A Possible Solution to Our DRM Conundrum

That sounds like a good way to prevent piracy on virtually any platform.

There are several possible reasons why this hasn’t happened yet: that you are the first person to think of this (unlikely for most ideas), that DRM businesses don’t see the value in this (possible, but unlikely if they understand Network Effects), that there is an unsolvable technical flaw (unlikely, since there are already pluggable DRM systems) or that DRM’s main purpose isn’t to prevent piracy on virtually any platform.

Whenever I wonder why some part of DRM is hard to use or even encouraging piracy, I ask myself “Would this make sense if DRM were meant to lock me in to this platform?” The answer is usually yes.

Problems with this idea.

Apple could care less what the CEA (or any other organization) wants them to do. They know they have the market right now, why do they want to change a single thing? They want you to purchase content w/ Fairplay from them and only them. That’s the way the game works. ;) Buy an iPod, buy only from Apple. :) They will lock the industry into this as long as iPods are seen as “cool”.

While licensing Windows Media DRM can be very cheap, why would Microsoft want to to change so that device makers don’t have to license from them? They already provide the “we will license to anyone” angle. Assuming the device has a PlaysForSure logo on it, “Consumers can buy any device equipped with the embedded software and feel secure that their device won’t be obsolete or locked out from various content services.” Everything will become “obsolete” at some point, CEA isn’t going to change that. Something that WMRM offers is the ability (in most cases) to change the license. So, say in 10 years the content owners want to scrap the idea of online license distribution, they can issue an unlimited license in several different ways (IIRC).

Are there any other big players in DRM right now? Not really. So it’s Apple and Microsoft. Apple with Fairplay which locks you into Apple only products, and Microsoft with WMRM (PlaysForSure) that supported and licensed to several different device makers including Archos, ILO, Rio, Audiovox, iriver, Roku, Creative Labs, JVC, Samsung, Dell, Philips, SanDisk, D-Link, RaveMP, Gateway, RCA, Toshiba, and more!

Even if a solution like this is found, and if the devices makers cared the slightest bit, the chances of current devices being able to be updated is slim-to-none. If it doesn’t effect current devices (millions upon millions of them), why put time into development? That’s exactly how most of these companies look at it. Many current devices have had upgrades to support WMRM. None has added support for Fairplay. :(

I’m going to say that an answer to your DRM problems is to have Apple realize a few things about the amount of power they hold and take a step to help. Apple is a large reason why you have problems with DRM right now. They have a huge amount of market share, and the power to use it. No solution will help until Apple is a big part of it. No matter how many companies join together, if Apple isn’t on of them, you’re not going to get anywhere.

Chris

With all due respect, those are the same arguments and limited thinking that’s wrong with industry. You’re not the only one who has expressed these views. In fact, Thomas Hawk just asked me pretty much the same question via email. If you’re happy with the status quo, keep defending the gatekeepers. If you want to see a friendlier, more interoperable digital landscape, cause some waves.

Side note: We have a nice discussion going about Apple, the iPod, and DRM here. Also, while I only agree with Cory Doctorow about 60-80% of the time regarding DRM, he does bring up some good points in his recent keynote at LIFT (see video). I suggest everyone have a look and see the mess we’re currently in and the direction DRM is going in the future.

You’d have a better chance of getting struck by lightning 5 consecutive times than you would getting Apple (read: Steve Jobs) admitting that anything they’ve done is wrong.

Alexander Grundner said: With all due respect, those are the same arguments and limited thinking that’s wrong with industry. You’re not the only one who has expressed these views. In fact, Thomas Hawk just asked me pretty much the same question via email. If you’re happy with the status quo, keep defending the gatekeepers. If you want to see a friendlier, more interoperable digital landscape, cause some waves.

I’m all in for a “a friendlier, more interoperable digital landscape”, but waves or no waves the system isn’t going to change in the solution above.

I applaud you’re attempts, but I’m sorry it doesn’t matter who in the industry makes them it’s not going to help for some time now (or until Apples gives, and why would they?)

