Intertrust Plans Universal DRM System 314
Rushmore and others wrote in with news that Intertrust, which has a large DRM patent portfolio, is planning a universal DRM scheme for consumer electronics.
"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne
Unbelieveable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hrrm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unbelieveable... (Score:5, Insightful)
I pay $50 a month for satellite and I cant even record any TV.
Cancel your satellite and be sure to tell them why you're cancelling it. Or keep it. Either way, you're voting with your wallet, it's up to you to decide how you'll vote.
Er, consumer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Err.... Last time I checked, sales were more dependant on the consumer than the peddler. I'd hope it's more important to convince consumers their right to use what they are investing in isn't in jeopardy.
Re:Hrrm (Score:5, Insightful)
Adoption rate (Score:2, Insightful)
Stable Door... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that there are perfectly good alternatives without DRM technology. Why would anyone by something new that restricts their existing options? Even worse, why would a consumer pay the extra $x for their media player to buy the rights from a DRM patents company?
Perhaps it's time companies stopped chasing after the music DRM market, let it go, and simply learned their lessons for the still [largely] unfought movie market?
Re:Hrrm (Score:5, Insightful)
Oops (Score:2, Insightful)
What is the object of DRM systems? (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, it is more instructive to look to the profit motive. When they implement a new DRM system, they can sell us new CD and DVD players, and new CDs of all the old music that we've bought (twice, maybe) already. The "replace your old LPs" profit center was a huge one, until it was knocked down by (1) DVDs and (2) saturation. Now, they are hoping to recreate it through technical means.
Let's Limit Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, the original purpose of the patents and trademarks system was, "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries (United States Constitution, Section 8)."
It doesn't say anything about promoting or supporting a "rights market" for clever business people.
And it will be as crackable... (Score:5, Insightful)
How many times did we hear rumours of pay-per-run services being the wave of the future in the last 10 years? But the best way to keep this from being adopted, is for us as the consumers to boycott such products in the stores and for us as the voters to remember what democratically elected individual supported the adoption of the DMCA-like laws required to back it up.
F-IW [abelard.org]...ank
Re:Unbelieveable... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
Good luck selling non-DRM electronics... (Score:3, Insightful)
...if all media that MOST people want to listen to is DRM-only. Of course, since a DRM-free market will sell more shit than a DRM-crippled media market, manufacturers WANT you to have as much freedom as possible, as it's good for their profits.
The only problem with that is that some of the major hardware manufacterers are owned by companies that reside in the same corporate parent as a large media company (example: Sony and Columbia). So don't expect Sony to lead the anti-DRM charge.
Re:Stable Door... (Score:3, Insightful)
Global Revenue Streams (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Er, consumer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, needless to say that the market already exists, and flourishes in the ways we're all familiar with. That they don't recognize that is the fault of their own hubris. The works (songs, movies, etc.) are obviously already available online for phree. But it's true, until DRM is figured out, you won't be able to pay them for the privilege of (what I consider to be with DRM) a defective product.
I love this Logic... (Score:5, Insightful)
So let me get this straight:
1. Companies encrypt their data
2.
3. Digital sales of media are "boosted"
They're leaving out the entire... well... consumer and adoption step that I think is a bit important. Just because they build it, it doesn not mean that people will come. Didn't they learn anything during the
Re:Unbelieveable... (Score:2, Insightful)
Lack of diversity will lessen protection (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stable Door... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, there will be people who can get around whatever restrictions, but if DRM is built into everything, it becomes harder for the avg joe to get around them.
Most people won't complain about these issues if it comes slowly... first, the broadcast flag will be used very very sparingly... then a little more, except that they'll sell that tv show to you through your cablebox at 3:00 am in the morning when you want to see it--- then pretty soon, that will be the format for everything.
The good news is that anything you ever want to see will be available for a cheap price (because of competition).
The bad news is that anything you ever want to see will be available for a cheap price (nothing will be free, except infomercials).
-chris
One Phrase, Two Meanings (Score:3, Insightful)
"Consumers want an open system, and the electronics industry wants it too," Ruud Peters, chief executive of Philips's intellectual property and standards unit, told Reuters.
