvent a technological measure" such as DVD encryption.

Unfortunately, her proposal has virtually no support. And because it's a bill introduced by a Democrat, it's hardly likely to receive a warm welcome from congressional Republicans.

More to the point, perhaps, a good portion of the U.S. technology industry is lined up against DMCA reform.

There's no shortage of enthusiasm for the 1998 law among the political class--various lobbyists and politicos actually toasted it with champagne a few years ago, and many software companies love it.

The Business Software Alliance (that is, Microsoft) says the law is necessary "to curb piracy and its economic consequences." The entertainment industry is just as emphatic, and so are video-game makers.

Still, some glimmers of hope exist for DMCA reform. At a hearing in November, Rep. Joe Barton, the Texas Republican who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, seemed to take a common-sense approach.

"It boils down to this: I believe that when I buy a music album or movie DVD, it should be mine once I leave the store," Barton said.

Hardware makers and Internet providers have also expressed their support for reform. (The list includes Intel, Sun Microsystems, Verizon, Gateway and Red Hat.)

Will that be enough? We'll see. It may depend on how rebellious--or cranky--video iPod owners turn out to be.

Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's chief political correspondent. He spent more than a decade in Washington, D.C., chronicling the busy intersection between technology and politics. Previously, he was the Washington bureau chief for Wired News, and a reporter for Time.com, Time magazine and HotWired. McCullagh has taught journalism at American University and been an adjunct professor at Case Western University.

More Perspectives

[kfsutops]

What is going to spark change

Is all the new equipment coming out for the living room with Copy
Protection. Typically, most people have no clue what they can do
with a regular PC. But once things start not working on a TV
because Sony/Microsoft says "NO," people will then care about this.

It is unfortunate but true.

[CagedAnimal]

Will they hear the "no"

Companies don't typically tell consumers when they place artificial limitations on the capabilities of their equipment. They act as if it is a technical limitation.

Besides, things won't just "not work". At least with HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, the image will be downgraded to something closer to standard definition (per preference of the studio) if the connection is not secure. Most people just won't notice.

Most consumers don't wonder why only Apple products can play their purchases from the iTunes store, or why they can't rip DVDs to their video iPod. They look at what is marketed to them and decide whether or not to purchase.

Consumer ignorence is Hollywood's best friend.

[kfsutops]

What is going to spark change

Is all the new equipment coming out for the living room with Copy
Protection. Typically, most people have no clue what they can do
with a regular PC. But once things start not working on a TV
because Sony/Microsoft says "NO," people will then care about this.

It is unfortunate but true.

[CagedAnimal]

Will they hear the "no"

Companies don't typically tell consumers when they place artificial limitations on the capabilities of their equipment. They act as if it is a technical limitation.

Besides, things won't just "not work". At least with HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, the image will be downgraded to something closer to standard definition (per preference of the studio) if the connection is not secure. Most people just won't notice.

Most consumers don't wonder why only Apple products can play their purchases from the iTunes store, or why they can't rip DVDs to their video iPod. They look at what is marketed to them and decide whether or not to purchase.

Consumer ignorence is Hollywood's best friend.

[jypeterson]

Media Companies need to License Fairplay

I think that the next logical step is for the media companies to license fairplay (Apple's DRM). The media companies will never allow the law to change. They spent too much money getting the law passed, and now that Apple is here they will just allow the law to go back? This causes too many issues with illegal copying again.

If they license fairplay and put an iPod compatable version of movies on the Blu-ray (or Microsoft's backed next-gen disk) for downloading to iPods (with some sort of registration I am sure through iTunes to prevent copying) then we could see movies purchased on DVD availible for iPods. I bet Apple and some of the movie studios are probably working on this already in their skunkworks labs.

But they don't want to deal with Apple.

The RIAA and MPAA doesn't want to have Apple as the DRM
provider. They had/have much better plans with MS, since they
could have much more leverage into imposing the DRM trough
its domination of the OS market.

The iPod/iTMS phenomenon is screwing their plans and they are
not happy about it, licensing FairPlay from Apple would be
"letting them win".