Apple controls too much to care, and thus solution such as the one proposed above will not work. The first step to having anything close to this is going to work very differently. Have Apple license Fairplay. After they do that, solutions like the above would have a greater effect.

Chris

ChrisL01 said: The first step to having anything close to this is going to work very differently. Have Apple license Fairplay. After they do that, solutions like the above would have a greater effect.

I can agree with that (I’ve suggested this in past as well). I just don’t see how a company who has 80% of the digital audio player market locked (aka a monopoly), can dictate to us how we can use the media purchased from their store, tie us only to their products, and then at the same time succeed in stagnating the market can get away with this. It’s just not right I tell ya – LOL.

As above, the lie that DRM protects against piracy is a front to proprietary content control. Those of us who refuse to buy anything, like DVDs, CDs, or software, that is unreturnable when of poor quality (or like DVDs has commercials and FBI warnings locked in place) will continue to protect our own finances by using alternate means to enjoy said content.

Few companies, especially those like Apple and MS, that are making most of their profits from content locked to devices, are never going to accept anything they cannot control. This is actually good for the pirates as a uniform DRM that could potentially be very much harder to break. As long as there are many different DRM technologies being used there will always be those who find cracking them to be the ultimate pleasurable pastime.

Bob Weber from Managing Rights Managment posted his thoughts about the idea on his blog. Below is an excerpt:

As many others have noted, DRM is being used not only to protect digital information, but as a basis for competitive advantage. Apple’s FairPlay DRM in iTunes is an often cited example. Grundner’s suggestion implies that numerous companies would forgo competitive advantage for wider use and revenue. This appears to be a likely outcome in the mobile space where the OMA standard provides standard may be implemented and supported widely. It’s not clear whether something similar will happen in music and/or video distribution. Nonetheless, Grundner’s suggestion might eventually be perceived as net positive for Apple and the others who would have to agree.

I commented back on his site with the following, which should also help clarify the idea further:

Thanks for reviewing the post. I was just frustrated with Cory Doctorow’s solution and felt that we needed something that would work seamlessly in the background and cover various distribution outlets (be it online, via a cellular provider, through a physical disc medium, whatever). For example, if you were to buy music from Napster or iTunes, the player would have no problem playing DRM wrapped content from either service as long as the group’s library had been supplied with the proper codec and DRM usage terms in advance. The same would work for video, if say, someone got there hands on a DivX DRM wrapped video or any other future, non-mainstream copy protection technology. Bottom line: Consumers would be able to use any service they desire and feel confident knowing that their player would playback the content and respect the conditions set forth by its DRM. It’s a straightforward idea in a not so straightforward digital media landscape.

Moreover, by having DRM providers signed on as group members, the members themselves can regulate each other and also respond to user feedback in a more uniform basis. In my post I write: “However, I suggest to be a part of this grandiose endeavor, companies must comply with certain principals held by all who partake (kind of like the “Do no evil” bit Google used to model itself after).”

I think the buying public and the industry’s problem right now is that they “can’t see the forest for the trees.” Mostly everyone is having a hard time looking at the bigger picture and the long-term benefit. Eventually all physical disc media will stopped being distributed and we will all be getting our content wrapped in DRM from various outlets. It’s the inevitable future. Luckily, we’re at the point where we can affect the outcome. Please don’t stand by and be a spectator.

David Walker said: You’d have a better chance of getting struck by lightning 5 consecutive times than you would getting Apple (read: Steve Jobs) admitting that anything they’ve done is wrong.

this isn’t about getting apple to change and expecting everyone to follow. this is about showing people a better way. Once it’s simpler to buy digital music from someone other than apple, and people are allowed to put it on whatever device they want, or play it in whichever room of their house they want, then apple will come along. not before.
that doesn’t mean the idea’s bad. it just means that we’re talking about a system that has to compete in the current playing field. it means that such a system would need the support of nearly everyone else before apple (and possibly microsoft).

Breaking News: Northern California Judge Gives Green Light to Monopolization Suit Against Apple