Slashdot Mirror


CRF Reveals Draft of New DRM Technology

scubacuda writes "PC Advisor and others report that the CRF (Content Reference Forum), a new, cross-industry standards organisation that boasts Universal Music Group, Microsoft, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (NTT) and VeriSign among its members, has unveiled a new specification for a DRM technology. A draft of CRF Baseline Profile 1.0 is available for public review and comment." According to a report on CNET News, the "the [CRF-created] file would set up a process that automatically delivers files in the right format and potentially triggers an automatic payment system that could be changed moment to moment by the content distributor."

22 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Members like that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Really make one of the meanings of "member" appropriate.

  2. Intelligent File by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The Content Reference Forum is hoping to create a kind of intelligent file that can be distributed through file-sharing networks like Kazaa, Web pages, e-mail or almost anywhere else online.

    Instead of containing a song or movie itself, the file would set up a process that automatically delivers files in the right format and potentially triggers an automatic payment system that could be changed moment to moment by the content distributor.

    Anyone else get the impression that "intelligent file" is newspeak for "dangerously executable"?

    Wow, people are going to download executable code from kazaa and execute it. It ain't hard to guess what the follow-up news stories are going to be like. (Dammit, why haven't I bought stock in the anti-virus companies yet?!)

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    1. Re:Intelligent File by neoform · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The Content Reference Forum is hoping to create a kind of intelligent file that can be distributed through file-sharing networks like Kazaa, Web pages, e-mail or almost anywhere else online.

      can someone explain to me why i'd want to host files for other people's profit? if i'm gonna have to pay for a file, it damnwell better be hosted by someone else, and not by me.
      --
      MABASPLOOM!
  3. I wonder... by bckrispi · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder what key we'll have to hold down to disable this new brainstorm.

    --
    Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    1. Re:I wonder... by dekashizl · · Score: 4, Funny

      From the archives, 2012:

      LOS ANGELES - A Los Angeles man was sentenced and jailed without trial for violating the File Acquisition Grant System (FAGS) when he downloaded a ten year old Kid Rock song without submitting the required payment of 2 Euros.

      "My cat was sitting on my desk, and I guess his paw was on the Num Lock key or something, right when the transaction was happening. I didn't intend to violate the EULA at all," said the incarcerated netizen, whose belonging have been seized and sold on EBay.

      Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm, and Media (ATFM) agent Phucyo Fridomup successfully lobbied the automated court system (running a patched version of MS Justice 2007) to get another three consecutive life sentences added on after hearing the comment about the cat, since this may give other criminals information to use to bypass the payment system and is a further violation of DMCA.

      The cat has since been ritually slaughtered and offered up as sacrifice pursuant to 2008 Patriot Act Adjunct Subsection 8.4.

  4. Cheap music... by penguinoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...file would set up a process that automatically ... triggers an automatic payment system that could be changed moment to moment by the content distributor.

    Hey, I'll sell you a music file for only 1 cent.
    On second thought, make that $100

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  5. Bouncing accounts everywhere.... by BubbaTheBarbarian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last time I checked, a file that tries to automatically charge you for opening it was a...

    virus?

    Ok, let me also say this. The whole thought process around the word automatically is really starting to scare the hell out me. We live in a society where folk have a hard time keeping track of written checks. How the hell do we expect them to keep track of all the automatic deductions being taken from them?

    Oh wait, we don't. Just another way to enslave the masses I guess.

    No thanks. I will stick files that might sound like crap, but I don't get charged for until I buy the cd (let the flames begin).

  6. ummm by kommakazi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is it just me or does this "potentially triggers an automatic payment system that could be changed moment to moment by the content distributor" sound a bit dangerous and easily abusable by the 'content distributor'?

  7. Change the law by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 5, Interesting
    While the United States Constitution allows Congress to enact copyright laws, it doesn't require Congress to do so. Copyright could be repealed, and file sharing made legal tomorrow if you could just get the votes in Congress to do so.

    If you think this couldn't happen, consider that more Americans use p2p filesharing applications than voted for George Bush.

