Lala Invents Network DRM

An anonymous reader writes in with a CNet story about the record label-backed music company Lala, which claims to have invented "Network DRM." Lala has filed for a patent on moving DRM from a file wrapper, like Windows Media and FairPlay, to the server. Digital music veteran Michael Robertson has quotes from the patent application on his blog. (Here is the application.) Lala describes an invention that monitors every access, allows only authorized devices (so far there are none), blocks downloads, and can revoke content at the labels' request.

If you can hear it...

[Anonymous Coward]

...you can record it. Case closed.

Streaming == DRM?

[Anonymous Coward]

We have had DRM in streaming audio and video back to the days of RealAudio. This doesn't seem like anything new, other than something like Flash to allow cellphones to stream music too.

Re:If you can hear it...

[mister_playboy]

The more intrusive the DRM becomes, the more appealing the other alternatives get... just like digging your own grave.

It's the same old problem of attacking the paying customers, while having no effect on those who don't pay for the content.

Vapor Fluff.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

This "network DRM" seems to be a combination of old news and new buzzwords.

The notion of conditional access to a server, or aspects of a server is decades old and utterly ubiquitous. If you have the credentials you can log in, access some file, do SMTP, whatever. This aspect of "network DRM" simply seems to be a renaming of password protected downloads.

The second part of this system, which they seem to want to gloss over; but is obviously there, is some sort of client side DRM. Again, utterly non-novel. They claim that it is all on the network, and you can't download and copy; but that makes no sense. If your computer is playing it to you, you obviously did download it, and it obviously resides somewhere in your system's memory.

This is pathetic. It's just a streaming service with client side DRM added on. Useless; but hardly novel.

This isn't exactly DRM

[orclevegam]

This technology isn't exactly DRM, although it plays a roll similar to DRM. Essentially what they've done is put a access layer on a streaming server, which isn't really anything new. It's not exactly DRM as DRM is used to manage (cripple) what you're allowed to do with a file, where as this system is more like putting a tollbooth on a road. In theory once you've sucked the content down you could just rip it to a file much as the previous attempts at controlling streaming media were circumvented. Also, due to the streaming nature of this approach it's more or less doomed to failure as it won't work on anything that doesn't have a permanent internet connection (IE iPods, by far the dominate portable media player out there).

When I buy something

[Reed Solomon]

You see, when I buy something, I like to own it. If I buy a car, I like to know that the car won't be taken away from me just because I lend it to a friend. If I cannot own something or there are stipulations, then I will not buy it. If there is no alternative than "piracy", I will obtain it. Simple as that. Why am I not buying Blu-Ray discs? I cannot be sure they will be playable for all time on my Linux computer. If I download a pirated mkv high def movie, I know that it will always be supported.

In conclusion, this won't stop illegal downloading. The only thing that can stop illegal downloading is treating your customers with respect and offering something of value, not the latest in a long line of DIVX/DRM garbage.

Then again, maybe the rest of the world isn't like me. Maybe most people in the world are stupid enough to pay for something they won't actually own.

Revoke content?

[WCMI92]

Yeah, people are SO going to purchase content that can be revoked on a whim. Those Divx players sold so well.

Thank god they got a patent...

[Anita Coney]

It'll keep companies from implementing this utterly asinine idea!

Re:Revoke content?

[Burkin]

Yeah, people are SO going to purchase content that can be revoked on a whim.

You mean like how no one uses the iTunes store or Steam?

Re:OffTopic

[FudRucker]

"RSS is just a clunky high-volume replacement for web browsing. Rather than making it easier to consume information, it makes it easier to drown in context-free news, inducing that panicked feeling we all eventually learn too well when you see RSS is stuffed full with hundreds of unread posts." - someone that knows

Still doesn't solve their main problem

[pembo13]

Of me not wanting to listen to their new music.

Re:Revoke content?

[jimicus]

Except that Apple have removed DRM from more-or-less all the music in the iTunes store, and there are now plenty of companies selling plain unencumbered MP3s.

So quite who they're going to sell this DRM product to I'm not sure.

Re:When I buy something

[jedidiah]

> You are too narrow-minded,

Certainly. I would like to be able to play content that I buy on any device that I own without restrictions.

I don't want to be forced into only using Apple brand players.

Replace Apple with any other media mogul online monopolist wannabe.

Yes, I believe that owning a copy of something means that I OWN that copy. I
can do whatever I want with it so long as I don't violate the rights of the
"author" as spelled out by the USC.

I don't care that they have a Napoleon complex.

They can buy a funny hat and itch coat for all I care.

Re:Claim 7 Has Your Number

[PitaBred]

The problem is that they think that it's a patentable "invention". Seriously... server side access limitations? How in the hell is that novel in ANY way?