Microsoft Patents DRM'd Torrents

Anonymous Crobar writes "Microsoft has received a patent for a 'digital rights management scheme for an on-demand distributed streaming system,' or using a P2P network to distribute commercial media content. The patent, #7,639,805, covers a method of individually encrypting each packet with a separate key and allowing users to decrypt differing levels of quality depending on the license that has been purchased."

Comments

blah blah

[Anonymous Coward]

blah blah prior art blah blah

blah blah patents suck blah blah

Re:blah blah

[Nadaka]

I actually did work on something very similar at my last job. Though its somewhat difficult to say it is prior art because the claim is worded very oddly.

Re:blah blah

[Nadaka]

If I wanted a top level post, I would have posted at the top level. When I got here, that was the only post, I replied to it specifically because it had already mentioned prior art.

Re:blah blah

[Nadaka]

The company went under, a lot of us never got our last paycheck, I work for the air force now.

blah!

Anyway, I don't think what I did would qualify as prior art. The key claim seems to be a multi level key system for unlocking different bit rate/qualities for a downloaded file. What I did was related to live video streaming using P2P to reduce server load.

Re:blah blah

[HermMunster]

D i g i t a l R e s t r i c t i o n s M a n a g e m e n t.

Sheesh.

Re:blah blah

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

blah blah prior art blah blah

blah blah patents suck blah blah

patent this sexy :P

Patent Office Gets a Promotion

[New_Guy_Here]

So, is the patent office interpreting a law, then?

Re:Patent Office Gets a Promotion

[Theaetetus]

So, is the patent office interpreting a law, then?

Yeah, that's kinda their job - interpreting 35 USC 101, 102, 103, and 112, among others.

as old as bt

[JackSpratts]

similar schemes have been around the community for (unfortunately) ages.

Re:as old as bt

[Alarash]

Microsoft will probably use this for his Content Provider customers who use Media Room (their Multicast/Unicast architecture, which is actually pretty good technically, although it's unfortunately plagued by DRM's). After DRM'd RTSP (Unicast), DRM'd Live programs (Multicast), it only makes sense to start (DRM'd) P2P. What will probably happen is when you buy a VoD movie, not only will be streamed to your Set Top Box, but also saved on there (typically, Unicast packets are discarded as soon as they have been used) for a few days or weeks. So when another customer wants to rent the movie, you will seed to him. This should provide a huge boost in download speed (as we all know), and the Content Provider won't need as many File/Streaming servers as before.

Service Providers will, however, have to increase their Core Network capacity because Bittorent is notoriously known for eating a lot of bandwidth (that's its very purpose). I guess the costs of upgrading the network capacity is less than maintaining a huge number of streaming servers, somebody would have to run the numbers, and I'm sure Microsoft did. It would be actually pretty cool to be able to save your whole collection of movies on your STB or Media Center (most of the later already have Bittorent clients), and download them again at will - a bit like Steam. This P2P thing should give some ideas to Valve (maybe they already do this, I haven't checked).

Of course all of this raises the question: If your Service Provider uses the bandwidth you rent from them to save themselves some money, will they sell/rent the movies for less? My money is on "No, because they will use this to increase their margins". But that's another discussion. In any case, all of this is technically very interesting, it's just a bit sad that it has to be plagued with DRM, most likely proprietary DRM that will require a Microsoft-approved STB.

That's actually pretty clever

[holophrastic]

It's a great way of monetizing uncontrollable distribution channels. Easily allow anyone and their goldfish to distribute large content freely, and effectively charge at the codec level. Certainly solves a good half of the people-steal-everything problem. The patent's still stupid, but the idea's great -- I'd support a two-year patent certainly.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly solves a good half of the people-steal-everything problem.

What the fuck are you talking about? I'll just jump on the usual pirated torrent, thanks.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Did they remember to patent hacking the encryption within 30s of release? Otherwise the hackers will get away with it!

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Kjella]

Hahhahahahahahaha, you're serious aren't you? The malware/scammers have been distributing DRM'd WMV files for ages, hoping to make suckers get rooted by their malware or steal their credit cards. Nobody distributes them except retards and others too lazy to check their downloads, this changes nothing at all.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[sakdoctor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitrate_peeling but with DRM.

DRM and P2P won't mix because it's a huge popularity contest. There is selection pressure against really bad, really big, or password protected/DRMed content.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[PhreakOfTime]

Im sure everyone here knows your stance by now...but for those that dont, allow me to translate what you just said...

It's a great way of monetizing uncontrollable(by me) distribution channels. Easily allow anyone and their goldfish to distribute large content freely(at no charge to me), and effectively charge(I collect money from the freely given resources of others without compensation) at the codec level. Certainly solves a good half of the people-steal-everything problem.(except for the fact that you are 'stealing' others resources without compensating them)

Im sorry, but your business model is dying, thats why you have so much resistance to the current changes in the world. Allowed to come to an equilibrium, youd be out of work. You are completely free to follow whatever path you want, but when you start advocating for everyone to only do business a certain way because thats the only way you personally can survive, we part ways.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[networkBoy]

no to mention that should count as prior art...

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd pay (a small amount) for 720p content if I could just as easily get SD stuff for free, even if pirating the 720p stuff was just as easy. I *want* to buy stuff, they just make it so difficult.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Enderandrew]

This technology wouldn't be used like a typical P2P network of people openly sharing files, since the files with by DRM encrypted, unless it is the Zune model of loaning out a file, and losing the rights to it, until that loaner is returned to you.

BT-style downloads make a great deal of sense for a company like Microsoft or Apple who is pushing tons of downloads.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[holophrastic]

It makes it easier to pay than to steal. Nothing's going to stop thieves from thievery.

But some of us have bank accounts and jobs and would rather pay $4 than steal from someone.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Theaetetus]

Im sure everyone here knows your stance by now...but for those that dont, allow me to translate what you just said...

It's a great way of monetizing uncontrollable(by me) distribution channels. Easily allow anyone and their goldfish to distribute large content freely(at no charge to me), and effectively charge(I collect money from the freely given resources of others without compensation) at the codec level. Certainly solves a good half of the people-steal-everything problem.(except for the fact that you are 'stealing' others resources without compensating them)

First, how can you be 'stealing' others resources when you have no contact with them, no control over their actions, and they're the ones "freely" distributing your works? If they don't want to do it, they can delete that torrent. Or quit their torrent application. Or hit pause. Or any number of other ways. There's no 'stealing' of resources involved.

Second, you say "freely given resources of others", but you're referring only to the electricity and cpu cycles - there's also a copyrighted work involved, which they can't freely give, because they don't have the right to do so absent a license agreement.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[denmarkw00t]

I'd pay, but I want the assurance that Big Content's hands stay off of my media, ESPECIALLY if I payed for the better quality. If I can't duplicate it, play it on my TV or stream it to a laptop/360/iWhatever/wireless projector/blahblahblah then I'm definitely going to pirate it. The biggest issue I have with DRM content is that the model for DRM hasn't gotten past the whole "You can have it, kinda, but its really still ours" mentality, and I'm not counting on codec-levels being the only "DRM" going on here.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Anonymous Coward]

You are completely free to follow whatever path you want, but when you start advocating for everyone to only do business a certain way because thats the only way you personally can survive, we part ways.

Funny...that's how a lot of people feel about the FOSS movement.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[PhreakOfTime]

where did I say anything about distributing copyrighted works without a license?

Im not interested in your prejudices, which you just fully disclosed with that assumption. Im interested in the way distribution will be done going into the future. If theres no attempt at compensation given for the use of the individuals resources, then the odds of this idea going anywhere at all, are nill

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[betterunixthanunix]

1. How is making a copy "stealing?" You are failing to meet a key criterion by not depriving the person from whom you made the copy of whatever you copied. Stealing would be walking into my house and taking my hard drive.
2. This system will fail because nobody will download the restricted media; there is unrestricted media available at no cost. Further, the amount of time needed to extract the secret keys from the restricted codecs is minimal, unless a hardware crypto module is required. I expect that any software implementation will be broken within a week; an implementation using hardware crypto will probably be defeated within a year of its release.

Some of us stopped feeling remorse for the recording and movie industries when we saw how extensive their lies are. Like, the RIAA claiming that Kazaa was killing CD sales, when in reality they had record setting revenues during the height of Kazaa. Or Hollywood accounting. Or the claim that downloading is benefiting violent Mexican gangs. After a decade of claiming that they are suffering financially, I would expect to see RIAA and MPAA member companies all defunct or near bankruptcy, yet in reality these companies are among the wealthiest and most powerful corporations in the world.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[192939495969798999]

This is like getting a patent on selling yesterday's newspaper when you can already get them for free at the same place that the patent alleges it will sell them.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[PhreakOfTime]

Aside from your holier than thou attitude.. How do you explain over the air broadcast TV and Radio existing and profiting for decades?

Is watching TV without paying for the signal 'stealing'? And if not, why not?

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[steelfood]

I think the patent duration works in our favor for these types of things. It'll be another 20 years before we actually see somebody try to stuff this down our throats.

It's what the EFF should do--patent DRM schemes, and due the pants off anybody who tries to use them.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[tixxit]

The patent is NOT about distributing encrypted files, that is just one requirement of the process. RTFP.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Theaetetus]

where did I say anything about distributing copyrighted works without a license?

Im not interested in your prejudices, which you just fully disclosed with that assumption.

Bear in mind that most of the people who are opposed to intellectual property rights usually complain when people say that infringement is theft, but here you are, talking about stealing freely given electricity and CPU cycles.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[PhreakOfTime]

Correct. And if I had to pay for this item, you can be certain that I would not 'freely' distribute it with my own resources without a level of conpensation, be it a discount or whatever form it needs to take. How about for every 100 people I distribute it to using my resources, I get 1% off the next purchase?

I pay, you pay. Those that get it for free, give it for free.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 WIN, nice response. RTFP. They appear to have found a way to have locked up differing levels of quality within the same torrent, accessible at different levels.

Not that I'll use them at all, but the math has gotta be pretty cool.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Theaetetus]

Correct. And if I had to pay for this item, you can be certain that I would not 'freely' distribute it with my own resources without a level of conpensation, be it a discount or whatever form it needs to take.

Yeah, but it's a torrent. If you're going to say "I'm not going to upload while I download unless you give me a discount", then they're going to say "fine, don't download, leech."

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[BobMcD]

The biggest issue I have with DRM content is that the model for DRM hasn't gotten past the whole "You can have it, kinda, but its really still ours" mentality...

Your beef is with copyright, then, and not necessarily with DRM. Any copyrighted work is still, really, not yours. You can use the copy, but it does not belong to you. In a book, for example, you can burn the paper in it for kindling if you'd like, but you'll never, ever own the words printed on it.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[cgenman]

For the record, I've bought music over the years, which I've then subsequently had to pirate for use in players other than the designated "official" player. MP3 DJ tables, music imported to home movies, old MP3 CD players in cars... It all needs to just work, and the only format that just works is MP3 without DRM.