    Change the Law, from my article Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads, discusses the background of copyright law in the United States, and suggests steps you can take to reform copyright law. Among the steps I discuss are to Speak Out, Vote, Write to Your Elected Representatives, Donate Money to Political Campaigns, Support Campaign Finance Reform, Join the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Practice Civil Disobedience

    Thank you for your attention.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
    1. Re:Change the law by Snoopy77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So we repeal copyright. What is left 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'?

      --
      "She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
  8. Universal Music Group, Microsoft, VeriSign by Petronius · · Score: 5, Funny

    3 names that evoke freedom, innovation and the interest of the consummer. ah, we feel so much better now.

    --
    there's no place like ~
  9. Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its really scary reading all this online. Large monopolies growing larger set to put the law back 200 hundred and more years.

    A lot of people who don't read places like slashdot would be equally concerned if they knew what was going on. They need to be educated, its why democracy works, and why it fails when it doesn't occur.

    1. Re:Scary by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Large monopolies growing larger set to put the law back 200 hundred and more years.

      Not at all. If copyright were as it was two centuries ago few, if any, Slashdotters would be complaining. The problem isn't that these groups want the law to revert to some earlier incarnation, they want to be allowed to continue mutating copyright into some hybrid form favorable only to themselves. Remember, the RIAA and sister organizations have been "adjusting" copyright law for a very long time: it was largely back-room stuff. They've just gotten a lot more overt about it recently and people are starting to notice.

      But this comes back to enlightened Capitalism, or the lack of it. Absolute control does not guarantee an eternal revenue stream, in spite of content holders contrary beliefs. Put this way: even before peer-to-peer raised its (to them) ugly head, music sales were falling off. Well, at least the industry's growth rate was dropping. And that was the period where they had substantially more control of music distribution and production than they have now. Being able to restrict content distribution with an iron-clan DRM system can't force people to buy a product that they do not like and for which they have no use. The music companies and the RIAA figured that, if they could control all the music available for purchase or on the radio, they could sell us anything they want and we would buy it. That approach worked for a while, but eventually the public wised up and demanded more. And when Napster came along ... well, the genie was let out of the bottle for good. True to form, the music companies refused to see the opportunity presented by this technology and focussed instead on maintaining the status-que-ante.

      Whatever genre of entertainment floats your boat, the two things the buying public wants are a. variety and b. quality. Variety is probably the more important of the two. In any case, the entertainment industry (the music studios in particular) has been providing us with progressively fewer choices, along with a general degradation in quality. All the DRM in the world won't make me buy crap. Sometimes you just simply have to provide a quality product for a reasonable price ... it's just good business.

      The music industry's monomaniacal absorption with peer-to-peer file sharing is interesting. They seem to be operating under the delusion that eliminating or corrupting these primitive networks will assure them of their due. And even if it were actually possible to enforce a global ban on file sharing ... well, there are other means. A fellow at work brought in a removable hard disk with ninety-odd gigabytes of MP3 files on it: needless to say he became quite popular.

      The point is that there really isn't any way for the content people to recan this particular can of worms. People with get what they want, which is a large selection of reasonably priced (or, if necessary, free) music and if it means going back to SneakerNet that's exactly what will happen.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  10. Goerge O. Was Right by tds67 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "the [CRF-created] file would set up a process that automatically delivers files in the right format and potentially triggers an automatic payment system that could be changed moment to moment by the content distributor."

    I know it's 2003, but why does it feel like 1984?

  11. Re:Painting by 00420 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Is that painting on the top of their website copyrighted?

    Well, the painting was finished in 1512 and copyrights didn't exist until 1710, so I doubt it.

  12. it just don't add up? by jdunlevy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can the money they make and/or "save" on this stuff ever possibly justify the expenses that must be going into research/development and other costs (including pissed off consumers) for this stuff?

