BPDG Not Much Of A Threat? 89
DigForFiles writes "It seems that the media companies and the tech companies may be near an agreement concerning fair use of digital broadcasts. Apparently the basic plan is FOX's and is to have broadcast programs be digitally flagged by the media guys and the tech guys are responsible for building all home digital recorders so that they recognize the flags. Consumers would be able to record the broadcasts for home use and data transfers within their local LAN but the flags would prohibit the transfer of recorded data outside the household. Thus they hope to prevent P2P networks from trading the broadcasts online while allowing fair use within the household. Some of the presentation material can be found here. The guys in charge, Copy Protection Technical Working Group, meet on 5 June for further discussions. A list of attendees can be found here (it's in Excel format)."
Re:!!!GO USA!!! (Score:2)
By most measures, everyone on your list (with the possible exception of Franklin) would be considered conservatives by today's standards.
Interesting, but huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting, but huh? (Score:3, Informative)
No, you simply get hauled off to jail. Video capture cards will watch for a watermark, CD-burners will ensure they are used by only authorized software, and so forth.
Actually, what's kind of amusing is that I have been able to dub DVDs flawlessly by piping them through an old VCR; no need for the illegal Macrovision bypasser things.
Re:Interesting, but huh? (Score:1)
Re:Interesting, but huh? (Score:1)
Re:Interesting, but huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course this will tie down the ability to record to certified devices, but that appears to be the way that it's going.
<dons flame proof suit>
Seriously, some sort of mechanism like this is the way that things are likely to proceed.
The producers need to try and protect their investment in content generation. From a consumer point of view we want to be able to make copies.
If those copies are somehow tied to a personal/family digital key then it makes a good compromise.
</dons flame proof suit>
Re:Interesting, but huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you really think the digital video recorder manufacturers are going to tool up and produce millions of devices that nobody wants because they implement Hollywood's idea of copy control? Not unless the algorithm is flawed and readily defeated by consumers. At that point, sales will skyrocket when the consumers learn how to uncripple the hardware. Example: The easily hackable Apex DVD players. That hidden menu for disabling region codes & Macrovision was a brilliant sales tool.
Re:Interesting, but huh? (Score:2)
Re:Interesting, but huh? (Score:1)
Remember when heavier-than-air flight was impossible? Or sailing around the world?
Re:Interesting, but huh? (Score:2)
The birds have had "heavier-than-air flight" technology for thousands of years; it was inevitable that we would find a way to do fly as birds do. On the other hand, the alchemists never manufactured gold (not even a patent!)
Digital copy protection is the science of making something that can be read but not copied. I don't have an Einstein theory to quote here, but it's hard to deny basic common sense: "That which can be read can also be written." If DRM can be done at all, it will take a whole lot more money than the entertainment industry is prepared to spend.
Anything Possible, Personal Drive Paramount (Score:1)
Sure, Alchemists were not able to turn various metals into gold, but today, using nuclear physics, we can turn lead into gold [upenn.edu] and by semi-simple means, carbon into diamonds [rudimentsofwisdom.com].
However, I agree with your comment that If DRM can be done at all, it will take a whole lot more money than the entertainment industry is prepared to spend. Yes, gold can now be produced by nuclear reactions, it is just plain easier to go out and dig the stuff up. The entertainment industry will find, eventually, that it CAN be done to manage digital rights, but at such a cost that it just isn't worth it. Hopefully, that day will come long before we all get thrown in jail for letting our friends borrow a digitally true copy of seinfeld that we recorded last week on our PVR. I don't know about anybody else, but I honestly have paid for software, music, videos, etc.. that I want to support those that have created it.
The big problem is that people today aren't creating things that are truly part of themselves. If they were, it wouldn't matter how much money they did or didn't get. The attitude of "yeah, I could do that, but what would I get for it?" is what is keeping the United States of America (and many other good nations) from becoming the best they/we could become. At some point, people have to discern what is important to them and do it ONLY for that reason, because it is important to them. I think if you (and I mean anyone here, not just the one post I'm replying to) look into the philosopher Søren Kierkegaard [stanford.edu] you will see that his philosophy strikes at why the world wars were fought and why so many people are so disillusioned today.
Eh, just my .02 (inflation adjusted, currency exchange rates, taxes and tariffs may increase or decrease value).