Adding restrictions to content literally drives legitimate purchasers to pirate sites.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[PhreakOfTime]

And that is 100% acceptable to me. The market will decide. Either the torrent will die, or it will stay.

We dont need laws to regulate it. Thats just a sign of a bad business model. Would it make sense to have laws to regulate that you must buy one horse drawn carriage, even though this new thing called the automobile exists?

And it may be MY bias, but I find most of the 'business owners' who always harp how great the free market is, suddenly find themselves rushing to pass laws to protect them when the market decides against their interests, without thinking twice about those who are already using the new market model to run profitable businesses.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[BobMcD]

Stealing would be walking into my house and taking my hard drive.

Do you lay any claim to the data on that hard drive? Would not the thief merely be requiring you to line up your kids and take new snapshots of them, or recalculate your taxes, or re-download all your torrents? Have they actually deprived you of anything, by your standards? I'm genuinely curious if you attach any value to time and effort, or if because it is merely digital it can never have any value at all.

This system will fail because nobody will download the restricted media; there is unrestricted media available at no cost.

You're dreaming, at best. 'Nobody' or 'nobody who is already using torrents'? There are a vast, wide majority of people consuming media like this that have zero idea what a torrent even is, let alone how to safely acquire and use them. Torrents only appeal to a small, technically-minded group of people. Subsequently, few profits are probably lost to this crowd.

Further, the amount of time needed to extract the secret keys from the restricted codecs is minimal, unless a hardware crypto module is required. I expect that any software implementation will be broken within a week; an implementation using hardware crypto will probably be defeated within a year of its release.

See, again: minimal for whom? For those that were previously using illegal means to gain access to the content, or for those people who actually make up their target market. You know, the people who use money who buy these things.

Some of us stopped feeling remorse for the recording and movie industries when we saw how extensive their lies are. Like, the RIAA claiming that Kazaa was killing CD sales, when in reality they had record setting revenues during the height of Kazaa. Or Hollywood accounting. Or the claim that downloading is benefiting violent Mexican gangs. After a decade of claiming that they are suffering financially, I would expect to see RIAA and MPAA member companies all defunct or near bankruptcy, yet in reality these companies are among the wealthiest and most powerful corporations in the world.

On these points we definitely agree. They do in fact over-charge, and a certain backlash is to be expected. I do see the danger, however, in a world where everyone feels this way. Eventually there will be no one else to support the content you are obtaining illegally, and so none will be made. Any way you slice it, your torrents are funded by the good faith of others, and you are abusing that. If you really, honestly believed that the content held no value, and had stronger ethics, you'd simply stop consuming it.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[BobMcD]

Allowed to come to an equilibrium, youd be out of work.

At which point the content stops. You do realize this, yes?

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[PhreakOfTime]

The shitty content stops, yes. And that day cant come soon enough. Just because you create something, doesnt mean you will automatically make money form it.

If its what people WANT to buy, they will. Its already been done, and its only going to continue.

see: Radiohead

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[BobMcD]

No, all content stops.

Radiohead survives on the voluntary status expressly because they are different. The industry as a whole, however, cannot exist this way, and will have to rely on other dollars in one way or another.

Look at the Open Source content, as an example. Without the likes of IBM, RedHat, etc making actual sales dollars off of someone, a lot of the development we get to enjoy would cease.

Music, on the other hand, is of little practical value. Businesses aren't going to fund it out of charity.

And what of the people who think Radiohead is shitty music? Surely you're willing to entertain a world where people with differing tastes in music are allowed to exist?

The concept behind the system is a solid one - reward creative works. The rewards are currently out of scale, to be sure, but oblivion is never the answer.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[jedidiah]

>> Stealing would be walking into my house and taking my hard drive.
>
> Do you lay any claim to the data on that hard drive? Would not the thief merely
> be requiring you to line up your kids and take new snapshots of them, or
> recalculate your taxes, or re-download all your torrents? Have they actually
> deprived you of anything, by your standards?

My private papers are not published works. They should never be treated as such.
The only reason this would even be considered is the sick fixation that we
currently have with the monetization of information.

Beyond that. A hard drive is a physical thing that one can be deprived of and will
need to be replaced for some non-zero amount of money. This will be the case
regardless of how good your backups are.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[jedidiah]

The average n00b probably doesn't realize that a bit-torrent transfer costs them something.
That is a big part of the problem of trying to prosecute/persecute anyone for P2P file
sharing. Many people are simply too clueless to realize that they are also uploading to the
rest of the world while they are getting what they want.

Also, resources tied to physical things like a computer or a room (the old movie theatre
analogy) still aren't strictly the same as ethereal information.

It's interesting that those with a high opinion of themselves when it comes to morals lie with no shame.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[BobMcD]

That's fine. Now please answer the question, if you would, please.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the patent duration works in our favor for these types of things. It'll be another 20 years before we actually see somebody try to stuff this down our throats.

It's what the EFF should do--patent DRM schemes, and due the pants off anybody who tries to use them.

I'd rather have the EFF sue their pants off, but whatever makes you feel good, y'know...

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[PhreakOfTime]

I use Radiohead of an example of the concept. Not as an example of what all music should be like. Personally, Im not much of a fan of them.

I see the music industry continuing on, and in fact being better than its current form. But music in of itself is of little value, as you say. However, the people willing to pay for a live performance IS of value. But I fail to see why a cunsumer of music cant directly pay the band. Can you give an example of why that option doesnt work for all genres?

And I know your retort to that will be 'what about the people who cant attend a live event?' And to that I say, that every performer needs to follow in the path of a similar concept as radiohead.

There just isnt an excuse anymore to try and wall off your content and be a control freak about it(not you directly, you in general). The technology is freely available, thanks in part to the Open Source model you reference, and trying to pass laws to continue a business model because those involved seem to think its 'sacred', is not a productive option.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[chickenarise]

Eventually there will be no one else to support the content you are obtaining illegally, and so none will be made

I don't know if anyone has told you this yet, but not all artists are in it for the money...

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[lorenlal]

That's true, but that's not what he's arguing.

You can purchase the book to keep at home, you can burn the pages if you like. You can also scan it and put a copy of it on your laptop or ebook reader too. Just as long as you don't send copies of it to everyone.

With lots of DRM'd content, you can't. And the industry that produces the audio and video is trying to force you to pay for every incarnation of their work, even if it's in a buffer. That's where GP is complaining.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[betterunixthanunix]

"Have they actually deprived you of anything, by your standards?"

Well, let's apply the test:

• Prior to the theft, I have a hard drive and whatever data is on that drive.
• Following the theft, I do not have a hard drive, and unless I made a copy of the data, I do not have the data either.

So yes, I was deprived by the theft.

"There are a vast, wide majority of people consuming media like this that have zero idea what a torrent even is, let alone how to safely acquire and use them."

True, and it was a bit extreme to claim that nobody would use the system when it is first introduced. In the long run, though, I expect that any restriction technology will ultimately fail to gain or maintain acceptance, and would point to what is happening with for-pay music downloads. Whether the process of failing will be peaceful, as it has been with music, or not so peaceful remains to be seen.

Now, the situation is a lot different when it comes to breaking the restriction system itself. Yes, it requires an unusually high level of skill to break these systems, but it requires little to no skill to distribute and use the break. As a case in point, look at what happened with the Macrovision system on VHS -- it was broken by electrical engineers, whose work was then placed in newer VCRs which an average consumer had little difficulty using. Granted, that was before the DMCA made it illegal to distribute such breaks, but I know plenty of people who use deCSS without really understanding what it does or how it works.

"If you really, honestly believed that the content held no value, and had stronger ethics, you'd simply stop consuming it."

Well, first of all, creative works are not "consumed" the way food or fuel is consumed. Suppose I stopped downloading or buying creative works, etc. -- I would still have many gigabytes available for my enjoyment. These works do not break down over time. A CD from the 90s sounds no worse now than it did when it was first produced, and may even sound slightly better (because of improvements in playback technologies). You might claim that there is a decrease in the utility of the work, because after enjoying it once it loses novelty, but most people have such a vast collection that their enjoyment need not be diminished very much (imagine hearing a song you have not heard in 10 years).

I argue that there is nothing unethical about copying creative works, regardless of how much time and effort went into their creation, as long as you are not trying to claim that you created it yourself. What made sense 50 years ago, prior to our current age of vast computing power and instant global communication, no longer makes sense today. The recording industry is overweight, and is lobbying to protect its unnecessary size from the reality of this age.

You seem to believe that the only way musicians can make enough money to create music is if ordinary citizens pay for every song they have a copy of, or at least that a certain critical number of citizens do so. Why not focus on the real money makers for musicians: concerts, business use, etc.? Recording studios do not need to make CDs anymore; for over a decade now, a fast and cheap way to distribute music to the masses has been available. All the money that is used to create CDs should be given to the artists themselves, and there should be a focus on business use and concert sales as revenue sources.

Yes, that means reducing the size of these corporations, which (God forbid) means a reduction in their market capitalization. So what? Nobody said it was unethical to use digital cameras, even though it caused a similar reduction in the film development industry. The same argument applies to the movie industry: they should focus on movie theaters and commercial use of movie scenes and characters as revenue sources, rather than harassing consumers over DVD and BD sales.

Copyrights are not property rights. Copyrights are not even natu

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[BobMcD]

You can also scan it and put a copy of it on your laptop or ebook reader too. Just as long as you don't send copies of it to everyone.

This is fair use, and is a permission granted. The system itself doesn't require it, useful though it is.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[BobMcD]

I don't know if anyone has told you this yet, but not all artists are in it for the money...

Perhaps, but I'm not that interested in a musical world dominated by Paris Hilton either.

Aside from her, and other heirs and heiresses, I'd assume that some people hope to make a living doing what they love.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from your holier than thou attitude.. How do you explain over the air broadcast TV and Radio existing and profiting for decades?

Is watching TV without paying for the signal 'stealing'? And if not, why not?

I think you're a troll, because this is so easy to explain. But just in case you're legitimate...

It's not stealing because the providers choose to make their product available at no cost as part of their business model. Other providers do not, and so charge consumers for their product (cable television and satellite radio, for instance). Consumers then decide if they think the extra benefit is worth the money and either pay for it or do without.

And if consumers decide to take that product without paying for it (e.g. by tapping into their neighbor's cable television signal), they are prosecuted. But doubtless you think that is also an antiquated concept because you are not depriving anyone of anything (your neighbor still has their signal and the provider still has their shows to send out).

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Anonymous Coward]

How would ALL content stop?

Youtube would still be around.
myspace would still be around.
indie bands would still exist.

Where do you think the current generation of content creators came from? They were "discovered" because people enjoyed the content they created.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[BobMcD]

You seem to believe that the only way musicians can make enough money to create music is if ordinary citizens pay for every song they have a copy of, or at least that a certain critical number of citizens do so. Why not focus on the real money makers for musicians: concerts, business use, etc.?

