Despite ambitious plans to blog everyday about NAB its now a week after my return from Vegas. So here’s a quick wrap….
I spent way too much time in meetings at NAB. To do justice to show like NAB you really need at least four people, allowing each to attend the meetings relevant to them and allowing each to have time to free range the floor. It was only on the last day that I managed to get a limited walk of the floor. Even then it was highly directed as I paced the halls looking up the stands others had recommended to me.
The world of broadcast management applications isn’t booming. Its a small and increasingly smaller market so that’s no surprise. I was surprised to also see a lack of movement and excitement around media asset management (MAM). Obviously Proximity reborn as Final Cut Server provided some noise but otherwise it seemed very much business as usual with the existing players and no interesting new entrants.
The exception to this was the MXF Mastering Format demo given by the Advanced Media Workflow Association. Unfortunately I can’t link to anything substantial on it as the materials are available to members only. But it represents a new approach to the way in which media is managed, a more distributed method, and a concrete example of how MXF can be used to solve broadcasters media management problems. It is result of two years work by Omneon, EMC, Marquis Broadcast, Metaglue, OpenCube, Pro-Bel, Quantum, Snell & Wilcox, Softel and TMD , who focused their efforts on the multilingual audio and captioning requirements of Turner Broadcasting in London.
On the new distribution front Microsoft and Adobe battled it out with their respective announcements on Silverlight and Apollo. In terms of impact Silverlight is available as a cross platform, cross browser plug in capable of playing DRM wrapped media. In theory this means that DRM video services should now be able to be made available to Macintosh users. Practically and pragmatically this is of course not guaranteed. This week at Microsoft’s MIX further announcements on Silverlight have been made around programming. Silverlight contains a new dynamically focused version (DLR) of the .NET runtime (CLR) to provide an environment in which dynamic languages such as Javascript, Python and Ruby can better be run within. The creator of the .NET/CLR version of Python, Jim Hugunin, who now works for Microsoft provides some more details on the Dynamic Language Runtime (DLR). Whilst the full presentation by Ray Ozzie is available as a Windows video stream.
I’ve already tried some of the Python samples running within Firefox on a Mac (PPC) and they’re taking down Firefox every time. Will update if I can get these working.
[Back at NAB] One night I excused myself from the industry cocktail circuit and paid cash money to attend a massive FCP Users Group meeting. Walter Murch gave a great talk on the production process of the new film, Youth Without Youth from Francis Ford Coppola. Murch is the editor on YWY and described how he approached the edit in FCP. Similar stuff to his book In the Blink of an Eye. The film was shot on the digital Sony CineAlta F900 cameras, 2 used statically, and when they needed a third an Arri film camera was employed. It was slightly unclear but they seemed to record vi HDSDI onto an external deck and record onto internal cassettes as well. The material was digitised as DV for the offline editing, effects done in Shake and then conformed against the HD material. Sound was handled in Pro Tools.
Apple’s announcements on FCP 6, Color and Final Cut Server made the largest noise at NAB. I asked everyone I met at NAB what were the big things for them and just about everyone polled listed Apple’s products in their top three. I was posed the question what will the impact of Apple’s “bang for buck” announcements be for mainstream media. Apple have aggressively priced FCP and the introduction of Color - effectively bundled for free and FCP Server continue this. So for traditional broadcasters and decent sized production houses they can look to continue to see cost savings, either by switching to FCP or to some extent by waiting for Avid to react and continue their ongoing price cutting.
For me FCP/MXF and possibly FCP Server will be the focus of some ongoing exploration in the coming months. In particular around integration, using FCP’s XML project format, which I hope I’ll have some time to comment about. Be
I attended the Auckland InternetNZ session on the Copyright Amendment Bill last Wednesday. This was part of InternetNZ’s process of consultation to help frame their submission to the Commerce Select Committee. The presentations and discussions also helped many in translating the language of statute to discover the essence of the bill.
The submission period has now been extended, so you have until March 9 to provide your input into the proposed changes.
The materials from the presentations are available online.
Here are a few issues that emerged:
Format shifting
The provisions provide weak rights to the consumer. As previous noted:
There is a two year sunset clause which will see this right removed unless the clause is renewed by an Order in Council.
