Microsoft Patents DRM'd Torrents 193
Anonymous Crobar writes "Microsoft has received a patent for a 'digital rights management scheme for an on-demand distributed streaming system,' or using a P2P network to distribute commercial media content. The patent, #7,639,805, covers a method of individually encrypting each packet with a separate key and allowing users to decrypt differing levels of quality depending on the license that has been purchased."
as old as bt (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed, using DRM-protected torrent to distribute paid-for content was attempted by several players almost immediately by several provider when bittorrent appeared. And lots of less-legal sharing cites may encrypt the torrents so only members of the community could access its content.
In addition, having different levels of quality in different packets of the same stream (the more packet you have, the better the quality), has been proposed in lots of old systems such as the OGG/Vorbis compression (so that a web radio emits only 1 single stream and quality decreases as packet are dropped, instead of having to emit several stream of varying quality). In fact, progressive JPEGs work in a similar way (first chunks contain low-res blurry image, later chunks add the missing details), except that they are not a media stream but static pictures.
Meanwhile the patent was applied for only in 2005. The only thing that wasn't widely used before, is using separate key on each different "quality" packets. But it looks almost straight forward given the other technologies.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, having different levels of quality in different packets of the same stream (the more packet you have, the better the quality), has been proposed in lots of old systems
I'm not sure what you're commenting on here. The patent claim is built around "truncatable packets", not "different levels of quality in different packets."
Your analysis doesn't seem to have anything to do with what MS has actually been granted a patent on (which admittedly looks like a stupid idea described badly, as is typical
That's actually pretty clever (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a great way of monetizing uncontrollable distribution channels. Easily allow anyone and their goldfish to distribute large content freely, and effectively charge at the codec level. Certainly solves a good half of the people-steal-everything problem. The patent's still stupid, but the idea's great -- I'd support a two-year patent certainly.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What the fuck are you talking about? I'll just jump on the usual pirated torrent, thanks.
Re:That's actually pretty clever (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd pay, but I want the assurance that Big Content's hands stay off of my media, ESPECIALLY if I payed for the better quality. If I can't duplicate it, play it on my TV or stream it to a laptop/360/iWhatever/wireless projector/blahblahblah then I'm definitely going to pirate it. The biggest issue I have with DRM content is that the model for DRM hasn't gotten past the whole "You can have it, kinda, but its really still ours" mentality, and I'm not counting on codec-levels being the only "DRM" going on here.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest issue I have with DRM content is that the model for DRM hasn't gotten past the whole "You can have it, kinda, but its really still ours" mentality...
Your beef is with copyright, then, and not necessarily with DRM. Any copyrighted work is still, really, not yours. You can use the copy, but it does not belong to you. In a book, for example, you can burn the paper in it for kindling if you'd like, but you'll never, ever own the words printed on it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, but that's not what he's arguing.
You can purchase the book to keep at home, you can burn the pages if you like. You can also scan it and put a copy of it on your laptop or ebook reader too. Just as long as you don't send copies of it to everyone.
With lots of DRM'd content, you can't. And the industry that produces the audio and video is trying to force you to pay for every incarnation of their work, even if it's in a buffer. That's where GP is complaining.
Re: (Score:2)
You can also scan it and put a copy of it on your laptop or ebook reader too. Just as long as you don't send copies of it to everyone.
This is fair use, and is a permission granted. The system itself doesn't require it, useful though it is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For the record, I've bought music over the years, which I've then subsequently had to pirate for use in players other than the designated "official" player. MP3 DJ tables, music imported to home movies, old MP3 CD players in cars... It all needs to just work, and the only format that just works is MP3 without DRM.
Adding restrictions to content literally drives legitimate purchasers to pirate sites.