I admit freely that there are other methods of compensation. I also fail to see the need to restrict the method on the topic. Pay-per-copy is valid, and does not need to be obliterated. Pay-per-copy need not go to the studios for the model to function, and as you're implying it could actually harm the intent. The content needs to be incentivized in this society, or other pursuits will suppress it.

Take this concept, if you will, to a larger, more collaborative work like a movie. Live performances are out of the question, businesses find it counter-productive, etc. In a world where copies hold no value, their business prospects diminish rapidly. There may be justice in it, but the end result will be poorer content, for many reasons.

So while a smaller group could return to the ways of the roving troupe, the current system we have in place supports this alongside other methods of distribution.

Nobody said it was unethical to use digital cameras, even though it caused a similar reduction in the film development industry.

Nobody says it is unethical to make better movies, either, which would be a better example of what you are talking about. The presence of the physical magnetic media film is not the defining characteristic of the device. For a song or movie this is entertainment value. Copying it replaces that value entirely and this does not equate to a camera that no longer needs film, unless you are advocating media that no longer entertains. Its all about purpose, rather than how it gets conveyed, and I am putting forward that you are removing the incentive for people to perform for you.

The same argument applies to the movie industry: they should focus on movie theaters and commercial use of movie scenes and characters as revenue sources, rather than harassing consumers over DVD and BD sales.

In this world, DVD and BD sales cease to exist. These are being offered to us for consumption so that they might make a profit on them. Without any profit, they would reserve the works for use only in a theater, for example. On a larger scale, many works would never be made at all.

Again, no motive means no behavior. Studios don't produce quality movies because they love to do so. There is a nexus of passion and profit, and some truly beautiful things are created there, but you cannot have one without the other. People need to eat, and will endeavor in methods that result in this, despite how great their music or films may be.

The Internet makes downloading the most effective way to make creative works available to the masses, and creative works can still be subsidized by other means, so where is the ethical problem?

The problem lies in the subversion of the system. Again, the chain is: creation > consumption > compensation > additional creation > etc

You are skipping the compensation phase and are continuing to expect the additional creation.

This works for outlying cases, but not as an industry model. You are proposing compensation only for performance, and are juxtaposing that against an internet where live performance isn't really necessary any more. If you can't see the impact of this, I'd be genuinely surprised.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[BobMcD]

Youtube and myspace are not excellent examples of what I would call content. Amend my statement to 'all content of quality' if it helps you grasp the point.

Indie bands exist in the hopes of making it big. You are proposing we remove that from the realm of possibility. Would that not motivate them to go back to work at the quickie-mart?

They were "discovered" because they saw creation as an avenue to success, which the present model provides, and a 'duplicate without limit' model does not.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Fjandr]

Using multiple keys to unlock different content from the same encrypted file is nothing new.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[DinDaddy]

Stealing would be walking into my house and taking my hard drive.

Do you lay any claim to the data on that hard drive? Would not the thief merely be requiring you to line up your kids and take new snapshots of them, or recalculate your taxes, or re-download all your torrents? Have they actually deprived you of anything, by your standards? I'm genuinely curious if you attach any value to time and effort, or if because it is merely digital it can never have any value at all.

Pretty poor analogy. File sharers have taken the only copy of your data. Yours is more akin to breaking into the studio and taking the master tapes to an album.

Walking into the house and copying all the data off his hard drive is more the equivalent to file sharing. And even then, the arguments raised below about publicly released works still enter into it.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[BobMcD]

Pretty poor analogy. File sharers have taken the only copy of your data. Yours is more akin to breaking into the studio and taking the master tapes to an album.

Walking into the house and copying all the data off his hard drive is more the equivalent to file sharing. And even then, the arguments raised below about publicly released works still enter into it.

Excellent point. Shift it to identity theft, then. That's pretty similar, right? The question would be more along the lines of:

Do you lay any claim to the confidentiality of the data on that hard drive?

Point is, the loss of value need not be only physical to be of note.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[PhreakOfTime]

Consumers then decide if they think the extra benefit is worth the money and either pay for it or do without.

Thats exactly the point. There doesnt need to be a law made that says 'all content must be distributed this way'. If you do not want to provide digital copies of your work and deal with the hassles that come along with it, then dont. And do without the extra revenue that comes with a cost/benefit of some copies being distributed in a way other than your preferred one. And your example of sat radio is perfect, since their subscriber count has been dropping in favor of other alternatives(Pandora, streaming, etc). I personally had a sat radio subscription, and recently stopped it for the much cheaper Pandora route. So should there be a law that says sat radio is the only way to get that type of music?

But doubtless you think that is also an antiquated concept because you are not depriving anyone of anything (your neighbor still has their signal and the provider still has their shows to send out).

I said nothing of the sort. I am pointing out that new laws do not need to be made that favor an old business model, at the expense of a newer one.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[dissy]

It makes it easier to pay than to steal. Nothing's going to stop thieves from thievery.

Get with the times, this is the 21st century! Even theft is an extremely hard option compared to others.

Why should I go down to the store to steal a CD, when I can just stay home and download it from a torrent site instead? Odds are much more in my favor to not get caught committing copyright violations than getting caught stealing.

Only downside is that now, copyright violation carries a much much higher penalty than theft does, so you will definitely go to jail for less time (weeks vs years) and be fined less (couple hundred to a thousand, vs a couple million) for going down to the store and stealing it instead of just downloading it from a torrent site.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[chickenarise]

You've heard the term 'starving artists' right? Sure, we all would like to make a decent living doing what we love, my point is that there are plenty of people who will go on creating art even if it doesn't help get food on the table. Your assumption that if all artists stopped getting support then no one would bother creating is false.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[MrFishyFish]

Stealing would be walking into my house and taking my hard drive.

Do you lay any claim to the data on that hard drive? Would not the thief merely be requiring you to line up your kids and take new snapshots of them, or recalculate your taxes, or re-download all your torrents? Have they actually deprived you of anything, by your standards? I'm genuinely curious if you attach any value to time and effort, or if because it is merely digital it can never have any value at all.

In this example the theif would have deprived him of the data (as well as real physical property) since he would no longer have the hard disk. Piracy however is closer to the theif copying the entire contents of the hard drive remotely and without permission, but leaving its contents intact. Of course it takes time and effort to create media (even the painful manufactured stuff) - but copying does not make you have to repeat the effort of creating it again because someone has destroyed it.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[BobMcD]

As an absolute generality it is false, but it is close enough to true that I have clearly communicated the merit of the reward system, which was my point.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, mainly I wouldn't have my hard drive any more. I wouldn't mind if a "thief" just copied everything. The private stuff is password protected.

Who will download this? I don't know, but I think it will be few enough people that the system won't be viable. To compete with piracy, you have to make a better product. You often hear that services like Steam actually provide something, because they let you buy games, avoid CD keys, etc. so people prefer such things to pirating.

The people who actually buy things are the ones hurt by overly-restricted DRM. We pirates never have to worry about it. But we sometimes buy things that aren't badly encumbered. I mean, I ended up buying two copies of Plants vs. Zombies, which has no protection whatsoever, because I liked it so much. I could have duplicated it very easily. If you want to know how people can still make money on something that can be freely copied, look to webcomics and use their model. Quite a few of them have become full-time jobs for people.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Moridin42]

1) a physical drive is lost, and costs time, effort, and funds to replace. recovering data is further time and effort, and potentially more funds. Digitally stored data need not be an either/or value proposition. It can have value, and still be pirated for the simple reason that the value is less than the cost demanded. When this occurs, and the data is pirated, the content producer has lost nothing. Wealth has, in fact, been generated in the form of consumer surplus. The same way a lot of wealth is derived in many other perfectly legit transactions.

2) It is, perhaps, an overstatement to say that "nobody" will download the restricted media, with an implicit time constraint of the near future. But it is not an overstatement with a longer term view. Children, who very much do have media preferences but lack the funds to legitimately purchase, are the ones most likely to know about pirate torrents. They have the most to gain from learning about them. They are also the least likely to be punished for their knowledge. Children grow up. And they become adults who know about torrents. Further, the vast majority of people consuming media like this (although 'like' is relative.. paid media isn't moving by torrent a lot that I know of) didn't grow up with torrents. They grew up with alternatives. Physical objects containing the media. Vinyl, tapes, discs. But this media technology is teaching even those people about torrents. It is, itself, a torrent. Once that knowledge is in play, people are more likely to learn about other torrents. Including pirate torrents. And digitally delivered media has, thus far, been delivered in many cases at prices close to (sometimes higher than) a disc purchase. Making discs quite valuable. Discs can be loaned and resold. They, for the most part, do not stop working when some company fails, urinates all over a key server, or other such issue. Technology such as this will thrive only by force, or by pricing its goods like the rentals that they are.

3) Minimal for anyone. Not to say that anyone could put an minimal amount of effort into bypassing whatever scheme is utilized. But someone will make that effort. For money, for fun.. whatever. It happens. All the time. Once someone has, it becomes pretty minimal effort for anyone else. Drop a torrent into your client. Not really a complex action.

4) Torrents may be funded by the good faith of others. But then media companies have long been funded by the good faith of its consumers. Try getting a refund for your movie ticket when the film sucked. Try it with your digital downloads. I am at the point where I largely don't go to movie theatres. I don't bother with most DVDs or CDs. Those media pushers don't have any faith banked with me any longer, so I don't bother to buy from them. That said, I don't bother with p2p either. The time it takes to find something I'm interested in is largely more than I'm willing to invest. Most music I listen to these days is webradio. Movies, I borrow from friends who own discs. Its, y'know, like I pirated it. But legal. Didn't cost me anything, and no media company got more than they were going to get anyway. Maybe I was abusing the good faith of others, in your opinion.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. And if I had to pay for this item, you can be certain that I would not 'freely' distribute it with my own resources without a level of conpensation

That is why this DRM and P2P don't mix. The main idea behind P2P is that it's a sharing system, not a bartering system.

People take but they also must contribute back or else the system will fail. It is easy for most people because everything on P2P is "free". Once a cost is introduced however, people don't contribute back without compensation which defeats the design of the system. Try downloading something off eDonkey if you want to see how levels of compensation work in P2P.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are the opening lines of GPL v4

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[mcgrew]

Furthermore, there's a bigger difference between stealing and pirating.

Joe Thievery walks into Best Buy and shoplifts Madonna's latest dreck. Best Buy is out the cost that they paid for the CD, even though Joe would have never actually bought the CD he just stole. Should Joe get caught, he faces a misdemeanor charge and if convicted, a few hundred bucks in fines.

Blackbeard downloads Madonna's latest dreck. Nobody is out the cost of anything. And if Blackbeard decides, hey, most of these songs are pretty good he might actually buy it; it's been shown that music pirates spend more on music than non-pirates. Should he get caught and a jury finds he's infringed, he stands to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps saddling him for life with a debt he can never repay.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you lay any claim to the data on that hard drive? Would not the thief merely be requiring you to line up your kids and take new snapshots of them, or recalculate your taxes, or re-download all your torrents? Have they actually deprived you of anything, by your standards? I'm genuinely curious if you attach any value to time and effort, or if because it is merely digital it can never have any value at all.

