LaLa and DRM
p2pnet news view | DRM:- DRM isn’t a dead horse: it was never even born.
If you can see or hear something, someone somewhere will figure out a way to copy it via one analogue or digital means or another.
End of story. Period. Full stop.
Yet the many and various elements of the corporate music, movie and software cartels continue to discuss it not only as though it exists, but as though it serves a genuinely useful purpose.
Warner Music Group, an investor in both imeem and Lala, “took a $16 million charge to write down its investment in imeem, and an $11 million charge to write down part of its investment in Lala, plus it took another $4 million charge to write down a bad debt from imeem which it never expects to collect,” p2pnet has TechCrunch saying in an earlier story.
What has that to do with DRM?
On his blog, Michael Robertson says he’s already written about how LaLa uses/used DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) consumer control to, “lock their users into a system where they control how music is used”.
He said he was surprised some readers, “didn’t see Lala’s service as a form of DRM”. So he offers a clever ‘Q&A’ in which LaLa’s responses are “exact quotes” pulled from its patent application to the federal government describing its technology »»»
Q: In my description of the Lala locker system I said you used “Server DRM”. Some objected to my description of what you’re doing. How do you describe your system?
A: The system provides consumers with access to the digital media from any internet-connected device while enforcing the intended uses by the copyright owners. A network-based DRM system manages digital media assets stored in the network.
Q: So Lala has created something new called “Network DRM”?
A: See patent: Network Based Digital Rights Management System.
Q: Who at Lala gets credit for creating Network DRM?
A: Anselm P. Baird-Smith (Lala co-founder), Vu Nguyen (Lala co-founder & Chairman), Raymond Walsh (Sr. Software Engineer), William A. Alvarado (Lala founder), Zelidrag Hornung (Lala Distinguished Engineer now at Google)
Q: How does Lala’s “network-based DRM” compare with previous file based DRM that people are more familiar with like that from Microsoft and Apple?
A: Many Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies have emerged including Microsoft Windows Media DRM and Apple’s Fairplay. These technologies have suffered from a lack of interoperability due to competitive/licensing issues as well as expensive implementation requirements.
Q: So how is Network DRM better?
A: By delivering the product directly from the network, only authorized users and devices can access the media. Access by users and devices is controlled on the web and can be constantly adapted to changing technologies and market pressures.
Q: How is Network DRM good for the content owners?
A: Access to the digital media is controlled by the Digital Rights Management (DRM) process. The DRM process is invoked any time that a user interacts with the managed digital media. The DRM process is capable of computing the permissible uses in real-time, proving real-time control over the assets.
Q: In my article I warned people that with Lala they cannot download their tracks meaning, ultimately, the record labels are in control of their media. Is that accurate?
A: The web restricted nature of the offering means that the digital assets are at all times controlled by the system (versus digital files downloaded to users) and thus result in minimal piracy.
Q: In your system do consumers control their property or do copyright owners, such as record labels and publishers?
A: The system also allows for the “revoking” of ownership of digital media. For example, if a user is known to have illegally shared a file, the copyright owner may choose to revoke their ownership of the digital media in the system, limiting the rights of such user to the media.
“There you have it,” Robertson finishes off, “Lala describing their own system as ‘network DRM’, explaining how ‘digital assets are at all times controlled by the system’, only ‘authorized devices’ are permitted and the record labels can ‘revoke’ content. Moving the locks from individual files to the server is still DRM because the user never owns their media and the rules can change at anytime. Even more concerning Lala readily admits that record labels – their financial backers – are setting the rules. (This is why Lala will not let you listen to your music on a mobile phone.)
And, “There’s an open offer to Lala to respond to the above questions and I will post their response unedited on this blog,” he adds.
p2pnet – Warner, $33M down the `digital music drain`, May 8, 2009
Michael Robertson – Lala On Network DRM, May 5, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy! Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
May 9th, 2009 at 12:08 am
1. I’ve never even heard of it.
2. It sounds like bullshit.
3. How bloodydamn hard would it be to defeat this so-called “Network-based DRM?” I have several sound-recording programs on my system now (and a significant number of them are GPL’ed). Moreover, my soundcard has the ability to record the “wave out mix”.
This is most likely stupid, overhyped bullshit, and the more money they waste on bankrolling crap like this, the less they have to continue lobbying for longer copy”right” terms, or harassing file-sharers.
May 9th, 2009 at 6:32 am
DAMNABLE DRM!!
I am currently really hot on this subject because the mobile games on my 1gb tf memory card for my phone cannot be moved off the card onto the phone itself or onto another 2gb which I want to upgrade to – Though I can physically copy the file (which I bought and paid for an unlimited use license) I cannot access it from the upgrade card because it says it will only work for the original device EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE SAME PHONE AND SAME NUMBER!! Add me to the list of paying customers that DRM is pissing off – and note that I have solved the problem, no thanks to the (add whatever profane sentiments here) bastards I bought it from.
