Open-Source DRM Ready To Take On Big Guns

Barence writes "An open-source digital rights management (DRM) scheme says it's ready to supplant Apple and Microsoft as the world's leading copy protection solution. Marlin, which is backed by companies such as Sony and Samsung, has just announced a new partner program that aims to drive the DRM system into more consumer devices. 'It works in a way that doesn't hold consumers hostage,' Talal Shamoon told PC Pro. 'It allows you to protect and share content in the home, in a way that people own the content, not the devices.' When asked about the biggest problem of DRM — that customers hate it — he argued that 'the biggest problem with DRM is people have implemented it badly. Make DRM invisible and people will use it.'"

Comments

Invisible DRM is no DRM

[Hatta]

Like it or not DRM restricts what you can do with your files. When you try to do something the copyright holders have forbidden, even the best DRM system will be plenty visible.

There's only one way to make DRM really invisible

[DreamerFi]

And that's by not having it at all.

I don't buy products with DRM, no matter how much they've tried to make it non-intrusive for me.

And backed by Sony? That puts it on my personal blacklist right away.

Sense, it makes none!

[ijustam]

...allowing users to share content between any Marlin-enabled device in the home rather than on specific machines. "It works in a way that doesn't hold consumers hostage,"

So long as Marlin stays in business, and every device you want your music on is a Marlin device. So, if Marlin goes under and your computer crashes, you're out of luck?

Invisible!

[MadKeithV]

"Make surveillance invisible and people won't object to it!"
Still, the implementation details would be interesting. How quickly will this be broken? Probably before it ever gets popular.

What DRM has to do.

[LWATCDR]

1. It can never deprive me of my media.
2. It can not restrict what devices I use my media on.
3. It can not restrict the storage format of the media.

In other words it is impossible.
Heck I do believe that copyright infringement is wrong. I just refuse to pay the price for others breaking the law.

Re:Impossible

[gstoddart]

You can never make DRM invisible, since people are illegally sharing video and music files all the time today.

I think they'll be happy if it's invisible to the people who have bought the content and are playing by their rules.

The ones who are sharing files on the internet .. they'd like to stop and have the DRM be anything but invisible.

Cheers

The biggest problem with DRM

[elrous0]

The biggest problem with DRM isn't that people hate it while they're using it. It's that they REALLY hate it when the company they bought their music/movies/games from turns their entire collection of "owned" content to dust because the company got tired of running their DRM servers.

Marketing doublespeak

[Weaselmancer]

"It works in a way that doesn't hold consumers hostage"

But that's the point of DRM - the content distributor gets to decide what happens to the content, not the consumer. Your purchased content is held hostage to the whims of the distributor. That's the point of DRM.

For an encore this guy will sell airplanes without wings that keep you safely on the ground, bladless knifes without handles, and a bucket of jumbo shrimp.

How it's theoretically different

[MikeRT]

Based on their description, they seem to have built it from a better understanding of the human psychology WRT ownership of property. Most people instinctively believe that they own their music and movies and that their personal use shouldn't be restricted. This DRM seems to operate on the basis of restricting the ability to playback the content to the devices controlled by a customer, not to a set number of devices.

If this article turns out to be mostly right, it's a positive step. It recognizes the fact that most people will never get why it's infringement to share a CD or DVD across a family. So, the solution, is to focus more on how one user might give the data to a user that shouldn't receive it, than to focus on locking up the user's practical enjoyment of the product.

The key to making DRM work is to back off the user's day-to-day playback, and focus on making it so that devices won't receive content from users that don't have permission to give it to them. That's what copyright was created for: to prevent unauthorized reproductions, not tell the user exactly how they will use the IP once they buy it.

Re:How it's theoretically different

[JustinOpinion]

That sounds great... but I have trouble imagining a DRM system that could actually make the distinctions you mention (given that we haven't quite solved that whole artificial intelligence problem).

For instance, the average person (as you mention) is going to want to be able to copy a song to their spouse's computer over the LAN. But how exactly does the DRM recognize the difference between a copy to the spouse's computer, a copy to a friend's computer, a copy to your work computer, a copy to a coworker's computer, a copy to a stranger's computer, or a copy to a redistribution server?

The only way I can think is with encrypted content, and then by defining "permission zones" or somesuch, where various devices get authorized as part of a zone, with restrictions on how many devices can be registered in a zone at a time (so that you can't add your closest 30,000 P2P friends into your zone). But managing these zones isn't going to be invisible. You'll be adding new devices as they are purchased, removing old devices as they are sold/discarded (do you have to prove you've erased the previously authorized content?), flashing firmware to re-authorize devices (because keys will have been revoked), using a restricted set of software (that is able to understand the DRM), waiting for network connections to be available (because it's been too long since the last time the device phoned-home), and so on. The user will notice.

I don't think there is any scheme that is sufficiently permissive that users will never notice it, yet sufficiently restrictive to actually put a dent in the "really bad copying" (commercial redistribution, uploading to P2P networks, ...). And TFA does nothing to actually address this issue: how does the software differentiate between good copies and bad copies.