That's the finest example of "two different meanings for the same phrase" that I've seen all year. Consumers have most of the "open system" they want right now.
Wankers.
Re:Hrrm (Score:5, Insightful)
I buy nothing with DRM.
NOTHING.
It might very well be here to stay but if that ends up being the case I'm not going to be the asshole who made it that way. Society, if it feels strongly enough about this to want to do something should make it our collective "mission in life" to make any product with DRM built in a financial failure. The only way they're going to stop pushing DRM down our throats is if we convince them that there's no money in it and that the consumer will not buy it.
Prediction: DRM will continue to hurt the economy (Score:5, Insightful)
"DRM is an accelerator which will boost digital sales of media, because it will convince media companies their content is protected. It should not be a competitive weapon," he added."
This quote is simply wrong. DRM has already damaged sales of hardware and content. I predict that increased DRM will not be an accelerator but will continue instead to be a de-accelerator and drain on the economy which will reduce digital sales of media.
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." -- Edward R. Murrow
Re:Unbelieveable... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stable Door... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only scenerio that makes *any* sense to me is if some new DRM device came on the scene and had inexpensive access to a massive library of content. Such as a set-top box with access to nearly every movie or TV show ever made -- no restrictions on when you watch them, how often you watch them, as long as you paid your monthly fee.
The problem is the DRM pushers want expensive usage fees, content packages, content limits and all kinds of other restrictions that make it undesirable AND they want to DRM it.
I think they'll be able to sell DRM once they realize that the flat fee and a huge library will make people notice the DRM less. Until then...
sneaking it in (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh Boy! (Score:5, Insightful)
Really though, if it weren't for all this cat and mouse shit, all these parasite companies wouldn't exist and all the crackers would have to get a real life...
Revolving door that screws the customer (Score:5, Insightful)
Increased prices lead to decreased sales. DRM get's cracked, sales increase and companies yell that they are losing money to piracy. To offset this potential loss of money, they increase prices.
They spend millions more to create new DRM to hinder people from doing what they would like with what they had paid for. Increase the cost to offset this spending.
It just continues.
anyone catch the following in the article?
"'Consumers want an open system, and the electronics industry wants it too,'"
[very next paragraph]
"Microsoft, for instance, has opened music stores on the Internet that sell music encoded in such a way that they can only be played back with a Windows Media Player."
how is this good for the consumer or even open for that matter?
Re:"BigBrother.com" now available (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, we are collectively shorting ourselves in the long term for short term profits and security.
This sucks.
Re:*sigh* (Score:2, Insightful)
I made my DVD player region free so I can play DVDs from any region. DRM didn't work. I only have one non-R1 DVD (Crouching Tiger which was released in R3 long before R1). I disabled my DVD player's Macrovision "feature". Again, DRM didn't work. I don't know why I'd ever want to record a DVD to VHS but I'm not going to let some corporate clown prevent me from doing it. When I was a kid, I used hex editors to bypass those stupid "code wheels". DRM didn't work. I often apply "nocd" patches to new games so I don't have to keep the original game disc handy just so I can start the game. DRM doesn't work.
You'd think that corporations would have caught on after nearly 30 years of failed DRM experiments but they keep on banging their thick heads against that old brick wall.
Nice try troll.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That, my friend, is time-shifting, a legal fair use, as defined under the Betamax desision.
Re:No faster way to kill DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe there is something we can do (Score:2, Insightful)
If this isn't already law, we should be campaigning to get someone to try to make it law. No secrets from lawful owners of property -- it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It would effectively make the worst kinds of DRM unenforceable. Could we even get one of ourselves elected?
I cannot, however, in all honesty see how anyone can expect these encumbrances to work. It takes only one copy to be made by analogue transfer, and then it is possible to make an indefinite number of digital copies no worse than the original. And there are people who would go to the lengths to crack anything they can try. As long as there are fences, there will be someone with the urge to climb over them.
