Downloadable content, with locks on the side

The music industry discovered a few years ago that the DRM it was using to deter copying wasn't locking down songs as well as it was locking customers to a particular vendor: Apple's iTunes Store. So the major labels have grudgingly abandoned Digital Restrictions Management, or DRM, on paid downloads, although they still require encryption to be used on other products such as all-you-can-eat music subscription services.

Now, Hollywood is looking at a similar problem posed by DRM. It hasn't stopped piracy, and it's certainly not helping the sale of downloadable movies. It's also laid the groundwork for a repeat of the iTunes phenomenon: with dueling DRMs that work with different sets of devices, consumers may flock to a single supplier to avoid compatibility problems.

Against that backdrop, a group of studios and record labels have joined with a handful of major technology companies, ISPs and retailers in a coalition to develop a new approach to distributing content digitally. Think of it as a standard for media delivered through the Net, in the way that DVD is a standard for packaged movies and CD is a standard for packaged songs. It's also a very ambitious attempt to make DRM palatable to consumers. Some anti-DRM forces might argue that the effort is a bit like, let's see, what's an analogy that no one will misinterpret ... painting lipstick on a pig. But the proponents say it's really about giving customers what they want. If the initiative works as intended, it will remove the barriers to customers watching or listening to the content they acquire on any of their devices, wherever they happen to be. No one will notice the locks on a file until they try to IM it to a friend. That's the theory, at least.

Formerly known as Open Market, this effort -- spearheaded by Sony Pictures' Mitch Singer -- has been in the works for more than a year. TechCrunch's Michael Arrington did an article on it last month, describing it as a "last ditch" effort to preserve DRM. I think it's more likely that the new Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem initiative is merely Hollywood's third stab at controlling digital copying (after CSS and AACS). And given that the studios have never sold a home-video product without some kind of copy protection, if DECE doesn't work, they'll try something else.

The ecosystem envisioned by Singer et al revolves around a common set of formats, interfaces and other standards. Devices built to the DECE specifications would be able to play any DECE-branded content and work with any DECE-certified service. The goal is to create for downloads the same kind of interoperability that's been true for physical products, such as CDs and DVDs. Where it gets really interesting, though, is the group's stated intention to make digital files as flexible and permissive as CDs, at least within the confines of someone's personal domain. Once you've acquired a file, you could play it on any of your devices -- if it couldn't be passed directly from one DECE-ready device to another, you'd be allowed to download additional copies. And when you're away from home, you could stream the file to any device with a DECE-compatible Web browser.

This kind of domain-based approach to DRM is a big improvement for consumers over the systems now used by most music subscription services and movie-download sites, such as Movielink. CinemaNow is moving in that direction, and Apple already uses a domain-based system. But Apple won't let any other manufacturers use its DRM, so to take full advantage of it, people have to use iPods and Apple TVs. With DECE, consumers wouldn't be wedded to a single manufacturer; any company would be able to build DECE-compatible gear.

Ahh, but which companies will? So far, the list includes several big-name brands in computers, networking and consumer electronics, but there are some glaring absences, including Apple, Samsung and Dell. On the content side, Disney's not on board. Standards are like languages: If significant segments don't agree to use them, they don't succeed in unifying the population. Beyond that, there are real issues in the details. For example, will there be a way to adapt existing devices to the new system, providing backward compatibility? That strikes me as a big stumbling block, given Hollywood's insistence that DRM support be baked into devices, not bolted on later (for a reminder of this, revisit the debate over the broadcast flag).

Still, if the comments by Singer (who presides over the DECE) reflect the studios' and labels' thinking about DECE, it could be a very good thing for consumers. In an interview this morning, Singer said the initiative shouldn't be seen as an anti-piracy effort, at least not in the traditional sense. "We're battling piracy by giving consumers a much more flexible model," he said. "We're minimizing the need to pirate content by offering consumers much more flexibility and choice." Jeff Lawrence of Intel put it another way. The group's goal is to meet consumers' expectations for what they can do (legally) with media, he said, and those expectations are based on what people have been able to do with content that has no DRM. "All the things that you want to do with your movies, that’s the experience we want to enable," Lawrence said.

Los Angeles Times file photo

-- Jon Healey

Healey writes editorials for The Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division.

Comments

[Robert]

Why do I get the feeling cartels notorious for controlling the market are not out to empower consumers, no matter how much icing?

[matt]

wow, have these companies not learned from making the same mistake time and time again?

At some point they will have to accept that the consumer is not going to relinquish control of things they purchase whether digitally or in hard copy. Right of first sale is a nice example of that.

Meanwhile, DRM is horrible, and then they tried that "digital enablement" I believe it was called, which was a flop. How many times will it take the music and movie industries to realize that the minute a copy is out there, it is going to be out there, and there is no way to stop this or disable this (whether transparent or obvious)?