Re:That's actually pretty clever (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of us stopped feeling remorse for the recording and movie industries when we saw how extensive their lies are. Like, the RIAA claiming that Kazaa was killing CD sales, when in reality they had record setting revenues during the height of Kazaa. Or Hollywood accounting. Or the claim that downloading is benefiting violent Mexican gangs. After a decade of claiming that they are suffering financially, I would expect to see RIAA and MPAA member companies all defunct or near bankruptcy, yet in reality these companies are among the wealthiest and most powerful corporations in the world.
Re:That's actually pretty clever (Score:4, Interesting)
Stealing would be walking into my house and taking my hard drive.
Do you lay any claim to the data on that hard drive? Would not the thief merely be requiring you to line up your kids and take new snapshots of them, or recalculate your taxes, or re-download all your torrents? Have they actually deprived you of anything, by your standards? I'm genuinely curious if you attach any value to time and effort, or if because it is merely digital it can never have any value at all.
This system will fail because nobody will download the restricted media; there is unrestricted media available at no cost.
You're dreaming, at best. 'Nobody' or 'nobody who is already using torrents'? There are a vast, wide majority of people consuming media like this that have zero idea what a torrent even is, let alone how to safely acquire and use them. Torrents only appeal to a small, technically-minded group of people. Subsequently, few profits are probably lost to this crowd.
Further, the amount of time needed to extract the secret keys from the restricted codecs is minimal, unless a hardware crypto module is required. I expect that any software implementation will be broken within a week; an implementation using hardware crypto will probably be defeated within a year of its release.
See, again: minimal for whom? For those that were previously using illegal means to gain access to the content, or for those people who actually make up their target market. You know, the people who use money who buy these things.
Some of us stopped feeling remorse for the recording and movie industries when we saw how extensive their lies are. Like, the RIAA claiming that Kazaa was killing CD sales, when in reality they had record setting revenues during the height of Kazaa. Or Hollywood accounting. Or the claim that downloading is benefiting violent Mexican gangs. After a decade of claiming that they are suffering financially, I would expect to see RIAA and MPAA member companies all defunct or near bankruptcy, yet in reality these companies are among the wealthiest and most powerful corporations in the world.
On these points we definitely agree. They do in fact over-charge, and a certain backlash is to be expected. I do see the danger, however, in a world where everyone feels this way. Eventually there will be no one else to support the content you are obtaining illegally, and so none will be made. Any way you slice it, your torrents are funded by the good faith of others, and you are abusing that. If you really, honestly believed that the content held no value, and had stronger ethics, you'd simply stop consuming it.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Stealing would be walking into my house and taking my hard drive.
>
> Do you lay any claim to the data on that hard drive? Would not the thief merely
> be requiring you to line up your kids and take new snapshots of them, or
> recalculate your taxes, or re-download all your torrents? Have they actually
> deprived you of anything, by your standards?
My private papers are not published works. They should never be treated as such.
The only reason this would even be considered is the sick fixat
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine. Now please answer the question, if you would, please.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, let's apply the test:
So yes, I was deprived by the theft.
"There are a vast, wide majority of people consuming media like this that have zero idea what a torrent even is, let alone how to safely acquire and use them."
True, and it was a bi
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to believe that the only way musicians can make enough money to create music is if ordinary citizens pay for every song they have a copy of, or at least that a certain critical number of citizens do so. Why not focus on the real money makers for musicians: concerts, business use, etc.?
I admit freely that there are other methods of compensation. I also fail to see the need to restrict the method on the topic. Pay-per-copy is valid, and does not need to be obliterated. Pay-per-copy need not go to the studios for the model to function, and as you're implying it could actually harm the intent. The content needs to be incentivized in this society, or other pursuits will suppress it.
Take this concept, if you will, to a larger, more collaborative work like a movie. Live performances are ou
Re: (Score:2)
Stealing would be walking into my house and taking my hard drive.
Do you lay any claim to the data on that hard drive? Would not the thief merely be requiring you to line up your kids and take new snapshots of them, or recalculate your taxes, or re-download all your torrents? Have they actually deprived you of anything, by your standards? I'm genuinely curious if you attach any value to time and effort, or if because it is merely digital it can never have any value at all.
