Microsoft Awarded Patent For Peer-To-Peer DRM

An anonymous reader writes "Music DRM might not be as dead as previously thought. InformationWeek reports that Microsoft has been awarded a digital-rights management patent for a distributed DRM system that works over peer-to-peer networks and uses encrypted public and private keys as the licensing mechanism. The author claims that patent number 7,594,275, entitled simply 'Digital rights management system,' is significant because, while centralized music stores like iTunes don't use DRM anymore, the Microsoft patent makes it possible that peer-to-peer networks could reemerge in the future as a viable, albeit protected, source of content."

Comments

idiots

[Tom]

"embrace" and all that?

Look:

it possible that peer-to-peer networks could reemerge in the future as a viable, albeit protected, source of content."

re-emerge? they're already here, and not going away
viable? check, they are today
source of content? check, massively

protected? who wants that? There's no demand on the customer side. Unprotected will always win. Heck, I've downloaded cracks for games that I bought and I'm sure if I were to ask for a show of hands, it would be huge.

How about making content more convenient instead of more troublesome? Maybe then you'd stand a chance, you know?

Re:idiots

[Tynin]

Maybe this is what you were getting at with your

"embrace" and all that?

but perhaps they are getting a patent on this in order for them to bring suit against any other bittorrent client that uses encryption, effectively making them to remove the encryption "feature" or face imminent pestering by a small horde of MS lawyers. Sure, they couldn't do much, at first to developers in other countries. But as the Pirate Bay trial has shown us, other(and more over time) countries tend to be making pro-IP choices. Thankfully, MS hasn't gone all RIAA on the world of software on a grandma by grandma basis... yet. But who knows, maybe they have a serious, long term, view(war) on the nature of how bittorrent and other p2p software will no doubt develop. So perhaps they are seriously going the road of the 3 E's yet again.

Getting the traffic your client makes to be encrypted, especially now p2p is so prevalent, simply will become a good idea if net neutrality doesn't come about. Or even just to finally flood the internet with so much encrypted traffic to give a big middle finger to all the intelligence (and no doubt ad) agencies of the world trying to read what we do and profile us on our own tax dollars.

I am kind of concerned with this development, but I guess it is just one concern on a pile of many. We really need to do something about software patents...

OK, no more to drink tonight... to paranoid ;-)

::refits tin foil hat::

So let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

Up until this point I have two ways of downloading content: Quick and easy from a dedicated server, but DRMed, or slowly and unreliably from peer-to-peer networks, but DRM-free.

So now Microsoft kindly offers me a service that has all the slowness and unreliability that peer-to-peer networks, while keeping all the restrictions of DRM? Brilliant!

filed years ago

[QuantumG]

Are blog drooling morons not aware that patents take YEARS to go from filing to accept to grant? You can't tell anything about a company's strategic direction from their patent portfolio. Engineers get bribes for filing, and lawyers get paychecks, and that's about all the motivation needed to file a patent - any old shit will do.

Re:DRM Keys

[Tom]

Didn't RTFA either, but there are several distributed key systems where you can send a key to X people and if Y of them (with Y=X, and it can be a specific number) come together, they can decrypt. Something like that could work in a P2P system where you could have several distributed points of authority instead of one, none of them holds "the key", and some of them can go down and you can still assemble the key from the remaining ones.

Simple question

[dascandy]

Do you want me to have the content or not?

If you want me to have the content, you can't make me unhave the content.
If you don't want me to have the content, *just sod off already*.

There's no place for DRM in the world. It's fundamentally flawed at its principles.

Re:Simple question

[IBBoard]

There's no place for DRM in the world. It's fundamentally flawed at its principles.

Just to play devil's advocate, there is a place for DRM in the world, just not in the consumer space. While I hate DRM on my music/games (especially since I use Linux and other alternate devices) it could be suitably applied on corporate documents to enforce access controls. In that situation it could still be cracked, but you've then got a very obvious and often quite large legal entity to point the finger at and sue for breach of confidence or contract or whatever, which means that they're far less likely to crack it (plus you're likely to trust them to some degree anyway, since you have a business relationship with them). For "B2B" situations it would provide extra protection on top of a contract that would stop accidental leaks (or at least make the leaked document less usable)

I thought the customers had spoken already?

[miffo.swe]

I believed the customers had spoken out clearly enough about DRM. All sites i have seen lately that sells music are totally into mp3.

I dont think people will take it up the shute any more willingly just because its movies thats DRM tainted. Especially not now when movies is getting into all sorts of gadgets like mobile phones, media players, netbooks and game devices etc.

DRM only do one thing from the paying customer perspective, severely limits the portability of paid content. It does not bring any benefits whatsoever. It also makes pirated/cracked content better than bought content and thats really not a good selling point. My kid really hates Microsoft because of how bad the DRM in GTA4 was and how many hoops he had to jump through to get it installed and working. He actually d/l a pirated version even if he has a legit copy, just to avoid the DRM stuff. I have a really hard time explaining to him why he should pay for his games after stuff like this.

The reason Microsoft is so into this is pretty obvious. They want to be the gatekeeper between people and their content so that any content will demand Microsoft licenses to be usable.

iPlayer

[mccalli]

Re-emerge? BBC iPlayer, in its desktop not Flash-streaming form, is already a DRM'd p2p distribution system. Has been very successful though not as much as the straight Flash-based service from what I can tell.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:iPlayer

[jonbryce]

They've ditched the p2p version. You can now either download .wmv files directly from their servers, or use their Adobe AIR interface to download flash video directly.

Channel 4 have also pretty much ditched their p2p offering in favour of flash video. ITV never had a p2p offering, but they've ditched their silverlight video in favour of flash video.

That leaves Sky. They did at one point have a Kontiki p2p offering. They might still do.

Re:Question

[tsa]

I never heard of anyone ending a friendship over an operating system. I'm glad I don't have you as a friend.

Look on the bright side of it...

[jonaskoelker]

Let me be the first to say:
This sucks donkey balls!

On a more optimistic note, if this patent is enforced, nobody (except Microsoft) can make DRM'ed peer-to-peer networks---that is, you'll get less DRM.

Right? ;-)

Re:Peer-to-Peer banned in Brazil.

[buchner.johannes]

That article and the ban was based on making money on illegal content (with advertising) and only for that specific website. RTFA, not just the headlines.

Is it something in the water?

[westlake]

I mean, I have only twice ever heard of someone buying MS software. Once, when someone bought Vista. I ended the friendship, because he thought it would be the greatest OS, and that MS is a nice company.

1 Open Amazon.com.
2 Search for software best sellers.
3 Case closed.