Are you insane?
Sincerely yours,
The consumers
---
Background:
The president of Macrovision, Fred Amoroso, has posted an open letter, entitled “To Steve Jobs and the Digital Entertainment Industry” on his company’s web site. In it, Mr. Amoroso, whose company was, and is still, responsible for the failure of many legitimately purchased video cassettes to play in video cassette players, takes the position that more, not less, DRM is what the consumer needs.
As my old boss used to ask, “Is he on crack?”
Amoroso tries to make 4 points:
1. DRM should be on everything, not just music. “…It is critical that as all forms of content move from physical to electronic there is an opportunity for DRM to be an important enabler across all content, including movies, games and software, as well as music.”
Indeed. It will be great when there’s a lock and key between us and everything we own. Fred envisions a day when we can no longer lend a book, video or game that we have purchased to anyone else, unless we pay again. Why stop at content? Maybe Ford and GM would like to “enable” their cars. Future automobiles will be matched to their purchaser by retinal scan. If you want someone else to be able to drive your car, that will cost more money. GE could benefit too. What if each “user” in a kitchen needed a digital key to operate the toaster, microwave or to open the fridge? Ka-ching!
2. DRM increases consumer value. Yeah, he said that with a straight face.
“…Without a reasonable, consistent and transparent DRM we will only delay consumers in receiving premium content in the home, in the way they want it. For example, DRM is uniquely suitable for metering usage rights, so that consumers who don't want to own content, such as a movie, can "rent" it. Similarly, consumers who want to consume content on only a single device can pay less than those who want to use it across all of their entertainment areas – vacation homes, cars, different devices and remotely.”
Yes, sir. That sounds great. It’s sure working out for mobile phones. Let’s see, in order to have the Pussycat Dolls “Button” as a playable song on her cell phone, my daughter was asked to fork over $2.99. Of course, when she wanted hear it on her computer it cost another 99¢. Then she decided she’d like it as a ring tone – on the same phone where it already legally resided as a full song. This time, for a 30 second clip of a song she’d already paid $4.00 for, she was asked to cough up another $2.99.
Back in the day of physical product, that actually cost money to manufacture, we could play our albums and CDs, wherever we wanted. We could lend them to friends. Now that the cost of manufacturing and distribution is down to comparatively nothing, Fred is so bold as to articulate one of the dirty little secrets of DRM: Fred says it’s good that you now need to buy one for your home, one for your car and one for your ski house! Good for who?
3. DRM will increase electronic distribution. “Quite simply, if the owners of high-value video entertainment are asked to enter, or stay in a digital world that is free of DRM, without protection for their content, then there will be no reason for them to enter, or to stay if they've already entered. The risk will be too great.”
This is an out and out material fallacy. Our friend is begging the question. There is a pre-supposed premise that the video entertainment is of “high value.” If Amoroso wants to ignore declining motion picture theater attendance, price resistance at pay-per-view, and a DVD market where new releases barely garner $19.99 and are soon thereafter sold at $9.99 or less, where people can watch all the movies they want for less than $18 per month, perhaps he can convince himself of the high value of this entertainment. On the other hand, many argue that if this material were priced appropriately, there would be little incentive to copy, share or steal.
4. DRM needs to interoperable. “Truly interoperable DRM will … make it easier for consumers to manage and share content in the home.”
Yes, interoperable DRM would be easier than a million incompatible schemes, but again, Amoroso is way out in fallacy- land again. No DRM is what makes it easier to share and manage content in my home. How about you?
Amoroso finishes up by asking Apple to give Fairplay, the Apple DRM, to Macrovision. (He’s got to be smoking something!)and then quietly sounding the alarm: “Already, consumer equipment manufacturers are introducing advancements in wireless connectivity and the interoperability of devices that are opening the door to new ways for consumers to acquire and view content from many sources.” In other words, “Oh my God, there’s more and more ways that people might enjoy entertainment. Please, can’t we lock it all up now?”
Friday, February 16, 2007
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
From Me To You: The Beatles Hand Over "Apple"
Apple Corps. ("The Beatles") and Apple, Inc. (the company formerly known as Apple Computer, Inc.) have settled a trademark dispute that has been running almost as long as the tomayto/tomahto dispute.
Dating back to 1978, (Apple was founded in 1976) the Beatles and Apple have feuded over the rights to the trademark "Apple." The resolution of that lawsuit was compensation in the millions of dollars from Apple to the Beatles, and a promise by Apple to "stay out of the music business."
In 1986, Apple computers became "musical" with the addition of startup chimes and other sound capabilities, and in 1989, Apple again sued, claiming a violation of the 1981 settlement. This time the companies carved out various aspects of the music worlds where each would operate without incursion by the other. The Beatles would retain sole and exclusive rights to "Apple" for the distribution of music, Apple would be able to reproduce music, but could not sell or market it in physical form.
In 1994, when I organized the Aerosmith Cybertour, this was the reason that the Powerbook logo, and not the Apple logo, appeared on the tour shirt marketed as part of the promotion.