If Apple licensed FairPlay from the start, licensees would have
been eaten for lunch by MS, and FairPlay would have been
deemed as a failure because of bad licensees which could
sabotage the iTunes experience and then switch back to WMA,
complaining that they don't sell many tunes. Against Microsoft,
fragmenting your market is not a good thing. Apple shouldn't be
forced to license FairPlay since it would hurt them in the middle-
term.

The reason why many people/companies now want FairPlay to
be licensed is that Apple didn't license it before... Each day
going by gives Apple more negotiation power for whatever will
happen to remedy the format compatibility problem.

Microsoft will not give up it's plans to impose DRMed WMA and
WMV, so even if Apple did license FairPlay, it wouldn't fix the
compatibility problem, and even add more confusion in the
market.

[jypeterson]

Media Companies need to License Fairplay

I think that the next logical step is for the media companies to license fairplay (Apple's DRM). The media companies will never allow the law to change. They spent too much money getting the law passed, and now that Apple is here they will just allow the law to go back? This causes too many issues with illegal copying again.

If they license fairplay and put an iPod compatable version of movies on the Blu-ray (or Microsoft's backed next-gen disk) for downloading to iPods (with some sort of registration I am sure through iTunes to prevent copying) then we could see movies purchased on DVD availible for iPods. I bet Apple and some of the movie studios are probably working on this already in their skunkworks labs.

But they don't want to deal with Apple.

The RIAA and MPAA doesn't want to have Apple as the DRM
provider. They had/have much better plans with MS, since they
could have much more leverage into imposing the DRM trough
its domination of the OS market.

The iPod/iTMS phenomenon is screwing their plans and they are
not happy about it, licensing FairPlay from Apple would be
"letting them win".

If Apple licensed FairPlay from the start, licensees would have
been eaten for lunch by MS, and FairPlay would have been
deemed as a failure because of bad licensees which could
sabotage the iTunes experience and then switch back to WMA,
complaining that they don't sell many tunes. Against Microsoft,
fragmenting your market is not a good thing. Apple shouldn't be
forced to license FairPlay since it would hurt them in the middle-
term.

The reason why many people/companies now want FairPlay to
be licensed is that Apple didn't license it before... Each day
going by gives Apple more negotiation power for whatever will
happen to remedy the format compatibility problem.

Microsoft will not give up it's plans to impose DRMed WMA and
WMV, so even if Apple did license FairPlay, it wouldn't fix the
compatibility problem, and even add more confusion in the
market.

[Craig Jones]

by far the best?

Curious that the author started this article with "Apple Computer's video iPod may not be the first portable movie player, but it is by far the best."

By far the best by what measure? Certainly not in it's ability to load and play video as evidenced by the author's rant. While other players don't take protected DVD's directly either, they all play more formats than the iPod.

While the video iPod is an appealing music player, possibly the best of breed, it's universally considered the worst portable video player, not the best. It supports the fewest video formats and has the smallest screen of all the offerings. Doesn't prevent me from owning one, but when I want to watch video on it I'm constantly reminded of how bad it really is.

[Thomas, David]

Best of the Rest, Yes

I am curious you think its not.

Remember, USEABILITY, EASE OF USE, SIMPLICITY, CONVENIENCE
...
are only a few words the try to say the same things over, and
over again. If you haven't noticed by now, in this world, that IS
what makes something the best. Because when people use
technology in greater numbers, you can absolutely forget about
the excuse the people need to be minor technophiles.

Your last statement says it all "Doesn't prevent me from owning
one, but when I want to watch video on it I'm constantly
reminded of how bad it really is."

No, its not the best display, not the largest display, the number
of video formats is limited ... and by your own testimony, at this
stage of the game, none of that plays into your decision making
to actually use one.

