Open Source DRM as way forward for digital music (son of MP3 debate).

Ness Rowlah

Norwegian Wood
Not as as clear and structured as I would have liked, but I am starting to believe in 80-90% solutions.

The problems with the current digital music payment models
and why Open Source DRM might be the solution.


I am warming up to the idea of using Open Source Digital Rights Management (DRM) as a possible solution for artists getting their rightful piece of the massive music industry (prediction: 2005 will be the music industry's best year ever). While I am opposed to DRM in principle we have to find a solution for that the artists and the "consumers" are happy with.

The rest is just fluff. Managers, music magazines, record labels, radio stations, copyright agencies, award ceremonies, the BPI/RIAA --- they are all eating of the profit that belong to the performing artist or author.
I do believe that artists should be rewarded or at least make a decent living.

As a "customer" I want as much money as possible of what I pay for the music to go to the creators --- not the middlemen, the agents (think Simon Cowell).

I do not have a ready made solution --- these are just thoughts for later fine tuning.

Recording <a href="http://www.halvorsen.org/business/arts_and_entertainment/music/musicripoff">artists are not rewarded the way they should be</a>. If a band sells one million records and end up with just $38 000 for doing so something is clearly wrong. If the CEO of EMI at the same time makes $7.2 million something is rotten and deeply unfair. I do not mind people making money: but status quo is simply not satisfactory.


My generation prefers to own a physical object, the kids have no problems with just owning the MP3s (that's the theory anyway, I still see young kids with portable CD players and even walkmen). The kids are happy to pay one quid for a ring tone --- how to get them to pay 69p or 50p for a music track remains to be found out. My point is that the kids <em>are willing to pay for digital content</em>.

I have never posted complete MP3 tracks of decent quality for <q>evaluation purposes only</q>. While I do not see posting unknown tracks as a crime, I respect the rights of the rightful owner --- the artist. There is no way the lone artist can keep track of his own works on the web. I've had emails from musicians and photographers about me using their works without permission. Rightfully so.

If the artist decides to post content for free on his web site, then fair cop. If not, it's not --- the art belongs to the artist: unless he has given me permission to do so (explicit (mail, CC-license) or implisit (by posting a track for free on a website).

It boils down to this: the art belongs to the artist, it's her work. She <em>cares</em> about it. I care about the smaller artist. And I want to reward the artist. This does not mean that I have never copied music to a cassete or not downloaded <cite>The Grey Album</cite>. It simply means that I might want to support the artist in a <em>direct way</em>. At the moment I cannot do that in an easy way for digital music.

DRM as it works today belong to the big media corporations (Sony) and their technological allies (Microsoft, Apple). This ensures that the current regime will stand and the big record companies can extend their lifespan by artificial means by ensuring we get entrapped in their DRM-schemes forever. The record companies are not there to protect the artists --- just like any organisation that grows to a certain size (say 10 000 people) they are only their to ensure that power is preserved or increased. With music the power should not belong to anyone else but the creator and performer (and the end-user if we purchase a "product").

When digital music, MP3 and DRM come up the big five recording companies say they are only doing what is "right". They are protecting the artist. Maybe they are, but more than anything they are protecting themselves and jostling for position for next-generation DRM market share. If the DRM was Open Source, then the record companies would not hold that power. If DRM was Open Source we would not have the problem of trust. How can you trust companies like Microsoft and Sony?

What we need is a simple way of paying artists direct for their "product".
We need transparancy: how much goes to the artist? how much goes to the middlemen?
Todays situation is not satisfactory.

If the DRM was Open Source the "music industry" (and it is an industry)
would not win the moral argument of "we provide the DRM for protecting the artists,
if there is no DRM the artist will be poor". Well let the artist decide if he wants the old regime
to collect the monies for him. Let the DRM be Open Source. Either by using OpenSource
alternatives or by making the DRM code itself OpenSource.