Ironically, it is only the “pirated” copies of the games THAT I BOUGHT that actually work on the phone I bought them with. Consequence = No more game purchases for the provider.
DRM = Epic FAIL!
May 9th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
“…the more money they waste on bankrolling crap like this, the less they have to continue lobbying for longer copyârightâ terms, or harassing file-sharers.”
Then, that’s GOOD!
Let ‘em go completely crazy with it!
May 9th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
DA:
Are we cool, or are you mad at me?
(Can we be pals?)
May 9th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
But seriously:
Even if they offer something gratis (“For Free!”), if it’s still a broken piece of shit, it’s still a broken piece of shit.
And Lala.com sounds like a repeat of spiralfrog, in that their “Free” crap is only useful on THEIR terms.
Spiralfrog WOULD have been kinda almost better than this crap, in that you actually HAD the files (contrary to all the misinformation, transcoding of files is quite possible, and, if done well, need not downgrade the quality that severely.)
But really, why would anybody bother to jump through a bunch of hoops to transcode the files from WMA to something better (like mp3 or Vorbis or something), just for interoperability?
Not worth the hassle.
May 9th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
“DA: Are we cool, or are you mad at me?”
I was never mad at anyone.
I’m not as petty as you were giving me credit for. And, I think I’ve been pretty civil.
I was sincere when I said you were alienating everyone and trying to shut them all down without just cause, and completely overplaying the “panicking conspiracist” argument, no matter how many valid concerns were expressed. That’s a behaviour I would never have accused you of before, and one that I think is beneath you. (Qualifier: In the case of “Sam I Am”, you had superb cause to nail him, and did so with more than enough solid presentation, despite whatever “style” of expression was being used at the time, or whatever hard-on you may have had for him already. : ) )
I thoroughly enjoy your other postings.
Even when I don’t agree, I still absorb your often excellent use of logic and qualification, tempered with some very genuine human expression!
___
“(Can we be pals?)”
If, by “pals”, ya mean you wanna “hang out”… hmmm…
Okay! But you have to promise you’re gonna take your meds more faithfully.
: P
___
As for the post below that, my sentiments exactly!
May 10th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
DA:
Thanks — serioulsy, I looked back at the DPI thread and….yeah, absolutely I was really edgy.
And you caught the whip-end of it, which I really have to try not to do (unless somebody actually deserves it)
My whole problem is: there’s something fatally wrong with the notion of government “saving” us from corporate abuses, because government usually isn’t that much better about stuff than the corporations themselves. At root, I’m probably just as concerned as you are, but about different things (the mere fact that Google and Microsoft are key players in “Net Neutrality” stinks of, best-case scenario, a corporate hijacking of an otherwise semi-valid point, but then again, I am really cynical.
As for the “panicking conspiracist” argument — cut me some slack on that one, DA. I grew up around some really crazy influences (my heroin-using, White-power skinhead half-brother, for one.) My whole family is about two steps from the gutter, and, while I did extremely well on various standardized tests and suchlike, I primarily consider myself to be something of an “autodidact” (especially in areas relating to computers/technology/politics/corporate accountability, etc.
My problem isn’t so much with the notion of “conspiracies” themselves (from a power-perspective, the entire sociopolitical process is nothing but one vast conspiracy — elites vs. the powerless etc.). My problem is the tendency (not neccesarily attributable to you) for “conspiracy-theorists” to completely disregard what they consider “orthodox” explanations, in favor of poorly-documented, urban-legend type stuff that gets repeated endlessly, and never actually checked out.
Really, I think Net Neutrality is one of those situations where we’re being “gamed”. I mean, Microsoft and Google suddenly have our “best interests” at heart? (I admit Microsoft isn’t evil, so much as fatally inept, and Google isn’t evil, so much as sloppy) — but you see my concerns, right?
Add to that, the fact that it is ISP’s themselves, who seem to be “standing strong” in regard to not blocking TPB, resisting various governments’ attempts at “blacklisting” Internet-sites, etc. — and the picture becomes even murkier.
Personally, I don’t think it’s important what people/organizations say. Rather, it’s what they ACTUALLY DO — and Microsoft ‘allowed’ the NSA to plant backdoor capability into their OS. Google — supposed champion of “Net Neutrality”, helped the Chinese in their attempts to censor Internet connectivity, purely as a MARKET-based decision.
Add to that, the fact that the ability to block/filter stuff has existed pretty much since networking itself has existed, and the whole thing begins to smell like the equivalent of 9/11 for the “digerati”: something nasty happens, or has the POTENTIAL to happen, so a “grassroots” movement (with massive corporate backing) gets us to support sweeping Government intervention to “fix” a problem that hasn’t even happened yet.
So how exactly can I NOT be suspicious?
That’s why I (perhaps reflexively) took the contrary position from everybody else — if for no other reason than SOMEBODY has to step outside the “box”.
But yeah, I did it in my usual fashion — which tends to be extremely intense and sometimes downright brutish.
Sorry about that.