Analogy fail. Of course they've been deprived - There is now a physical absence of a small metallic object which happens to hold data. It's not the fact that data is on it that makes it theft- it's theft if it's blank. You previously had this object, and now you don't.

If the the 'thief' comes into your house, then hooks up a SATA-to-USB adapter on your Hard Drive and clones everything - that's far more in line with what you're saying.

Hot tip: If the 'thief' wants to -actually- steal your data, all they have to do is take it and deprive you of it (aka delete it).

Cloning/copying data is infringement
Deleting it at the original source while taking a copy is more akin to theft.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Anonymous Coward]

$4 each viewing is OK for you? That adds up quickly! I imagine you, your wife and your [future] kids all want to watch different movies. I'll continue to pirate as long as they continue to charge way too much for way too little.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Nerdposeur]

And, by the same token, copyright itself is a permission granted, by the public, to the copyright holder, for the sole purpose of benefiting the public (by encouraging the creation of works). The universe doesn't require it, and in some cases, its usefulness is debatable.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[holophrastic]

It's not about the technology, it's about the monetization. For people like me, now 30 years old, successful adults with money in the bank, there is absolutely no reason to steal a $4 product. Except that there are when it takes weeks for delivery, or days for research, or going and and getting it, or waiting for it to come in, or waiting for it to be released onto physical media, or any other sort of delay.

The reason that theft is high-tech is because it can be. The crime industry doesn't suffer from haing to do things properly.

This would allow legitimate sales to be made using techniques previously impossible for paid transactions.

For example, I could purchase a $50 pre month licence to receive updates to these codec-like things, and be able to download the material from anywhere at any time. I could get it from the back of a van, steal it from my clients or steal it from my friends, and it's all legal. Because the purchase price isn't paid through the distribution channel.

That's cool.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[mcgrew]

Do you lay any claim to the data on that hard drive?

The data should be backed up. In any case you paid for the drive itself, which the thief, who doesn't care about the data but only the drive now has a free drive but you have to go out and buy another drive.

Would not the thief merely be requiring you to line up your kids and take new snapshots of them

Were you dumb enough to not back your data up, how are you going to recreate your wedding pictures? How is lining up your kids going to recreate their baby pictures? This is nothing like downloading, which only makes a copy of data. But like I said, if it's backed up the data doesn't matter; you have copies. You're out the price of a hard drive. Should a thief come in and decide not to steal the drive but only copy its contents, you've lost nothing. In this case the thief is breaking and entering and invading your privacy, but not stealing.

See, again: minimal for whom?

Anyone. Once the key is broklen, the content will be on the internet sans keys.

Eventually there will be no one else to support the content you are obtaining illegally, and so none will be made.

This is a fallacy. Cory Doctorow (for one) puts his books online in HTML and many e-reader formats, free for anyone to download, yet is on the New York Times best seller list despite (or because of) the fact that anyone can get it for free. By this flawed reasoning libraries would have put book publishers out of business long before the invention of the computer.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[PhreakOfTime]

People take but they also must contribute back or else the system will fail. It is easy for most people because everything on P2P is "free"

Yes, just like it was with broadcast TV and Radio. This is how the vast majority of consumers are accustomed to acquiring their music. Which is why I used that upthread in a previous example.

Theres nothing wrong at all with compensating the end user for this distribution, as a form of this compensation paid out for wider distribution simply came one level up the supply chain previously(kick-backs, payola, etc). And that is why I think that discounts would be a better method than outright cash payments. Even if you jack up the price(as would happen) and make the end user think they were getting a discount.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[betterunixthanunix]

"The content needs to be incentivized in this society, or other pursuits will suppress it."

Really though, great artists enjoy what they do -- they still need to eat, of course, but they are not really trying to maximize their profits from their art. Where I see money playing the most important factor is in the industries that surround the art -- recording studios, movie studios, etc. Sure, it is a great thing when an artist can make a living just by creating art, but only a minority ever manage to do this; the majority of people who make their money in the music or movie businesses are the people who do work for an artist to help in the creation of the art.

That is why I said the recording industry must shrink, rather than "disappear." I am arguing for a change in the revenue stream, not an elimination of it. "Take this concept, if you will, to a larger, more collaborative work like a movie. Live performances are out of the question,"

Instead of live performances, movie companies have theaters. Movie companies still have chances to license their movies for business use: every time you see a commercial with a movie character pushing some product, the movie studio is being paid royalties for the use of that character (likewise with fast food companies giving out toys in kids meals, etc.). If a movie studio finds that ticket sales are not high enough, too bad: they should have made a movie that people wanted to see at a theater. Yes, this means movie studios will shrink, but that is fine and necessary because of new technology. Great movies are not going to go away if people are allowed to share them, there will just be a change in the revenue streams.

"There may be justice in it, but the end result will be poorer content,"

I am not so sure about that. Most of the movies that have limited theater runs, and turn profits mainly from DVD sales, are really bad. Those that do well enough in theaters that DVD sales are not necessary to cover the production costs would not go away if people were allowed to liberally share movies with each other. "Nobody says it is unethical to make better movies, either, which would be a better example of what you are talking about."

Except that digital cameras did not make higher quality photographs early on, and most digital cameras (commonly called cell phones) are still of much lower quality than a film camera (I am referring to 35mm film, which is the highest quality film most people are familiar with; medium and large format film are still used to create large, high quality prints). Digital cameras won because they made it easier to share photographs; as a result, an entire industry has been decimated, and there is a reduced incentive to develop film or to create film development products.

What was the result of obliterating that entire industry? Photographs are more available than ever before. You can easily find pictures of almost any inhabited area on Earth. You can find pictures of almost any object you can think of. Artists have even started to use digital cameras, and show off their work on the Internet; some artists even sell prints.

So, why is it that when it comes to photography, it is fine to download and share photos, even artistic photos, and even without compensating the person who make the photo? Why are music and movies so special? Is it just because the RIAA and MPAA have so much power, and have invested so much time and money creating propaganda? Hm... "The presence of the physical magnetic media film is not the defining characteristic of the device. For a song or movie this is entertainment value."

Except that the physical medium can and does affect the value of a creative work. Seeing a movie in a theater is a lot different from seeing it on a television. A live concert (e.g. no physical media) is entirely different from hearing a song on your stereo. Until very recently, film photography was in an entirely different category (for creative purposes) th

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[nurb432]

But its different then the patent.

One the entire stream is encrypted, one the end contents are.. A subtle difference.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[chickenarise]

Sure, you 'communicated' the merit of the reward system, but who cares? I could 'communicate' the merit of killing all humans, but not many would agree that there is merit to killing all humans. What you failed to do was 'prove' the merit of the reward system. My proof that we could live without the reward system stems from the fact that many people have created, and many people still do create art without much or any monetary reward. So no, your generality isn't even 'close enough to true'.

However, I will admit that I am arguing over a made up scenario that I highly doubt will ever come to be. I really can't see 100% of the digital music consumers accepting 'free' as the highest price they will pay for digital music. Even if this scenario did come to be, it's not like the artists gain nothing from people 'buying' music for free. They get exposure, free distribution, and possibly fame. Hopefully, they can figure it out from there.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[BobMcD]

Really good points and if I may say so, one of the best conversations I've had on this site in ages...

Unfortunately I'm running short on time...

I'd like to say:

I do agree that shrinking is necessary, and hope I have communicated what I see as the danger of moving that slider over too far towards 'free'.

I prefer a world where crappy DVD's are available, so long as they are causing the industry to trive and some reasonable portion of their customers are happy by purchasing them.

I fear a theater-only world would simply replay the same films over and over, e.g. Star Wars. I think the constant parade of films we get now, due to the bloat of the system, stands a greater chance of occasionally producing a good result.

I believe the convenience offered by the internet is huge factor in the decision. I believe that as quality and price of the internet product improve, the live offering will need to adapt. I understand the difference between actually being there, but the closer digital gets to reality, the fewer and fewer people will elect to skip the digital.

Again, sorry, and thanks.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[holophrastic]

Ah, but you've forgotten the other half of my business stances. Certainly depending on others to distribute my product for free is one thing. But allowing me to set up distribution channels that don't need to collect payment is the better one.

This way, I can contract a company to distribute my product, pay them and everything, and they don't have to collect payment from the end-customer! That's awesome! More than that, I don't have to track their sales, because it doesn't matter.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[BobMcD]

This is a fallacy. Cory Doctorow (for one) puts his books online in HTML and many e-reader formats, free for anyone to download, yet is on the New York Times best seller list despite (or because of) the fact that anyone can get it for free.

This example does not demonstrate how the assertion a fallacy, and would not even exist were it not for the success of the rest of the system. It one of the outliers and is possible only due to the profits the normal engine generates. It is part of the by-product and does not represent a cycle that would sustain in a vacuum.

By this flawed reasoning libraries would have put book publishers out of business long before the invention of the computer.

Libraries are nowhere near a decent analogy, and I assume you know it. For example libraries:

1) Limit quantities and have queues for titles
2) Limit time of exposure to materials
3) Have a physical and not a digital presence and effort-cost for participation
4) Carry only a selection of works, in stark contrast to the capacity of the internet
5) Prohibit, rather than encourage, additional copying of the works

There are more key differences as well...

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Anonymous Coward]

I was more referring to the FOSS fanboys. They annoy me. The only way for them to survive is for everyone to be just like them, because they realize that once all software is free, the big companies will stop creating quality software, because nobody pays for it. Then, once the big companies are gone, the FOSS fanboys with their pet projects can 'rise' to the top, simply because there is no one else. By them working towards free software, they will destroy the entire industry. Personally, FOSS isn't worth it, if it means that I can't get the programs that I know will be fully featured, and ready when I buy it, as opposed to when some guy in his parent's basement decides that his 'work of art' is finished...if it ever is.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you lay any claim to the data on that hard drive? Would not the thief merely be requiring you to line up your kids and take new snapshots of them, or recalculate your taxes, or re-download all your torrents? Have they actually deprived you of anything, by your standards? I'm genuinely curious if you attach any value to time and effort, or if because it is merely digital it can never have any value at all.

Uh, the thief has my fucking hard drive. It's pretty clear that I've been deprived of a physical piece of property.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[BobMcD]

Read. All. The. Words.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Certainly solves a good half of the people-steal-everything problem. "

Alas, it does nothing to solve the Microsoft-Steals-Everything problem :-(

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[NimbleSquirrel]

Walking into the someone's house and taking their hard drive is theft. The data that is on that drive, represented as actual physical magnetic states on the drive, is also considered stolen (you are depriving the owner if legal posession).

Your arguement seems to be based around whether having a copy of it is also stealing. Getting the data in the first place may be a crime, whether you phyically snuck in and copied it (breaking & entering) or pwned his box (unauthorised used of a computer system).

