Widevine Secures Best Buy, Blockbuster Content Online

DRM was originally created so that end users would be forced into a for-pay system. However, users have largely demanded (and have, in fact, influenced) that DRM schemes be removed from the media that they purchase, because it has a tendency to interfere with players on platforms such as Linux--the bulk of Linux users being chief among people to distrust anything that they cannot control. Because of this, I predict that the future of online video has only three possible outcomes:

1. Dying a horrible, gruesome death which serves neither consumers nor vendors. This is possible because vendors keep trying to make a basically-free medium into a for-pay medium, with varying levels of success. Counter to other news, the overall trend in the past decade has been to increase free access and to pay by means of sponsorship (the same way that any broadcast media has ever worked, such as television or radio).

2. Becoming a DRM-rich playground in which only the wealthy play. This is possible, because many internet users refuse to accept DRM unless they use only the specific, proprietary players which accept and use DRM. The industry rejects DRM just as much as consumers do, though the industry has been trying (unsuccessfully) to make DRM a reality for about 15 years, now. The DMCA is a prime example of the industry trying to make it work, and failing to do so on the grounds that one cannot legislate cultural dynamics. The teens today will never accept DRM, so long as any alternative (even a shady one) exists. Hulu is a great alternative model, as it's free and does not rely on DRM, is accessible to a variety of platforms, and ensures that unauthorized duplication doesn't occur.

3. Freedom. This is the most likely result, if consumers have a say. This is because savvy consumers in the modern market know how to collectively place pressure on the industry. The industry will therefore either die or flourish under a new model. Free culture is inevitable. It's merely a matter of how much time until it actually happens. Savvy executives will discover DRM-free ways to release free video, and still manage to make a profit. The broadcast media model works; it merely needs to be applied in a way which makes sense to advertisers. DRM, conversely, doesn't work: users do everything within their means to avoid it.

Sony has abandoned DRM. Oddly enough, they were the first company to make it work. But the issue is, it's never worked. It's not a matter of perfecting the technology: it's a dying system, enacted by reactionary companies as a mechanism to grab at profit in a medium that they do not understand the mechanics of. If we want to increase illegal file-sharing, by all means use DRM.

I love how folk with no skin in the game, folk who have never made a dime on the interwebs- have such myopic and poorly conceived ideas. 

Wow Red Her., I don't know where to begin.  I'll start off by saying, you are sooo dumb and not much of what you wrote above bears any resemblance to the Media Industry or "things as they are"; you silly, misguided, sad little bridge troll. 

Your predictions are RIDICULOUS at best.  The internet will continue to grow and evolve and like it or not DRM, in it's many facets will continue to preserve the value of and drive the sales of high end quality media. 

DRM does work, kids today don't care what it is.  Youngfolk will consume content wherever they can get it- and when they grow up and have real jobs, like you will too someday- they will actually pay for their content with encryption and drink their 5 dollar lattes just like the rest of our society. 

Welcome to the machine kid- your ideas are no good.  You should have left them back in your parents basement next to your couch/throne, hacked xBox, pee bottle and sippee cup.

Maybe the Internet is just not for you.  You should try to get outside, get some sun and some exercise; trust me you will feel much better.

I would tend to have the same things to say about you, but I don't rely on high-school-level antics to try to discredit someone, either.

As for the "never made a dime" quip, that's not exactly true. I continue to make money. And then just look at all the illegal sites out there which don't charge end users, yet which seem to turn a profit. Taking into account the amounts of profit that someone like The Pirate Bay brought in on ad revenue alone, and you can see how a free model can actually work. Legal sites which are starting to adopt this scheme are actually starting to make money (it's a slow start, generally). The problem is, consumers want something for nothing--that's something I actually learned way back when in my first year of college when taking classes in--you guessed it--business.

And if the kids "didn't care what it was" then why would they seek to circumvent it in the first place? There wouldn't be a rationale for the DMCA to be applied to these kids, who are the internet's most prolific users (and they chew up the bulk of the bandwidth online because of the amount of time it takes them to download whatever stuff they're downloading). Make no mistake: most pirates are teenagers in their parents' basements. They aren't savvy or sophisticated, and they don't tend to make lots of money.

And if DRM works, then why have 3 of the "Big 4" in the audio industry decided to drop it?

Dowland, I contend that maybe the internet is not for you, and that your own advice would be well taken.

Do you mean 4 of the 5 Big record labels? I think you do. The Recording Industry unfortunately sold their souls to Apple back in 2002 and now that Apple won't license them their DRM technology, they have all had to drop DRM to compete with Apple on the iPod.

To the converse and way more importantly, the video industry has taken the opposite route and has done the right thing by continuing to use DRM to protect the value of their assets.

