Neuros develops "Unlocked Media" brand for DRM-free stuff

It's just a little element in the ongoing fight against DRM, but every part helps, and we're kind of digging the idea. Neuros has developed a name and logo for DRM-free media to allow companies to brand their products in such a way that consumers know they're getting a fully portable file. "Unlocked Media" might not be super catchy as far as names go, but we like the idea of a positive move that consumers and companies can latch onto; promote the benefits of DRM-free, rather than just decry the evils of copy protection. The branding is available to "any entity that uses media using open standard technology which is available to all on a non-discriminatory basis." Neuros hopes some independent third party will step in to manage the trademark. Oh, and if all this is too optimistic for you, there are some grating explanatory videos after the break that will have you running back to the open arms of "Big Media" in a heart beat.

[DeathFromAbove @ Dec 18th 2007 7:16PM]

How about we just call an Mp4 an Mp4?
That's how we roll in the Torrents.

[Michael LaFramboise @ Dec 18th 2007 8:01PM]

We have a WINRAR!

[ethana2 @ Dec 19th 2007 2:33AM]

What he said implies open codecs.

I torrent CC-BY-SA ogg files /all/ the time from jamendo.com
I think dirac still needs to mature a little before this shift can really take for video... theora.. well... I haven't tried it for myself really.. encoding, anyways... so I won't say anything more there.

But I would love to see this really take off.

[AKBlade13 @ Dec 18th 2007 7:33PM]

Hey, that's not bad actually.

I'd condone that. :D

AKBlade13

[jilie @ Dec 18th 2007 7:40PM]

another iphone AD post... mp3s always been unlocked..

[monkfishbandana @ Dec 19th 2007 1:32PM]

Okay...erm.......yeah...okay I think....I think I'm going to go ahead and...you know....just ask you.

Erm...are you an idiot?

[BigDaddyM @ Dec 18th 2007 7:59PM]

Unlock Media would have been a better name...

However the problem is not that we need this branding, we need companies to just stop using DRM.
M

[bondsbw @ Dec 18th 2007 9:14PM]

It's like the old "Designed for Windows XP" logo... once it became recognizable, people started to think twice before buying a computer without it.

The downside is, "Windows Vista Capable" makes me look away... so branding can leave a bad flavor just as much as a good one. It's all about being something that people desire.

[funkyj @ Dec 18th 2007 10:56PM]

At least it is consumer-centric logo. Neuros will certainly get credit for it, but it would be nice to see it take a life of its own.

[ethana2 @ Dec 19th 2007 2:58AM]

I'm still waiting for those little penguins you see on thumb drive packages to show up on laptops everywhere...

And a daemon or sol sticker on one of those things wouldn't do any harm either.
An Apple, well... Apple still has yet to have their butt sued off for DMCA abuse, but it would be nifty, you know, spoof their TPM.
You could always go PPC. PPC OSX doesn't use that blasted TPM, I don't think...
..and it'd make some difference, sure... but not all that much for me. Flash and nVidia drivers would suffer for a while, but ATi and silverlight could make a killing.
CellBE based laptop, anyone?

[tom @ Dec 18th 2007 8:11PM]

clever logo.

[AlexL @ Dec 18th 2007 9:53PM]

What we need is not DRM-free media. It will not be possible for all media to become DRM-free. DRM is what transforms information content from a public good to a private good. Without DRM, it would be impossible to use the open market to sell content. Rather, all content will need to be financed by either charities or the government. (For example, Radiohead offering their latest album DRM-free and letting fans pay what they want for it is an example of financing content by charity.) Clearly not all artists will agree to these solutions. The free market is still the best way to promote production and consumption, and we need DRM to achieve that.

What we need is an open DRM platform. An open DRM platform should employ a scheme that device makers can incorporate into their devices without royalties, and artists can wrap around their content for free with an easy to use software. Such a universal DRM wrapper would enable artists to sell their content as a private good, while at the same time permitting consumers to enjoy the content on any device they choose.

