Dear Macrovision: A Response to Responses to Steve Jobs' "Thoughts on Music"

Illustration for article titled Dear Macrovision: A Response to Responses to Steve Jobs' "Thoughts on Music"

Dear Fred Amoroso (and assorted other CEOs, etc.),

Jesus CHRIST. Stop with the "open letters." We know you're just copying Steve because he's the cool kid in class and all, but come on. You know how everyone accuses you guys of just copying Apple? You're doing it. Right. Now. He doesn't care what you think. And no, he's not going to hand over FairPlay, so stop asking.

I mean, Fred, dude, did you miss us laughing at the RIAA for thinking Steve-o was offering to let the rest of the industry get their grubby little hands on FairPlay? Apparently so, because you say:

Should you desire, we would also assume responsibility for FairPlay as a part of our evolving DRM offering and enable it to interoperate across other DRMs, thus increasing consumer choice and driving commonality across devices.

Advertisement

No, no no. That wasn't the point! He wasn't offering anything. The letter was a PR move. That was all. If you think this is excellent PR for yourself, you're wrong. It just makes you look like a jackass for not knowing how to read. Besides, if you were going to read one tiny section out of context, why couldn't you have done so on the part where he says Apple would drop DRM if it could?

Speaking of DRM, it is not "an enabler," as you claim. The key word in "rights management" is "management," i.e., control. Is "control" a synonym for "enable"? Not in my thesaurus. It's a law of physics that "convenient" and "DRM-protected" do not exist in the same space.

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. Abandoning DRM now will unnecessarily doom all consumers to a "one size fits all" situation that will increase costs for many of them.

I think what you mean is not "pay less" for a "single device" but "pay more" to use content I own wherever and on whatever I please. God forbid I actually own the content that I pay for lock, stock, and barrel without DRM dictating how I use it. You know, like CDs, which as Steve pointed out (unless they're made by Sony), are DRM-free. Polemic as it was, at least the end of Steve's letter was kind of on point. We don't want DRM. I don't need you to "manage" my rights. How can you manage rights, anyhow? It's oxymoronic, emphasis on the moronic.

In conclusion, Fred, assorted other dignitaries, no more letters. We know you're full of it. Steve knows you're full of it. Steve, himself, is full of it. Maybe once you've all actually done something about the problems you're so happy to prattle on and on about what you have to say might be worth reading.

Yours,
Giz

Macrovision's Response to Steve Jobs' Open Letter [Macrovision via Playlist]

Advertisement

DISCUSSION

billpendry
billpendry

Holy crap.

Companies like Macrovision should just never communicate to consumers at all. No matter how they spin their bullshit, it's obvious that they are not on our side. The major copyright holders are their customers, and they should stick to talking to them, probably in secret if they were smart.

The sad fact is that digital content, and by extension, DRM, could open up a lot of great possibilities for consumers. Copyright holders have ben pushing the idea that what you paying for is a license. DRM *could* allow a system were you buy one license to watch a certain piece of content on any platform, on any device. You don't buy the DVD of "From Justin To Kelley," you buy the right to watch "From Justin To Kelley" whenever, wherever and however you want. No more worries about your media getting lost or damaged.

But the industry would rather try and nickel-and-dime us in perpetuity. And since they've bought the news media and the government, that's the way it will be. Too bad...