Sakamoto of YMO said in 1998:
"With all existing rights it's only natural that jobs too big for the individual are consigned to large organizations. However, when it's a job that can be effectively managed by the individual, I believe that the option should be kept open to let the individual look after themselves. Projects on the Net can be managed by an individual, and I believe that I should be allowed to decide to manage my web presence myself, while still asking them to monitor other media, and collect a handling charge for doing any task which I authorize them to do. I believe that this is the normal way to conduct business.

Sooner or later there will be organizations on the Internet capable of managing copyright issues. Because the Net does not involve only one country, there will naturally be many agencies which will appear, not bound to any one country's laws, free to compete within a global market for suppliers bearing valuable intellectual properties and sellers interested in them. It's normal market logic. Price would come down, service would go up, and the users would get the best deal that competition can provide.

...

Now, with the Internet, music can be distributed in its digital state, and the whole industry is about to be turned on its head. Music becomes the property of its producer, not his management office. It can go directly from the artist to the end user�without passing through agencies of any kind. This is pretty revolutionary. I can't help the people who deal in the material aspects of the industry when they tell me that they have a right to control my music. All I can tell them is do what they do well in the "material" world. Then, if JASRAC, or anybody else, wants to come onto the Net, and offer competitive price/service contracts, it's not up to me to deny them their right to compete.

The number of middlemen needs to be reduced.

At the moment we have something like:
artist (-- manager) -- recording label -- transaction agency and watchdog (RIAA) -- shop -- credit card company -- the consumer.

Ten years down the line it could look a lot simpler: artist -- agency -- us.

The window of oppurtunity is the next three or four years - nothing has really changed since
1998.

The artist has her website and sells recordings, T-shirts, tickets from the site.

The payment transaction itself is carried out using Open Source DRM through a company
like PayPal or VISA (trusted carriers <em>are needed</em>). And that's it.

The viral nature of music and the internet means it's just a matter of time before we have another <a href="http://www.halvorsen.org/arts/music/bands_and_artists/w/wilcorporate">Wilco</a>. Wilco is now firmly back as a corporate band. Simply because the mechanisms to reward them directly are/were not in place.

Until we have a decent alternative (I do not believe in subscription models (nothing changes), a <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/28/fisher_promises_to_keep/">digital pool</a> might work (but I think even the artists struggle with the concept of being paid "a bit" --- hence the grimers belief in making millions (why else are there almost no free grime tracks out there) and that guy from Busted "being a fucking conservative").

As the situation is at the moment I see an Open Source'd DRM as the best alternative forward,
the lesser of all evils, the way which can make both artists and us "satisfied".


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/28/fisher_promises_to_keep/

http://www.authena.org/

http://22surf.org/

<a href="http://www.ntticc.or.jp/pub/ic_mag/ic026/html/072_073e.html">Sakamoto interview</a>

(besided this subject: but of interest: the Sakamoto interview is from 1998. I have always
claimed that the music "industry" has been sleeping, and this interview proves it.
Ever since I first heard radio over ethernet around 1990 I believed that digital was the future. )
 
Last edited:

Wrong

Well-known member
The problem is, open source DRM can't possibly work. DRM works by encrypting the content, then giving you the encrypted content and the key to decrypt it. If you can control the software that does the decryption, you can control what people do with the content; but if you don't control the software, there's no difference between giving people DRM content and unencrypted content.

I don't see that there's any way intellectual property can be propped up much longer; there's just no reasonably way of preventing copying (closed source DRM doesn't work either, because the copyright owner can never have enough control over the decoding software running on other people's computers). This doesn't mean digital content can't be sold, but people will no longer be able to use exclusivity as a selling point; they'll have to make their money by having good bandwidth, a good selection, maybe by linking with promotional content (if I read about a song in an article and I can download it from the article author for a pound, or spend time searching for a free copy of unknown quality, I might pay the money).

And, of course, this also means content producers will no longer get royalties, but I don't see that being a huge problem; musicians will just be in the same boat as freelance writers (or, perhaps, they'll start working for wages in music factories).
 