[JoeBorn @ Dec 18th 2007 10:11PM]

It's a great concept, but it's never been possible to pull off in practice. If Microsoft can't even keep their DRM schemes compatible within their own line, I can't imagine how cross company schemes will possibly work.

I also don't agree that the only two alternatives are DRM or charity, clearly emusic and now amazon sell mp3s in a model that is neither.

[AlexL @ Dec 18th 2007 10:37PM]

What Amazon and similar DRM-free music stores offer is in essence their service. That is to say, they offer their users access to their files, their bandwidth, and their guarantee to a certain extent the quality of their files.

The problem with a service like this is twofold. First, is it impossible for independent artists to sell their content themselves this way. They must go through a middleman like Amazon in order to sell their content, instead of utilizing cost-effective peer-to-peer technologies to distribute their content. Second, offering DRM-free media this way offers no protection for the content except for the protection of copyright law, which we know is not effective in the scale of individual users. Thus with the maturation of peer-to-peer technologies the service that these vendors offer (their bandwidth and content) becomes less and less relevant.

[JoeBorn @ Dec 19th 2007 1:20AM]

well, I agree it's a service of sorts, but I'm not sure what it means with regard to independent artists and their distribution. It's clear that the internet has already changed the game some. Physical distribution is certainly less important and the connection between artist and fan is generally more direct.

In fact, I think there are big changes at work here that really dwarf the DRM v. No DRM changes. With podcasts and broadband penetration and speeds on the rise, there's more and more opportunities for streamlining the distribution channels, and taking out middlemen that are no longer needed, and adding new valuable services some of which we can't yet imagine. Either way, I doubt that trying to lock down the content with inoperable DRM schemes is the way to win this game.

[ethana2 @ Dec 19th 2007 2:36AM]

I intend to boycott all copyrighted media to the day I die.

Keep it simple.

Jamendo.com
creativecommons.org

ubuntu.com
fsf.org

[ethana2 @ Dec 19th 2007 2:52AM]

Sorry about that. I've cooled down a bit now, and I'll summarize things for you: the nature of information is that it is infinitely replicable. You can embrace that, or you can fight it. I have chosen to wholeheartedly embrace it. To do anything else is backwards, unnatural, and desperate, in my opinion. And it may not happen today; it may not happen tomorrow, but enough nerds who think the same way I do may very well put you out of a job if you don't adapt. In the event that that happens, we have no pity whatsoever. If you're not creating art for passion, go do something else... and for your own sake, try to have fun doing it. After all, the most important thing is that you're being paid, right?

We'll take care of the culture for you. And we are. More each day.

[AlexL @ Dec 19th 2007 8:15AM]

The very reason that DRM exists is because information is infinitely replicable. The problem boils down to very basic economics. We can categorize goods according to two criteria, whether the it is rival in consumption, and whether it is excludable. We know that information is not rival in consumption because of its infinitely replicable nature. The question is, is information excludable? A non-rival, non-excludable good is a public good. National defense is an example of this. The problem with public goods is that you cannnot use the market to sell it. It must be paid for some other way. In the case of national defense, it is paid for by levying taxes. Charities are another way to pay for such things, such is the case in public television.

Societies such as ours have realized a long time ago that it is highly desirable to use the market to promote the production of information. If market forces cannot be used to promote people to innovate and produce information, then all the industries involving information must be paid for through taxes or charities. Society has deemed that unacceptable, and that is why copyrights, trademarks, and patents were created. The sole purpose of these clauses is to make information excludable, thus changing it from a public good into a private one.

Now the question is, what is there is some other way to make information excludable without necessitating the state to enforce it through copyright laws? DRM is such a solution. It transforms information into an excludable good when copyright laws are more or less ineffective. It is this transformation property of DRM that makes it valuable to us. It enables information to be sold on the market, thus giving information providers incentive to work.

What happens if information becomes a public good completely, as some have suggested? Well, it is a rather grim reality. Information producers will have no incentive to work. They will not even be able to feed themselves, unless they become beggars and enlist charities to fund themselves. Or the government can pass a state-wide information production tax and use it to fund all information production in the state. I think that DRM is a pretty good alternative considering.