Companies can remove this right through contracting out.
It is limited to audio material.
One issue I hadn’t seen raised before is the “private and domestic” use clause limiting the format shifted music to your home. Clive Elliott raised the question of whether it would be legal to listen to your format shifted iPod music at work.
As noted by more than one learned lawyer at the workshop - the format & time shifting clauses will be irrelevant to most NZers. After all we have been happily time shifting since Sony introduced the consumer video tape recorder in 1975, have been copying CDs onto iPods/MP3 players since the Diamond Rio appeared and will continue to copy DVDs onto portable video players such as the video iPod. Despite the fact that this will remain illegal if the bill is passed in its present form.
Law? The Big Picture
This is an area where the law as statute and the law as in what is socially acceptable are poles part. The format shifting and time shifting provisions do help close up the gap. The question of what is fair in the balance between copyright holder and society
was raised by questions from the floor. These sought to question or reframe the basis of copyright. As Bronwyn Turley from the Ministry of Economic Development noted the process, leading to this bill, has solely been targeting a digital update of current legislation, and not a complete review of copyright.
More importantly NZ’s ability to redesign copyright within our jurisdiction is framed by our international relationships including the treaties on IP and Trade we are signatories of.
TPM test case
If the bill passes, without change to the TPM sections, we will have an interesting test case with the introduction of the new high definition video discs into NZ. More specifically the test will involve the lawful playback and viewing of region controlled video.
Although the back catalog HD DVD discs now available appear to be region free, it is clear that some form of Region Playback Control (RPC) is likely to be introduced. This would bring HD DVD in line with Blu Ray which already has defined its RPC.
Therefore it appears certain that we will be able to legally import a HD DVD or Blu Ray disc which will not play in a NZ zone player.
It is equally clear that the MPA et al are aware of this thorny issue and are lobbying against it through submissions to the US government.
TPMs & Creative Innovation
During Peter Gutmann’s presentation on TPMs he cited an example of a creative individual being stymied by TPMs that prevented them from viewing their own content on a PC. The TPM in question was Macrovision, an analog video TPM. This issue emerged last year when there were fresh attempts to impose measures against the so called analog hole. TPMs pose a real danger to creators. In protecting ‘proper’ content all other content is assumed to be illegal. This will remove or reduce the functionality available to creators who are limited to consumer level equipment. Given that copyright is supposed to exist to promote the creation of works, if TPMs place a barrier to creation you have to wonder if they have a place in copyright legislation.
Creative Commons & Govt
There was some brief talk during the panel on the history of attempts to get a NZ set CC licences available. Afterwards during drinks there was a suggestion raised that when a NZ CC non-commercial licence exists it would be a great way to allow government departments, SOEs and CROCs to provide non-commercial use of our information and content assets - whilst still allowing commercial exploitation. By allowing citizens to experiment with our national assets commercial applications could be discovered. In a similar way that the BBC’s Backstage non-commercial feeds have helped spawn commercial licence paying applications. BTW for a great discussion on the realities of DRM and complex rights situation within archives spend a hour listening to backstage’s first podcast.
I wish that the researchers at National Radio's Morning Report had pointed Geoff Robinson at this article by Bruce Schneier on Vista's DRM.
The piece yesterday featuring Peter Guttmann and Brett Roberts, Microsoft NZ's Director of Innovation, was a shocker. Listen for a cringe or two
Peter Guttmann will be discussing TPMs at the InternetNZ workshop on the Copyright Amendment Bill tomorrow. There were just a few places left yesterday. Full programme here.
There is only until Feb 16 to contribute a submission to the Commerce Committee. The good new is that you can do this online.
(apols to feed subscribers who got to see a draft version of this post, have a wee bug to fix)
Filed under:
drm
“All had fun, and came away physically exhausted but mentally recharged” - Nat Torkington
baacamp was a great experience. Here’s a selection of my memories from the weekend:
Networks
Friday evening saw Minister David Cunliffe give his pitch on the government’s approach to ensuring NZ has the necessary infrastructure in place to compete online. He seemed genuinely surprised by the consequences of de-peering which was communicated to him by the room. As noted by others in the room he took that issue away as a priority.