Simply being in posession if the data may not be a crime (unless you comitted a crime in the first place to get the data), but the question falls down to legal entitlement. If you are not legally entitled to the data, then doing anything with that data is (not surprisingly) illegal. Depeding on what you do with the data, you could be guilty of criminal conversion, copyright infringement, fraud, identity theft, blackmail, and any number of other laws (depending on your locality) that deal with libel, invasion of privacy and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

While it is almost certainly illegal (to obtain, use or in some circumstances even possess), the fact still remains that making a copy is not itself theft (the illegal taking of another person's property, with the intent to deprive the owner of the possession, without that person's freely-given consent).

The idea that "copyright infringement is theft" is perpetuated by the RIAA/MPAA to build public sympathy. This overstates the seriousness if the issue, it oversimplifies the laws involved, it generates fear in the uninformed public, and it makes the RIAA/MPAA out to be more of a victim than they really are. Theft is a violation of criminal law, where as copyright infringement is largely covered by civil law. While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[holophrastic]

No, it's like when you can already steal them for free at the same place.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[MacWiz]

You can use the copy, but it does not belong to you.

Yes, it does. If I walk into a store and buy a CD, DVD, or a book, I own them. I just don't own the right to reproduce and distribute it. The same copyright laws apply to a Louis Vitton bag or a Louisville Slugger baseball bat, but no one ever brings up this silly argument after you buy one.

I can resell that physical copy, give it away, or share it. No one is ever going to come to my house to collect them and return them to their "rightful" owner, because that would be me.

In a book, for example, you can burn the paper in it for kindling if you'd like, but you'll never, ever own the words printed on it.

But if the words started disappearing off the pages, I'd stop buying books.

As we've already seen happen with Microsoft, sooner or later (mostly sooner) the DRM gets abandoned, keys are removed, and your legitimate purchase has less value than the pirated version. You've paid for it, but your copy no longer works and you can no longer continue to enjoy it.

Until you buy it again in the new and improved DRM format. Rinse. Repeat.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Hal_Porter]

1. How is making a copy "stealing?" You are failing to meet a key criterion by not depriving the person from whom you made the copy of whatever you copied. Stealing would be walking into my house and taking my hard drive.

So if I came to your house, copied all your data and went through it for credit card, social security numbers and so on that would be fine with you?

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Hal_Porter]

The private stuff is password protected.

What would happen if some technological change meant that thieves could break the password protection and get to your private data? I guess you'd have no problem with that, right? Your social security and credit card numbers are just numbers after all.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[True Grit]

It all needs to just work, and the only format that just works is MP3 without DRM.

Take away the DRM, and *all* formats would 'just work', since, for those that need to, converting between them would be trivial/automatic.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Fjandr]

Oh, I'm not disagreeing that the attempt to monetize it is something new. We're talking about a patent though. There's supposed to be something novel and original about it, not just "It's different because now I'm going to sell it!" This is the US though, so I'm not surprised.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[holophrastic]

You've got it backwards. Taking two existing things and combining them is most certainly patentable -- that's the novel part; the combination.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[Fjandr]

Adding "Let's sell with it!" isn't a novel addition to anything. It's a basic underlying assumption of any patent, so shouldn't be considered a part of the patent as a whole.

I guess that means I can patent the use of two cans and a piece of string as a broadcast method, because nobody has monetized that before.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[holophrastic]

You can patent a method of charging people who use two cans and a piece of string. But see, it would be difficult to come up with a way of doing so. If I take these two cans to be left, and this string to my right, and start using them, you'd have no way of charging me, or forcing me to pay.

But that's exactly this patent. Taking people who simply download stuff, adn people who simply distribute stuff, and having a path through which to charge them appropriately and force htem to pay -- or they won't get the content.

That's the combination. And that's of value.

Re:That's actually pretty clever

[mcgrew]

This example... would not even exist were it not for the success of the rest of the system.

You're not blind, tale the wool off your eyes and you'll be able to see. You state that if it's free nobody will buy it, Doctorow's success proves you wrong. You show no evidence whatever to rebut my example or to show it's false, yet continue to assert your fallacy without any evidence or even sound logic to demonstrate that it's not a fallacy.

1) Yes, they may only have one or two copies of Thud, but only with the most sought after titles is there a queue. I don't know of nor have ever heard of someone buying a book just because they'd otherwise have to wait in line at the library. Your premise is silly.

2) If you can't finish a book in two weeks you're a poor reader, and in any case you can renew books at any library.

3) The effort of checking out a book at the library is exactly the same effort as buying it, but the cost differential is large. Thirty bucks or more to buy it vs free at the library. "Digital" isn't some sort of magic that automatically makes something different.

4) Why would that matter? There's more to read in any library than anyone could possibly consume.

5) there's no need to copy; that's a red herring as well. The only reason to copy a thing is to let someone else enjoy it; not necessary with a book. In the last century the head of the MPAA insisted that the VCR would kill the movie industry, without any logic or proof, just as you assume the internet and ease of copying will kill the publishing industry.

Your faulty logic suggests you're a PHB at a publishing company.

Hmmm. seems to me that someone will figure out...

[hAckz0r]

...how to put a torrent proxy service out there to read in a torrent stream and republish those DRM'ed packets as a non-DRM'ed version of the same data, or just torrent the key itself. Once the genie is out of the bottle its always a challenge to talk that genie back into that little tiny bottle.

ambivalence

[shentino]

What's to stop the guy who buys the first license from decrypting it and uploading it anyway? Seriously, this just makes their job easier since they'll have the content right with them!

Then again, if ISPs and the RIAA start leaving DRMed torrents alone and only go after the unprotected ones... ...yikes...this IS bad.

Re:ambivalence

[jpmorgan]

That's a problem you have with any DRM. However, a system like the one described would be a fairly interesting way to deliver live content to subscribers without undue server load, especially if the underlying P2P system was network topology aware.

Re:ambivalence

[poetmatt]

actually, on the flip side this will make encrypting every p2p download standard procedure - thus people who use encryption on their normal downloads will be doing SOP as well - it'll make it that much harder for the MAFIAA to identify people as "filesharers" when everyone's doing it.

I still the patent is retarded and there should be prior art, though. At this point I'd like to see our patent office refuse all patents at this point until they start focusing on quality again.

Re:ambivalence

[shentino]

No, what I'm getting at is with DRMed torrents, the MAFIAA might actually back off on filesharing.

DRMed torrents may potentially receive the full blessing of both the MAFIAA and consequently ISPs who no longer have to fear the dogs of war, DRMed torrents will start getting a foothold and suddenly, regular torrents will finally have competition.

Re:ambivalence

[Theaetetus]

I still the patent is retarded and there should be prior art, though. At this point I'd like to see our patent office refuse all patents at this point until they start focusing on quality again.

Yeah, but you can't just say "there should be prior art". You have to actually find that prior art. Otherwise, this is a high quality patent.

Re:ambivalence

[icebraining]

Yes, not only the customers should pay with money, they should pay with their bandwidth too!

Re:ambivalence

[__aagbwg300]

This patent specifies a method for distributing the content on a torrent-like network, but the difference is that the enduser never downloads the complete file - only the parts necessary to fill the buffer and anything necessary to field fast-forward and rewind requests. What I don't understand is the more general problem in DRM: how do you "secure" a machine from a person who has physical access to it?

Re:ambivalence

[ppanon]

Perhaps. What it also might do is allow ISPs to effectively run local torrent caches to limit the amount of traffic that goes over their pipes to the internet (and which they have to pay for). If they tried to do that now then they would be subject to contributing to copyright infringement for anything other than linux isos and similar free content. With this though, they could intercept torrent traffic, monitor which are the most popular of the DRM'd torrents, and cache and share those. That would effectively give DRM'd torrents a big advantage over the regular kind because they would be fed locally at high speed. Of course they would need to do a faster and more reliable job than the old HTTP proxy servers that IPSs initially tried to use and everybody wound up bypassing due to poor performance. It would have to be a cost-benefit analysis of whether setting up and maintaining the system saves enough back-end bandwidth to have decent ROI. However since it would make the DRM'd torrents more attractive, maybe they could ask the MAFIAA to ante up part of the startup costs.

Re:ambivalence

[jpmorgan]

Why not? Bandwidth caps are driven by saturation of ISPs' outbound links. If widespread topology-aware P2P arises, there may be a move to cut caps on internal network traffic, as it would be a way for ISPs to differentiate without really costing them anything. Of course, this doesn't apply if you're a poor soul living in an area with only one real broadband ISP.

Re:ambivalence

[BobMcD]

thus people who use encryption on their normal downloads will be doing SOP as well - it'll make it that much harder for the MAFIAA to identify people as "filesharers" when everyone's doing it.

Actually, I'd think the opposite. In order to flag "filesharers" one would only need to check the encryption keys against a list of those you know are good. If the torrent users are constantly changing keys, they would have to be freely available, or everyone would get locked out of the content.

Sounds like a quick way to kill them. Especially when coupled with a requirement that all torrents of copyrighted works be encrypted.

Re:ambivalence

[negRo_slim]

Until they simply spoof the relevant info to make 'em looked DRMd.

Re:ambivalence

[poetmatt]

it's already been cited by other slashdot comments in the article. The idea should be refused under bilski but then again, I'm not the patent office.

Just because something is lacking documented prior art doesn't mean it's a good patent.

Re:ambivalence

[Theaetetus]

it's already been cited by other slashdot comments in the article.

Where? I see a bunch that say "this is old" or "this was done in bt", but none actually say "and here's the paper, man page, or description of it."

The idea should be refused under bilski but then again, I'm not the patent office.

On what grounds? It's tied to a specific machine, which would make it patentable under the current Bilski test.

Just because something is lacking documented prior art doesn't mean it's a good patent.

No, but if your argument is "it's novel and not obvious, but isn't a good patent because it's done in software," that's a very different argument from what other people are saying.

Re:ambivalence

[Patch86]

What about obviousness?

Has encryption been invented? Check.
Can it be used to encrypt computer files? Check.
Has p2p downloading been invented? Check.
Does it allow transferring computer files? Check.

Obviousness is a perfectly valid reason to deny a patent too, you know.

Re:ambivalence

[Theaetetus]

What about obviousness?

Has encryption been invented? Check.
Can it be used to encrypt computer files? Check.
Has p2p downloading been invented? Check.
Does it allow transferring computer files?
Check.

Obviousness is a perfectly valid reason to deny a patent too, you know.

It would be if the patent was:
A method for DRM in a p2p network comprising:
providing an encryption system;
encrypting one or more computer files;
providing a p2p system; and
transferring the encrypted one or more computer files via the p2p system.

Then you'd be totally right, that this is obvious.