Ness Rowlah

Norwegian Wood
Wrong said:
The problem is, open source DRM can't possibly work. DRM works by encrypting the content, then giving you the encrypted content and the key to decrypt it. If you can control the software that does the decryption, you can control what people do with the content; but if you don't control the software, there's no difference between giving people DRM content and unencrypted content.)

I am not really debating that the DRM (open source or not) will be broken. It will.

What I am really looking for is an easy and transparent way to reward artists in the digital age. Is trust and honesty really enough? Maybe -
personally I will not rip of people like Vini Reilly or Gillian Welch who try to make a living
outside the industry. But tellingly these both operate in the old world of pushing CDs (although Vini has hooked
with Tony Wilson again, for some sort of digital adventure: judging on what's on F4's website I am not optimistic).

Most artists are very reluctant to let "MP3s in the wild" and just have streaming audio on their sites, if any.

Wrong said:
I don't see that there's any way intellectual property can be propped up much longer; there's just no reasonably way of preventing copying (closed source DRM doesn't work either, because the copyright owner can never have enough control over the decoding software running on other people's computers). This doesn't mean digital content can't be sold, but people will no longer be able to use exclusivity as a selling point; they'll have to make their money by having good bandwidth, a good selection, maybe by linking with promotional content (if I read about a song in an article and I can download it from the article author for a pound, or spend time searching for a free copy of unknown quality, I might pay the money).

Which is pretty much where I am coming from. It's the "how do we pay in a fair and easy way" concept I am
struggling with. Open Source DRM might not be the answer. If it's not then what is?

One obvious answer is buying the physical product and giving the physical product more value -
ie CD/DVD combos (like Colder did) or luxuriant/designed packaging (like Rune Grammofon's Hiorthoy-designed
digipaks). I have even argued for having ready-made MP3s on the CD itself (in realising that all DRM will
be broken anyway and to add value to the CD as ready-to-go backup for your MP3 files).

It is telling that Rune does not support secure payment at the moment. If a small record company
caring so much about their output is not doing it, something clearly is wrong. Rune is exactly the type
of company I would like to buy direct from. But there is no way I am sending information about c-cards
over email.

It might be a question of easier, standardised payment: that's why I think (thought?) that open source DRM
might be the answer. Transparancy is probably what I am really looking for - 90% goes to Vini, 7% goes
to his website maintainers and 3% is the handling charge to VISA. If I knew this was the case - then no problem.
If then the transaction was as easy as 1-2 to pay Vini I would do it.

Site registration for each artist is not what we want. Even site registration for each label is not what we want.

Wrong said:
And, of course, this also means content producers will no longer get royalties, but I don't see that being a huge problem; musicians will just be in the same boat as freelance writers (or, perhaps, they'll start working for wages in music factories).

Maybe you are right. The problem with no royalties is that (a majority of?) the musicians themselves will fight it - leading to ever more courtcases and DRM-schemes. That no alternative model will appear.
Then we will be stuck in the current rut for ages.

Maybe iTunes et al (Amazon?) is the model of the future after all?
Make it transparent, show us how pay is divided, eliminate the record label and maybe that is all that is needed?
 

egg

Dumpy's Rusty Nut
i think playlouder.com has a very simple 50/50 split for artists. that's a nice, transparent business model - which (transparency) I agree with you would please most people.
 

Ness Rowlah

Norwegian Wood
wrong label/place (have you read their terms and conditions they are a joke: first they say
you can't even quote their content, later down it says you can't trust it anyway).

I reckon you mean magnatune (which do a 50-50 split - you still have to get "signed" with them
though, so while the use of a CC-license etc is appealing it's far from perfect).