By the way, if you are using a Mac, you can convert into formats
that will allow you to store you movies in iTunes. ;-)

[declan00]

The best

Craig:
Thanks for your response. This is an opinion column instead of a he-said-she-said news article, so I'm allowed to say things like which movie player I think is the best.
For my purposes, a larger screen and support for more formats is not as important as ease of use, interface, attractiveness, and integration with iTunes. Thus my thumbs-up.
-Declan

[OS11]

a general comment

The long battle between Mac's and PC's has a purpose. Basically Mac users are at the cutting edge of all computing developments, they are always trying to "pull society forward", the converse is PC's, they are always trying to "maintain the status quo", or "pull society down". So you have a conflict, fireworks, an on going battle. Neither is right, there are reasons to stay in an older mode of computing, just as there is a reason to move forward. So these debates really are just about the New World and the Old World at odds. It's how progress happens.

And Windows is just as proprietary, (even more so) than OSX will ever be. With Apple you get a fully designed "widget", with Windows, you basically get a poor man's Mac. Each to his own I say.

That's my 2 cents.

[Craig Jones]

by far the best?

Curious that the author started this article with "Apple Computer's video iPod may not be the first portable movie player, but it is by far the best."

By far the best by what measure? Certainly not in it's ability to load and play video as evidenced by the author's rant. While other players don't take protected DVD's directly either, they all play more formats than the iPod.

While the video iPod is an appealing music player, possibly the best of breed, it's universally considered the worst portable video player, not the best. It supports the fewest video formats and has the smallest screen of all the offerings. Doesn't prevent me from owning one, but when I want to watch video on it I'm constantly reminded of how bad it really is.

[Thomas, David]

Best of the Rest, Yes

I am curious you think its not.

Remember, USEABILITY, EASE OF USE, SIMPLICITY, CONVENIENCE
...
are only a few words the try to say the same things over, and
over again. If you haven't noticed by now, in this world, that IS
what makes something the best. Because when people use
technology in greater numbers, you can absolutely forget about
the excuse the people need to be minor technophiles.

Your last statement says it all "Doesn't prevent me from owning
one, but when I want to watch video on it I'm constantly
reminded of how bad it really is."

No, its not the best display, not the largest display, the number
of video formats is limited ... and by your own testimony, at this
stage of the game, none of that plays into your decision making
to actually use one.

By the way, if you are using a Mac, you can convert into formats
that will allow you to store you movies in iTunes. ;-)

[declan00]

The best

Craig:
Thanks for your response. This is an opinion column instead of a he-said-she-said news article, so I'm allowed to say things like which movie player I think is the best.
For my purposes, a larger screen and support for more formats is not as important as ease of use, interface, attractiveness, and integration with iTunes. Thus my thumbs-up.
-Declan

[OS11]

a general comment

The long battle between Mac's and PC's has a purpose. Basically Mac users are at the cutting edge of all computing developments, they are always trying to "pull society forward", the converse is PC's, they are always trying to "maintain the status quo", or "pull society down". So you have a conflict, fireworks, an on going battle. Neither is right, there are reasons to stay in an older mode of computing, just as there is a reason to move forward. So these debates really are just about the New World and the Old World at odds. It's how progress happens.

And Windows is just as proprietary, (even more so) than OSX will ever be. With Apple you get a fully designed "widget", with Windows, you basically get a poor man's Mac. Each to his own I say.

That's my 2 cents.

[Willeisen]

Music business...

I just hope the film industry doesn't go down the same dark road as record companies have. History is certianly repeating itself here and unless they are careful they could end up lossing people to pirated media, like when they shut down Napster.

Which wouold they rather have? People downloading there movies online for free; or people loading there movies to there PC/Mac quickly and easily? (which would probably boost sales)

[VI Joker]

History will repeat

If I own a DVD I can lend it to my mother for as long as I like. Would I be able to do the same with the videos on a video player? Doubt it. MPAA would say that I am not lending it to my mother I am trying not to buy her a DVD. It could just be that my mother just wants to see the movie without buying or renting it, and why should she do so when she as a sharing son? Should I have to give my mother my video player? Not likely. Since RIAA has not come close to dealing with this very likely scenerio, I doubt the MPAA will. DRM anyone?

[Willeisen]

Music business...

I just hope the film industry doesn't go down the same dark road as record companies have. History is certianly repeating itself here and unless they are careful they could end up lossing people to pirated media, like when they shut down Napster.

