The ability to create pristine copies of any digital work is seen as a threat by some Hollywood studios, which are experimenting with a new pay-to-play DVD format to protect their intellectual property. This format, Divx, could conceivably hobble the video rental business, but some see its real threat as an invasion of consumer privacy - and the freedom to view information anonymously.
Divx, a technology originally devised by a law firm, is a DVD variant being rolled out by Circuit City sometime late next year. Set to debut in mid-1998, special Divx systems will appear under the Zenith, RCA, Proscan, and Panasonic brands, while Disney, Paramount, Universal and DreamWorks SKG have announced plans for releasing titles in this format.
It works like this: You buy a Divx title from Circuit City or other retailer for about US$5. With that, you can view the movie for a two-day period. From then on, viewing rights are granted through an internal pay-to-play system where a modem inside the Divx player - connected to your phone line - calls up a central computer and re-purchases the movie for another viewing session, decrypting the information on your disc for play. Standard DVD systems cannot play the protected Divx discs, although Divx systems can play DVD. When you're finished, you can either keep the disc to view (and pay for) later, or throw it away.
Circuit City has become the majority partner of Divx developer Digital Video Express LP. The Divx players save a record of your viewing (billing) information which is then uploaded to the computer for processing. If, for instance, the phone line isn't connected or the player can't get its call through, the system will refuse to play any more Divx movies.
Spokeswoman Mary Lou Hotsko said that the system will only contact Digital Video Express' "central computer" with billing information during "off-hours" - such as between 2 and 3 in the morning - and that the system will immediately hang up should you pick up the telephone.
As far as details on the Divx encryption system goes, mum's the word. "Because the technology isn't available yet, they're not going into a lot of detail on it," Hotsko said. "But it is something that is more than [DVD's] existing encryption system."
It's possible that the disposable aspects of the format could hurt the video rental business, which has been watching DVD as an eventual replacement for VHS video. Blockbuster Entertainment is already experimenting with DVD rentals and sales at 105 stores, and a statement on Divx has been released: "We have some concerns regarding certain announced features of Divx, so we'll closely monitor it to determine whether there would be any mainstream acceptance of a new playback machine, just as we're watching DVD," spokesman Wade Hyde said.
The studios, for that matter, are also watching - and those involved like the idea of Divx. That anyone can make a copy as good as a master makes the studios nervous, said Digital Video's Hotsko.
"The digital universe has some very deep copyright issues, because it's more of a manipulatable format - and that's a problem for us," said Dorrit Ragosine of Paramount Pictures. "Therefore the Divx system, which is a closed DVD system, really addresses that for us - that's why we chose to go into Divx at this time."
But Paramount is still evaluating DVD, as is Disney. "For now, movies will be released in both DVD and Divx formats," said a Disney spokesperson. "Both formats meet our standards for copy protection, but what's happening is that we're putting these formats out to the consumer and letting them decide."
This implies that copy protection isn't the issue. DVD contains copy protection strong enough to deter the home user, and copy protection has never stopped professional pirates anyway. "The pirates will use their near-pristine analog copies to make their pirate discs," said Steve Tannehill, whose Anti-Divx Page is only a sampling of the flurry of netizen outrage since last week's announcement. Among Divx pitfalls that Tannehill cites are the expense of repeated viewings and the invasion of privacy issues.
Privacy concerns are being considered by the company, said Hotsko. "People are protected and the company will make statements saying that people's privacy will be protected," she said. "You can't prove it at this point because the technology isn't out there, but privacy will be protected - they won't be selling [consumer viewing habits] to studios or marketers or anybody."
Consumers purchase physical ownership of the disc, but the digital information inside is not theirs to touch. "They're just allowed to watch it. That's what it's licensed for, exclusively," said Paramount's Ragosine. And if the consumer does attempt any manipulation of the content, even in the privacy of their own homes? "That's a problem," she said. "They can only watch it. They can pause it."
"The Divx system seems to negate fair use completely," said online copyright and privacy scholar Julie E. Cohen, an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. "It's clear that users won't be given the opportunity to negotiate regarding the surrender of their fair use rights. Consumers who nonetheless choose to buy Divx systems for the convenience they offer will be setting a dangerous precedent, since sales that are strong enough will allow the vendor to argue that contracting around fair use is acceptable to the public."
Cohen was equally troubled by the implications of Divx for viewer privacy, acknowledging that there is no way for viewers to maintain anonymity with respect to the Divx provider/system operator. She offers a possible solution: hack it.
"I have argued that both copyright and First Amendment policies support a right to hack so-called "trusted systems" in self-defense in order to preserve one's right of fair use and maintain anonymity with respect to information providers," she said. "Divx appears to be a good example of the sort of situation to which my argument would apply."
Richard Stallman, inventor of copyleft, a legal hack that guarantees free use of digital information for all, exposes the line between a work and its audience. "Controlling a work really means controlling everyone who uses it, obstructing their daily lives," he said. "Divx reveals the obstructionist spirit usually hidden at the root of the copyright system."
What you are paying for, said Stallman, is not any service to you, but for the removal of an obstruction. Is such a system really more convenient? "I think it really depends on the consumer," said Paramount's Ragosine. "I think that consumers need to look at their viewing habits and which system is going to be more complimentary to those habits."