A good piece on them here http://magnatune.com/info/press/coverage/sos_magnatune_2
from Sound on Sound magazine. Explaining in detail the use of their license etc.
 

turtles

in the sea
Wrong said:
The problem is, open source DRM can't possibly work. DRM works by encrypting the content, then giving you the encrypted content and the key to decrypt it. If you can control the software that does the decryption, you can control what people do with the content; but if you don't control the software, there's no difference between giving people DRM content and unencrypted content.
Sorry, but this isn't true. The wonder that is modern public-private key encryption is that it doesn't matter if people know how a file is encrypted, in fact the whole idea of a public key is that anyone can use this key to encrypt data. The really cool bit is that once you encrypt a piece of data with the public key, you can't decrypt it with that key. You need the matching private key, which obviously the reciever keeps private. So as long as no one gets your private key, you are completely secure. (BTW keys are just unique 128-bit hexadecimal numbers that anyone who wants to encrypt communications can generate easily). I don't understand the math that's invovled at all, but trust me it works, and at this point in time it's virtually uncrackable. I don't think i did a very good job explaining this, but anyway...

If above was true no open source program could ever be secure, which is not at all the case. Linux would never be used for servers and such if it couldn't encrypt. Open source DRM is just as possible as closed source.
 

Wrong

Well-known member
bipedaldave said:
You need the matching private key, which obviously the reciever keeps private. So as long as no one gets your private key, you are completely secure. (BTW keys are just unique 128-bit hexadecimal numbers that anyone who wants to encrypt communications can generate easily).

Right, but DRM isn't the same as encryption. Artists can encrypt their tunes using open source software, but they can't usefully sell the encrypted files to anyone, because no-one else would be able to decrypt them.

DRM has to let the purchaser of the file decrypt it so they can use it - but, if you let people decrypt the stuff, they can usually do what they like with it, including copying and sharing it. DRM only works to the extent the content owner can control the decryption process. With closed source, they can do this by controlling the software; obviously, this isn't the case with open source.

More here (from a presentation given to Microsoft, no less).
 

turtles

in the sea
Hmmm, yeah, thinking about why no one uses above encryption method (called PGP-Pretty Good Privacy :D) for DRM type stuff. In order for it to work, everyone would have to have their own private key, and in turn generate a public key which you'd then give to the content supplier. The content supplier would then have to encrypt each track individually per user. This is the reverse of the way we generally use encryption (communication usually goes from many to one, rather than from one to many). Fuck, i really don't know how difficult it would be to do such things. Any encryption experts in the house? Never actually implemented an encrypted system so this is all conjecture and vague knowledge.


Anyway, my point still stands that just because you know the encryption technique doesn't mean you will be able to decrypt things that have been encrypted with it.
 

Wrong

Well-known member
bipedaldave said:
Never actually implemented an encrypted system so this is all conjecture and vague knowledge.

Heheh, me neither. I do know some people who work in computer security, though, so I might ask them about it when I next see them. I think you probably could set up a system where the shop encrypts the music individually for each customer (in fact, I think iTunes might work like that); but I don't think that would solve the problem, because there'd be nothing stopping an unscrupulous user unencrypting their copy and sharing that.
 

turtles

in the sea
Wrong said:
Right, but DRM isn't the same as encryption. Artists can encrypt their tunes using open source software, but they can't usefully sell the encrypted files to anyone, because no-one else would be able to decrypt them.

DRM has to let the purchaser of the file decrypt it so they can use it - but, if you let people decrypt the stuff, they can usually do what they like with it, including copying and sharing it. DRM only works to the extent the content owner can control the decryption process. With closed source, they can do this by controlling the software; obviously, this isn't the case with open source.

More here (from a presentation given to Microsoft, no less).
My apologies, i misunderstood your objection. But doesn't that MS talk contradict the point you're making too? I mean, closing the source means it's not as easy to get at the decrypted product, but eventually a bunch of nerds with disassemblers are going to crack even that.
 

turtles

in the sea
So not to sound like i'm now contradicting myself or anything, but basically encryption works, but DRM does not. Because eventually you have decode things into straight analog audio for things to come out of your speakers. And at that point DRM is circumventable. That is, untill we all get chips implanted in our heads that allow us to decrypt encrypted audio in our own heads. But untill that point in time DRM will only be a means of delaying and making it more difficult to "steal" intellectual content.