Which wouold they rather have? People downloading there movies online for free; or people loading there movies to there PC/Mac quickly and easily? (which would probably boost sales)

[VI Joker]

History will repeat

If I own a DVD I can lend it to my mother for as long as I like. Would I be able to do the same with the videos on a video player? Doubt it. MPAA would say that I am not lending it to my mother I am trying not to buy her a DVD. It could just be that my mother just wants to see the movie without buying or renting it, and why should she do so when she as a sharing son? Should I have to give my mother my video player? Not likely. Since RIAA has not come close to dealing with this very likely scenerio, I doubt the MPAA will. DRM anyone?

[Hynes]

Getting Everything Wrong

I have concluded that Congress is tremendously ill prepared in virtually every stage of the current communications revolution.

I suspect most members of Congress wouldn't know an iPod from an iron. And they clearly have no idea that current telecom regulations hinder choice for consumers and weigh down our economy.

They are, in some ways, hopeless.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.channelchanger.typepad.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.channelchanger.typepad.com</a>

[Hynes]

Getting Everything Wrong

I have concluded that Congress is tremendously ill prepared in virtually every stage of the current communications revolution.

I suspect most members of Congress wouldn't know an iPod from an iron. And they clearly have no idea that current telecom regulations hinder choice for consumers and weigh down our economy.

They are, in some ways, hopeless.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.channelchanger.typepad.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.channelchanger.typepad.com</a>

[markdoiron]

Think National 55 mph Speed Limit

think about the 55 mph speed limit. there was a law whose backers were mostly tree huggers. as a fervent user of the wilderness areas of this great nation, i consider myself quite protective of our natural environs, but even i found the 55 mph speed limit a silly intrusion by a clueless federal government. and that remained the law of the land without major money supporters. it took years to get rid of, even under a very conservative government that alleged itself a strong supporter of state's rights.

now, dmca. backed by big money from content owners. still a clueless federal government. it won't be revoked or significantly modified .. ever.

however, like the 55-mph speed limit, despite its chilling effect, it will be almost universally ignored. enforcement will be spotty because those charged with enforcing it have more vital things to do.

mark d.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://members.cox.net/mddoiron" target="_newWindow">http://members.cox.net/mddoiron</a>

[markdoiron]

Think National 55 mph Speed Limit

think about the 55 mph speed limit. there was a law whose backers were mostly tree huggers. as a fervent user of the wilderness areas of this great nation, i consider myself quite protective of our natural environs, but even i found the 55 mph speed limit a silly intrusion by a clueless federal government. and that remained the law of the land without major money supporters. it took years to get rid of, even under a very conservative government that alleged itself a strong supporter of state's rights.

now, dmca. backed by big money from content owners. still a clueless federal government. it won't be revoked or significantly modified .. ever.

however, like the 55-mph speed limit, despite its chilling effect, it will be almost universally ignored. enforcement will be spotty because those charged with enforcing it have more vital things to do.

mark d.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://members.cox.net/mddoiron" target="_newWindow">http://members.cox.net/mddoiron</a>

[rgbyhkr]

DeClan was reading my mind

I have had this same thought about the video iPod sparking change since before it was released. See my comments on another story from TUAW last week about the TVMyiPod service (last 3 paragraphs):

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.tuaw.com/2006/01/20/tvmyipod-service-legal/2#c952161" target="_newWindow">http://www.tuaw.com/2006/01/20/tvmyipod-service-legal/2#c952161</a>

Only a mainstream effort can get the DMCA changed. The video iPod has the best chance at sparking that change and the longer movie content is absent from ITMS, the better the chance that it actually happens.

Jeff

[rgbyhkr]

DeClan was reading my mind

I have had this same thought about the video iPod sparking change since before it was released. See my comments on another story from TUAW last week about the TVMyiPod service (last 3 paragraphs):

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.tuaw.com/2006/01/20/tvmyipod-service-legal/2#c952161" target="_newWindow">http://www.tuaw.com/2006/01/20/tvmyipod-service-legal/2#c952161</a>

Only a mainstream effort can get the DMCA changed. The video iPod has the best chance at sparking that change and the longer movie content is absent from ITMS, the better the chance that it actually happens.

Jeff