Pretty poor analogy. File sharers have taken the only copy of your data. Yours is more akin to breaking into the studio and taking the master tapes to an album.
Walking into the house and copying all the data off his hard drive is more the equivalent to file sharing. And even then, the arguments raised below about publicly released works still enter into it.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty poor analogy. File sharers have taken the only copy of your data. Yours is more akin to breaking into the studio and taking the master tapes to an album.
Walking into the house and copying all the data off his hard drive is more the equivalent to file sharing. And even then, the arguments raised below about publicly released works still enter into it.
Excellent point. Shift it to identity theft, then. That's pretty similar, right? The question would be more along the lines of:
Do you lay any claim to the confidentiality of the data on that hard drive?
Point is, the loss of value need not be only physical to be of note.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you lay any claim to the data on that hard drive?
The data should be backed up. In any case you paid for the drive itself, which the thief, who doesn't care about the data but only the drive now has a free drive but you have to go out and buy another drive.
Would not the thief merely be requiring you to line up your kids and take new snapshots of them
Were you dumb enough to not back your data up, how are you going to recreate your wedding pictures? How is lining up your kids going to recreate their baby p
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if anyone has told you this yet, but not all artists are in it for the money...
Perhaps, but I'm not that interested in a musical world dominated by Paris Hilton either.
Aside from her, and other heirs and heiresses, I'd assume that some people hope to make a living doing what they love.
Plus the Politics... (Score:2)
Hollywood and the recording business is in awful spot for politics. Almost by definition, they are leftists, first because the left more accepted the riotous lives of entertainers, and then, because of political utility of mass media. But, the left is increasingly embracing an open content world, consistent with its more socialist visions - like, if you can redistribute land, why put fences around IP. It makes no sense for any serious socialist to support copyrights and that's a huge problem for Hollywood
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from your holier than thou attitude.. How do you explain over the air broadcast TV and Radio existing and profiting for decades?
Is watching TV without paying for the signal 'stealing'? And if not, why not?
Re: (Score:2)
Consumers then decide if they think the extra benefit is worth the money and either pay for it or do without.
Thats exactly the point. There doesnt need to be a law made that says 'all content must be distributed this way'. If you do not want to provide digital copies of your work and deal with the hassles that come along with it, then dont. And do without the extra revenue that comes with a cost/benefit of some copies being distributed in a way other than your preferred one. And your example of sat radio
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Did they remember to patent hacking the encryption within 30s of release? Otherwise the hackers will get away with it!
Re:That's actually pretty clever (Score:5, Informative)
Hahhahahahahahaha, you're serious aren't you? The malware/scammers have been distributing DRM'd WMV files for ages, hoping to make suckers get rooted by their malware or steal their credit cards. Nobody distributes them except retards and others too lazy to check their downloads, this changes nothing at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
no to mention that should count as prior art...
Re:That's actually pretty clever (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Using multiple keys to unlock different content from the same encrypted file is nothing new.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not about the technology, it's about the monetization. For people like me, now 30 years old, successful adults with money in the bank, there is absolutely no reason to steal a $4 product. Except that there are when it takes weeks for delivery, or days for research, or going and and getting it, or waiting for it to come in, or waiting for it to be released onto physical media, or any other sort of delay.
The reason that theft is high-tech is because it can be. The crime industry doesn't suffer from ha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitrate_peeling [wikipedia.org] but with DRM.
DRM and P2P won't mix because it's a huge popularity contest. There is selection pressure against really bad, really big, or password protected/DRMed content.
Re: (Score:2)
This technology wouldn't be used like a typical P2P network of people openly sharing files, since the files with by DRM encrypted, unless it is the Zune model of loaning out a file, and losing the rights to it, until that loaner is returned to you.
BT-style downloads make a great deal of sense for a company like Microsoft or Apple who is pushing tons of downloads.
Re:That's actually pretty clever (Score:4, Insightful)
Im sure everyone here knows your stance by now...but for those that dont, allow me to translate what you just said...
