Definition of copy protection!

[mgh]

Came across this definition which i thought was rather apt.

Copy protection - A class of methods for preventing incompetent pirates from stealing intellectual property and legitimate customers from using it.......

[linx05]

And where did you find this?

[DigitAl56K]

Except if anything you are violating copyright, not stealing IP :)

[mgh]

And where did you find this?
someone's signature in another forum.

[Shinigami-Sama]

yeah its pretty bad when I've taught my parents and some old old people how to strip DRM off of things and they still call it 'effective'

[DigitAl56K]

yeah its pretty bad when I've taught my parents and some old old people how to strip DRM off of things and they still call it 'effective'

I've often heard the reasoning described as the reduction of mass piracy. However, anyone with an ounce of intelligence should understand if not only in theory but clearly evident in practice, that it only takes one person to break copy protection on a title for it to become available to anyone. If you want to pirate a song, a movie, or even software it is generally only a Google search away.

My personal opinion is that the protection is more around format lock-in and making it difficult to use the content in a manner other than intended so that additional channels can be built and you pay for the same content more than once. Want that DVD you just bought to play on your PMP? Buy it again! Want the theme song for your phone? Buy it again! Want to watch your online rental more than three times? That'll be another couple of bucks, please!

Copy protection prevents media being easily moved between different revenue channels (mobile, PMP, DVD, rental, internet delivery), and thus stops those channels cannibalizing each other.

[Ryu77]

interlacing and telecining should have been but a memory long ago.. unfortunately still just another bizarre weapon in the industries war on image quality.

Shinigami-Sama, can I ask why did you quote that? Telecining has nothing to do with copy protection. It is a technique used to match the 50hz (PAL)/ 60hz (NTSC) scan rate. Film is recorded at 24frames a second, for PAL it is simply kept as progessive and sped up by 4% to 25fps, NTSC is usually transferred with pulldown to give 29.98fps.

I'm sure that you know all this but I'm curious as to why you posted this in relation to copy protection. If you were talking about things like HDCP & the ICT, then I would understand where you are coming from but interlacing/telecining has nothing to do with copy protection.

[Shinigami-Sama]

its a signature, I stole it off one of benjust's post like months ago
lurk moar :P

[CruNcher]

I've often heard the reasoning described as the reduction of mass piracy. However, anyone with an ounce of intelligence should understand if not only in theory but clearly evident in practice, that it only takes one person to break copy protection on a title for it to become available to anyone. If you want to pirate a song, a movie, or even software it is generally only a Google search away.

My personal opinion is that the protection is more around format lock-in and making it difficult to use the content in a manner other than intended so that additional channels can be built and you pay for the same content more than once. Want that DVD you just bought to play on your PMP? Buy it again! Want the theme song for your phone? Buy it again! Want to watch your online rental more than three times? That'll be another couple of bucks, please!

Copy protection prevents media being easily moved between different revenue channels (mobile, PMP, DVD, rental, internet delivery), and thus stops those channels cannibalizing each other.

You could also say it with 1 easy word "Profit" ;)
Because Digital Technology made it possible it is used and it is also heavily misused to generate more Profit "License per playing Device" or "Playing Scenario"
Also every Coder has the decision to work on it or not he could just tell his employer "sorry i won't do this" tough seems nobody @ Microsoft wants to lose his job neither @ DivX,Apple or Sony :D
And this is a result of Grief from the content industry side which is transfered to the Technology Providers both can't have enough they need to increase their wins efficiency efficiency efficiency, but nobody seems to realize that this thinking is driving humanity into a giant buffer overflow.

[DigitAl56K]

nobody @ Microsoft wants to lose his job neither @ DivX,Apple or Sony :D

Nobody in any half-decent job wants to lose their employment :)

Copy protection is something the industry demands and thus any company who wants to work with the industry has a solution. Some solutions are nicer than others. Apple uses their solution to lock you into their store and their hardware. Sony has had more than enough publicity around DRM :) DivX also has a DRM solution if a content partner requires it. We try to make it as user friendly as it can be for a rights-management system, and afaik it's available to anyone who wants to become DivX Certified, meaning there is no lock-in to any particular device manufacturer. Most activities DivX has engaged in around content that you'll have come across (e.g. Stage6) have not involved DRM.

Don't get me wrong, though, personally I'm not a fan of DRM based on the way it's typically used today. I guess my point here is that copy protection can be used in some situations where it's more acceptable than others. One example I'll throw out there is Netflix's Watch Now system. Here I can leverage their rental system instantly over the Internet to watch whatever I like, but I can't make copies. And that's fine with me, because it's a rental system, and I don't have any expectation of making copies or of a right to recode the material for viewing on another device, etc. If the ability of Netflix to say to the industry that "Hey, we have some technological protection against copying for Watch Now" means that they can let me watch an unlimited number of titles for $15/month that's great for me! On the other hand, I personally will never hand over a dime to an online music store to "purchase" DRM'd music. That just seems like a bit of a bad idea (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080422-drm-sucks-redux-microsoft-to-nuke-msn-music-drm-keys.html).

[JohnnyMalaria]

Except if anything you are violating copyright, not stealing IP :)

Copyright is a form of IP.

e.g., http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/intelprp/

[Shinigami-Sama]

infringment != theft

[setarip_old]

@Shinigami-Sama

Hi!

Your concept was raised previously - and laid to rest by this quote of the U.S. Supreme Court from moderator "Wilbert":

http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=768610&postcount=15

[Taktaal]

Forum signatures and MSN personal messages are truly the modern sources of philosophy.

[2Bdecided]

Copy protection prevents media being easily moved between different revenue channelsI thought human laziness, usually helped by badly designed interfaces and incompatible standards, was the major hurdle here?

I'm sure copy protection "helps", but for many people, what they are paying for is convenience, not content.

Much of the content that people pay to have on their mobile phones and video iPods is already "freely" available on the TV and radio, and "illegally" available elsewhere in a more usable format. But it's all there instantly and perfectly searchable via iTunes or whatever.

Cheers,
David.

[Inventive Software]

If we talking content distribution, iTunes really has the upper hand.

The Gadget Show (Mondays 8pm, Five, UK only) did a test of video-capable MP3 players. Link: http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmain.jsp?lnk=401&section=Features&show=s8e5&featureid=734&description=MP3%20Players
The problem is, iTunes is limited (legally) to iPods and the other players can't get a look in with content distribution.