DRM for the user (Score:4, Insightful)
DRM wouldn't have quite such a bad name if it would provide users with benefits. Intertrust technology has the ability to do this it seems but since consumers are not their clients, so easily integrated features are ignored. We designed a system with the end user in mind. From the point of view of how would we want to use the electronic media we buy.
Important user features should include:
Free trial, and fare use of content, while right management is still in effect.
Merging of artistic works into new works with automatic (pass through) licensing fees.
License to the user not to the computer so I can listen to MY music at home or office or at a friend's house.
Easy distribution from user to user with no penalty to either user in the transaction (i.e. napster 1.0 can work because each file is self managing).
User selected automatic billing from incremental use (such as paying a per hour fee to use very expensive, but rarely used software, PPV etc.) to outright purchase.
From a security point of view our philosophy was not to make an unbeatable DRM solution, but rather to make the cost of circumventing the DRM higher then the value of the content. This came about automatically when you allow people to use $30,000 software packages for $5 an hour or whatever. It just becomes too easy to work with the DRM then not. We also had the ability to pass the billing for the software use (plus any "cost plus" amount) to a user's client, so mom and pop shops had equal access to high end software that big companies had only pay for what you need.
I'd love to see the open source community pick up where we left off. Current DRM solutions need a user-focused competitor. Perhaps, I'll start a project. What do you guy think? Is it worth it?
firetellerATkoldnhostileDOTcom - If you want to talk to me about it.
Re:Stable Door... (Score:5, Insightful)
In meatspace, the infrastructure is moderately open. For example, although the RIAA has a great deal of marketing power and well-established channels to sell CDs, it's still possible for Joe Public to publish content. The Internet is far more open than this - the effectiveness of word-of-mouth marketing is amplified, and publishing is much easier. But a DRM infrastructure would almost certainly be totally closed.
If mandatory-DRM devices become popular, or worse, legally required, then to publish anything, you have to talk to the DRM authorities. Instead of many fine-grained copyright based monopolies, there'd be one ubiquitous DMCA-based monopoly, and no competition.
Yes, because DRM'd standards don't take off... (Score:3, Insightful)
a) All the reasons it was better than VHS
b) that DivX (no, not the codec) lost and so the lesser evil won.
So will the latest DRM be too. Your AMD Athlon 64 or Intel Prescott whatever with the latest "Trusted computing"-mobo and other certified components. So will those HD-DVDs etc. as well. They'll be a lot cooler, and with less DRM than a really draconian alternative. (WMP DRM vs iTunes DRM anyone? Now think about iTunes vs CD... ok not much DRM, but a little)
Then, soon it'll be a standard. At which point you'll have to either tag along with the rest of society or become a real luddite. It's here to stay for the remaining 99,9% of the world even when you exclude it from your own.
I fear that DRM will be a raging success, and that afterwards you simply won't find what you take for granted today, in a non-DRM format. It's not just the "coolest new toys", but it's also about taking away your old ones. Unless you want to only listen to pre-DRM music, watch pre-DRM movies, and in general live in the past, not just with past (pre-DRM) equipment.
Kjella
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Pirates... I feel so silly just using that word...
DRM = More profits for pirates (Score:4, Insightful)
Hell, if DRM stops end-users from backing up their music or whatever, surely they'll just ignore the geniune offerings andy by a pirated copy without the DRM.
I predict that the only people a universal DRM system will hurt are the law-abiding customers who should, thanks to their ethics, actually be rewarded, not penalized.
Meanwhile, those who make a living out of selling $1 per CD copies of popular music and movies will see their profits soar.
Is that *really* what the RIAA and MPAA want?
no, DRM is accurate.... (Score:2, Insightful)
at this point, decoding the purpose of a policy or law is easy - look at the name, figure out what the policy claims to preserve or defend, and assume that the policy's real purpose is to destroy it. The more glowing or discreet the code phrase used as a title, the more likely the law is to negate the values it claims to uphold.
My Universal DRM Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention... Bill Gates and Darl McBride are exempt from the above, because they are the Creators of copyrighted valuable intellectual property.