It's a great way of monetizing uncontrollable(by me) distribution channels. Easily allow anyone and their goldfish to distribute large content freely(at no charge to me), and effectively charge(I collect money from the freely given resources of others without compensation) at the codec level. Certainly solves a good half of the people-steal-everything problem.(except for the fact that you are 'stealing' others resources without compensating them)
Im sorry, but your business model is dying, thats why you have so much resistance to the current changes in the world. Allowed to come to an equilibrium, youd be out of work. You are completely free to follow whatever path you want, but when you start advocating for everyone to only do business a certain way because thats the only way you personally can survive, we part ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Allowed to come to an equilibrium, youd be out of work.
At which point the content stops. You do realize this, yes?
Re: (Score:2)
The shitty content stops, yes. And that day cant come soon enough. Just because you create something, doesnt mean you will automatically make money form it.
If its what people WANT to buy, they will. Its already been done, and its only going to continue.
see: Radiohead [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No, all content stops.
Radiohead survives on the voluntary status expressly because they are different. The industry as a whole, however, cannot exist this way, and will have to rely on other dollars in one way or another.
Look at the Open Source content, as an example. Without the likes of IBM, RedHat, etc making actual sales dollars off of someone, a lot of the development we get to enjoy would cease.
Music, on the other hand, is of little practical value. Businesses aren't going to fund it out of charity
Re: (Score:2)
I use Radiohead of an example of the concept. Not as an example of what all music should be like. Personally, Im not much of a fan of them.
I see the music industry continuing on, and in fact being better than its current form. But music in of itself is of little value, as you say. However, the people willing to pay for a live performance IS of value. But I fail to see why a cunsumer of music cant directly pay the band. Can you give an example of why that option doesnt work for all genres?
And I know your r
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube and myspace are not excellent examples of what I would call content. Amend my statement to 'all content of quality' if it helps you grasp the point.
Indie bands exist in the hopes of making it big. You are proposing we remove that from the realm of possibility. Would that not motivate them to go back to work at the quickie-mart?
They were "discovered" because they saw creation as an avenue to success, which the present model provides, and a 'duplicate without limit' model does not.
Re: (Score:2)
where did I say anything about distributing copyrighted works without a license?
Im not interested in your prejudices, which you just fully disclosed with that assumption. Im interested in the way distribution will be done going into the future. If theres no attempt at compensation given for the use of the individuals resources, then the odds of this idea going anywhere at all, are nill
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. And if I had to pay for this item, you can be certain that I would not 'freely' distribute it with my own resources without a level of conpensation, be it a discount or whatever form it needs to take. How about for every 100 people I distribute it to using my resources, I get 1% off the next purchase?
I pay, you pay. Those that get it for free, give it for free.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is 100% acceptable to me. The market will decide. Either the torrent will die, or it will stay.
We dont need laws to regulate it. Thats just a sign of a bad business model. Would it make sense to have laws to regulate that you must buy one horse drawn carriage, even though this new thing called the automobile exists?
And it may be MY bias, but I find most of the 'business owners' who always harp how great the free market is, suddenly find themselves rushing to pass laws to protect them when the m
Re: (Score:2)
The average n00b probably doesn't realize that a bit-torrent transfer costs them something.
That is a big part of the problem of trying to prosecute/persecute anyone for P2P file
sharing. Many people are simply too clueless to realize that they are also uploading to the
rest of the world while they are getting what they want.
Also, resources tied to physical things like a computer or a room (the old movie theatre
analogy) still aren't strictly the same as ethereal information.
It's interesting that those with a h
Re: (Score:2)
This is like getting a patent on selling yesterday's newspaper when you can already get them for free at the same place that the patent alleges it will sell them.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the patent duration works in our favor for these types of things. It'll be another 20 years before we actually see somebody try to stuff this down our throats.
It's what the EFF should do--patent DRM schemes, and due the pants off anybody who tries to use them.