Of course, that's not the patent. Instead, it's:
1. A process for managing digital rights to a scalable media file comprising of truncatable media packets, wherein a different encryption/decryption key is used to encrypt each truncatable media packet having a base layer and an enhancement layer without requiring additional storage space to store the encryption/decryption key, comprising the process actions of:
using a first computing device for encryption;
receiving at the first computing device a scalable media file comprising a plurality of truncatable media packets;
for each truncatable media packet:
deriving a packet key for the encryption/decryption of the truncatable media packet via a message authentication code (MAC) on the base layer of the truncatable media packet;
encrypting the base layer and the enhancement layer of the media packet using the packet key;
encrypting the packet key via a media encryption key authorized by an owner of the content of the media;
replacing an equal portion of the content in the encrypted base layer of the truncatable media packet with the encrypted packet key;
using the first computing device or a second computing device for decryption of each truncatable media packet;
receiving at the first computing device or second computing device the truncatable media packets;
decrypting the packet key from the replaced portion of the encrypted base layer using a media decryption key authorized by the owner of the content of the media;
decrypting the portion of the base layer of the truncatable media packet not replaced by the encrypted packet key using the decrypted packet key;
using the MAC on the base layer of the decrypted portion of the truncatable media packet to regenerate the content overwritten by the encrypted packet key to reconstruct the entire base layer of the media packet; and
decrypting the content of the enhancement layer of the truncatable media packet using the decrypted packet key.

You need to find every single one of those other terms in some prior art references before you can say that the combination of those prior art references is obvious.

Re:ambivalence

[icebraining]

Here in Portugal some years ago we had "country" and "external" traffic in our ISPs metering for a long time, and usually country caps would be pretty large and external could be something like 2GB for a medium connection.
The result was a Portuguese emule fork, called blowfish, which had internal country filters, so it could only download from other Portuguese users (checked by IP range). It was abandoned when undifferentiated traffic became common.

So "topology-aware P2P" exists for some time now, it's nothing new.

Of course, if we return to differentiated traffic, and have "infinite" caps for local transfers, I wouldn't mind sharing. On the other hand, I wouldn't buy DRM laden files, so it doesn't really matter to me.

maximum utility.

[gandhi_2]

1. patent something.
2. patent it "...on a computer".
3. patent it "...on a network".
4. patent it "...with DRM".
5. patent it "???".
6. Profit!!1!

Re:maximum utility.

[Theaetetus]

1. patent something. 2. patent it "...on a computer". 3. patent it "...on a network". 4. patent it "...with DRM". 5. patent it "???". 6. Profit!!1!

[Citation needed]

There actually aren't any "X... on a computer!" patents because patents don't work that way. There are misleading articles and misleading summaries that characterize a particular patent as "X... on the Internet!" or "X... but on a computer!", but those bear as much relation to the patent as your post does to a funny joke.

Re:maximum utility.

[gstoddart]

There actually aren't any "X... on a computer!" patents because patents don't work that way.

I don't want to disagree too strongly, because I try not to read patents.

But, I've definitely seen patents cited here on Slashdot which essentially take something we've all been doing for a long time (like, decades or more), and essentially saying "a computer system for performing <routine task>".

The essentials of the task are unchanged (and wouldn't be patentable) but it's on a computer system. I'm not entirely convinced that some of those modifiers aren't being used to apply for additional patents.

Cheers

Re:maximum utility.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that "with DRM" is actually kind of non-trivial with this sort of protocol.

Re:maximum utility.

[Theaetetus]

There actually aren't any "X... on a computer!" patents because patents don't work that way.

I don't want to disagree too strongly, because I try not to read patents.

But, I've definitely seen patents cited here on Slashdot which essentially take something we've all been doing for a long time (like, decades or more), and essentially saying "a computer system for performing <routine task>".

Yeah, but what you're quoting is the preamble of the claim, not the actual claim. There are usually problems that come in when you take a known routine task and try to perform them in a different context - maybe it's the fact that you need a random number, but the RNG on your computer isn't really random. Or maybe your routine task is processing network packets, but in a multi-core system now you need load balancing and receive-side scaling... so while the patent may be just "processing network packets... but in a multi-core system", it has a whole bunch of new steps to perform that don't exist in a single-core system.

Anyway, the patent office can and absolutely do combine references... So if you had a patent application for "selling flowers... but on the Internet!" with no steps other than "a. offer flower at price N; b. receive price N in payment; c. provide flower; wherein a and b are performed on a computer network", the patent office would say "here's a publication on selling flowers, and here's a publication on a computer network, so we can combine them and it's obvious." However, in all of the complained-about "patents on doing X on the internet", there's a lot more going on.

Re:maximum utility.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shareholders before customers. The mantra at Microsoft.

Re:maximum utility.

[jedidiah]

...and chances are it's covered by 20 year old academic research.

Desktop computing is like the mouth of the Nile being the last stop on a long ride with lots of other things feeding it from upstream.

"multi-core" is a beautiful example of this.

Re:maximum utility.

[Theaetetus]

...and chances are it's covered by 20 year old academic research.

Desktop computing is like the mouth of the Nile being the last stop on a long ride with lots of other things feeding it from upstream.

"multi-core" is a beautiful example of this.

Receive-side scaling was presented in a 2004 white paper my Microsoft... You have a citation for a 1984 paper that describes it?

Solves the piracy problem at the user end...

[stagg]

If this goes mainstream we won't get in trouble for downloading "stolen" products, we'll get in trouble for stealing/cracking encryption keys. That should be even harder to police.

Re:Solves the piracy problem at the user end...

[mewsenews]

Reminds me of "stealing" satellite signals. The government has cracked down on that pretty viciously.

Re:Solves the piracy problem at the user end...

[Nadaka]

except that "steeling" a product results in a civil fine. Cracking DRM is a federal felony that can get you decades of hardcore prison time.

Re:Solves the piracy problem at the user end...

[shutdown -p now]

except that "stealing" a product results in a civil fine.

Depends. This hasn't been true in U.S. for over 10 years, for example.

Re:Solves the piracy problem at the user end...

[Nadaka]

Thats why I enclosed it in quotes. Copyright infringment isn't theft, but most media producers like to perpetuate that lie. The misspelling was entirely unintentional.

Re:Solves the piracy problem at the user end...

[xigxag]

AFAIK, the criminal law only applies to being busted downloading >= $1,000 "worth" of stuff in a six month period.

Re:Solves the piracy problem at the user end...

[shutdown -p now]

AFAIK, the criminal law only applies to being busted downloading >= $1,000 "worth" of stuff in a six month period.

Correct:

"Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed ...

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; ..."

But, given that e.g. Photoshop CS4 alone costs $699, it is ridiculously easy to do just that. Even with music alone, if one assumes $1 per file, it's 1000 files in 6 months - not all that much by today's measure.

Re:Solves the piracy problem at the user end...

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you "steal" something that is broadcast over an entire hemisphere? You and I are subjected to satellite signals of all kinds without our desire or consent. How is merely making use of that radiation we are bombarded with considered 'theft?'

No, I'm not a tinfoil hat-wearing paraniod. I am just trying to look at it pragmatically.

Now, I WOULD consider an UP-link to a satellite without authorisation to be theft of services (bandwidth, processing time, potentially introducing security holes), but to merely make use of signals broadcast, which I am subjected to all the time regardless of desire or objection, is NOT theft.

Otherwise, if I were a farmer growing "organic" vegetables for hippy/crunchy treehuggers, I'd be crazy to not consider filing a frivilous suit against communication satellite operators for irradiating my crops or for trespassing, if only for generating PR in the paranoid hippy "community." Note to crunchies: I am not patenting this PR-generating scam as 'imaginary property.' Feel free to make use of my idea.

Re:Solves the piracy problem at the user end...

[fulldecent]

except that "steeling" a product results in a civil fine. Cracking DRM is a federal felony that can get you decades of hardcore prison time.

But luckily, cracking only needs to be done once. After that, the redistribution is lesser crime.

Re:Solves the piracy problem at the user end...

[MBGMorden]

I wasn't aware that adding carbon to a product to produce a stronger alloy was a civil violation now. Good grief we really have taken this whole thing too far!

Re:Solves the piracy problem at the user end...

[BobMcD]

Presumably your government was already compensated for the use of these signals. Perhaps you should take it up with them?

Re:Solves the piracy problem at the user end...

[BobMcD]

Thats why I enclosed it in quotes. Copyright infringment isn't theft, but most media producers like to perpetuate that lie. The misspelling was entirely unintentional.

Conversations that only allow strict definitions of words are cumbersome. Copyright infringement isn't physical theft, true, but neither is any kind of data theft, or identity theft for that matter. This doesn't preclude laws existing to deal with it, despite your nit over the precise word used to communicate it.

Re:Solves the piracy problem at the user end...

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when the government made listening to cellphone conversations illegal? (after someone recorded Rush Limbaugh talking about doing something he publicly criticized, then shared the recording with others, and eventually it got onto TV.) Rebroadcasting signals without permission was already illegal. But they made listening to signals on that bandwidth illegal, something that had always been legal. Then they made receivers that could receive those frequencies illegal. Show me a current scanner/receiver that can listen to cellphone frequencies. If there is enough political pressure, anything can be made illegal, and as money creates political pressure more than anything else, and money is something Microsoft has, good luck to the average citizen.

Re:Solves the piracy problem at the user end...

[Anonymous Coward]

Crack the DRM (only takes one), post the source once annon and leave no trace of credit back to yourself. Hard to bite back that pride, but if you did MS loses millions, the media companies lose millions and we are back to freedom.

Lots of work for no credit though.

Re:Solves the piracy problem at the user end...

[zerocool^]

Receiving the signal is not illegal. In fact, if you go get a satellite and a receiver, and plug them up correctly, you will get the DirecTV information channel.

The signal, however, is encrypted and locked out based on your access. Decrypting the signal (getting free pay per view and free porn and free movies/tv etc) is illegal.

They've cracked down on people buying card readers and people downloading the software to program them.

Re:Solves the piracy problem at the user end...

[Urkki]

How can you "steal" something that is broadcast over an entire hemisphere? You and I are subjected to satellite signals of all kinds without our desire or consent. How is merely making use of that radiation we are bombarded with considered 'theft?'

No, I'm not a tinfoil hat-wearing paraniod. I am just trying to look at it pragmatically.

It's not use of the radiation that is considered "theft", it's use of the information encoded into that radiation...

(Use of radiation will be considered stealing if the satellite is collecting solar energy and beaming it down as microwaves, but that's future, and at that point tinfoil hat might actually be good idea while you're setting up your radiation-stealer antenna ;-).

Obvious

[Anne Thwacks]

Please can I have a patent on putting different amounts of sugar in different people's coffee?

Re:Obvious

[Dachannien]

Did you bother reading the claim?

1. A process for managing digital rights to a scalable media file comprising of truncatable media packets, wherein a different encryption/decryption key is used to encrypt each truncatable media packet having a base layer and an enhancement layer without requiring additional storage space to store the encryption/decryption key, comprising the process actions of:

using a first computing device for encryption;

receiving at the first computing device a scalable media file comprising a plurality of truncatable media packets;

for each truncatable media packet:

  - deriving a packet key for the encryption/decryption of the truncatable media packet via a message authentication code (MAC) on the base layer of the truncatable media packet;

  - encrypting the base layer and the enhancement layer of the media packet using the packet key;

  - encrypting the packet key via a media encryption key authorized by an owner of the content of the media;

  - replacing an equal portion of the content in the encrypted base layer of the truncatable media packet with the encrypted packet key;

  - using the first computing device or a second computing device for decryption of each truncatable media packet;

  - receiving at the first computing device or second computing device the truncatable media packets;

  - decrypting the packet key from the replaced portion of the encrypted base layer using a media decryption key authorized by the owner of the content of the media;

  - decrypting the portion of the base layer of the truncatable media packet not replaced by the encrypted packet key using the decrypted packet key;

  - using the MAC on the base layer of the decrypted portion of the truncatable media packet to regenerate the content overwritten by the encrypted packet key to reconstruct the entire base layer of the media packet; and

  - decrypting the content of the enhancement layer of the truncatable media packet using the decrypted packet key.