Re:Interesting, but huh? (Score:2)
Speak for yourself, I have a 172.16.x.x
When will they learn (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:When will they learn (Score:4, Insightful)
That's taking a short term view. In the mid term, they can claim that because a few guys are savvy enough to crack it and put the latest Buffy out on gnutella, that they need to set the flags so that no content can be recorded. They'll do it with a big sigh, and they'll use phrases like "regrettable", "a few hard core pirates spoiling it for everyone" and "protecting the national economy", but they will do it.
Of course, this won't stop the same few guys from recording and distributing the shows anyway through good old video capture, but that's not the point. The point is to stop most of us making any recordings.
I know this is speculative, but it fits the pattern, and frankly I'll be happy to forgoe the pleasure of saying "told you so" in favour of nipping this in the bud right now. We need to remind our elected representatives that the explicit purpose of copyright law is to protect the individual creators (and implicitely, consumers) of content from big publishers, and not to give publishers carte blanche to control creation, distribution and consumption. That's a travesty of the intent of copyright law.
Re:When will they learn (Score:2)
Perhaps... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Perhaps... (Score:1)
They are allready so wealthy that they could just rely on the honor system. However, not only do they want control but if they (and more importantly, their advertisers) truely beieve that if unchecked pirary will grow uncontrolably, then people won't be as willing to pay as much to advertise on TV and so they will no longer be as rich as they are.
Re:Perhaps... (Score:2)
when will they learn? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand why hollywood does NOT want their shows rebroadcast. Any exposure is good exposure for them, and will only increase the following of their so called entertainment programs.
Also, I will not buy any device that restricts me in any way. I only bought a DVD player because I was able to get one of those Apex machines.
In any case, its going to be cracked, and the digital copies will be on p2p anyway. Too bad...
Here's why (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't want their shows rebroadcasted because of several reasons:
1) they don't get paid. If no one actually sits infront of the tv, the broadcasters won't pay them with the money they recieve with their advertsing income.
2) Hurts syndication rights which also hurts actors too. Actors can get paid residuals for when shows go into syndication (unless they were on the show giligans island and missed out on a ton of money http://www.gilligansisle.com/court.html)If everyone buys the dvd it hurts the value of syndication rights. Thats why you have to wait so long before tv shows go to tape or dvd.
3) Hurts dvd sales. why buy it when you can download it. Granted their is a quality issue, but this is moot when you have a replaytv or filesharing tivo.
Do most people pirate. No, it takes too much time and effort. Besides, at least in my experience most pirating college students wind up buying most of their media/software after they get money in the jobmarket.
Does the media need to change its business model? yes. the easiest way i see doing this is to bring back sponsorship to programs. For example, the reason soap operas are called that is because they were sponsored by soap manufacturers.
Remember with PVR technology, primetime isn't an issue, you can broadcast any content you want 24 hours a day, people will just watch it when they want. Besides, if you include 1-2 short sponsorship messages ala pbs before each program (i.e. 5-10 seconds) the time you save is not worth skipping. This basically means you can offer more content to your viewers since they don't have to be there to view it at a set time. A somepoint someone will catch on to this, probably once there is suffiecent dvr market penatratoin.
Not much of a threat? Maybe more of a threat... (Score:4, Insightful)
Failure to reach consensus in the industry group may be all the reason our good "friends" in Congress (are you listening, Fritz Hollings and Diane Feinstein?) need to impose some really wretchedly awful solution.
Things may be better now.
The tech companies may have learned a thing or three about lobbying Congress.
The Bush administration may be more receptive to tech companies than the Clinton administration was.
Maybe.
Here's what I know for sure:
The last time that the entertainment industry went head-to-head with the tech industry over intellectual property protection, we got the DMCA.
That's reason enough to get worried and stay worried.
And then some.
Re:Not much of a threat? Maybe more of a threat... (Score:1)
I think that's reason enough to get involved. Getting worried gives you an ulcer, getting involved might do nothing, but it also might solve the problem.
Re:Not much of a threat? Maybe more of a threat... (Score:3, Interesting)
We've recently seen China and Taiwan discussing a separate DVD standard despite the fact that this appears to be totally illegal to many American observers. Now Taiwan is following in Mainland China's footsteps by insisting on free as in both beer and speech software in the government and schools.