I suppose this may be all they want really.
 

ripley

Well-known member
paying for cds

Have to reiterate here, that just paying for CDs, even if they're more value-for-money, in no way ensures that artists get paid..

That depends on artists' bargaining power with labels. One of the things that boosts bargaining power is proof of popularity. What could be a nice proof of popularity -well, how about high download numbers?

One of the funny things about Metallica being on the whole anti-piracy thing is that without piracy and bootlegging of shows, they would not be in the position they are to be profiting from their copyrights. I remember when no radio station would play them, and their albums were hard to find.. fans traded tapes of gigs and copied albums for each other.. which gave them a loyal following.. which allowed them to negotiate a good deal with their label when they signed..

Like bootlegging (and pirate radio, eh) downloading functions as publicity, taste-making, distribution as well as music-getting.. The first three are exactly the things that the majority of artists sign away their copyrights to labels so labels can provide. free downloading increases the first two on artists' behalf.

I'm wondering - do you want artists to prevent downloading they don't authorize, or do you want downloaders to be able to pay artists directly if they so choose, or do you want downloaders to be forced to pay artists whenever they download?
 
Last edited:

Ness Rowlah

Norwegian Wood
ripley said:
Have to reiterate here, that just paying for CDs, even if they're more value-for-money, in no way ensures that artists get paid..

True. The same goes for downloads. We don't what happens.

ripley said:
One of the funny things about Metallica being on the whole anti-piracy thing is that without piracy and bootlegging of shows, they would not be in the position they are to be profiting from their copyrights. I remember when no radio station would play them, and their albums were hard to find.. fans traded tapes of gigs and copied albums for each other.. which gave them a loyal following.. which allowed them to negotiate a good deal with their label when they signed..

And the same with Wilco, the poster-boys of the "internet saved our careers". You can't even listen
to Yankee Hotel Foxtrot anymore. The ultimate insult and irony. I never heard it, and went to find
it the other week, in the "knowledge" that it would be available. Not so.

So greed and reversal of behaviour takes over as soon as you get a record deal, the drawbridge
is hiked up to close the castle. These bands should be boycottted. But it all boils down to
what I would call "trade of trust".

ripley said:
Like bootlegging (and pirate radio, eh) downloading functions as publicity, taste-making, distribution as well as music-getting.. The first three are exactly the things that the majority of artists sign away their copyrights to labels so labels can provide. free downloading increases the first two on artists' behalf.

Yes. Exactly.
So should "free for all" just apply in the start of someones career? This is one pattern is it not?
(I like parts of Laura Cantrell's approach. She has around a dozen MP3 downloads on her site:
some proper tracks from her album, some radio shows etc. But no way to quickly download
the whole lot, she is signed to a proper recording label and not really in easy control of her content.
Maybe online recording labels are needed?
But then we have do the effing registration everywhere ...
Then artists will have to get signed ... and re-signed to another label etc.
Not control. Not easy.

Where does that leave Sakamoto's 1998 vision (the part which says I choose
how to release my media in the digital age - I haven't seen anyone doing this yet:
as in "if you download I get 80%, so please download. If you prefer the CD I get 5%.
Make your choice".


ripley said:
I'm wondering - do you want artists to prevent downloading they don't authorize, or do you want downloaders to be able to pay artists directly if they so choose, or do you want downloaders to be forced to pay artists whenever they download?

The thing is - I don't know what I want in specific technical terms yet.
I don't even know if this is a "solvable" problem.
I am looking for ideas for something which will work.
Something which both us as "consumers" and the artists as producers are with happy in the digital age.
Something which is dead easy - click a button or two forms of payment and 90% to the artist (I vary that
percentage on purpose, it's just a number: but it should be well over 50 ...).