Still obvious?

Re:Obvious

[Yetihehe]

If you'll find a new non obvious way of doing this, then yes.

Re:Obvious

[jedidiah]

For a computer scientist that specializes in this sort of thing: probably.

That's the standard here (or should be). This isn't about what can wow
some layman schmuck off the street or on Slashdot or some groupie for the
relevant company.

Microsoft's new patent should not give Microsoft the right to sue the next
guy that can come up with an independent implementation without ever having
seen this particular patent.

Re:Obvious

[Dachannien]

For a computer scientist that specializes in this sort of thing: probably.

Keep in mind that the standard for obviousness is not whether an expert in the field would find it obvious, but rather, whether one of ordinary skill would find it obvious. (If you read up on US patent law, you'll occasionally see the acronym PHOSITA: person having ordinary skill in the art.)

Re:Obvious

[Anne Thwacks]

I live in the UK, and here the standard of obviousness is "one who is sufficiently skilled in the art" - which I would expect to be interpreted as someone who designs this type of stuff for a living - eg me.

Yes, I would consider this "all in a days work" if I was working on STBs or similar. It is far and away more obvious than stuff I have been refused pantents on.

I fully support the idea of patents, although I have opposed "software" patents for over 30 years. I also do not accept that "business methods" should be patentable (they are not outside of the USA). A patent is a contract with society that the inventor can reveal his methods without losing his monopoly so that society can improve on it this does not appear to be what happens in America. I consider the US patent system to be a crime against civilisation.

Already being done

[ickleberry]

See BBC iPlayer/Kontiki

Not only do they want to turn your own PC against you with their DRM, they also want to use your upstream bandwidth. All the disadvantages of torrents and all the disadvantages of legally bought "treats the buyer as a criminal" DRMified files rolled into one

Re:Already being done

[Blue Stone]

BBC iPlayer no longer uses the Kontiki distribution software and hasn't for a long time.

More info: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/22/bbc_cdn_isps_level3/

Re:Already being done

[digitig]

Probably not already done. The patent doesn't seem to be for applying DRM to a torrent, but for a particular method of doing it.

Re:Already being done

[RotateLeftByte]

Perhaps this is the reason why they(Microsoft) won't allow the BBC iPlayer on XBOX?
They want to charge for it but the BBC charter/rules won't allow it.
Will Microsoft make the BBC an offer they can't refuse and get them to switch to their DRM method? But the BBC can't make you pay for stuff you view via iPlayer?

Re:Already being done

[DJGrahamJ]

True, but like iPlayer/Kontiki you don't have to use the network. Don't watch crappy MS-distributed DRM files and nothing changes. Just stick with the usual clear torrents.

Re:Already being done

[rawler]

Or Spotify

Bandwidth of a movie?

[AmigaHeretic]

So if I only want to pay for the 700MB quality KEY, I still have to download the whole 4GB torrent?

Where can I download this awesome torrents? Oh I think I found the link:

http://thepiratemicrosoft.com/


..

Re:Bandwidth of a movie?

[__aagbwg300]

Actually, I think the implementation is a little different- you never download the entire file. You only download what you need to keep the buffer full. If you want to skip ahead (or back), the code finds the appropriate packets. Since they are all encrypted separately, the media is a little more modular.

-Sean

Re:Bandwidth of a movie?

[canajin56]

Well, if you stream the whole thing, you get the whole thing eventually, that's not the point. The point is, if the total size of the file is 2gb for "ultra quality" 1 gb for "good quality", 500mb for "sux quality" and 250 mb for "shit quality", then sorry, if you stream the full length of the movie, you have to download the entire 3.75gb, and upload it back to other peers, too. See, if each stream was separate, then the guys with money to burn who spent the extra cash on "ultra quality" would only have each other for company in the swarm, and it would be slower for them. This way, even the cheapskates paying for only the 250mb version of the video, have to download all 3.75 gb so they can upload the good quality version to the big spenders.

Waste of bandwidth and disk

[mysidia]

If you only get the low quality anyways, why does it make any sense for you to be forced to pull the bits in the high quality version? This is a reduction in efficiency and convenience. Due to the long transfer times required for high-quality content, and very short transfer times required for smaller low-quality content.

There's a simpler solution to this: use keyed/passworded private torrents.

Make different quality versions different files.

Then the customers who purchase low-quality content don't get to download the same file as the ones who purchase high-quality content, and it means, less bandwidth and disk space is used.

If they change their mind and wish to buy a high quality version, they can simply download the high-quality version once given access. Upon successful download replace the lq file.

This technology is superfluous.. it shouldn't be patentable, because it's not an actual improvement.

Inventions have to be improvements to be patentable... it's called useful discovery

As required by the constitution: To promote the progress of science and useful arts...

Their technology does not offer an improvement versus pre-existing unpatented technologies in common use and simpler obvious ways of accomplishing the same thing, they do not have a useful invention.

Re:Waste of bandwidth and disk

[shutdown -p now]

This technology is superfluous.. it shouldn't be patentable, because it's not an actual improvement.

It very much depends on your perspective. From TFA:

"The system has the advantages of 1) shifting distribution costs to users ..."

Re:Waste of bandwidth and disk

[Kreigaffe]

I think you may have missed the part where Microsoft isn't the one distributing this around, it's P2P! Those losers don't care how much bandwidth they're wasting! And hell, if they get pissed at downloading a file four times as large as is justified by the quality they've purchased, they can spend more money to unlock the higher quality content! IT'S BRILLIANT

Re:Waste of bandwidth and disk

[Anonymous Coward]

So the improvement lies in doing what P2P has done for years and you still would call this patentable? My brain must be frozen today.

WOW!

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I encrypt a file, create a torrent out of it, and put it up for distribution, I'm violating MS's patent?

If this is the case, I guess I'll have to become Incorporated if I want to 'innovate' anything for the net... Either that, or that patent office should be taken out back and shot. Not sure which one would be easier at this point...

Re:WOW!

[digitig]

So if I encrypt a file, create a torrent out of it, and put it up for distribution, I'm violating MS's patent?

Only if you use there method for doing it, AFAICS. But IANAL.

Embrace, extend, extinguish

[HeckRuler]

FINALLY Microsoft reaches out to embrace, extend, and extinguish DRM.

Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

Isnt that the same scheme for their OS? I thought they have already patented that ....

Anyone who thinks...

[MinisterPhobia]

... that torrent users are going to obey this law where they've ignored all the other laws raise your hand.

Re:Anyone who thinks...

[MBGMorden]

That's the whole futility in thinking that you can pass just a few more laws to get law breakers to obey.

They pass laws against guns when shooting people is already illegal. Do you think the murderer will stop because of 1 more law?

They pass laws against prostitution because "the girls get beat up". Assault is already illegal. Do you think that an assailant will halt at the law against prostitution when the other law didn't stop him?

They pass laws against drug use because it "leads to crime", despite that crime itself being illegal already.

They pass laws against breaking DRM when copying stuff was already illegal. Do you think that the cracker is going to saw "WHOA - wait a tick. I was going to make this illegal copy but I'd have to illegally break the DRM - no sir I'll not tarnish my rep!".

We keep stacking more and more laws on ourselves based on what we MIGHT do in conjunction with an activity. It doesn't stop the people actually doing the wrong and only serves to further restrict the people who weren't going to do anything wrong to begin with (ie, the people who actually obey the law).

Not "already"

[Theaetetus]

The BBC iPlayer doesn't predate the September 3, 2004 filing date.

Re:Not "already"

[Anonymous Coward]

Please show me where the BBC, based in the UK is subject to silly patents granted in Washington DC?

If they were to try this on over this side of the pond, there is plenty of prior art. One I have in mind was the BT trial in London of VOD etc in the early 1990's. It used something akin to DRM when progs were transmitted over shared cable.

Waste... for you, not them

[Theaetetus]

If you only get the low quality anyways, why does it make any sense for you to be forced to pull the bits in the high quality version? This is a reduction in efficiency and convenience. Due to the long transfer times required for high-quality content, and very short transfer times required for smaller low-quality content.

There's a simpler solution to this: use keyed/passworded private torrents.

Make different quality versions different files.

Then the customers who purchase low-quality content don't get to download the same file as the ones who purchase high-quality content, and it means, less bandwidth and disk space is used.

If they change their mind and wish to buy a high quality version, they can simply download the high-quality version once given access. Upon successful download replace the lq file.

This technology is superfluous.. it shouldn't be patentable, because it's not an actual improvement.

Inventions have to be improvements to be patentable... it's called useful discovery

As required by the constitution: To promote the progress of science and useful arts...

Their technology does not offer an improvement versus pre-existing unpatented technologies in common use and simpler obvious ways of accomplishing the same thing, they do not have a useful invention.

Just because it's not an improvement to you, the pirate, doesn't mean it's not an improvement to them, the copyright owner. The Supreme Court has very broadly construed "useful"... In the Juicy Whip case, for example, they held an invention that made a regular mix-syrup-and-water soda fountain that looked like a premix reservoir-type fountain to be a useful invention, because it successfully (and usefully) misled customers into believing they were getting a fresher product. That moved it into the arena of the FDA and FTC rather than the patent office.
Same thing here - this is useful to the copyright owners who want to efficiently monetize their work by creating one multi-quality file that can be unlocked at different qualities by different keys. Sure, it sucks for you, but that doesn't mean it's useful.

Why are you guys so upset?

[pclminion]

I always have to laugh when people complain about patents on technologies they hate. Hello? They PATENTED it. That means nobody else is allowed to do it. And Microsoft of course, will fail at it themselves. Thus the effect of the patent is to PREVENT these sorts of DRM mechanisms from proliferating. Use your brains people.

Re:Why are you guys so upset?

[Anonymous Coward]

I always have to laugh when people complain about patents on technologies they hate. Hello? They PATENTED it. That means nobody else is allowed to do it. And Microsoft of course, will fail at it themselves. Thus the effect of the patent is to PREVENT these sorts of DRM mechanisms from proliferating. Use your brains people.

Exactly.

Developers developers developers.

Re:Why are you guys so upset?

[jedidiah]

...yes. That worked so well with jpeg, mp3, h264, DVD-CSS and AACS.

Re:Why are you guys so upset?

[pclminion]

jpeg, mp3, and h264 contain patents unrelated to DRM. DVD-CSS and AACS have both been cracked. So I fail to understand the scaremongering. I yawn at this patent.

Re:Why are you guys so upset?