[Ed @ Dec 20th 2007 10:02PM]

Although your arguments are well thought out and articulated, and you are probably right... you are still dead wrong.

DRM is doomed to failure *forever*. It may be required for a society as you state, but it does go against human nature, privacy, anonymity, and basic human rights which have not been translated to our Cyberspace equivalent yet.

Even if DRM is perfected, meaning:

1) An open platform.
2) Royalty Free (which is really just financed by special interests anyways. Not Free)
3) Works on every device
4) No user EVER loses their rights to use IP that they purchased.

Your world made real tomorrow will not change some basic fundamental facts about DRM:

1) It violates our right to privacy and anonymity. I will NEVER SURRENDER this right. Not for any reason, including our purported ability to survive. I will rebel, fight, and die for it. I may go so far as to include violence if necessary, if I found myself living under a totalitarian fascist government. I would certainly include acts of civil disobediance. I consider myself a real American. I won't put up with anybody else coming on my "land" and telling me what to do. I have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness without restrictions of any kind, unless in doing so, I remove that right from another Citizen. Note I said Citizen, not Corporation. I don't promote Anarchy, and I do realize that laws must exist, but within reason. They only need to exist to govern our interactions with OTHER CITIZENS. Now I am sure that may be going to far for some people, but I am sure that most people can agree that the rights and interests of corporations have been overrepresented in our current society and are far out of balance.

2) It promotes a fascist idealogy. It promotes the philosophy that the corporations rights to protect their money is more important then the individuals right to peaceful enjoyment of their property, the monitoring of consumer activity, and the fanatical supression and abuse of powers which I feel were purchased from the government. It certainly fits the definition and it is scary to think of how far it could be taken. The recent post about MS applying for a patent describing biometric identification of consumers to target ads is ripe for abuse in DRM schemes. The day will be coming when your TV tells you it wont play the movie since there is a unknown person in the room and directs you to a website to pay. That kind of information is dangerous for corporations and government to have. I would certainly fear, with good reason, if political content was scrutinized by government. To track dissidents in real-time based on content is a dream of any fascist. What would Hoover of done with those kinds of resources? Just by watching content critical of government, you could be in a database.

These concerns I have are perfectly justified and I have the right to express them by not purchasing DRM content of any kind, removing copyright protection mechanisms from products that I purchase, and campaigning against their use.

I would absolutely support the idea of a trademark like this and it would make me want to purchase something that had it. Heck, I would probably buy a Backstreet Boys album if it had it on it.... or even New Kids on The Block. That's how strongly I would support it.

Furthermore, DRM is not ideal right now. It suffers from many problems and is not deserving of support as it stands right now. DRM is:

1) A universally broken product. They all have one thing in common, and that is complete failure. Any DRM method that has not been cracked is not a testament to its strength, but its market penetration. I personally feel that DRM in its entirety is a worthless enterprise that I am being forced to "pay" or give value to. The fact that there are laws to support its failure is a true testament to stupidity and corruption in the government. Adobe is a great example. They make a secure product, which is of course not secure at all, and when it is broken they use the FBI and the law to suppress the knowledge of and ability to do it.

2) It confuses the Customer for the Thief, and the Thief for the Customer. I got that from a quote from somebody else. It is a great one though. It sums up pretty much everything. Specifically though, it states the problem of maintaining a customer's right to their purchased Intellectual Property. I have every right to expect and beleive that when I pay for music, video, etc. that I am purchasing that right FOREVER. They are not renting it. They are selling it. When a product forces you to activate, maintain compatible hardware, and consent to sending out information to 3rd parties to verify your IP rights, it causes problems (aside from the aformentioned basic human right to privacy). Why would I purchase the right to IP, when it could dissapear in a few months, if not years. I still have books on my shelves that I purchased when I was 7 years old with my birthday money. DRM does not provide that same level of consumer confidence. That is why it, "Confuses the customer for the Thief".