Energy David Haywood gave a talk on energy. Starting by explaining the difference between store and flow based energy. Then looking at each of the flow based sources and discussing their merits. Including work he’s been involved with around wave generation and sterling engines. Peering also raised its head here, in relation to the difference between what an electricity network will sell and buy electricity. This is an issue when you have home based wind or solar generators with excess electricity that can offering to others back on the grid.
Copyright
Judith Tizard fronted to give her position on the whys and wherefores of the Copyright Amendment Bill. Followed by some analysis by lawyer and policy foosters.
Judith started out by recounting a meeting with a music executive who had urged her to continue making formating shifting - of music - just a ‘little bit illegal’. She also explained that a goal of the bill was to put in place copyright law that would continue to relevant in the face of future technological developments. I wish the bill truly reflected a policy and rights based approach. However the exclusion of format shifting of video from the bill demonstrates the political reality that the movie industry continues to trump consumer rights.
It would be a shame if the bill was to be passed in this state. Video format shifting of material is happening now across NZ in exactly the same way the music is being format shifted. This bill would then create law which continue to make things a ‘little bit illegal’ for those: copying their DVDs to the media centres or transcoding and copying their DVDs onto their video iPod.
There was very limited discussion on TPMs (aka DRM), some this was around the desire to access DRMed content sans DRM. In the music world there are signs that DRM is dying. The latest being Steve Jobs’ open letter reaction to Norway’s stance.
Of course there will be plenty more opportunity to discuss the bill next week at the InternetNZ workshops. I intend to get to the Auckland session.
Xero
As someone with a couple of recently created small trading entities the Xero preview was of direct interest to me. It’s accounting Web 2.0. style for small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Naturally that means great data integration/interchange and a well thought out user experience. Rod Drury, the man behind Xero, talked about the capital bootstrapping process that has got them to where they are. The trade sale of email archiver AfterMail was part of the process. In the world post Sarbanes-Oxley archiving email is required for many companies. Accounting is another activity that is required. Do I spot a MO?
Find an activity companies are compelled to do - then provide a solution which makes the activity as painless and as valuable as possible?
Its certainly not a bad starting angle for startups.
“Fucking big web sites” Artur Bergman from Six Apart gave a wonderfully deadpan presentation on how to handle seriously loaded dynamically generated web sites. In-between dissing filesystems, databases and codecs he explained the pragmatic approach that LiveJournal has taken. Their Perl based tools (Perbal, memcached, GearMan and MogileFS) created for this end are open source and were in use by a number those in attendance. This presentation from OSCON 2005 provides insight into their architecture.
Auckland City
The talk by Richard Simpson on how to punctuate Auckland was remarkable for two reasons. Firstly there were almost as many non-Aucklanders in the audience as those living in Jaffaville. But more importantly the discovery that there is someone in council who has big, ballsy and in many respects, beautiful ideas on how we can transform Auckland into the city it deserves to be. Including a new bridge - for all transport, a national stadium that would help link the CBD with the Domain and a canal between the two harbours. Shame there are no plans for an aqueduct on the canal though;)
Thanks!!!
Big Thanks for organising/supporting the whole experience to Nat, Russell, Jenine, Vern and the sponsors including Google, Xero and Karajoz.
From a very brief scan of the bill here are some comments.
Private copying exception
s 81A(1) is the legalise iPod section. Basically if you are the genuine owner of a CD you’re allowed to make one copy of the CD to any device. So rip it in iTunes on your Mac/PC (one copy) then sync it with your iPod (one copy). This ability to copy is limited to music recordings and audio books. So ripping your DVDs to your computer or onto an iPod remains a breach of copyright.
Problems.
1. This section has a sunset clause, s 81A(3), which will see it expire after two years from the date that the Act comes into force. It can be extended multiple times by an Order in Council, so that means it’s easy enough to extend it should there be a political will to do so.
2. s 81A(2) allows the seller of music recordings and audiobooks to contract out of this provision by specifying how it may or may not be copied.
3. Why didn’t they extend this private copying exception to audio visual works? What is the fundamental difference? People are currently actively doing both forms (CDs and DVDs) of format shifting.
But there are some balances in the Bill to the obvious issues with TPM. s 226D outlines when TPM does not apply and s 226E provides a method for users to circumvent TPM when the TPM prevents them from ‘exercising a permitted act’.