As a result, online video sales are skyrocketing and DRM is the key enabler of these offerings. Furthermore, all of the studios are moving to use DRM internally in their work flows and digital dailies and internal offerings. Why? Because it makes sense.

1. Dying a horrible, gruesome death which serves neither consumers nor vendors. This is possible because vendors keep trying to make a basically-free medium into a for-pay medium, with varying levels of success. Counter to other news, the overall trend in the past decade has been to increase free access and to pay by means of sponsorship (the same way that any broadcast media has ever worked, such as television or radio).

Sorry but your dead wrong here. The industries you describe above all went the other way. From free to pay. There is a reason this is the case. It's hard to believe you weren't aware of this but make such a proclamation here.

2. Becoming a DRM-rich playground in which only the wealthy play. This is possible, because many internet users refuse to accept DRM unless they use only the specific, proprietary players which accept and use DRM. The industry rejects DRM just as much as consumers do, though the industry has been trying (unsuccessfully) to make DRM a reality for about 15 years, now. The DMCA is a prime example of the industry trying to make it work, and failing to do so on the grounds that one cannot legislate cultural dynamics. The teens today will never accept DRM, so long as any alternative (even a shady one) exists. Hulu is a great alternative model, as it's free and does not rely on DRM, is accessible to a variety of platforms, and ensures that unauthorized duplication doesn't occur.

Again not supported by fact. Why are teens buying billions of videos on iTunes and Sony PlayStation and the XBox Live marketplace WITH DRM? because they don't care about DRM and they use those proprietary players you describe above on all their computers.

3. Freedom. This is the most likely result, if consumers have a say. This is because savvy consumers in the modern market know how to collectively place pressure on the industry. The industry will therefore either die or flourish under a new model. Free culture is inevitable. It's merely a matter of how much time until it actually happens. Savvy executives will discover DRM-free ways to release free video, and still manage to make a profit. The broadcast media model works; it merely needs to be applied in a way which makes sense to advertisers. DRM, conversely, doesn't work: users do everything within their means to avoid it.

Delusion and confusion. It's clear you don't work in this industry or understand the economics behind it. No studio is going to give away all their content free all the time. "It ain't gonna happen."

Sony has abandoned DRM. Oddly enough, they were the first company to make it work. But the issue is, it's never worked. It's not a matter of perfecting the technology: it's a dying system, enacted by reactionary companies as a mechanism to grab at profit in a medium that they do not understand the mechanics of. If we want to increase illegal file-sharing, by all means use DRM.

Again no. Sony Pictures or Sony Music? Which? Sony Pictures, the actual cash cow at Sony entertainment in fact will not license their video content without DRM used to protect it. Get your "facts" straight and why don't you sign your posts with your real name and contact info?

Regards,

Christopher Levy
clevy@buydrm.com
http://www.buydrm.com
http://www.thedrmblog.com
http://www.silverlightdrm.com

You have to see this to believe it. Widevine was showing the HD Adaptive streaming at Cablelabs last week.

It was amazing to see. The clip was 1080i it was encoded in H.264. It seamlessly adapted from 2.5 Mbps to 10Mbps ...I think there were 4 or 5 different bit rates. The quality was amazing. It was playing back on Windows, Mac and a Blu-ray player.

What was even more amazing then the HD adaptive technology was that the 1080i Mbps H.264 clip played back on the PC/MAC. They attempted to play back the low bit rate version using a Flash player and silverlight and the CPU maxed out, stuterd and lost frames.

Sonic and Widevine really have something here.

This coupled with the library of Blockbuster or Best Buy will disrupt the industry.  Who cares about DRM this will revolutionize content delivery to the living room.

- Morgan

Obviously a rigged demo or there was something wrong with the playback machine probably due to the Cypher client being installed on it. Microsoft and Adobe have both put viable products into the market which are widely deployed.

There is nothing Widevine has that anybody else cannot get from a variety of CDN's in the marketplace. Blockbuster squandered their market leading vision a lonnnng time ago.

I imagine you are either working for Glenn or Brian or a shareholder in WideVine.

Regards,

Christopher

Hi Christopher,

I agree Microsoft, Adobe and our CDN partners have very good products.  Widevine uses them in many of our customer deployments.

Widevine also has very good products, please come visit some time. I will be glad to demonstrate them. I am confident you will be impressed by what you see.

Best,

Glenn

Glenn Morten

CTO

Widevine Technologies

www.widevine.com

Glenn,

Thanks. Maybe when our company flew to Seattle to meet with your CEO and then got zero followup, you should have done just that.

We have since moved on.

Regards,

Christopher

Hello Christopher,

Interesting.  I am not familiar with that engagement. 

Let me know if I may be of service.

Best,

Glenn