But my points still stand.
Peace out, Y’all
May 10th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Read up on the phenomenon of “astroturf” — “fake grassroots”.
My weird, psychotic screeds will make more sense afterward
May 10th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
May 11th, 2009 at 1:15 am
Listen to thousands of albums for free, legally. What’s not to like?
May 13th, 2009 at 1:02 am
@Henry:
No doubt, we really are being “gamed” on a number of things these days, by a number of different “gamers”. This does make it very difficult for those of us who are aware of the game to trust a lot of things, including our own judgement at times.
The gamers know this effect results, of course, and rely on it in order to keep enough of us confused and fighting amongst ourselves, thus limiting any meaningful organized dissent to their plans.
I think we all take our turns at getting “bent out of shape” on certain issues. (As I said before, I certainly don’t consider myself to be any “poster boy for good behaviour”, nor would I ever put the kind of pressure on myself needed in trying to be.) Sometimes, I think part of the reason is, we occasionally get “plain ol’ sick and tired” of HAVING to always analyse all the bullshit we’re constantly being led through. In an “ideal society”, there would only be good will, and everything would be straightforward, logical, and actually intended to benefit all.
Most of all, I think we get tired of having to question those that, supposedly, were elected “by the People” and (as we’re “taught” to understand it) run our countries. If governments weren’t corrupt, it wouldn’t matter how many corporate behemoths had their greedy sights trained on us, we’d have our say!
I certainly understand why you referenced “astroturfing”.
One easy way to understand how that works is by simply observing certain TV commercial strings, and taking note of how many of the feeble “Brand Power” variety are being aired now. A company creates another company as a veneer, which you’re supposed to interpret as some “neutral testing group”, which in turn advertises its “approval” of various products, all of which are manufactured by the original company that created the veneer company. Personally, the whole thing insults my intelligence, and it’s beyond me how anyone wouldn’t see through this obvious farce, but it must be working to some degree, as this type of advertising seems to be on the increase.
In some real ways, the whole MSM scene is a masterpiece of astroturfing.
I firmly believe that it has been instrumental for a number of years of keeping the masses “dumbed down” to a lot of things.
The main thing I always try to keep in mind throughout everything (and I’m defnitely not saying I’m always successful) is that there’s a lot of activity happening on many fronts right now, much of it intertwined, that we need to pay attention to very closely. We need to not only “get the facts”, but we need to get them from both reliable sources, and from OURSELVES. (We have a great deal of facts presented to us all the time that we often fail to properly record for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, we need to “backtrack” through our own memories and look at it again before we do.)
We need to forget many of the things we were taught about the world, and allow ourselves to consider all sorts of questions our newly-cleansed logic dictates, no matter how “outrageously conspiratorial” we’ve been taught to think they are. In the end, only the solid theories will survive, and those they pertain to may even be forced to answer the hard questions.
In that regard, I would say being an “autodidact” should be a good thing, as you already have the benefit of not having been brainwashed by a number of “preprogrammed” teachings. In the case of a really solid, well-researched conspiracy theory, quite often this preprogramming is all that stands in the way of someone seeing the logic in it.
And, sometimes, the only way to prove a conspiracy of any kind exists is for enough people to throw all the rocks of skepticism they can muster at the theory and witness it survive the pounding.
Personally, Henry, I hope you never change.
Some of us are all “conspiracy”, while some of us are all “skeptics”.
You actually play “both” parts equally well, and doing so causes people to use their brains a little more.
And, if I yanked your chain at some point in any of this, I’m sorry.
It wasn’t my intention, but my presentation might not have helped, as it probably could have been “cleaner”.
[raises thumb]
May 13th, 2009 at 1:10 am
@Henry:
All the time I’m typing the last comment, South Park was playing behind me.
It was that episode about 9/11, with Cartman’s presentation on why it was caused by Kyle, and the parents all gathered, talking about not overlooking the possible connection of 9/11 to pretty well everything else going on around them.
To me, it was pretty funny in the light of some of the things I was saying.
YMMV, but I suspect not.
: )
May 13th, 2009 at 1:37 am
As to the question of “government saving us from corporate abuses”, I would have to say it’s a bit of a paradox.
On the one hand, we’re supposed to have a “free market”.
In that scenario, healthy competition has its own way of trumping corporate greed.
On the other hand, we seem to have only monopolies in those areas where this greed has thrived.
Do we truly have a free market?
If enough competition doesn’t exist, how do we propose to address the abuses we see happening, without the support of some kind of “authority” or “laws”? And, if such an authoritarian mechanism were installed, could its enforcement also result in crippling certain innovations that would have benefitted things?
Even in an ideal society, this is a nasty enigma.
As it stands, we know we can’t trust the corporations, as they have the greed and the power of monopoly.
Neither can we trust the government, as they only pay us lip service, tossing us the occasional tidbit, while kissing corporate butt.
Seems the only answer is in the collective hands of the People themselves.
They need to make all kinds of noise all over the place!