Re:Nice try troll.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:DRM for the user (Score:2, Insightful)
Legally and from an artists point of view unrestricted duplication of a creative work is simply not acceptable. As much as we'd all like to have free copies of or friend's music library it isn't honestly fair to the artists that created it. Is it? But I do agree we should be able to listen to it a few times for free, or perhaps accept commercials to compensate for a fee. And once we pay for it woul should be able to do just about anything we want with it. A well designed DRM could allow for that.
The reason we all hate DRM is because it currently only serves the distributor. It doesn't seem to help the artist, it clearly doesn't help us. I believe that there is a compromise that allows both the creator and the consumer to be treated fairly.
But no matter how much you personally hate bad DRM it WILL win out in the end if there is no "reasonable" competition. They have the favor of money, and the Law.
BTW - DRM has been around for a long time, it's also referred as the distribution media. Only with electronic distribution does the old DRM model break. The model being that the consumer must pay a fee for each copy made.
Re:Hrrm (Score:2, Insightful)
I've come to believe that there is bad DRM and good DRM. We simply haven't seen much good DRM yet, so we all have a bad idea of what it's all about. Technology aside all the law, and public interest, ask is that a fair distribution of creative work be established between a producer and a consumer. This is all fairly well defined in copyright law, and generally accepted by everyone. DRM design need only focus on helping users keep to the law, and just like copyright law err on the side of enabling access rather then restricting it.
A standardized, hardware based system, could be good in several ways. It could provide a "trusted" computation system that is open to utilization by more then one software implementation. It can be "wide scale undefeatable", meaning to defeat a DRM on a given song or software package would require the compromise and rewiring of the hardware itself. This means that a few hackers may crack it, but they can't distribute the crack. Each owner will have to hack his own box (read unlikely).
No doubt distribution companies will try to take advantage of this and keep all the current restrictions on copying in to maximize sales. However, the opposite is actually the truth. Once a trusted computational model is available much of the draconian safe guards can be relaxed. Meaning more user oriented features. For example there would be no reason to keep a person from listening to there music on any number of machines because A) the law says that the licenses are granted to people not machines, and B) you can take your personal access key with you anywhere. Because the hardware is trusted the distributor can be confident that it is you, and only you who have access. Now instead of three computers licensed to play your library, you can access a copy of one of your songs on any computer (one at a time of course). Sure you could loose your key and someone could get access to all your stuff, but hey someone could steal your car too, so keep your key in a safe place. Good systems would allow you to cancel a lost key and issue a new one with all your media still available.
But people who are against DRM are 100% against it. I think by failing to provide a good DRM to compete we are all inviting bad DRM to take over. The people arguing for no DRM ever, will sadly in the end loose, law and money are not on their side. But I do prey that a bad DRM does not take over the world, I hope a few good people will develop a good DRM solution that can be accepted by distributors but is not focused on limiting the legal use of managed content. Only truly illegal/unfair used should be prevented.
As I posted elsewhere on this topic I think we should start a GNU DRM to provide an alternative. I'm willing to contribute all the designs from my old DRM company (don't ask me how I (just a programmer) ended up with the rights to the technology, but I did).
firetellerATkoldnhostileDOTcom - if anyone is interested in starting up a open source DRM project. But even if not me someone should.
And now for a word from your customers (Score:3, Insightful)
Aside from all the (endless, redundant) DRM IS BAD commentary, I still find that these companies are fundamentally missing the point.
I would not mind (so much) them wanting to enforce their rights to sell music, to earn money from it, and to stamp out piracy. Except that each and every deployment of Rights Management/Copyright Enforcement has always put me in a position where I (ie The Customer) would be purchasing a lesser product for as much if not more money.
For Example:
So far your (ahem) "solutions" give me
dont make the MPAAs mistake (Score:3, Insightful)
assuming they want the same level of protection DVDs gave...
keep it in the hardware, make it as platform/os independant as possible. for example, as a cd drive can output directly to the sound card, let a dvd output to the framebuffer and sound to the card. in this example the driver would need little more than a transformation matrix, position in stream(s) and some settins. theoretically, it could be built so the OS doesnt even see the image.