Answer: computers can't. Actually, given the confusion and disagreement around copyright law, evidently humans can't either.

Re:How it's theoretically different

[BorgDrone]

The difference between loaning a book and "loaning" an MP3 is that once you'd "loaned" your buddy a song, he has complete access to it whenever he wants. More importantly, he has complete parallel access to it with you.

Indeed, and this is completely different from a physical object like a book. The problem is trying to apply an economic model to a situation where it doesn't apply. Prices of physical objects are more or less determined by supply and demand. For this to work the object in question has to be scarce. Digital data isn't. Once it's created, there is an endless supply of it. Supply and demand doesn't work here. Trying to create artificial scarcity through DRM is solving the wrong problem. Don't try to make a product fit your business model, adapt your business model to the actual product.

Even worse, in trying to make the 'new' work exactly like the old they are actually trying to destroy some of the properties that make the 'new' more exiting and desirable.

Same Issues?

[Silentknyght]

FTFA:

"With Marlin, any device that runs Marlin can run content on the home domain," he adds. "It's a level playing field [for manufacturers] - they don't have to go up to Redmond with a begging bowl or suck up to Steve Jobs."

So, open source DRM that works well (only) with other hardware also running the same DRM? Don't we already have that? How is this new, or better? The only thing I can see is that, vis-a-vis it being open source, it could be circumvented easier.

not quite right

[nEoN nOoDlE]

"the biggest problem with DRM is people have implemented it badly. Make DRM invisible and people will use it."

That's not quite right. Yes, the biggest problem with DRM is people have implemented it badly. The solution, though, is to make DRM out in the forefront of the feature list and make the DRM HELPFUL and CONVENIENT to users. Making it invisible will show that the companies are trying to hide something. Steam is always brought up as an example of good DRM. People know there's DRM on it but nobody minds because it's actually useful and makes it easy to transfer the games you've bought over to other computers quicker and easier than if you had an actual disk. Make is useful and people will use it.

Re:Invisibility (re)defined

[jeffasselin]

Not "people who aren't breaking the law", but people "who aren't doing what we don't want them to do". Not the same thing at all.

Most DRM schemes are trying to put themselves above law and morality then imply that they are simply enforcing that. But law and morality are more complex than any computer is currently able to understand and enforce.

Re:How can it be both effective and invisible?

[Lumpy]

It dont matter. if I can play it I can rip it to a unencumbered format. all my Audible books are converted to mp3 the second I buy them.

DRM is the emperor standing naked in the forum. only the foolish believe it is pretty, useful and works. I guess it makes them feel safer, like a child hiding under the covers to be protected from the monsters.

To those with common sense and can actually see, DRM is useless, it's cracked moments after it is realeased and the worlds' 13-22 year olds have far more programming skill and resources than all the worlds companies combined.

Re:How can it be both effective and invisible?

[NotBornYesterday]

Any DRM makes comsumers' use of lawfully acquired media subject to external control, which means that sooner or later the consumer is going to get ripped off. Notoriously frangible EULAs, market conditions, corporate acquisitions and mergers, etc., mean that someday the external entity that supports the continued use of the media will likely go away. This also ensures that the lifespan of media is temporary, rather than enduring. In a weird way, artists seeking to use DRM cash in on their work today are ensuring their relative anonymity tomorrow, when no one can find a playable copy of that old song they used to love so much as a kid back in '08.

Re:Never limit sharing.

[mollymoo]

US copyright was not made to prevent, "unauthorized reproductions" it was made to maximize the public domain and advance the state of the art.

Preventing unauthorised reproductions is the mechanism by which the public domain is enhanced. Without control over reproduction (be it legal or technical) copyright doesn't provide any incentive to create. Without the exclusive right to reproduce copyright simply cannot exist. That's the price we pay to encourage artists, authors and so on to do their thing.

I agree that current copyright law is too extensive in duration and fair dealing / fair use rights can too easily be trampled by DRM, but if you allow any and all reproductions you would destroy copyright, not improve it.

Re:How can it be both effective and invisible?

[CarpetShark]

Exactly. Using DRM to enforce copyright is the equivalent of having cops watch how much fuel you put in your car's tank, and checking your mileage after a journey, to make sure you don't speed. It's simply invasive, untrusting, and unnecessary for adults, and wrong, given that the assumptions are flawed. This is ESPECIALLY true, given the fact that we actually have a right to change the speed limit, if the majority of us decide to, or to copy things that were previously not copied, if the majority of us decide to.

Re:How can it be both effective and invisible?

[russotto]

To those with common sense and can actually see, DRM is useless, it's cracked moments after it is realeased and the worlds' 13-22 year olds have far more programming skill and resources than all the worlds companies combined.

This is a bit unfair to the DRM creators. Cracking DRM isn't a competition between the skills of the designers of the scheme and the skills of the crackers of the scheme. It's a test of the skills of the crackers of the scheme against the already-written big fat stationary target of the scheme itself. To use a non-car analogy, it's a one-round game of hide-and-seek where the location of the hidden object (often an encryption key) is both fixed and extremely constrained.