Hmmm. seems to me that someone will figure out... (Score:3, Interesting)
ambivalence (Score:2)
What's to stop the guy who buys the first license from decrypting it and uploading it anyway? Seriously, this just makes their job easier since they'll have the content right with them!
Then again, if ISPs and the RIAA start leaving DRMed torrents alone and only go after the unprotected ones... ...yikes...this IS bad.
Re:ambivalence (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a problem you have with any DRM. However, a system like the one described would be a fairly interesting way to deliver live content to subscribers without undue server load, especially if the underlying P2P system was network topology aware.
Re: (Score:2)
No, what I'm getting at is with DRMed torrents, the MAFIAA might actually back off on filesharing.
DRMed torrents may potentially receive the full blessing of both the MAFIAA and consequently ISPs who no longer have to fear the dogs of war, DRMed torrents will start getting a foothold and suddenly, regular torrents will finally have competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, not only the customers should pay with money, they should pay with their bandwidth too!
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? Bandwidth caps are driven by saturation of ISPs' outbound links. If widespread topology-aware P2P arises, there may be a move to cut caps on internal network traffic, as it would be a way for ISPs to differentiate without really costing them anything. Of course, this doesn't apply if you're a poor soul living in an area with only one real broadband ISP.
Re: (Score:2)
actually, on the flip side this will make encrypting every p2p download standard procedure - thus people who use encryption on their normal downloads will be doing SOP as well - it'll make it that much harder for the MAFIAA to identify people as "filesharers" when everyone's doing it.
I still the patent is retarded and there should be prior art, though. At this point I'd like to see our patent office refuse all patents at this point until they start focusing on quality again.
Re: (Score:2)
thus people who use encryption on their normal downloads will be doing SOP as well - it'll make it that much harder for the MAFIAA to identify people as "filesharers" when everyone's doing it.
Actually, I'd think the opposite. In order to flag "filesharers" one would only need to check the encryption keys against a list of those you know are good. If the torrent users are constantly changing keys, they would have to be freely available, or everyone would get locked out of the content.
Sounds like a quick way to kill them. Especially when coupled with a requirement that all torrents of copyrighted works be encrypted.
Re: (Score:2)
it's already been cited by other slashdot comments in the article. The idea should be refused under bilski but then again, I'm not the patent office.
Just because something is lacking documented prior art doesn't mean it's a good patent.
Re: (Score:2)
What about obviousness?
Has encryption been invented? Check.
Can it be used to encrypt computer files? Check.
Has p2p downloading been invented? Check.
Does it allow transferring computer files? Check.
Obviousness is a perfectly valid reason to deny a patent too, you know.
maximum utility. (Score:3, Insightful)
1. patent something.
2. patent it "...on a computer".
3. patent it "...on a network".
4. patent it "...with DRM".
5. patent it "???".
6. Profit!!1!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to disagree too strongly, because I try not to read patents.
But, I've definitely seen patents cited here on Slashdot which essentially take something we've all been doing for a long time (like, decades or more), and essentially saying "a computer system for performing <routine task>".
The essentials of the task are unchanged (and wouldn't be patentable) but it's on a computer system. I'm not entire
Re: (Score:2)
...and chances are it's covered by 20 year old academic research.
Desktop computing is like the mouth of the Nile being the last stop on a long ride with lots of other things feeding it from upstream.
"multi-core" is a beautiful example of this.
Solves the piracy problem at the user end... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Reminds me of "stealing" satellite signals. The government has cracked down on that pretty viciously.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How can you "steal" something that is broadcast over an entire hemisphere? You and I are subjected to satellite signals of all kinds without our desire or consent. How is merely making use of that radiation we are bombarded with considered 'theft?'
No, I'm not a tinfoil hat-wearing paraniod. I am just trying to look at it pragmatically.
Now, I WOULD consider an UP-link to a satellite without authorisation to be theft of services (bandwidth, processing time, potentially introducing security holes), but to mere
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably your government was already compensated for the use of these signals. Perhaps you should take it up with them?