People in the US often talk about controlling the media in ways that might not be practical no matter what kind of rhetoric is used to justify the measures. Fox's plan is fine. They've been putting watermarks on their shows for years now and so do many broadcast affiliates. But so what? Assuming that the US walks the entire digital media world around on a chain is a feel good proposition, but certainly not a realistic description of how things work in this day and age.
And as other posters have mentioned, we --here we being all Americans-- are the government. If restrictive measures are passed that result in higher costs for products that have to be customized to suit the restrictive US market, it's going to be seen as a hidden tax and that's not gonna fly too far.
These companies would be so much better off putting up their archives on the net right now and taking just enough to keep the operation profitable while they've still got the option. Sadly it looks like many of them would rather "kill every motherfucking last one of you." It's too bad they take that approach, but if that's what they want then they get what they deserve.
Re:Not much of a threat? Maybe more of a threat... (Score:1)
Hollings said this in the Commerce Committe hearing on March 14th. He mentioned Macrovision as something the industry came up with that Congress then required in all VCRs.
He claims to not want to have to write the technical standards that would become law but to only be using that threat to drive industries to agree.
You might or might not believe him, but Orrin Hatch who is much calmer on this issue and seems a lot more relucant to write a tech. standard seems to believe in backing a "private" agreement.
The problem is that this isn't an agreement based on mutual compromise. It's everyone caving to the MPAA.
-M
As long as they don't take away my ReplayTV I dont (Score:1)
NIC cards (Score:3, Informative)
Boy, I bet those babys will be a joy to design. And market. And dirt cheap, to boot!
Of course, it's possible that we'll all be mandated by law to switch to TCP-DRM/IP-DRM and UDP-DRM/IP-DRM and all other protocols will be outlawed. Patent lawyers, start your engines!
Meanwhile, I'll be programming in the Cayman Islands.
Re:NIC cards (Score:2)
Get real and Stop dreaming.
Re:NIC cards (Score:2)
Yes, the cost per NIC will be $10,000. However, that'll be partially subsidized by a tax on all computer, electronics, and software purchases.
Re:NIC cards (Score:2)
I don't think so.
Re:NIC cards (Score:2, Interesting)
so much for that. any hardware that is hardcoded to look for something will fail because there will always be at least one person smarter than the machine who can help everyone else outsmart it.
someone needs to hit these people with a clue-by-four.
just remember, one person CAN make a difference.
Ask that kid that's in jail for de-css, or the russian guy who broke the adobe bookreader thing.
point is we're human, we're free to do what we want. there is no way that this will ever work as long as the human spirit is entact.
Re:NIC cards (Score:2)
$ whois -h whois.arin.net 204.0.0.0
Verio, Inc. (NET-VRIO-204-000)
8005 South Chester Street
Englewood,, CO 80112
US
Hmph. My mail server already does that. Mebbe it's time I did it in the router, too :-)
The studios don't WANT an agreement (Score:2)
They're in a much better position to demand some kind of legislation if they can't get an agreement out of the tech industry.
So, they WANT these meetings to end in failure so they can get legislation b/c the tech industry is refusing to self regulate. The tech industry isn't going to agree to anything that hurts their bottom line, and that means content on demand (in some form) is here to stay. Only legislation can save the studio's sorry business model from widespread civil disobedience. So, either one side or another gets fooled (who thinks the Disney people can get the better of AMD in technobabble armwrestling? I know who I'd bet on.) or nobody gets fooled and it's settled as legislation.
If they could find a compromise where all the corporations make out like bandits and all the consumers get screwed, they would have made it already!
let the studios do what they want (Score:5, Interesting)
the largest producer of movies is India. France AFAIK has restrictions in importing intelectual production from overseas, worlds largest potential consumer market (china) has also restrictions on these subject.
so let the american studios byte theyr own tail. if they start pushing to much control crap over the consumer, the level of rejection against their products will grow in other countries too, then 2 things can happen:
1- media produced in US will end up restricted to a niche market (US itself) OR;
2- The media industry in US (studios, recording companies, etc.) will end up losing money and learning what other industries already know: The consumer is KING. do what the consumer wants. give the consumer liberty and they'll respond buying your products.