Basically libraries, archives and educational institutes are allowed to circumvent TPM to undertake encryption research, effect interoperability of software, correct an error in software or allow a permitted act – like listen to your DRM music.
So in theory these provisions would enable a user to rescue music or video wrapped in a DRM system that was no longer supported. But they can only engage a library, archive or educational institute to bypass the DRM, see s 226E(b). How realistic is this? Will they supply DRM translation services, allowing Freeplay DRM to be unwrapped then rewrapped into Windows Plays for Sure DRM? Could be quite a profitable and active area of operations for these prescribed libraries, archives and educational establishments.
Disassembly of Computer Programs
s 80A allows a legal user of a computer program to decompile the program from a low level language to a high level language. This is granted for two purposes. Firstly where this is required to create another computer program which will interoperate with the first program. Secondly when there are errors in the program. The exception is only granted if the supplier does not play ball by either provide a means of integration in the first case, or where there is an issue with a program and the supplier does not supply ‘a properly functioning and error-free copy of the program…in a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price.”
This cannot be contracted out of by suppliers of computer programs, see s 80C. Compare this with the private copying provisions which can be contracted out of.
Yesterday, as predicted by a certain media commentator, Apple opened iTunes and a proper Apple Store in NZ. Nice to see some NZ music there and promoted. No telly or film available.
I prefer nice physical objects and come out in a nasty little rash when handling DRM goods so I’m not likely to be an iTunes punter.
But just to test myself I searched for music I’ve been trying to track down retail in downtown Auckland. Sadly neither Hellwood or Nomo were returned from my iTunes searches.
Channel 4
Channel 4 in the UK launched a catch up TV service, 4oD. Wouldn’t get excited it’s UK & Eire only. It’s Windows only, XP and above, using Windows Media Player 10 or 11 with associated DRM. Not sure if that’s the plays for sure DRM or the Zune DRM or another form of DRM being offering by Microsoft;)
4oD appears very similar to the BBCs offering.
UK IP Report
More interesting is the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property which also emerged overnight. The leaks reported by the BBC seem to have been accurate – including the contentious issue of term extension for protection for sound recordings and related performers’ rights, which Gowers recommends is not extended past the current 50 years.
Gowers is recommending:
strongerenforcement of IP, up to 10 years for online copyright infringement
balance – providing consumers with a private copying exception, to allow format shifting (e.g. to copy your CD onto an iPod), allowing educational users to access content.
helping UK business to create/protect their IP with various restructuring and new initiatives
Recommendation 4:Policy makers should adopt the principle that the term and scope of protection for IP rights should not be altered retrospectively.
Gaming
Meanwhile today the Nintendo Wii is launched in NZ & Oz. It reinforces the fact that the quality of gaming is not just down to the power of CPU and GPU of the console. And it looks like a lot of fun… I plan some serious research later in the day.
I’m not into WOW but couldn’t help come across the LeeroyJenkins meme.
It’s kinda bonghead humor but I can’t help appreciate the Jenkins inspired promos for Spike TV below.
Proviso: This catch up post has lots of legal related comment and although I believe the comments are considered, these are not being made by a legal professional (IANAL).
Content at all costs
The latest Sony Audio CD DRM ugliness is yet another reminder of the distorted views that some content owners have regarding their rights versus their consumers’ rights. These are not limited to large content cartels either as I have observed extremely niche players in NZ ignoring the basic economic principles on which copyright is based on.
The fundamental problem is that some content owners seem to believe that they are morally entitled to complete-absolute-total control over every aspect of their content indefinitely.
I see that BoingBoing has posted the list of rules associated with a DRMed Cold Play CD. You can’t see the list until you have purchased it, as it’s an insert – which to me is thinking totally inline with the music industries logic concerning the threats and opportunities they face. DRM CDs do not prevent piracy, they simply break the product for Mr and Ms Av Punter.
Perversely the CD DRM may increase the duplication of material, from DRM CD to CD, to enable the normal use of the CD. Strangely enough I recently explained to an acquaintance how he could create a DRM free copy of a Cold Play album he had purchased which he could not play as normal on his Windows PC. At the end of this process he possessed two copies of the album – and he was still extremely annoyed that he had unknowingly purchased what he considered to be faulty product. For a comprehensive analysis of CD DRM Ed Felten’sFreedom to Tinker is a great resource.