Re:Solves the piracy problem at the user end... (Score:4, Informative)
except that "steeling" a product results in a civil fine. Cracking DRM is a federal felony that can get you decades of hardcore prison time.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
except that "stealing" a product results in a civil fine.
Depends. This hasn't been true in U.S. for over 10 years [wikipedia.org], for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats why I enclosed it in quotes. Copyright infringment isn't theft, but most media producers like to perpetuate that lie. The misspelling was entirely unintentional.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats why I enclosed it in quotes. Copyright infringment isn't theft, but most media producers like to perpetuate that lie. The misspelling was entirely unintentional.
Conversations that only allow strict definitions of words are cumbersome. Copyright infringement isn't physical theft, true, but neither is any kind of data theft, or identity theft for that matter. This doesn't preclude laws existing to deal with it, despite your nit over the precise word used to communicate it.
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, the criminal law only applies to being busted downloading >= $1,000 "worth" of stuff in a six month period.
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, the criminal law only applies to being busted downloading >= $1,000 "worth" of stuff in a six month period.
Correct [copyright.gov]:
"Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed ...
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; ..."
But, given that e.g. Photoshop CS4 alone costs $699, it is ridiculously easy to do just that. Even with music alone, if one assumes
Re: (Score:2)
except that "steeling" a product results in a civil fine. Cracking DRM is a federal felony that can get you decades of hardcore prison time.
But luckily, cracking only needs to be done once. After that, the redistribution is lesser crime.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that adding carbon to a product to produce a stronger alloy was a civil violation now. Good grief we really have taken this whole thing too far!
Obvious (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you bother reading the claim?
1. A process for managing digital rights to a scalable media file comprising of truncatable media packets, wherein a different encryption/decryption key is used to encrypt each truncatable media packet having a base layer and an enhancement layer without requiring additional storage space to store the encryption/decryption key, comprising the process actions of:
using a first computing device for encryption;
receiving at the first computing device a scalable media file compris
Re: (Score:2)
For a computer scientist that specializes in this sort of thing: probably.
That's the standard here (or should be). This isn't about what can wow
some layman schmuck off the street or on Slashdot or some groupie for the
relevant company.
Microsoft's new patent should not give Microsoft the right to sue the next
guy that can come up with an independent implementation without ever having
seen this particular patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Already being done (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only do they want to turn your own PC against you with their DRM, they also want to use your upstream bandwidth. All the disadvantages of torrents and all the disadvantages of legally bought "treats the buyer as a criminal" DRMified files rolled into one
Re: (Score:2)
BBC iPlayer no longer uses the Kontiki distribution software and hasn't for a long time.
More info: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/22/bbc_cdn_isps_level3/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps this is the reason why they(Microsoft) won't allow the BBC iPlayer on XBOX?
They want to charge for it but the BBC charter/rules won't allow it.
Will Microsoft make the BBC an offer they can't refuse and get them to switch to their DRM method? But the BBC can't make you pay for stuff you view via iPlayer?
Re: (Score:2)
Or Spotify
Bandwidth of a movie? (Score:3, Insightful)
Where can I download this awesome torrents? Oh I think I found the link:
http://thepiratemicrosoft.com/ [thepiratemicrosoft.com]
Waste of bandwidth and disk (Score:5, Insightful)
If you only get the low quality anyways, why does it make any sense for you to be forced to pull the bits in the high quality version? This is a reduction in efficiency and convenience. Due to the long transfer times required for high-quality content, and very short transfer times required for smaller low-quality content.
There's a simpler solution to this: use keyed/passworded private torrents.
Make different quality versions different files.
Then the customers who purchase low-quality content don't get to download the same file as the ones who purchase high-quality content, and it means, less bandwidth and disk space is used.
If they change their mind and wish to buy a high quality version, they can simply download the high-quality version once given access. Upon successful download replace the lq file.
This technology is superfluous.. it shouldn't be patentable, because it's not an actual improvement.