Nope Hollywood will buy them (Score:2)
You already see this happening in Hong Kong. Used to be 3-4 distributors releasing DVDs region free. People would import these into the US for sale. Recently these distributors went down to 1 or 2 and have begun restricting distribution. It is alleged Disney is behind this as a means to control distribution outside of Asia. They certainly clamped down on online stores in the US that sold the region free DVD versions of Shaolin Soccer and Warriors of Zu, both films that Miramax (Disney subsidiary) bought the North American rights to.
No doubt when Disney deigns to release these on DVD in North America they will be region 1 only, have edits from the original and be crippled in other ways. This despite the fact that the Region Free versions are available outside the US.
mathematically impossible (Score:1, Troll)
It has been demonstrated by mathematicians at Princeton [princeton.edu] that this kind of copy protection or digital watermarking is mathematically impossible. While "where there's a will, there's a way" sounds flippant and trite, the mathematical principle of seperability essentially states that content can always be extracted from its protected form.
These guys are chasing the elusive pot o' gold that's over the rainbow. Best of luck to them, but oh, what a waste of effort.
Misinterpretation? (Score:3, Informative)
Deeply, or no? (Score:1, Redundant)
"because they apparently can't agree on anything"
I'm willing to bet that there is one thing they can agree on - to fsck the common consumer. It's just a question of how now.
It'll be known as the Digital Logjam (Score:1, Interesting)
A few logs in the jam:
1. The bandwidth providers overbuilt, hoping for lots of video sloshing around the Internet, but it never materialized. Then they all went bankrupt.
2. The copyright holders put the brakes on digitization as they evaluated their options. They alone were on no hurry.
3. The hardware and software companies refused to agree on any standards that the copyright holders liked, instead preferring to compete with their own technologies.
4. The consumer advocacy groups took the opportunity to try to move the bar, which only served to raise the hackles of the copyright holders.
5. The media companies took the opportunity to try to move the bar, which only served to raise the hackles of the copyright holders.
6. And the techies threw gasoline on the fire by gleefully promising to break any system they didn't like on the basis of an ethic that doesn't distinguish between good and bad. (Heck, they had lots of time on their hands because they were unemployed waiting for the logjam to free up.)
Re:It'll be known as the Digital Logjam (Score:2, Interesting)
The media thing isn't the cause although there is a very scarry proposition that certain flavors of politician are going to try and frame it that way because it appeals to simple minded asswipes that like to get violent on their neighbors. No, actually the media issues we're seeing today aren't causes, they're effects.
The cause of all this controversy isn't people sharing information as they have in all great civilizations. No, this one-sided tempertantrum that gets framed as a supposed controversy is actually the effect of the creation of monopoly powers unseen since before the previous depression. It's not just the media companies by any means look at Microsoft and now look at Citigroup. Holy shit. We've set ourselves up for a hell of a fall by voting for generations of conservative asshole politicians who's primary skills were appeasing monopolies and bad mouthing liberals. The only reason the media element of this mess gets so much attention is because it's the freakin' media. However, the problem we're facing with un-American monopoly business practices is a vast cancer on the entire nation.
Investment banking, re-insurance and the largest financial institutions in the nation have grown so large they're totally beyond oversight and are currently riddled with scandals. Indeed, organizations like Citi and BofA are no longer properly considered banks at all, but financial services agencies distributing their risks through derivatives so complex that they require teams of physics PhDs to maintain. If you don't smell a shell game here then god bless your kind heart. I for one am wary.
Did I mention Moore's Law just ended? Mask costs at TSMC, UMC just went up by a factor of 10. Game over.
Hardware protection versus... (Score:2)
If I understand corectly part of the protection systems recording/studios companies are proposing is based on hardware right ?
and IIRC there's mod chips in the market that allow game consoles (Xbox, PS2, GC, etc) to play DVD from any area, boot copied disks and stuff.
now I ask you, how hard it'll be for a mod chip maker to produce a dirty cheap component that defeats the studios/recorders stupidity ?
the question is serious. how hard it is ? can it be done in a short time frame (like a couple of months) ? and how hard such a chip would be to install ?
and as a last question: what'll prevent overseas manufacturers such as brasilian companies Gradiente and CCE from selling devices that can be unblocked via RC ?
Enjoy your mod-chip hacks while they last... (Score:1)
If you think it's easy to extract the authentication keys from the chips, then think again.
