www.drmwatch.com/resources/whitepapers/article.php/3112631
By Bill Rosenblatt November 18, 2003 Gaps in Existing DRM TechnologyDRM is complex technology, and in this early phase of its development, designers have chosen to focus on features of most immediate concern to their customers, mainly media companies, who have mainly been focusing on piracy prevention and simple distribution schemes that emulate physical media distribution models. Another concern at odds with the complexity of DRM is the cost of deployment, particularly any unit costs of bundling DRM functionality in with platforms and consumer devices. Meanwhile, P2P networks have only recently come into being. Therefore, many DRM technologies in existence today have various gaps in their ability to be integrated into P2P networks. Here are some of the most important of those gaps, which should represent opportunities for DRM technology designers in the future. Cost-Related Functionality LimitationsDRM schemes designed by consumer device makers typically have just enough functionality to satisfy IP owners while keeping unit costs at a minimum. The best-known example of this is the CSS (Content Scrambling System) for DVDs, which was designed by two consumer electronics makers (Toshiba and Matsushita) and accepted by movie studios with the promise of a stronger future solution that has yet to materialize. Cost of DRM has also been an issue beyond the world of consumer devices. In general, DRM is virtually unique in the technology world, in that it is a complex technology that encumbers the user without any direct benefit (unlike, say, burglar alarms, which protect people from theft of their own physical assets); the biggest challenge in the market has been to find those participants in the content value chain who would be willing to pay for it. (The media industry in particular has been reluctant to make investments in DRM technology compared to, say, the software industry.) This problem should recede over time as DRM becomes more and more bundled into value-added services that have tangible benefits for users. The problem of the cost of DRM should recede over time as DRM becomes more and more bundled into value-added services that have tangible benefits for users. Device TetheringMany DRM schemes permit access to content only on a specific device, instead of supporting space shifting and other reasonable usage expectations. For device and platform vendors, the reasons for this are obvious: why support usage of content on competitors' platforms? Some DRM schemes allow usage on up to a fixed number of devices or software of the same type but not of different types. For IP owners, the reasons for supporting device tethering derive from the media industry's traditional product orientation: the principle that two different formats of the same content -- for example, the DVD and VHS versions of the same movie, or the print and eBook versions of a book -- are separate products and should be paid for separately. Most corporate IP owners, which use content for purposes of knowledge management, marketing, collaboration, etc., would not agree with this. IP owners also feel that device tethering is sometimes necessary to curb infringement; for example, if a college textbook is published in eBook format using a DRM technology that allows reading on up to 10 eBook readers, then a class of 20 students is likely to collectively purchase as few as 2 copies. Admittedly, device tethering is a legitimate response to the imperfection of reasonably-priced user authentication, such as passwords that can be shared as opposed to more expensive but more effective biometric authentication devices. Lack of Superdistribution SupportMost DRM schemes only support single levels of distribution, or they support the limited form of Superdistribution discussed above. As early DRM vendors found out, support for true Superdistribution requires far more complex technology than that required for single-tier distribution. Yet web services, cross-platform functionality, and other technologies that have appeared since the mid-1990s can ameliorate this problem. Standards for rights and web service descriptions will especially help remove the complexity of Superdistribution with DRM. Complexity of IntegrationEven with single-tier distribution schemes, a serious barrier to growth in the DRM market has been how expensive, time-consuming, and complex it is to integrate DRM technology with all of the necessary surrounding functions, including: content production and packaging, user identification, transaction processing, and CRM (customer relationship management). Launching a new content e-commerce initiative has been so complex that integration costs dwarf that of off-the-shelf software, including DRM packaging software. Furthermore, the capital outlay required even with off-the-shelf software is prohibitive for smaller IP producers, including many who might be interested in making content available over P2P networks. A serious barrier to growth in the DRM market has been how expensive, time-consuming, and complex it is to integrate DRM technology with all of the necessary surrounding functions. Once again, replacing licensed software with services, and standardizing the interfaces to those services so as to minimize integration effort, will help solve this problem. There have been many attempts to build DRM service provider businesses; most have failed because the kinds of prices that IP owners have been willing to pay for services did not measure up to the service providers' high cost structures. But the success of a handful of current DRM-related service providers in niche markets points the way to a brighter future for service-based architectures. Conclusions: Developing the MarketWe conclude this white paper with some thoughts on how DRM can grow to support integration with P2P networks. Some of the problems that must be solved are technological in nature; others are problems of perception rather than reality; but most are more matters of economics than anything else. Of the technological problems, the largest one is Superdistribution. Early DRM technologies such as IBM's Cryptolope attempted to support Superdistribution but failed because of all of the functionality that needed to be built from scratch, on both the server and client platforms, to support it. Nowadays at least some of the required functionality (e.g., network authentication and e-commerce) is standard and widely available, and such functionality is becoming available through standard web-service interfaces. But it is still a daunting technical challenge to implement Superdistribution without undue complexity and disruption of user experiences -- to say nothing of prohibitive cost. DigitalContainers is a DRM technology vendor that is addressing these challenges today. Network identity is a problem of both perception and technology. Universal network identification schemes like Microsoft's .NET Passport have a "Big Brother" perception problem that may be exaggerated. The same is true for user tracking technology vis-`-vis privacy. On the other hand, federated (interoperable) network