Meanwhile in the US there is effort afoot to close the ‘analog hole’ with the Digital Transition Content Security Act of 2005 a.ka. the Sensenbrenner bill. This would require all analog to digital video processing products, hardware or software, to enforce the technological copy protection schemes mandated by the Act. A mix of the existing Copy Generation Management System Analogue (CGMS-A) a.k.a. Broadcast flag and the stronger Video Encoded Invisible Light (VAIL) method are currently being proposed.
Technically CGMS-A is encoded within the vertical blanking interval (VBI), separate from the video proper. This is same place where teletext and captioning data are found. Therefore it is easily defeated either as a consequence of the normal video processing that occurs within a broadcasting environment or intentionally stripped out. VAIL uses stenography to store information within the luminance of the signal and therefore is effectively mixed into the video. As it’s name suggests the Video Encoded Invisible Light is not detectable by human eye, and is considerably more difficult to defeat than CGMS-A.
From a manufacturers point of view the bill is interesting. VAIL is a patented technology and the Sensenbrenner bill will force them to use the tech, presumably forcing them to license the technology from VAIL Interactive, or will they provide VAIL to manufacturers free of charge? The second option seems unlikely and although it’s possible some sort of umbrella deal with VAIL Interactive could be entered into – there would still be a cost of use for VAIL and it will be the manufacturers and consumers who will pay for it.
“Professional” devices, you see, are exempt from the restrictions that apply to all other audiovisual products. This raises some obvious questions: is it the responsibility of a “professional device” maker to ensure that too many “non-professionals” don’t purchase their product? If a company lowers its price too much, thereby allowing too many of the riffraff to buy it, does the company become guilty of distributing a piracy device? Perhaps the government needs to start issueing “video professional” licenses so we know who’s allowed to be part of this elite class?
Here in NZ the independent production community, which produces a significant amount of the material seen on prime time free to air television, depends on relatively low cost video acquisition and editing tools therefore if VAIL is mandated within the US will NZ professional users be adversely affected through increased equipment prices and/or by VEIL interfering in their production processes?
The incredible potential of broadband will be severely compromised if network operators are permitted to be the gatekeepers of the Internet, deciding what content, applications and services succeed or fail on the Internet. Indeed, users must be free to use broadband connections as they so choose; to read, search, buy, assemble and innovate. That is the very essence of the Internet. – Letter from Amazon.com, eBay, Google & IAC/Interactive Corp. to the US Committee on Energy and Commerce 8/11/2005
Unsurprisingly both major content sites, such as Google and Amazon, and consumer groups are strongly opposing this lobbying in regard to the network neutrality scope of US 2005 Telecom Bill.
Creativity and investment should be recognised and rewarded. The purpose of intellectual property law (such as copyright and patents) should be, now as it was in the past, to ensure both the sharing of knowledge and the rewarding of innovation.
Fair Use – Fair Trading
The ability to use and copy copyright material legally without permission is known as fair use or as fair trading in NZ and Commonwealth countries. It helps provides balance to copyright law however as Donna Wentworth notes:
...copyright mythology sounds a lot more like the truth than the truth. For instance, many people believe that copyright law gives the copyright holder absolute, immutable control over a work, lasting into perpetuity. The truth—that copyright has built-in limits to protect free speech, scholarship, research, and innovation (the “progress of science and useful arts”)—sounds like a lie. Surely all of that stuff is just bleeding-heart liberal, mushy-minded nonsense?
The recently introduced Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act of 2005 (US Congress) seeks to further clarify consumer’s fair use rights when DRM is concerned, stating that “is not a violation … to circumvent a technological measure in order to obtain access to the work for purposes of making noninfringing use of the work”.
Here in NZ we still await amendments to the Copyright Bill that are expected to propose the ability for individuals to format shift content, e.g. ripping your CD collection onto your iPod. It will be interesting to see if similar rights of circumvention to enable time or format shifting being proposed in the US will be adopted by NZ. Without these copying DRMed CDs, such as the Cold Play album, will remain outside statutory law.
