A Possible Solution to Our DRM Conundrum
By Alexander Grundner |
February 6th, 2006
Comments (10)
UPDATED - 2/7/06 Now that many of us who follow the industry have accepted the fact that DRM wrapped digital media is an inevitable part of the future of content delivery, along with Bill Gates saying Blu-ray and HD-DVD will most likely be the last physical media disc format produced, it’s time we came up with some realistic solutions that can help guide DRM in creating a friendlier, more interoperable digital landscape for both consumers and content holders.
Here’s my idea: Why doesn’t the industry come together (possibly with help from the CEA) to create a neutral, embedded clearinghouse firmware application that will enable media players to identify non-native DRM wrapped media along with the ability to download the proper codec and DRM restrictions applicable for playback? By doing this, the PC and CE industry would solve just about every issue plaging DRM schemes today.
Possible favorable outcome:
- 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.
- Consumers can playback content no matter which distribution outlet they acquired it from – i.e. be it online, via a cellular provider, a kiosk at the mall, through a physical disc medium, whatever.
- Device makers won’t have to license DRM technologies directly from companies as long as they pay a small upfront fee to integrate the groups firmware.
- Content holders can work with the most competitively priced DRM provider to launch their service.
- Consumers would only have to state their grievances to one group and hopefully see their feedback get applied uniformly across all members’ products (No more Sony Rootkit debacles).
Possible negative outcome:
- Content/DRM owners can update their usage terms at any time. 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 would love to get some feedback on this concept, along with suggestions on how we can push this idea forward for consideration by the Consumer Electronics and PC industry. Note: There’s a forum poll associated with this post (open to the public).
* If you think this a worthwhile idea, help spread the word across the Web.
UPDATE (2/7/06): Bob Weber of Managing Rights Managment tells us that the OMA is a similar group who is addressing the very same issue, but in the mobile world. According to the OMA website, the group states: “[Our mission] is to facilitate global user adoption of mobile data services by specifying market driven mobile service enablers that ensure service interoperability across devices, geographies, service providers, operators, and networks, while allowing businesses to compete through innovation and differentiation.”
February 6th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
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.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
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
February 6th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
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.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
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.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
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
February 6th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
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.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:06 am
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.
February 7th, 2006 at 9:07 am
Bob Weber from Managing Rights Managment posted his thoughts about the idea on his blog. Below is an excerpt:
I commented back on his site with the following, which should also help clarify the idea further:
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.
February 7th, 2006 at 10:19 am
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).
February 7th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Breaking News: Northern California Judge Gives Green Light to Monopolization Suit Against Apple