In 2003, Apple launched the iTunes Music Store, and the Beatles sued again. But, a judge found, in late 2006, that "physical media" was the limitation, and not music in general, and Apple was found not to have breached that agreement with the Beatles. And that's a whole lotta legal bills for what amounted to nothing.
Which brings us to today, and an announcement, which in itself is not unexpected: the Beatles and Apple have come to yet another new agreement over the use of the "Apple" mark. But this agreement has a very curious element in its construction. According to news reports, Apple (the computer Apple) now owns all rights to the trademark "Apple," and will license back certain aspects of the trademark to the Beatles. In other words, the Beatles gave the Apple trademark to Apple after almost 30 years of defending it as their own. What gives?
Since the terms of the settlement are confidential, we can only speculate. I've seen no other speculation so far, but here's mine:
One of the obligations, or burdens as the Beatles may have come to see it, of trademark ownership is to "police" the mark against all infringers. One clear rule of trademark law is that an owner's failure to defend a mark against third party use can lead to the owner of the trademark losing its exclusive rights to the mark, overall. And, even in allowing a third party to use a mark, as in a license, the owner has a responsibility to monitor the use of the mark to make sure that the licensee meets the terms of the license. In other words, Apple may have grown tired of having to police its mark against a very determined and aggressive third party. Had the Beatles failed to maintain their seemingly endless defense of "Apple" against Apple, they may have lost all rights to it, against everyone!
Could it be that the legal fees associated with policing this mark, and the associated expenses of litigation, have soured "Apple" for the Beatles? By handing the trademark to Apple and getting back only the rights that it needs to be a vestigial record company, the Beatles have shifted the burden and expense of policing the mark to the very people who have caused such expense and consternation all along. Now, even if some upstart were to begin using "Apple" as the name of their record company, or a counterfeiter were to distribute Beatles CDs, the computer and iTunes people, and not the Fab Four and their descendants, would have to foot the bill for the ensuing legal proceedings.
So, in a world where Steve Jobs appears to always get what Steve Jobs wants, "We Can Work It Out," has finally replaced "I, Me Mine," as #1 on the Cupertino/Liverpool hit parade.
Dating back to 1978, (Apple was founded in 1976) the Beatles and Apple have feuded over the rights to the trademark "Apple." The resolution of that lawsuit was compensation in the millions of dollars from Apple to the Beatles, and a promise by Apple to "stay out of the music business."
In 1986, Apple computers became "musical" with the addition of startup chimes and other sound capabilities, and in 1989, Apple again sued, claiming a violation of the 1981 settlement. This time the companies carved out various aspects of the music worlds where each would operate without incursion by the other. The Beatles would retain sole and exclusive rights to "Apple" for the distribution of music, Apple would be able to reproduce music, but could not sell or market it in physical form.
In 1994, when I organized the Aerosmith Cybertour, this was the reason that the Powerbook logo, and not the Apple logo, appeared on the tour shirt marketed as part of the promotion.
In 2003, Apple launched the iTunes Music Store, and the Beatles sued again. But, a judge found, in late 2006, that "physical media" was the limitation, and not music in general, and Apple was found not to have breached that agreement with the Beatles. And that's a whole lotta legal bills for what amounted to nothing.
Which brings us to today, and an announcement, which in itself is not unexpected: the Beatles and Apple have come to yet another new agreement over the use of the "Apple" mark. But this agreement has a very curious element in its construction. According to news reports, Apple (the computer Apple) now owns all rights to the trademark "Apple," and will license back certain aspects of the trademark to the Beatles. In other words, the Beatles gave the Apple trademark to Apple after almost 30 years of defending it as their own. What gives?
Since the terms of the settlement are confidential, we can only speculate. I've seen no other speculation so far, but here's mine:
One of the obligations, or burdens as the Beatles may have come to see it, of trademark ownership is to "police" the mark against all infringers. One clear rule of trademark law is that an owner's failure to defend a mark against third party use can lead to the owner of the trademark losing its exclusive rights to the mark, overall. And, even in allowing a third party to use a mark, as in a license, the owner has a responsibility to monitor the use of the mark to make sure that the licensee meets the terms of the license. In other words, Apple may have grown tired of having to police its mark against a very determined and aggressive third party. Had the Beatles failed to maintain their seemingly endless defense of "Apple" against Apple, they may have lost all rights to it, against everyone!
Could it be that the legal fees associated with policing this mark, and the associated expenses of litigation, have soured "Apple" for the Beatles? By handing the trademark to Apple and getting back only the rights that it needs to be a vestigial record company, the Beatles have shifted the burden and expense of policing the mark to the very people who have caused such expense and consternation all along. Now, even if some upstart were to begin using "Apple" as the name of their record company, or a counterfeiter were to distribute Beatles CDs, the computer and iTunes people, and not the Fab Four and their descendants, would have to foot the bill for the ensuing legal proceedings.
So, in a world where Steve Jobs appears to always get what Steve Jobs wants, "We Can Work It Out," has finally replaced "I, Me Mine," as #1 on the Cupertino/Liverpool hit parade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)