The work of the ARDG is to develop a fix for the "analog hole" -- the fact that anything that emerges from an analog output can easily be redigitized. Technologists would see this as an opportunity for innovation, not a "problem": that which was once analog becomes digital, and infinitely more useful in the process.
The MPAA sees things differently. In their view, since all digital outputs will be hobbled by "content protection" technology, we must plug the "analog hole" to somehow make sure that the analog output stays at least as hobbled as the digital. The MPAA newspeak term for this is "Equivalence".
The MPAA recognizes that the original digital file's DRM may be capable of expressing complex rights and permissions -- things like, "allow copying within the home," or "allow retransmission for 30 days" -- that will be impossible to express in the crude "Me Tarzan/You Jane" pidgin of analog watermarks.
In an effort to address this inevitable "equivalence gap," Hunt's presentation set out the minimum set of "states" that the MPAA demands in any analog signaling (read: watermarking) system. They are:
Furthermore, if a device "re-digitized" analog content that showed any of the above states (except the last), it would be required to encrypt the content. [It went without saying that all devices would have to be "tamper-resistant," as well.]
These "states" are familiar to old DRM hands, as they mirror states currently supported by the "5C" family of content protection systems, which include DTCP (1.3MB PDF). The question of redistribution control also came up, with Brad initially suggesting that redistribution is implicitly forbidden for all states, except the last. Under fire, he backed down, suggesting that the issue of redistribution control was open to further negotiation.
Two things stood out about Brad's presentation.
First, I was struck by the MPAA's view, bluntly expressed by Brad, that the role for analog outputs was to support "legacy" equipment. Apparently, all future innovation will have to rely on the DRM-hobbled digital outputs. This is a major change from the status quo that has given us innovations like the VCR, where analog outputs not only supported legacy devices, but were generally available to support innovative products not yet imagined.
If you think analog is only good for supporting legacy devices, then your view of the "analog hole problem" is likely to be very different from someone who thinks of analog outputs as an innovation opportunity.
Second, it is clear that a huge fight is brewing on the "rounding" problem. On the one hand, Brad has repeatedly emphasized the importance of "equivalence" (i.e., that analog be hobbled so that it's no more capable than DRM-protected digital outputs). On the other hand, Brad admits that analog watermarks will not be able to express the "full richness" of DRM states expressed in digital content.
Hence, the "rounding" problem: where analog signaling systems can't adequately express a digital DRM state, do you "round down" to a more permissive analog state, or do you "round up" to a more restrictive analog state? So, for example, if a new digital DRM-system supports "copy once, but keep for only 14 days," how does that get expressed at the analog output? Does it become "Copy Never" (rounded up) or "Copy Once" (rounded down)?
If you round up, then you've made analog artificially unattractive, by making it more restrictive than the digital outputs. If you round down, you have the same problem in reverse. You have to choose, there is no "neutral" alternative.
I know where I come down. Stay tuned to find out where the CE and IT industries come out.
Posted by Cory Doctorow at April 18, 2003 01:22 PM