You know who's missing from the
Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem (or DECE) consortium? A group bent on redefining the way we buy, access, and play digital content with a membership roster that includes Best Buy, Cisco, Comcast, Fox, HP, Intel, Lions Gate, Microsoft, NBC Universal, Paramount Pictures, Philips, Sony, Toshiba, VeriSign, and Warner Bros? Right, Apple and Disney, the latter landing a lengthy piece in the
Wall Street Journal describing Disney's own distributed content ownership scheme that goes by the code-name, "Keychest;" a DRM solution that instantly provides access to content on any participating service (digital download store, mobile-phone provider, or on-demand cable for example) when a purchase is made. Keychest does this though a system of unique keys that are issued when a movie is purchased. The keys are then stored in a central repository (aka, chest) that participants would query. In this scenario, the movies would reside with each delivery company on their respective systems -- movies would not be downloaded. On the bright side, if a content provider went out of business you would still have access to your films elsewhere. The proposed solution would work with Blu-ray disc purchases too, since BD players are internet-enabled by design -- DVD keys would have to be manually typed in by the user. So in effect, you'd now be paying once for ownership rights to the film, not to the physical media. If it sounds similar to DECE it is, but Disney claims that its approach is more streamlined and you know, better.
Disney has been quietly courting other movie studios with Keychest and intends to go public with its technology next month. Of course, with Steve Jobs listed as Disney's largest stockholder and the rumored Apple tablet being a media-redefining device that will single-handedly save newspapers while ridding the world of hunger and ignorance, well, you can see where the speculation is headed.
[Thanks, Demopublican]
posted Oct 22nd 2009 7:38AM
Well I read about ten different sites each morning (Engadget, Tom's Hardware, CNET etc..) and with the exception of CNET which has quite a few Windows 7 stories running today, nobody is posting multiple stories about Windows 7. Possibly because they have been posting them daily for the last six months strait. Where this is a new story, Windows 7 has been pounded into the ground. If you have 20 stories about 20 different items about Apple (Disney/Apple, new iMac , new Macbook, new Mac Mini, multitouch mouse, etc..) it's 20 different stories, where as if you have 20 stories about Windows 7 its just plain overkill.
BTW I am a Vista 64 user upgrading to Windows 7 64 an I was tiring of hearing about Windows 7 features for the 200th time a few months ago and with the beta that was out seemingly forever I could care less about any Windows 7 stories unless they involve 1) a price cut or sale deal somewhere 2) MS changed something on the way to retail that hasn't been covered 50 times already.
This particular story is very interesting to me as I would love to have a system in place where i can stream to any device in the best bit-rate for that device with a single purchase that covers all my devices. I know many people hate the idea of know physical media, but at our home we have completely embraced digital distribution in the forms of computer games through Steam (we never buy any computer games on physical media for the last couple of years), through Netflix and Amazon streaming of movie rentals and TV episodes, streaming Hulu and other services, we've purchased a huge collection of content through amazon. We love not having our home cluttered up with physical media and we have yet to have a single problem with accessing any content from anywhere. With three kids in the house it is far, far more beneficial to not have to worry about changing the Barney DVD or the kids scratching it. Now they just scroll through DVD cover art till they see what they want and hit play.
That skull on the chest there?
-stabbed in the eyes by DRM.
Just sayin'
At first glance, I thought "Oh, great. You mean I have to take this to some exact GPS coordinates just so the box will open up and I can watch a movie?"
I really wish that Engadget would fix their comment system, this was a replay to another post not the post thread above. Actually the whole line i was really commented on seems to have disappeared which is even more aggravating as it smells of Engadget censoring their comment system in a very unacceptable fashion.
Yar, we have devised a system to share copyrighted materials. We call it - The Pirate Bay-oh sh**, nevermind.
Isn't there a Disney attraction that goes "yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me"???
@Shaggy:
Yeah, it's in the 'hood section of Disney World. Gangsta Island.
Here comes the Whine Patrol.
Get ready for some Grade-A Whining.
This Whine has been aged to perfection, folks!