  13. "Automatic" by glpierce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As far as I can imagine, "automatic payment" won't survive in a court. Unless you authorize payment, it's theft - setting up the account isn't authorization enough. The second they charge you, you can bring up a suit saying that you didn't download that song, your 7-year-old did, who isn't old enough to participate in the contract, etc.. I don't see how they expect to prove you payed if the transfer is completely automatic (no digital signiture, no entry of credit card info at time of purchase, no "Click Here to Order," etc.).

    Imagine a virus that downloads tens of thousands of songs to your computer. Then imagine the automatic money transfer. Then imagine the lawsuit you'll have if they won't give back the money.

    --
    G
    1. Re:"Automatic" by Trigun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Umm, did you see the list of companies in the article? If the laws are currently counter-intuitive to their business model, guess which ones going to change.

      It isn't going to be their business model.

  14. I put it through babel fish: by t_allardyce · · Score: 5, Funny

    There is currently a lack of interoperability between digital content technologies that makes it challenging for consumers to easily get the content they want, in the format, platform and other preferences they choose.

    "While the internet and its protcols e.g www/http, filesharing etc are well suited to almost eveyrone in the world, we the suits find it challenging to make more money from less work."

    Additionally, there is currently no technology framework in place that allows all market participants to ensure that the business agreements they make are respected.

    "We have come to the conclusion that the business model that has been in use since the dawn of mankind (you give me this i give you that) does not work. We want to sell you a book, but we dont trust you to burn it after 24 hours so you can return and buy another one."

    Today, there does not exist a technical and business framework to achieve interoperability across multiple technology platforms and enable new business models. The Content Reference Forum plans to change that.

    "We had an old business model working before, but unfortunately there has been a change in technology and instead of moving on we want it our way."

    The Content Reference Forum (CRF) is a recently formed standards group of leading technology and content-related companies established to develop a universal way to distribute digital content across various media and geographies.

    "We have decided to join forces with our other corporate friends and make what is known in the business world as 'A big fucking unstoppable snow-ball monopoly bull-doser'"

    The organization's goal is to create a dynamic marketplace where participants can promote, sell and legitimately share content; consumers can get the right content for their location, platform and preferences; and the underlying commercial agreements and rights surrounding the content are respected.

    "We realised that eventualy everyone would figure out our plans so we sugar coated a potentially useless idea with the solution to a totally random problem: people get pissed off when they have to select their country and media format from a drop-down list."

    CRF's work will benefit many different audiences including content and technology companies as well as services companies (e.g. cable, telecommunications, cellular) and related businesses (e.g. Internet portals/media companies, wireless companies, computer manufacturers, consumer electronics makers, entertainment companies).

    "This will benefit us... and a few choice friends"

    Consumers will also eventually benefit as it becomes easier for them to find and share the content they want in the way they want it.

    "Consumers will eventually realise that if they do what we say we wont sue them. They will also be able to use our complicated, badly designed content search system and have the ability to select their country and media format from a drop-down list."

    The technology is context sensitive. It's the antithesis to one-size-fits-all mass market distribution models. This makes it quite powerful and consumer friendly. The user's situation is relevant and respected including the rendering environment, location, existing relationship with content provider(s), and language preferences.

    "We're going to write this little java app that lets you set the background colour of your online shop, and you can select your country from a drop-down list!"

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  15. Because it's what the consumers want! by forevermore · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Last night, I got a worried IM from a younger cousin of mine. His mom had "cleaned up" their computer, and he was having trouble sending some wmv/rm files to friends of his. Windows Media Player kept giving him and his friends errors along the line of "I'm sorry, but you don't have a license to play that file." Of course, I immediately knew what was going on, and explained to him that Windows was just trying to prevent him from making illegal copies of music. The problem is, the files he was trying to share were of his band, off of their own demo CD. At that point, I pointed him to xiph and enlightened him about ogg vorbis.

    --
    Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers
  16. DRM by any other name by thumbtack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Still smells the same....it stinks...

    Copyright eventually expires, DRM doesn't.

  17. Same as it always was by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Shakespeare didn't have copyright protection, neither did Bach, Mozart, Beethoven.

    Interesting that no one since has been deemed better in those particular categories.