Inventions have to be improvements to be patentable... it's called useful discovery
As required by the constitution: To promote the progress of science and useful arts...
Their technology does not offer an improvement versus pre-existing unpatented technologies in common use and simpler obvious ways of accomplishing the same thing, they do not have a useful invention.
Re: (Score:2)
This technology is superfluous.. it shouldn't be patentable, because it's not an actual improvement.
It very much depends on your perspective. From TFA:
"The system has the advantages of 1) shifting distribution costs to users ..."
RTFA (Score:2)
If you read between the lines, what they're talking about is like a regular DRMed P2P distribution channel (BBC iplayer), but targetable to portable devices (i.e. the Zune) also.
It's clever, and useful if you're Microsoft, or maybe Apple, and have control over an ecosystem of
Re: (Score:2)
I think you may have missed the part where Microsoft isn't the one distributing this around, it's P2P! Those losers don't care how much bandwidth they're wasting! And hell, if they get pissed at downloading a file four times as large as is justified by the quality they've purchased, they can spend more money to unlock the higher quality content! IT'S BRILLIANT
Embrace, extend, extinguish (Score:5, Funny)
Why are you guys so upset? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
...yes. That worked so well with jpeg, mp3, h264, DVD-CSS and AACS.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on the license... (Score:2)
...depending on the license that has been purchased.
Does this mean I can implement the same DRM without the license restriction and it's not covered by the patent?
Re: (Score:2)
The way to find out is to read the claim(s) in the patent instead of going by the abstract (or, worse yet, someone else's interpretation of the abstract). If you do the same thing the entire claim says, then you're infringing.
(There are other ways to infringe, such as contributory infringement, which don't require doing what the entire claim says. For example, if you sell a device whose sole purpose is to help someone else infringe a claim, then you're an infringer also. Most of the time, this involves m
They should pay me (Score:2)
Why should I participate in DRM P2P, especially if I have to buy a license? Microsoft should be paying me.
Wow! Holy greed batman! (Score:2)
So, basically MS wants ME to contribute to distribute THEIR content I already paid for and then actually download MORE then I can actually use?
A: Hidden charges, shipping charges laws. A product should have a clear price. But say I download such a product on a paid connection. Then I pay not just for the license but also for the download AND upload. And if my license is not for the full product, I download stuff I don't need. So, how much does a $7 movie cost? Really?
B: What does this change, DRM exists a
OT: The Gates Borg image needs to go... (Score:2)
I have no particular love for Microsoft but the image is silly and dated.
Explain me how this is not evil (Score:2)
please do.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually did work on something very similar at my last job. Though its somewhat difficult to say it is prior art because the claim is worded very oddly.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If I wanted a top level post, I would have posted at the top level. When I got here, that was the only post, I replied to it specifically because it had already mentioned prior art.
Re: (Score:2)
The company went under, a lot of us never got our last paycheck, I work for the air force now.
blah!
Anyway, I don't think what I did would qualify as prior art. The key claim seems to be a multi level key system for unlocking different bit rate/qualities for a downloaded file. What I did was related to live video streaming using P2P to reduce server load.
Re: (Score:2)
D i g i t a l R e s t r i c t i o n s M a n a g e m e n t.
Sheesh.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So, is the patent office interpreting a law, then?
Yeah, that's kinda their job - interpreting 35 USC 101, 102, 103, and 112, among others.
Re: (Score:2)
So if I encrypt a file, create a torrent out of it, and put it up for distribution, I'm violating MS's patent?
Only if you use there method for doing it, AFAICS. But IANAL.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the whole futility in thinking that you can pass just a few more laws to get law breakers to obey.
They pass laws against guns when shooting people is already illegal. Do you think the murderer will stop because of 1 more law?
They pass laws against prostitution because "the girls get beat up". Assault is already illegal. Do you think that an assailant will halt at the law against prostitution when the other law didn't stop him?
They pass laws against drug use because it "leads to crime", despite tha