EBU • UER - Technical Review

No. 287 (June 2001)

Digital piracy

Digital broadcasting offers many benefits, but digital recording of video offers even greater benefits for consumers. The analogue VHS format was designed to be "just good enough" in terms of picture quality, whereas digital recorders can provide much better quality. Even so, most TV/Video shops have rows and rows of VHS recorders for sale at remarkably low prices. There may be some digital camcorders on sale, but consumers cannot readily buy a digital replacement for their VHS recorders. Non-technical people might be excused for thinking that digital recorders have not yet been invented!

The fact is that the characteristics of the VHS format happen to match the needs of the movie industry: most people think that the quality is acceptable, but few people will tolerate the dreadful quality achieved when a VHS recording is copied by another VHS recorder. This feature of the VHS format has acted as a formidable barrier to illicit copying of VHS tapes.

The prospect of digital recorders put the movie industry into a state of panic because digital-to-digital recording can produce perfect clones of audio-visual material – and. hence, could lead to widespread piracy. Subsequently, the consumer electronics industry decided not to upset the movie industry by promoting digital video recorders. Some digital recorders are on the market, but most do not provide digital outputs, thus avoiding the perils of digital-to-digital copying.

The "success" of Napster demonstrated that computers and the Internet could easily be used for illicit distribution of copyrighted audio material. Some Internet idealists claim that Napster was "a good thing" because it circumvented existing distribution chains which, they claimed, allowed recording companies and retailers to make unjustified profits. Some people felt that Napster proved that copyright was dead, whilst others argued that Napster was merely liberating "music that wanted to be free".

Such extreme views need to be tempered by reality. If illicit copying became widespread, nobody would invest in the creation of expensive content such as movies because they would receive no revenue. Ways must be found to ensure that content creators and owners receive a fair return on their investments.

Anecdotal evidence indicates that the sale of copyrighted music in shops near to universities in North America has fallen dramatically as a direct result of MP3 file sharing. Nevertheless, we must not exaggerate the importance of Napster and other methods of distributing MP3 music files across the Internet. Much of the file sharing is done by young people who cannot afford to buy the products at their normal price – in the same way that many young people have made audio tapes of broadcast pop music over the past 20 or 30 years. There is undoubtedly some loss of revenue for the traditional distribution chains, but not everybody who buys a fake Rolex watch for $10 could have afforded to pay $10,000 for a real Rolex! Hence, we must be sceptical about claims such as 1,000 fake Rolex watches represents a loss of income for Rolex of $10 million.

The natural reaction of broadcasters might be to ignore these issues of copyright protection, but I believe that this would be short-sighted for two reasons. Firstly, most broadcasters would be unhappy if their own programmes were stolen and used by others – and they would not expect responsible people or organizations to condone, or even encourage, such crimes. Secondly, the owners of movies might refuse to supply their content to broadcasters who refused to play their part in preventing consumers making illicit copies of movies – for example, by introducing copy protection schemes.

Copy protection schemes have been heralded as the solution to the problem of illicit copying. In essence, such schemes allow content owners to decide whether consumers can record their copyrighted material and whether that copy can be used to make subsequent copies. Such systems were part of the DAT (Digital Audio Tape) specification during the 1980s when it was expected that DAT would become a consumer format. The DAT copy protection system was based on a simple signalling scheme that required all recorders to understand and obey the codes, such as "no copying permitted" or "copy once". It did not take long before recorders became available that ignored the codes. Even worse, it was a trivial task to modify the value of the control bits, thus avoiding entirely the copy control mechanisms.

Copy protection schemes in the broadcast environment require co-operation across various industries. Content owners need to decide which codes should be applied to their content, whilst broadcasters must ensure that they transmit the code with the audio & video content. All receivers must ensure that the codes are delivered to all connected recorders. And finally, all recording devices must recognize the codes and OBEY the rules.

One big obstacle to the success of such schemes is that there is little prospect of agreeing on a single worldwide standard for copy protection. Multiple systems would mean that all receivers and all recording devices would need to recognize the copy protection codes of all systems. Given that the inventors of the copy protection schemes will almost certainly demand payments for use of their intellectual property, multiple systems in consumer equipment implies significant extra costs.

Who would pay these additional costs? The major burden of cost will inevitably fall on law-abiding consumers! This is not unexpected because police forces exist primarily to prevent criminal activity – whereas ordinary people, rather than criminals, pay for the police. The real issue is whether the overall costs of copy control schemes are justified.

Many consumers have been disappointed to find that the transition to digital TV has stopped them using their analogue VCR to record one TV programme whilst they are watching another live programme on their TV set. Imagine their frustration on buying a new digital VCR when they learn that it will not allow them to time-shift certain broadcast material such as movies - because the manufacturer has included an exciting new feature called copy control!

Will legislation be needed to persuade all of the parties to implement copy control schemes, such as insisting that all recorders obey the rules? Will it also be necessary to prevent sale of equipment that does not include copy control mechanisms?

Copy control will prevent the average law-abiding citizen inadvertently making digital copies of copyright material, but will not deter hackers who will try to break the codes for "fun" or "sport" – as occurred with the CSS encryption scheme used on DVDs. Copy control schemes on free-to-air broadcasts will have no impact on commercial pirates who have the money and resources to produce illegal copies of DVDs within days of movies first being shown in cinemas. Modern movies (e.g. less than 1 year old) included in pay-TV services may need some form of copy protection. As free-to-air broadcasters rarely broadcast movies within 3 years of their first cinematic release, it is unlikely that commercial pirates would be interested in making illegal copies of free-to-air broadcasts. Is it necessary to demand copy protection of material broadcast on free-to-air TV services?

To prevent your home being burgled, you could take the drastic step of fitting metal shutters over all of the windows: this would certainly reduce the risk of the windows being broken by burglars – but such measures would be wasted if you left your doors unlocked or even wide open! The proposals for copy protection address the potential problem of casual illicit copying by otherwise law-abiding individuals, but they do not address the much more serious problems of commercial piracy.

Is the movie industry being paranoid over the need for copy control schemes on free-to-air broadcasts? If the movie industry decides to implement such schemes, who will look after the interests of consumers?

Philip Laven
Director
EBU Technical Department