[Urkki]

I always have to laugh when people complain about patents on technologies they hate. Hello? They PATENTED it. That means nobody else is allowed to do it. And Microsoft of course, will fail at it themselves. Thus the effect of the patent is to PREVENT these sorts of DRM mechanisms from proliferating. Use your brains people.

"Microsoft of course, will fail at it"? Once it's patented, it's possible to control the software that implements it. Once the software is under control, MAFIAA can release media playable only by that controlled software, which will only play it if it's paid for. Microsoft has managed to release yet another operating system (Windows 7) that will have the overwhelming majority of desktop PCs. Why would they fail to release an exlusive MAFIAA-approved pay-to-view P2P video delivery system for it, if they just get MAFIAA to play along?

Of course anything is hackable, and this isn't at all intersting to "pirates", and probably not to Linux users either. But it could be basis for true click-to-view video-on-demand for the average Windows user. For people who pay for the entertainment they consume, this could be very convenient.

Re:Why are you guys so upset?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"I always have to laugh when people complain about patents on technologies they hate. Hello? They PATENTED it. That means nobody else is allowed to do it."

It doesn't mean that at all. What it means is that noone else is allowed to profit from it without paying microsoft some of the booty.

"And Microsoft of course, will fail at it themselves."

... opening up an opportunity for someone else to get it right and share the profits with M$.

Re:Why are you guys so upset?

[jedidiah]

...yes: all of those formats contain patents that cause potential legal problems for software but haven't slowed down the creation and dissemination of tools.

RTFA

[Late Adopter]

The claim in the patent makes it clear there's a "base layer" and an "enhancement layer". The high quality version would need both, the low quality would only download the bits they need, and only have decryption rights to those.

If you read between the lines, what they're talking about is like a regular DRMed P2P distribution channel (BBC iplayer), but targetable to portable devices (i.e. the Zune) also.

It's clever, and useful if you're Microsoft, or maybe Apple, and have control over an ecosystem of products (Xbox/WMP/Zune or iTunes/iPhone/iPod).

Depending on the license...

[nschubach]

...depending on the license that has been purchased.

Does this mean I can implement the same DRM without the license restriction and it's not covered by the patent?

Re:Depending on the license...

[Dachannien]

The way to find out is to read the claim(s) in the patent instead of going by the abstract (or, worse yet, someone else's interpretation of the abstract). If you do the same thing the entire claim says, then you're infringing.

(There are other ways to infringe, such as contributory infringement, which don't require doing what the entire claim says. For example, if you sell a device whose sole purpose is to help someone else infringe a claim, then you're an infringer also. Most of the time, this involves making a device that is the same as what only part of the claim says, where the device doesn't have any substantial uses aside from serving as a part in another system which directly infringes.)

Just 'cause they can I guess...

[HamSammy]

Why would anybody, even Microsoft, try to get into a sketchy (at least to the public) form of distribution, and try to oust the already popular, free form of torrents? Especially when the content of the DRM'd torrents will just end up right where it always does: right back in the free torrents?

I'm all for the adoption of a strong P2P network if they can get it to work efficiently, but it doesn't strike me as a very good business decision.

They should pay me

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Why should I participate in DRM P2P, especially if I have to buy a license? Microsoft should be paying me.

Indeed

[DrYak]

Indeed, using DRM-protected torrent to distribute paid-for content was attempted by several players almost immediately by several provider when bittorrent appeared. And lots of less-legal sharing cites may encrypt the torrents so only members of the community could access its content.

In addition, having different levels of quality in different packets of the same stream (the more packet you have, the better the quality), has been proposed in lots of old systems such as the OGG/Vorbis compression (so that a web radio emits only 1 single stream and quality decreases as packet are dropped, instead of having to emit several stream of varying quality). In fact, progressive JPEGs work in a similar way (first chunks contain low-res blurry image, later chunks add the missing details), except that they are not a media stream but static pictures.

Meanwhile the patent was applied for only in 2005. The only thing that wasn't widely used before, is using separate key on each different "quality" packets. But it looks almost straight forward given the other technologies.

Re:Indeed

[radtea]

In addition, having different levels of quality in different packets of the same stream (the more packet you have, the better the quality), has been proposed in lots of old systems

I'm not sure what you're commenting on here. The patent claim is built around "truncatable packets", not "different levels of quality in different packets."

Your analysis doesn't seem to have anything to do with what MS has actually been granted a patent on (which admittedly looks like a stupid idea described badly, as is typical with patents and especially software patents, but one of the major features of the patent system in the US is to allow very narrow claims to avoid vaguely similar prior art.)

At least this time the /. editors didn't call a patent application a patent, although they did as usual vaguely describe the general area of the application, rather than the claims, and for some reason declare the patent had been granted on the general area rather the specific claims.

Re:Indeed

[yerM)M]

Absolutely indeed, in fact didn't Valve hire the author of bittorrent to do exactly this to distribute their DRM'd material?

Re:Indeed

[msobkow]

The whole patent only makes sense if you can select which packets to download. If, as with a regular torrent, you have to download the whole file, you're sucking up the bandwidth for a 1080p video while only being able to watch 480i (for example.)

Wow! Holy greed batman!

[SmallFurryCreature]

So, basically MS wants ME to contribute to distribute THEIR content I already paid for and then actually download MORE then I can actually use?

A: Hidden charges, shipping charges laws. A product should have a clear price. But say I download such a product on a paid connection. Then I pay not just for the license but also for the download AND upload. And if my license is not for the full product, I download stuff I don't need. So, how much does a $7 movie cost? Really?

B: What does this change, DRM exists and has been broken. What is the point of adding even more complexity?

C: What happens to people on ISP's who restrict uploads?

Re:Wow! Holy greed batman!

[Urkki]

So, basically MS wants ME to contribute to distribute THEIR content I already paid for and then actually download MORE then I can actually use?

A: Hidden charges, shipping charges laws. A product should have a clear price. But say I download such a product on a paid connection. Then I pay not just for the license but also for the download AND upload. And if my license is not for the full product, I download stuff I don't need. So, how much does a $7 movie cost? Really?

Downloading media on internet connection where you pay by the bytes transferred? Are you nuts? Anyway, you could be saying same concerns about cars. The car seems to have a clear price, but then once you get a car, you have to pay for insurance, gas, service, washing... How can selling cars with that kind of hidden charges be legal? Also note, with P2P, the other users are lending their bandwidth to you, just like you're lending yours to them, so it sort of cancels itself. It reduces the cost of delivery, thus allowing lower prices (even in monopoly lower costs will usually result in lower prices due to increasing demand still increasing profits), a clear benefit to the customer.

B: What does this change, DRM exists and has been broken. What is the point of adding even more complexity?

The general point could be getting up-to-date content (series, movies, live sports events...) to be legally delivered over the internet to desktop PCs. The extra bonus for Microsoft could be allowing receiving this only with Windows PCs, possibly getting a license fee for Mac version of the player, and giving Linux one more handicap on the desktop.

Note about hacking the DRM P2P stream: to watch eg. a live sports event, the pirate needs the key specific to that event. They can only get it from somebody who's paying for the stream, and then they need to distribute it to everybody wanting to watch it, in addition to duplicating the stream. Certainly possible, but a lot of hassle, and more uncertain (does the pirated key and the pirated stream work or do you miss the event?). If pricing is right and technology works (think ISP proxies etc), just paying for it starts to sound pretty tempting. And once you pay for some of it, and if pricing is still right, why not pay also for the other stuff, if it's hassle-free.

Also, think of this being implemented in a TV set or a set-top-box, no PC required.

There are a lot of possibilites not really available otherwise.

C: What happens to people on ISP's who restrict uploads?

ISPs change policies, either because it's good for them or because Microsoft marketing sells them a cost-saving proxy software to run inside their own network, or customers switch ISPs.

OT: The Gates Borg image needs to go...

[divisionbyzero]

I have no particular love for Microsoft but the image is silly and dated.

Explain me how this is not evil

[unity100]

please do.

Plus the Politics...

[tjstork]

Hollywood and the recording business is in awful spot for politics. Almost by definition, they are leftists, first because the left more accepted the riotous lives of entertainers, and then, because of political utility of mass media. But, the left is increasingly embracing an open content world, consistent with its more socialist visions - like, if you can redistribute land, why put fences around IP. It makes no sense for any serious socialist to support copyrights and that's a huge problem for Hollywood.

But, while Republicans have vainly tried to court Hollywood for years with things like IP, they've got nothing but rebuffed, and at least this Republican has utterly lost all patience with Hollywood, such that, even if I have a core value of being able to "control what you create", at the same time, the conservative / natural law side of me also says that copyrights really are a government intervention, are entirely artificial, the natural thing to do is just make copies, and even more so, the better, that it bankrupts an industry that prides itself on ripping everything I believe in.

So yeah, Hollywood can make plenty of movies ripping us Republican rednecks, but, if the whole world can just copy them... hey, why not.

Greedy...

[substraction]

I bet that they have lost more money paying people to develop DRM technology than they have lost from people downloading music illegally -- especially when a lot of people then buy the whole cd after downloading a few tracks online. What idiots! Their greed will eventually ruin them. (It's doing it already -- just look at the rise of creative commons and other similar licenses for music and whatnot...) I understand that downloading music and other media illegally is illegal but to fight for every penny when you're losing money doing it...that's just stupid and greedy.

Half-Life 2

[DrYak]

in fact didn't Valve hire the author of bittorrent to do exactly this to distribute their DRM'd material?

Yup.
And Half-Life 2 got released exactly that way : a crypted package, Peer-2-peer distributed over the steam network. So most users could pre-download the bulk of the data, and unlock the game and start playing it as soon as the official release date. (well, in theory. In practice, the servers got so much overloaded that my brother had to wait a couple of days before being able to unlock his boxed copy).

This was all in 2004, the year *before* MS even applied for this patent.

Packet selection

[DrYak]

The whole patent only makes sense if you can select which packets to download.

1. Lots of modern torrent clients allow you to select and download only a subset of data (Azureus and rTorrent do, in my experience, although mlDonkey doesn't). Usually it's done to only download a couple of files from a huge torrent, but nothing prevents the same technique to be applied to arbitrary chunk of data (the chunk contain the data needed for low-res, and discarding the chunk containing the additional data needed to increase the resolution).

2. The companies providing content don't care. What they want is to unload the stress on their sever. The more users download chunks of data, the less their server will be hammered, no matter if the end users can actually access said chunks. The only companies which would care would be the ISP who oversold their bandwidth.

you're sucking up the bandwidth for a 1080p video while only being able to watch 480i (for example.)

Well, and you don't even take into account that the trusted chain of DRM could be broken on some other step and still degrade the signal to 480i because the TV and PC can't agree over HDCP :-P

oxymoron

[Yfrwlf]

If I would have been drinking something upon reading the headline, it wouldn't have made it into my tummy.

That makes as much sense as copyrighting the copyright logo. Trying to restrict the copying of data within an ecosystem of copying data. Way to go Microsoft, brilliant as always.