Slashdot Mirror
Intertrust Plans Universal DRM System
Rushmore and others wrote in with news that Intertrust, which has a large DRM patent portfolio, is planning a universal DRM scheme for consumer electronics.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
That's good, I was worried that this fancy-pants DRM thing wasn't going to take off.
Trolling is a art,
For those interested:
Intertrust holds alot of United States patents. Those are listed at the USPTO office
They also have a patent litigation against Microsoft covered by Slashodot earlier
...I pay $50 a month for satellite and I cant even record any TV. Thats bullshit.
Anyone know any more details than are in the article? As much as the idea of DRM makes me cringe, I know it's here to stay and therefore a unified standard would be a good thing ( iTunes on my MD player?). But the article has exactly zero info on the "RM" part of the DRM, specifically the most important question of how many copies can be made (i.e., one onto your computer, one to archive, and one to your media player?).
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
Mark Twain
Why is it called COMMON sense when so few people have it?
...just say "DRM" and "Open Standard" in the same sentence?
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
"DRM is an accelerator which will boost digital sales of media, because it will convince media companies their content is protected. It should not be a competitive weapon," he added.
Err.... Last time I checked, sales were more dependant on the consumer than the peddler. I'd hope it's more important to convince consumers their right to use what they are investing in isn't in jeopardy.
Does anyone else get the feeling the horse has left the stable, walked down the street, gone in to an electronics store, bought an IPOD and got the hell out of town already?
The problem is that there are perfectly good alternatives without DRM technology. Why would anyone by something new that restricts their existing options? Even worse, why would a consumer pay the extra $x for their media player to buy the rights from a DRM patents company?
Perhaps it's time companies stopped chasing after the music DRM market, let it go, and simply learned their lessons for the still [largely] unfought movie market?
...than to get the patent lawyers involved.
The ______ Agenda
Copy protection did not work for computer software. A sufficiently determined individual can always defeat such a system. And distribute the results. Yes, they can be prosecuted using the DMCA, but that will not stop it.
In this case, it is more instructive to look to the profit motive. When they implement a new DRM system, they can sell us new CD and DVD players, and new CDs of all the old music that we've bought (twice, maybe) already. The "replace your old LPs" profit center was a huge one, until it was knocked down by (1) DVDs and (2) saturation. Now, they are hoping to recreate it through technical means.
Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
For the company, doesn't diversity in standards actually help them protect their materials? It seems that having only one standard would just concentrate everyone's efforts on breaking it and therefore would get cracked faster.
Does anybody else think it would be a good idea if the life of a patent were shortened by a specific amount every time the rights changed hands? The idea would be to discourage companies that exist only to acquire rights to things without actually creating anything.
After all, the original purpose of the patents and trademarks system was, "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 (United States Constitution, Section 8)."
It doesn't say anything about promoting or supporting a "rights market" for clever business people.
...as DVD country codes and the various "disposible" digital cameras whose contents have been analysed and the results posted here on a regular basis, right?
How many times did we hear rumours of pay-per-run services being the wave of the future in the last 10 years? But the best way to keep this from being adopted, is for us as the consumers to boycott such products in the stores and for us as the voters to remember what democratically elected individual supported the adoption of the DMCA-like laws required to back it up.
F-IW...ank
Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
This means we'll only have one format to crack, instead of four hundred! :)
"DRM is an accelerator which will boost digital sales of media, because it will convince media companies their content is protected. It should not be a competitive weapon," he added.
.com boom?
So let me get this straight:
1. Companies encrypt their data
2.
3. Digital sales of media are "boosted"
They're leaving out the entire... well... consumer and adoption step that I think is a bit important. Just because they build it, it doesn not mean that people will come. Didn't they learn anything during the
unf.
Unless the given DRM technology is truly unbreakable (probably not), having one standard widely implemented will probably be worse protection for content owners. It is similiar to genetic diversity in a population. The benefit of having many different content protection schemes is that if any one is broken, the others will most likely be unaffected. Thus by adopting one imperfect DRM standard, they may in fact be greatly lessening the ability to protect their content.