identity, a la the Liberty Alliance, is seriously difficult to implement in today's heterogeneous trust environments. Technology problems related to meeting reasonable usage expectations, such as device and format portability and rights specification interoperability, derive largely from economic considerations. As mentioned above, one of the biggest challenges in the development of DRM has been getting participants in the content value chain to pay for it. The two types of participants most closely involved in designing DRM schemes have been platform/device vendors and IP owners. IP owners, as mentioned above, have long thought in terms of "products" instead of "content," leading them to feel that purchasing content in one format should not allow the purchaser to access that content in other formats. And device vendors are not at all motivated to create DRM technology that allows users to access content on other types of devices. Aside from advocacy groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and DigitalConsumer.org, who attempt to assert content usage rights through lobbying of legislators, case support, and other such activities, third-party DRM vendors are the ones that are actually motivated to build technology that supports users' reasonable usage expectations as well as other features that promote the integration of DRM with P2P networks. Third-party DRM vendors are the ones that are actually motivated to build technology that supports users' reasonable usage expectations as well as other features that promote the integration of DRM with P2P networks. There have been countless "standalone" third-party DRM technology vendors over the past several years, but very few of them have succeeded, due to several factors, including unrealistic revenue expectations, lack of understanding of content business models, and of course, inadequate technology. To understand how these vendors might find customers, we should answer the question: who stands to gain from the proliferation of DRM-enabled P2P networks? The answer lies in the fact that P2P network usage promotes use of network bandwidth, equipment, and services; in fact, numerous recent statistics have shown that the majority of bandwidth on the Internet is used by a small percentage of users who mostly engage in file sharing. Therefore, we suggest that network hardware/software makers and internet service providers (ISPs) are the best potential sources of interest in and funding of DRM development for P2P networks. Network hardware and software makers' interest in embracing DRM is hampered somewhat by the open nature of the Internet and the W3C's lack of interest in DRM, but network equipment makers have been looking at DRM, though they have yet to become active in the market. For example, Cisco designed a DRM protocol called OCCAM (Open Conditional Content Access Management) in 2001, but the company appears to have no interest in developing products around it[17]. The major Internet service providers have largely avoided DRM; one reason for this is that noninvolvement in DRM has enabled them to stay aloof from various legal liability issues. However, recent activity related to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, such as the music industry's subpoena of Verizon over the name of a Verizon Online user suspected of music piracy, may be sending a signal to ISPs that noninvolvement breeds liability too, therefore they should participate in the market and start looking at the service provider opportunities it can afford. Major ISPs are naturals to support DRM-enabled P2P networks and provide value-added services to their participants, as a way of garnering revenue from their heaviest users instead of (or in addition to) monitoring bandwidth usage and charging tiered pricing, as a few have begun to do over strong user objections. Major ISPs are naturals to support DRM-enabled P2P networks and provide value-added services to their participants, as a way of garnering revenue from their heaviest users. Of course, the development of some of the technologies mentioned in this white paper should also encourage startups, as well as more established vendors, to build various types of new content-related services that can grow the market. Finally, we should emphasize that standards can help hasten and lower the cost of solutions to many of the problems mentioned above. There are several existing standards efforts that related to DRM integrated with P2P, as previously mentioned. The problem with many of them is that they are design with much broader areas in mind than that of DRM and P2P networks, meaning that approval processes take longer and applicability is not as straightforward. P2P-related trade associations (e.g., P2P United) are beginning to appear; unfortunately, they engage in anti-DRM posturing for political purposes. Such groups need to get beyond polemics, understand the opportunities for everyone available in DRM integration with P2P networks, and start representing the P2P community in relevant standards initiatives alongside the independent DRM vendors that can most directly impact the market. [17] The OCCAM white paper, no longer available on Cisco's web site, is available by request from the author. About the AuthorBill Rosenblatt, president of GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies, has 20 years of experience in technology architecture, business development, and marketing; publishing; new media; and online education. He has been a business development executive at a leading technology vendor, an IT executive at major publishing companies, and chief technology officer of an e-learning startup. He has expertise in digital media technologies such as content management, digital rights management, streaming media, and publishing systems. Bill is the author of several books, including Digital Rights Management: Business and Technology (John Wiley & Sons, 2001), and he is Managing Editor of the Jupitermedia newsletter DRM Watch (www.drmwatch.com). About GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies
GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies is a management consultancy focused on the content industries that help its clients achieve growth through market intelligence and expertise in business strategy and technology architecture.Clients have included publishing companies, news, entertainment, and professional information providers, and digital media technology vendors ranging from early-stage startups to Global 500 firms. Contact: About DigitalContainers LLC
DigitalContainers provides patented digital rights management for use in peer-to-peer networks and the Internet. Digital Containers include self-contained file protection, authentication and e-commerce system, allowing files and media to travel around the Internet, yet perpetually be tracked, controlled and audited by the content owners. This enables content owners to securely monetize their digital goods in peer-to-peer networks. Contact: You may request a PDF version of this white paper by emailing the author at p2pdrmwp@giantstepsmts.com. |
| Go to page: Prev 1 2 3 4 |