Secure microcontrollers store sensitive data such as authentication keys deep inside the chip where it is difficult or next to impossible to probe at. Chips like that have tamper protection sensors for example to measure the electrical capacity between chip layers or even whether the chip is being exposed to light. A number of oscillators would be on the chip to disparage attacks that attempt to derive information from the chip from it's electromagnetic radiation, Bus scrambling like in the ATMEL secure flash microcontrollers would make probing the chips signals even more difficult, if connecting to the chip's internal signals were possible due to very miniature scale of chip structures. I might also add that there is always a way to extract the data on any chip, no matter how secure. All you need is in the neighborhood of $1,500,000 in equipment and chip specialists.
System-wide keys (right after cheap and insecure microcontrollers) are the reason most Pay-TV schemes have so far failed miserably *. I could envision a system where each group of devices that are supposed to talk to each other are loaded with an mutual set of authentication and encryption keys during on-board testing that is totally random from the set of keys the next box on the assembly line will receive. So now, even though you've extracted the keys from your set of chips and can use that to get at the copy protected data, you still don't have a mod-chip solution that anyone could solder onto their own circuit board. What you could do is upload the unencypted media to the net, but the way things are developing right now, maybe there wont be any playback devices around that play unencrypted data, so you'd have to extract the keys from individual box to re-encrypt the data so it will play on that box.
Mod-chips are possible today because apparently not much effort goes into securing consumer devices. CSS was defeated because they were dumb enough to embed a player key in PC-software, the Irdeto ACS1.2 pay-tv cards only checked the first two byte of the 40-bit signature field for each command and Irdeto had many other bugs such as not checking field lengths on certain instructions that update or read the card's eeprom, same thing essentially goes for American pay-TV schemes like the H-Card.
* Broadcast systems such as digital television, however do have the inherent disadvantage that make it necessary to revert back to keys common to more than one set-top box, because as the number of subscribers rises, so does the computational load increase for calculating subscribers' decryption keys.
I remember... (Score:1)
I believe he was from Texas...
Re:I remember... (Score:2)
A technology that would allow tracking of individuals who break the law would be more acceptable than one that infringes upon the fair-use rights of law-abiding consumers.
However, shooting is a bit excessive for bootlegging, and ought to be reserved for spammers and other such varmints.
Re:I remember... (Score:2)
Give them enough rope... (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess that the majority of the US public won't really care and will continue to watch "When Animals Attack Survivors in Extreme Celebrity Cop Chases Part 4" (that might actually be interesting), but I've found myself reading books and re-watching my DVDs a lot more than TV. I even (gasp!) went for a walk yesterday.
The harder these fools push their crappier fluff the more people will just give up on it. It will be a rather shallow curve, but I think it is inevitable.
Re:Give them enough rope... (Score:2, Informative)
For some reason the content industry is under the impression that we're all going to stand in line to pay $30 to buy "Weekend with Bernie V" or $20 for Brittan'Sync's latest claptrap regardless of how crippled it is.
They can legislate our fair use rights away all they want, but they can't make us buy it. Most people aren't music or movie fanatics. It's only entertainment, after all, and people will find other ways to amuse themselves if DVDs and CDs become more hassle than they're worth.
Re:Give them enough rope... (Score:2, Insightful)
And, in the fine tradition of colonial capitalism, the entertainment industry is trying to find out empirically exactly what that maximum amount of hassle is for 90% of people. Once they know that, they don't care that people like you and me walk away.
They ARE a threat. (Score:3, Insightful)
In some sense this may be worse news. If they could agree on provisions then they would draft a single, oppressive but consistent piece of legislation. If they cannot agree then we are likely to get some hideously general bill that is so vague and unspecified that only the rich can afford to do anything. Either way its not good.
See here [eff.org] for a nice asessment of the BPDG and the CPTWG. See here [eff.org] for more info.
How can this possibly work? (Score:2)
Re:How can this possibly work? (Score:2)
I think Rogerborg's post is exactly right, in how it protrays the intentions the publishers (RIAA, MPAA, book-publishers, etc.). But remember this is not really a "piracy" issue, although that is the excuse they are using. Very few of them are naïve enough to think these measures would actually work to prevent anything but casual illegal copies. The only way it would be truly effective is if they can eliminate all current "non-controlled" analog devices: including cameras, TVs, monitors, answering machines, etc. Although this is just what they are asking for, they don't really expect to get it.