3) It removes, prohibits, or otherwise interferes with the Customer's right to make copies. This is a RIGHT and NOT a privelege. When I have paid for the IP, I can use it in ANY way I see fit. The ONLY thing I cannot do with it, is PROFIT from it. The draconian, and unconstitional, laws that have been made may take some of this away. That is where civil disobediance comes in. Just becuase a law is on the books, does not make it moral or ethical. Segregation was a law at one point too, as well the Blood laws in World War II Germany.

I can see the world that you want, but it is not a practical one. I know many people like you, and I love and respect them.

Your world assumes that we can trust the people responsible for keeping this information. Your world will never exist. I may fervently wish for a Star Trek like future in which we all work everyday for the betterment of ourselves and the betterment of society and others, but not EVERY one is like that.

I beleive that your motives are benign, and that you wish to protect people's rights, artists rights to their works, and promote a fair and balanced marketplace where everybody can enjoy the benefits.

It's wishfull thinking, and you need to consider the dark side of humanity, becuase boy is it here.

[JoeBorn @ Dec 18th 2007 10:03PM]

"there are some grating explanatory videos after the break that will have you running back to the open arms of "Big Media" in a heart beat." - I love Engadget!

[JBo @ Dec 18th 2007 11:14PM]

Isn't the keyhole on the logo upside down?

[crystalsinger @ Dec 18th 2007 11:34PM]

FAIL!

[catalystpro @ Dec 19th 2007 12:23AM]

Ugly logo. Looks like something I could have made when I was 15 and only knew how to apply shadows in Photoshop. For God's sake, pay a branding firm or even a freelance designer to create something professional looking.

Oy.

[ethana2 @ Dec 19th 2007 2:39AM]

It's times like that that make me think...
That week of work you spent earning enough money to buy a photoshop license could have been used learning how to do stuff in the gimp.

Or better yet, making python do it for you.

[ethana2 @ Dec 19th 2007 3:07AM]

The branding is available to "any entity that uses media using open standard technology which is available to all on a non-discriminatory basis.

Hmm... it would be nice to know just how much he means that. I would love it if this did actually extend over to ogg/theora/dirac/etc. That would be awesome...
With information, I consider money to be little more than a basis of discrimination, due to its nature... but I don't think many people think that way, so it's likely that mp3 would be considered 'unlocked' even though the patents haven't expired yet I don't think...

[vibexm @ Dec 19th 2007 11:30AM]

That made it further than my brand.

"NO Key...Ahhhhh!" Apparently, some phone manufacturer had problems with it.

[Christopher Levy @ Dec 19th 2007 12:47PM]

You are kidding me right? is this a Hoax? This guy makes several false statements in this video.

Plays For Sure did not stop working when Zune came out. The Plays For Sure Ecosystem, [not to be confused with the Windows Media Rights Manager which is the DRM component of Plays For Sure] is still quite active with literally hundreds of devices.

Every major cell phone company in America has a Plays For Sure compatible phone available and some carriers have several.

Users deserve more transparent experiences when DRM is involved and that is something we can all agree on.

[funkyj @ Dec 20th 2007 2:56PM]

From Wikipedia: "Microsoft also makes its own portable music player called Zune, which works only with its own content service called Zune Marketplace, not PlaysForSure."
Now tell me, doesn't it sound absurd?

We are going backward with today's DRM schemes. CD owners can make copies of their CD collection, they can even make copies in formats that will play on an iPod and a Zune. Doesn't it sound ironic that users are not allowed to do the same with digital content bought on iTunes and Zune Marketplace?

[CL @ Dec 20th 2007 3:02PM]

yes and now. Your CDMA phone doesn't work on your GSM network either. You can buy a phone from Verizon that wont' work on Sprint and vice versa. Apple and Microsoft have made a decision to own their channel and their licensing agreements and payouts dictate they manage it as such. I don't necessarily agree with it and in fact am a big proponent of WMRM because it allows you to move your content to over 1000 devices. If Apple License FairPlay all the labels would license it and sell their content in encrypted form just not pay Apple 40 cents on the dollar.