MS and mpaa/riaa and similar organizations wouldnt like it because they would only the control what theyre supposed to and couldnt use this to create an artificial barrier of entry(2). but thats better for the hardware makers, probably sony (3), and the users. and they wouldnt be able to use thier copying excuse(4)
(1) time to market is, of course, the other, and possibly bigger factor
(2) lock out competition
(3) i suspect sony makes more money from technology than entertainment. either way would be interesting to know
(4) they could complain about it being easy to crack, but given thier past, thats a pretty pathetic. of course the legal people they complain to/buy off wouldnt know or care...
i was going to trace this to drm is not a good idea, but will have to save that for later
Re:Er, consumer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately you are exactly half right. Microsoft is forcing it on the world, so it isn't a "non-starter".
Microsoft has announced that thier next operating system (Longhorn) will come with a "Nexus". The system will only fully function on a motherboard with a Trusted Platform Module inside. This is also known by many different names such as Palladium, NGSCB, Trusted Computing, TCPA, TCG, Fritz chip, Treacherous Computing and more.
Any motherboard that doesn't have the new Trust chip built in won't be fully Windows Compatible. People without the chip would get error messages and Microsoft will just say it's a hardware problem. No PC motherboard manufacturer can survive if it's not Certified Windows Compatible.
Micorosft simply make an announcement like that and hardware manufacturers have no choice but to comply. Microsoft has done it before. You almost certainly have a DRM-crippled soundcard in your computer alread. It's called SAP - Secure Audio Path. What it does is lock out the digital outputs on your soundcard when it is activated. Why would anyone ever want their soundcard to lock-out it's digital output ports? They wouldn't, but pretty much all new soundcards have it because Microsoft demanded it. More info. [google.com]
The new "Universal DRM System" is an open standard that runs on top of this Trust chip. If you don't have the chip you can't use any of the new files. The chip will come pre-installed on all new PC motherboards within a year or so, and they are going to shove this chip inside all new consumer electronic devices.
It looks like they will succeed unless there is a massive public backlash against it. The main-stream media is just beginning to take notice, here's a Newsweek article. [msnbc.com]
-
Mod this up! (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are a content provider and you want DRM that works, you should insist on a sealed hardware device where the manufacturer has published all the specs and enough information that a Linux driver can be written. Not because of the trivial amount of extra business by Linux, but because this is a guarantee that the DRM cannot be broken. The hardware device will have an ID in it (which is going to drive privacy advocates nuts, but what kind of horrors do you think Microsoft's DRM will have?) so that you can download content that will only play on your device.
If anybody is still too dense to get it: the API is similar to the remote control on your DVD player. Yep, you can push those buttons in any order you want, but you are not going to get it to do anything other than play that DVD on your TV.
Microsoft is going to fight this with everything they got, because they will lose the ability to lock-in media playback to their software. They will LIE about how their software will prevent cracks. Listen to your own engineers, and do not believe crap from Microsoft!
Buying stuff, it's sorta like voting. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:DRM for the user (Score:2, Insightful)
FYI - Educational use is not covered under fair use. If it were textbooks would be a bad business to be in.
DRM need not threaten fair use. It does only because of the paranoia of distributors somewhat supported by the lack of a trusted computing system. Many of the restrictions placed by DRM implementation are only in use to mitigate the untrusted nature of the execution environment.
The pathological fear of DRM is disturbing. I'd like to see people be a little more constructive and provide an alternative that is fair to users and fair to the creators of original work.
Good DRM is possible, but in the absence of options we'll end up with bad DRM.
Re:DRM for the user (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to take a look at any tech specs on the system if you have any links. The only example you gave was incorporating a managed excerpt from a book when you choose to "pay" by Fair Use. Managed - as in DRManaged.
If it really didn't impose any restrictions on Fair Use then I don't see how it expects to enforce anything in non-Fair Use cases.
your post is easily refuted by "iTunes". You may call it illegal
I never called iTunes illegal. In an earlier post I said "You're perfectly free to use all the DRM you like". What you can't have is broken laws (DMCA) putting innocent people in prison in order to enforce legally invalid DRM restrictions. Without that legal enforcement then the free market will defeat any DRM system making it worthless.
-