Slashdot Mirror

http://www.marlin-community.com/technology/how_marlin_works Draw three large dollar signs and a single direction arrow from the user to the web store. I see how they did that.

So I assume (withot RTFA of course) that the source to this DRM is published, but it isn't GPL 3? Is it GPL 2 or some pseudo "open source"?

You need to sign an agreement and pay an annual fee to get access to the source code. Here is their form. I see no mention of the license, although the agreement they ask applicants to sign might be informative.

FYI, their site is here.

So I assume (withot RTFA of course) that the source to this DRM is published, but it isn't GPL 3? Is it GPL 2 or some pseudo "open source"?

You need to sign an agreement and pay an annual fee to get access to the source code. Here is their form. I see no mention of the license, although the agreement they ask applicants to sign might be informative.

FYI, their site is here.

I sorted through the Marlin website to try and figure this thing out, and underneath the glut of shiny "This is great for your company" PR, there is actually some useful info on how the system works; it's quite complicated.

What I didn't figure out was if the the client or "DRM Engine" on the consumer's side is a daemon process, let alone if it's doing boot-sector dirty work or poisoning the operating system for its own preservation. I can't tell if this is really "invisible" or if it's just another SecuROM - Sony is in the interest group, after all.

Furthermore, I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but is this really "open source?" As far as I can see, you have to license Marlin (annual fee) or else you can barely see anything.

I sorted through the Marlin website to try and figure this thing out, and underneath the glut of shiny "This is great for your company" PR, there is actually some useful info on how the system works; it's quite complicated.

What I didn't figure out was if the the client or "DRM Engine" on the consumer's side is a daemon process, let alone if it's doing boot-sector dirty work or poisoning the operating system for its own preservation. I can't tell if this is really "invisible" or if it's just another SecuROM - Sony is in the interest group, after all.

Furthermore, I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but is this really "open source?" As far as I can see, you have to license Marlin (annual fee) or else you can barely see anything.

I visited their website. It appears to be based on the tried-and-true "license" model where you must buy a license in order to use a program... or in this case, play a song. The obvious flaw is that is the server goes down, no more license.

And of course licensing is typically an annual payment plan. I don't want to "rent" my purchased songs year-after-year-after-year.

http://www.marlin-community.com/technology/how_marlin_works

I dont know where to start...

Open DRM does exist. Its called Marlin. Okay nobody uses it, but it proves its doable. If Apple was coming out tomorrow saying: "we will now use Marlin for our DRM needs", this would take off.

The article has a good overview of how iTunes works. But nothing in how-it-works proscribe a licensable or open
DRM.
And you know, they all work the same. The Zune DRM, the PlayForSure DRM, FairPlay and this Marlin, they could all be explained with the same slides. You have a master key for the content, and you encrypt the master key with a user's key.

FairPlay and Zune: Non Licensable and Proprietary
PlayForSure: Licensable and Proprietary
Marlin: Open

The reason why FairPlay is winning has nothing to do with the fact that it is proprietary and completely closed. Its winning because they were there first, and executed very well.

Apple need to control the DRM? Why?

So it is more secure ? Not really: they are not protecting their own IP, their are just doing it for the studios. So what's so crucial to protect the content that bad. The studios dont even care that much. Look, FairPlay is broken as is PlayForSure, did the studio sue them? No. Did Apple actually fixed iTunes? No, the current iTunes is still vulnerable. I heard Apple is already ready with the next iTunes generation but are holding off the upgrade until they take heat from the studios or they have another reason to upgrade.

For the liability ? Actually, I think if the Studio approved an open-drm and Apple respected the Robustness rules, then why would Apple be bothered? Right now Apple is shouldering alone the legal responsability for the design and their implementation. If they were using an open-drm they would only be liable for their own implementation.

To keep it simple? Trust me, I saw an implementation of Marlin, running on a PSP, and actually tested it. It was very very very user friendly. I know the demo I used was polished, but it means it is possible, and I would not believe that Apple could not do the same. Please somebody send a journalist to Intertrust (the people who demoed this to me) to witness what they can do.

To keep cost down ? I believe it is cheaper to implement a spec than to write your own spec, and implement it. Apple is still hiring more people in the fairplay team. It is still costing them developers. If Apple was using an open interoperable DRM on their iPod, they could connect to any store. And since Apple does not make any money from the store (right?), they would save even more money.

More information about the Marlin DRM: http://www.marlin-community.com/
Intertrust is the company behind it: http://www.intertrust.com/