At the June 17 ARDG meeting, held near Dulles International Airport outside Washington, DC, I heard for the first time what the final “product” of the ARDG is likely to look like. Near as I can tell, the document will be of very little use to anyone.
The ARDG is in the process of drafting an “analysis matrix” to assemble information about available technologies that might be used to address the “analog hole.” The June 17 meeting (and probably the next several upcoming meetings, as well) was largely devoted to defining the “scope” of the issues to be addressed in the “matrix,” then bickering over the precise language for the items in the “matrix.”
What, you may ask, is this “analysis matrix”? (Please, no red pill/blue pill quips.) Well, as those of you following along are well aware, the MPAA’s stated goal in ARDG is to find some technological measure that will embed “rights signaling” into analog signals. This “rights signaling” information will then be detected by devices upon reconversion of the content into digital form (which, in turn, will presumably enable the re-inscription of digital content protection on the new digital copy). In other words, the MPAA wants to find some way of preserving content protection states when digital content is converted to analog and passed over analog links.
The “analysis matrix” consists of several dozen questions regarding the technical capabilities of available “rights signaling” technologies. Once the “matrix” of questions is completed and embraced by ARDG, technology vendors will be invited to respond to the questions, thus vetting their own “rights signaling schemes.” The outcome will look like those big product review charts in computer magazines, comparing products by various performance criteria.
Interestingly, the major industry groups at ARDG appear to agree that this collection of self-reported information will constitute the final ARDG product. At least that’s what I thought I heard Brad Hunt (MPAA), Jim Burger (Computer Industry Group) and Seth Greenstein (5C Companies) agree to in the meeting. No consensus recommendation of any particular technology, no probing evaluation by the ARDG of any of the technology claims made by vendors.
Just a stapled together collection of vendor-provided marketing hype about the characteristics of various watermarking schemes. Doesn’t seem like much, does it? It remains unclear to me who this ARDG final report will be sent to, or for what purpose.
Posted by fred at June 30, 2003 07:31 PM