The Open Source DRM was just an idea which sprung to mind by
looking at the "supply chain" at what the problems were and who controls what.

The fact that DRM is controlled by closed companies
is not good. But Open Source DRM is still DRM. So DRM is not the solution.

And this is where the struggle starts: if DRM is not the solution - then what is?
That is where I am coming from.

Maybe some sort of hybrid?
- MP3s in 64k free for all (portable MP3 players is where the action is, not only in streaming).
- "easy payment" - will get you access to full lossless data or whatever format you chose (MP3, WMA, ogg etc at any bitrate you want) - download our "300 meg superbundle": contains the CD content and 128 MP3s of all tracks.
- you want a CD? burn one: artist provides CD-cover(s) and label etc with lyrics and credits.

Now if someone starts sharing stuff which is already easily available as lo-fi MP3s -
then "peer pressure" might help ...

I am generalising here but - in the US the gung-ho attitude applies to downloads (fuck it, I'll take it), in Britain the independent recording labels make up 25% of the market (we are talking millions and millions of pounds here) and I believe there is a genuine want to rewarding the artist, in Japan they rent music
(CDs aren't sold, apparantly they rent CDs as we rent movies).

As is shown in the "home brewing vinyl debate" we could co back to the campfire way of doing it: sell own-recorded vinyl from the back of a lorry (which is the analogy really - that's how it shold be for digital
as well).

Not everyone can sell ringtones for 3 quid (that old whiz kid Thomas Dolby has apparantly been making
a living of "pure" ring tones for years). The artist get something like 70% -there is no
RIAA/BPI, no recording label etc. In fact quite close to a model which should work
for online music as well. Hence the offer of a 3 quid ringtones inside "Run the road".

And that's the gordic knot I am looking for.
It's probably "quixotic" (as in chasing windmills) to look for that one solution?
 
Last edited:

egg

Dumpy's Rusty Nut
ripley said:
Have to reiterate here, that just paying for CDs, even if they're more value-for-money, in no way ensures that artists get paid..
but at the very least, if they have been sensible and well-advised enough, it ensures that a credit is made against what they are borrowing from the record company.
 

mms

sometimes
ripley said:
Have to reiterate here, that just paying for CDs, even if they're more value-for-money, in no way ensures that artists get paid..

That depends on artists' bargaining power with labels. One of the things that boosts bargaining power is proof of popularity. What could be a nice proof of popularity -well, how about high download numbers?/
hmm as a rule of thumb most people who have been signed to a label get paid an advance for it.
depending on the deal they get paid for sales, whether it is 50/50 which most indies do or a points deal, which benefits the artist over the label if the record doesn't sell as much as predicted.
if they don't they are very stupid indeed or they have some kind of special arrangement.

proof of popularity and download numbers have very little to do with each other, that's very naive, avaliabilty of the music in shops crossed with avaliability on p2p's crossed with the outlook of fans is closer to the truth.
course the swarm thing is interesting but p2p's are more easy and less of a social thing than dubbing tapes. less of a group exploration too, plus there was always the desire to get the real thing on tape cos dubbing 3 gens always sounded rough after a while.
 

ripley

Well-known member
Mms

hmm as a rule of thumb most people who have been signed to a label get paid an advance for it.
depending on the deal they get paid for sales, whether it is 50/50 which most indies do or a points deal, which benefits the artist over the label if the record doesn't sell as much as predicted.
if they don't they are very stupid indeed or they have some kind of special arrangement.

"very stupid indeed"? You mean you think artists and record labels are on equal footing at the bargaining table?

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

is one of my favorite accounts of how a lot of deals in the US anyway get made.

http://futureofmusic.org/contractcrit.cfm

The futureofmusic coalition has another more indepth critique.

or check out Moses Avalon's Royalty Calculator for some fun with numbers.
http://www.mosesavalon.com/marc.htm
 
Top