What is really going on here, is that the existing "gatekeepers" are looking for a way to continue their control over the distribution channels. They hope that virtually all new consumer devices and software will come with built-in DRM, that the publishers control themselves. If an author wants to publish a book, or a young film maker wants to show the next "Troops", or a garage band wants to give away samples of it's music; the only way it will happen with the proposed DRM devices is if it is first "blessed" by an established publisher so that it can work on everybody's equipment. Somewhat reducing piracy would be a nice side-effect, but that is not where the money is.
I predict the DRM controllers, if we are so unfortunate to actually have this happen, will be a third party organization controlled by the publishers. It would be consistent with past laws to have something like the RIAA sub-group that controls the "digital music media" tax money. Obviously we don't trust the consumer, so there is no possible way they will have the ability to set the controls. Some consumer groups would push for government control as the best of a poor set of choices, but they would be rightly opposed by groups concerned that they were giving the government censorship capabilities (in the US for some reason, people seem to think censorship is OK if it is done by corporations).
The fallout would be tragic, at least so far as the actual progress of arts is concerned. I'm sure the publishers would be more profitable than ever. The DRM controllers get very fine control over how the copyrighted items get used. They can eliminate fair-use of all sorts, including space-shifting, time-shifting, and archiving. The public domain will shrink even faster. Existing public-domain works will only be "readable" on the new devices if someone like project Guttenberg has taken the time to get the DRM certifications for them.
Works published only with DRM will [almost] never enter the public domain.
* First the DRM system has to last long enough for the copyright to expire. This is unlikely when you combine the ridiculously long copyright terms we have now, with the normal lifespan of electronic devices. Most of the copyrighted material will just vanish, like the way DIVX DVDs "lifetime" subscriptions did.
* Second, even if the DRM controller still exists, they would have to explicitly move the copyrighted materials into the public domain; and they have no incentive to do that. Indeed, they stand to loose money if the work still has commercial value.
There is even something worse in store for society, if the publishers actually got their pipedream of eliminating the "analog hole". The people who control the DRM essentially have the ability to be in control of recorded history. Governments have wanted this ability for years (some have even tried it with middling success). Lets say a mining disaster happens and the TV stations show amateur camcorder recordings of the incident. The next day, the local government realizes corruption helped cause the problem, and decides to downplay the incident (I'm thinking of a recent Chinese story along these lines). The news on the next day insist that only 10 people were killed (correcting earlier stories about hundred dead). When confused initial viewers decide to review the incriminating amateur recording, they find the footage is much shorter than they remember. Thanks to the DRM system, even the original camcorder recording has been edited, along with all recording stored anywhere else in the DRM system.
Is the power of a "total" DRM system something we want to put into anybody's hands, let alone governments and/or corporations? Certainly the danger is not worth an ineffective attempt at copy protection, or even to protect certain publishers gate-keeping abilities and profit margins. Some of the government support may actually have more sinister motives than just getting the next Hollywood contribution!
And of course (Score:2)
Consumers have the final say. Don't like what's being offered? Don't buy it (and don't steal it).
The Ultimate Solution! (Score:1)
It's a market = business opportunities (Score:1)
The broadcasters will be doing exactly what they want to do: make money by broadcasting. Punters will be happy because this gives them what they want: more better stuff for free. Also, bonuses for broadcasters they don't need to maintain a big cable network, or pay for RF bandwidth for this revenue stream. Shit, we pay for the internet. This way they co-opt us into paying for the distribution.
And if you really want to be tricksy you can do a deal with Microsoft to check hashes on the files over the internet and, for amended (or unrecognised) files, flag up a warning that says: "Possible corruption or malicious content in video file. This video file may contain content which would render the possessor liable to prosecution in their jurisdiction and attempted playback may cause damage to your computer. Proceed? (Yes/No/Delete the Smelly Bastard)". Hard-core anti-fudmeisters will laugh heartily and disregard this (and probably won't be using Microsoft Media Player anyway), but Joe Pubic on his wintel will be hitting the Panic button and ridding the world of one more ad-disabled version of the video.
It's not a perfect model (and with tobacco ads and FUD thrown in, possibly Satanically unholy) but it's still a damn-sight less costly and more profitable than pitting your wits against every cracker in the world.
This is not rocket science. A bit of compromise and only a smidgen of innovation could have serious benefits for all parties. And it's not being helped by people that reckon they should get gratification for free. Jeez, watch the ads.