This is horsecrap. I will never buy something so restrictive. I gladly pay for my content, but if crap like this is the only way, I will torrent it.
It is called catering to the reader's interest. You do realize we are here to please the readers right?
Oh wait, Apple leading an implementation on DRM. Are the Appletards on Ars Technica gonna kill themselves now after whining so much on how Windows handles Blu-ray now?
Huh what? How does this have anything to do with Apple? This is Disney.
I know everyone goes into hate mode whenever DRM is mentioned, but this implementation sounds fairly good. As long as they are enough companies on board so you have numerous places to get the content from, and you're able to store the content on devices for when you're away from an internet connection it could work fairly well.
But as i said, its all about the number of companies on board. It the content works on the majority of smartphones, media players, consoles and computers it will be great, if it only works on a limited number of devices then its just another annoying DRM scheme
The model will also have to support second-hand sales of the content. If I cannot sell my copy when I'm done with it, then I won't buy it in the first place unless it is dirt cheap like 10% of the current price. Also, what would happen if you lose your internet connection due to system outages? Could one still access the content, after all I can always pop in a DVD if my TV connection goes dead. Will there be a rental model with this DRM so that we can try out the content before we commit to the full purchase?
So basically it's CD-keys a la online game purchases that don't come with media, but for movies instead?
This is the way all DRMs should work.
The main complain most consumers were making on the net was that DRM prevents them from moving their content in between devices and that they were afraid of losing access to content if the provider goes bust.
This is the step in the right direction to eliminate those fears and also helps to pave the way for a majority download purchasing future.
Hmm, now remind me again, is this the same Disney that sent waves of lawyers and lobbyists to Washington in order to rewrite American copyright law in their favor?
Yeah, we should DEFINITELY trust these guys.
Come on people, wake the eff up...
"BD players are internet-enabled by design"
Only if you pay extra for BD-Live compatible equipment. Even then, good luck finding anyone who has bothered to hook up a non-PS3 Blu-ray player to the internet.
Yet another DRM scheme? blah.
This is the same thing other companies have proposed and implemented under the concept of "open DRM", because all the secrets are kept on the server where you can't hack them.
The problem is if you don't have net access you can't play your content.
How about we just got back to no DRM instead?
If a server is accessible from a network (ie - the internet) - it is hackable.
Where have you been hiding for the past 50 years? Are you new to the concept of computers?
And when the "chest" goes down, or there's a DNS or DDOS attack against the "chest" what happens to our purchased media then?
Engadget mentions that the "chest" would be located on multiple servers across multiple companies and if something happened in one location - then the "chest" would still be accessible in another location.
Example -
Buy a Disney movie from iTunes thru you Comcast Cable internet subscription. And say all 3 companies are in the agreement.
Apple has a copy of the "chest".
Disney has a copy of the "chest".
Comcast has a copy of the "chest".
Disney gets hacked and goes down. The "chest" is still accessible from both Apple and Comcast. Got it?
Several things.
Technically this would be true for VHS owners. Or with a focus on music - those folks who own a copy of a cassette tape or Record or CD.
The point is that if (at least) the movie industry is potentially attempting to head this direction - then other than maintaining some semblence of "control" and tracking or customers (hence the DRM Keys on various servers) why not simply do away with the DRM and let us continue making our own copies as we see fit?
Additionally - if now there are multiple sources for this "encryption key" thing they speak of - this makes it more potentailly susceptible to hacking and other potential issues.
My question is this: Why is it so important that these media companies maintain information on the viewing and consumption habits of their customers?
I've been keeping track of this whole "data collection to better cater to the individuals needs - wants - shoping habits" off and on for a long time now and they haven't been able to anticipate shoppers habits to the same degree that the weather forcasters cannot predict the patttern of hurricanes in the 2011 hurricane season.
Like the idea of paying for content, not a particular copy of the content. Conversion is a pain. I'd want at least one concrete, in-my-hands-and-you-can't-deprive-me-of-it copy, though, not all of it in someone else's hands.
DRM. Pass.