Codecs can be duplicated; watermarks can be removed; DRM can be bypassed; anything can be recorded (even when restricted); welcome to the 21st century RIAA/MPAA.

Every time I see a new form of false solution, all of my colleagues and myself pool our money and donate 10$ to the piratebay. So far we're up to about 10 grand that would have gone to the MPAA/RIAA if they'd have learned by now. Oh well.

[RFS]

No thanks. I have no interest in re-buying all my equipment so I can have crippled equipment that provide me less freedom with my bought and paid for music than I have currently.

One day they will wake up and deliver a reasonable pricing model that doesn't treat their customers like criminals. They have had nearly two decades to come to grips with online music, yet they are still flailing around clueless.

[SirDarquan]

This feels like a cousin to PlaysForSure except with a much broader. It makes sense also because Microsoft is in the consortium. It sounds better, but it'll all be in the implementation. We'll see.

[David Gerard]

sigh. We tell them over and over again that DRM is mathematically impossible. And the real-world results keep reflecting this. And the customers despise it.

But their lust for control is so overwhelming that they will keep putting up money for snake oil.

[Roger Strong]

Of course, they'll dictate what devices you'll be allowed to put into your domain. And they'll reserve the right to pull the plug on your domain. And once in a while they'll abandon the DRM standard for a new one, requiring you to replace all your devices and repurchase your music.

This isn't idle speculation - it's what keeps happenning with DRM'd music schemes over and over and over.

No thanks.

[AC]

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

[steveballmer]

Get over it people!

[John Crandell]

Wow. If the entertainment companies could only harness the warfare technology which Tim Rutten and Bob Woodward have recently described, they would have the situation aced. Play an unauthorized tune or movie and a predator drone zaps you with a stinger missile, right through your living room window! And 'the industry' gets a kick-back from the funeral industry as well.

[Dennis McDonald]

Is this scheme anything like TIRAMISU?

http://tinyurl.com/6dy2cv

Anyway, it will fail; criminals will get around it, legal users will get screwed (having to re-buy new equipment, of course).

Sounds like more of a benefit for manufacturers since it won't help artists or users.

[Programmer]

I am a programmer and an electronics geek.
The only reason I will ever buy this defective by design crap would be to crack it so people can make full use of the stuff they bought.

[JD]

wow, john healy; way to not capture the issues. why don't you do a little more research and figure out what you are talking about before you sputter and fart your way through another poorly constructed- uninformative article. this type of myopic carcrash journalism makes you sound like an idiot.

first, find out what you are talking about, feel free to conduct research to learn more and investigate the technologies you are reporting on. if you had done this, the article above might not have sucked as bad as it does. i can't say that it would have been any better but at least it would not be inaccurate and ill conceived. do you get paid for this kind of thing or is this some school project?

[Dave Wilson]

Uh, JD's remarkably insightful criticisim notwithstanding, you did your usual outstanding job Jon.

My supposition on this is that the big boys assume that there is money to be made by compelling consumers to register all their gear. I personally find the prospect of constant, real-time monitoring about what I'm doing pretty freaky. Orwell seriously underestimated our capacity for this sort of thing...

[Steve R.]

When articles discuss the implementation of DRM technologies they need to explore more issues than the simple "red herring" of piracy.
1. Do companies have a right to spy on you.
2. The fiction that the products are licensed, not sold. The very concept of "sale" is being eliminated.
3. The consumer has property rights that are being "stolen" by the content producers.
4. The use of DRM technologies allows the content producer to turn off your device at any time and for any reason. Microsoft attempted that with "Plays for Sure"
5. I am glad that the article wrote: "For example, will there be a way to adapt existing devices to the new system, providing backward compatibility?" Other implementations of DRM required buying new equipment. I hardly consider forcing the consumer to buy new equipment to be something that the consumer wants.

[Rekrul]

There's already a standard that plays on every device, it's called an "AVI" file and it works quite well. Anything that depend on some company giving you permission to use what you've paid for will fail. They won't get a single cent from me as long as they insist on crippling their products with DRM.

[hegemon13]

How is this better for consumers? I suppose it makes it somewhat easier to move products from device to device. However, the group's claim that they intend to make the system as "permissive and flexible as a CD" is an outright lie. With this system, one of the single most important aspects of consumer rights is blatantly case aside:: the right of first sale. Now, if I buy a CD or DVD that I don't like, I can resell it to recoup some of my loss. With this new system, it has already been stated in the article that "sending it to a friend" is not allowed. So, unless they plan to implement some kind of license transfer system (which I very much doubt), this is really no better than failed systems like PlaysForSure (a misnomer if there ever was one).