The article includes a quote of what has been accepted wisdom, accepted unchallengingly by regulators (see the commentary to the FCC regulations concerning the so-called Broadcast Flag, for example, which accepts at face value that DRM will boost sales, without in any manner examining that assumption):
"DRM is an accelerator which will boost digital sales of media, because it will convince media companies their content is protected. It should not be a competitive weapon," he added."
This quote is simply wrong. DRM has already damaged sales of hardware and content. I predict that increased DRM will not be an accelerator but will continue instead to be a de-accelerator and drain on the economy which will reduce digital sales of media.
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." -- Edward R. Murrow
From TFA:
... I would much rather see a DRM standard that is vendor-neutral from a computer platform perspective, instead of Palladium Everywhere (also known as "Dystopia" to us Linux folks).
"The electronics industry recognizes that Microsoft is a formidable player, but consumer electronics makers do not want to become dependent on Microsoft. They need an interoperable and independent system," Peters said.
DRM sucks, DRM is evil, DRM is the tool of terrorists, robber barons, and Republicans. That having been said, though
Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to see no DRM at all, and I intend to vote with my wallet as much as possible. But if DRM does happen anyway, I would have a very strong preference for Intertrust instead of Palladium. At least with Intertrust there's the possibility that some vendor will offer a Linux version of the protected player.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
iPod, iTunes, SD cards, Texas Instruments graphing calculators, game consoles, and so forth all have DRM. The items that don't forcefully use DRM are the ones that sell.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
More stuff to crack! Never a boring day, is there?
Really though, if it weren't for all this cat and mouse shit, all these parasite companies wouldn't exist and all the crackers would have to get a real life...
They spend millions to create technology to hinder people from doing what they would like with what they paid for, in that process they increase the price to help pay for this technology.
Increased prices lead to decreased sales. DRM get's cracked, sales increase and companies yell that they are losing money to piracy. To offset this potential loss of money, they increase prices.
They spend millions more to create new DRM to hinder people from doing what they would like with what they had paid for. Increase the cost to offset this spending.
It just continues.
anyone catch the following in the article?
"'Consumers want an open system, and the electronics industry wants it too,'"
[very next paragraph]
"Microsoft, for instance, has opened music stores on the Internet that sell music encoded in such a way that they can only be played back with a Windows Media Player."
how is this good for the consumer or even open for that matter?
"Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"
Maybe, just maybe he's going on vacation and wants to record the next episode of [INSERT YOUR FAVORITE SHOW HERE], so he won't miss it?
That, my friend, is time-shifting, a legal fair use, as defined under the Betamax desision.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
I worked briefly for a now defunct DRM company that was going to compete against Intertrust (we also considered using Intertrust technology under ours where there where patent issues). It seemed like it was going to be easy to compete (and it would have been if the VC wasn't so scarce at the time), because most DRM solutions are designed only to help the copyright holder not the customer. Are designs we focused on a balanced approach.
DRM wouldn't have quite such a bad name if it would provide users with benefits. Intertrust technology has the ability to do this it seems but since consumers are not their clients, so easily integrated features are ignored. We designed a system with the end user in mind. From the point of view of how would we want to use the electronic media we buy.
Important user features should include:
Free trial, and fare use of content, while right management is still in effect.
Merging of artistic works into new works with automatic (pass through) licensing fees.
License to the user not to the computer so I can listen to MY music at home or office or at a friend's house.
Easy distribution from user to user with no penalty to either user in the transaction (i.e. napster 1.0 can work because each file is self managing).
User selected automatic billing from incremental use (such as paying a per hour fee to use very expensive, but rarely used software, PPV etc.) to outright purchase.
From a security point of view our philosophy was not to make an unbeatable DRM solution, but rather to make the cost of circumventing the DRM higher then the value of the content. This came about automatically when you allow people to use $30,000 software packages for $5 an hour or whatever. It just becomes too easy to work with the DRM then not. We also had the ability to pass the billing for the software use (plus any "cost plus" amount) to a user's client, so mom and pop shops had equal access to high end software that big companies had only pay for what you need.
I'd love to see the open source community pick up where we left off. Current DRM solutions need a user-focused competitor. Perhaps, I'll start a project. What do you guy think? Is it worth it?
firetellerATkoldnhostileDOTcom - If you want to talk to me about it.
Pirates... I feel so silly just using that word...