There's a lot going on at CES, and one of those things was a presentation by Disney explaining its
KeyChest concept. We attended and was surprised to learn that KeyChest has almost nothing to do with DRM. We were rolling our eyes when we heard
Disney proclaim that KeyChest was complementary to DECE, but now that we understand what KeyChest is, we agree. The easiest way to explain it is with an example and the most obvious to us is iTunes and Comcast. Both companies offer video on demand and use their own DRM to prevent copying. If both participated in KeyChest -- this isn't studio based -- and we bought a movie on iTunes, the next time we hit up Comcast VOD we'd be able to watch the same movie without paying again. The genius of the idea is how simple it is, basically the participants report your purchases to the KeyChest and query it to see what else you bought. It is a simple transaction, but Disney didn't tell us what strings were attached to join up, but did say that the product wasn't meant to be profitable, but of course would not operate at a loss either. The other obvious thing mentioned was that Disney realizes that the entire system is useless if it doesn't reach critical mass.
posted January 10th 2010 7:29AM
@nabberuk
not "a company," EVERY company--and letting all of them know EVERYTHING you've bought and watched. if you're worried about what google knows about you, you should definitely worry about when the rest of the entertainment and communication industries get together. just think what they already know about you: name, address, social security, credit history, and now your secret love of hannah montana? it's a marketer's wet dream.
I definitely see this as a good thing for consumers, but I fail to see the incentive for any other providers to sign up to it. After all, the customer only pays for the initial purchase which is when the vendor takes their percentage cut. Why would - say - Comcast pay for bandwidth to provide another copy to the consumer gratis?
The initial vendor would need to profit share with the rest in order for this to make financial sense, and I'm not sure I can see that happening at the moment (at least not until the number of distribution sources drops to a stable number).
@PriyanPhoenix
Most likely the videos would cost a bit extra for the end user, and participating companies will receive a payment for allowing users to download the movie.
@CJ
Agreed, as I said it would require some sort of profit share. However I suspect the average consumer (rather than the tech savvy crowd) will simply be looking for the cheapest price when they purchase. This means the "critical mass" necessary will be when ALL the main providers sign up so that none are undercutting the rest. Otherwise they'll need to take a financial hit to get this off the ground.
@PriyanPhoenix
They get to see everybody's purchases from all other companies, it's a privacy nightmare for consumers but a information heaven for them.
That's the incentive, many companies pay lots of money to know what people are buying or looking at.
Theoretically you could minimize privacy issue by only storing the keys on people's own system and not have it send out keys you own, but how likely is it that they won't simply make a central server so everybody can see your purchasing history?
Not to mention that it's only useful if the content is actually DRM'ed obviously, so they have an excuse to DRM stuff but it doesn't stick out so much when people aren't asked to pay twice for the same.
THIS actually sounds very useful. Hopefully other companies will implement a similar system.
@CJ No other system. The only way it would work is if there was only ONE system recognized by all of the major digital media stores. Think of it as a Paypal account that does nothing but keep track of what digital media you've paid for and thusly have rights to play on all of your devices.
so keychest is ABPN? ( A Bloody Privacy Nightmare) where all companies get info on everything you purchase, lovely, now go stick it where the sun don't shine Disney, and publish a key when you are ready with that.
Quite from wikipedia:
"A server would allow streaming access to the movie, using by the same cloud computing concept as Google Apps or Zoho Office. The purchase of a movie (whether online or on a DVD) would create a unique ‘key’, stored in a ‘digital locker’, and would unlock the ability to stream that movie to any electronic device capable of playing movies.
At least that is the way it is presented. Closer examination of the fine print reveals the device would have to come from a ‘participating’ service. Because the actual content would stay on the servers as opposed to downloading the files, the manufacturers of those participating services and devices would have unlimited control of the access to the files"
i can't believe they actually make it sound like this is a good thing for the consumer.
1. it is still drm
2. it is a privacy disaster
3. it doesn't prevent piracy (you would think they would have learned by now that if you want to copy something someone will make it possible)
i will stick to nice 1080p torrents. it's not that i would not pay for good content (and i have done that with drm free stuff) but if you try to force shit like this on me you will get nothing.
@Xstream
since most of the major music providors went DRM free, pirating hasnt been reduced. So i dont get the whole "Remove DRM and people will buy it" For 90% of people who say, there talking out their bum.
So with that in mind, what do you think the next step should be?
@nabberuk
"So with that in mind, what do you think the next step should be?"
Assuming you're right and the presence/removal of DRM makes no difference to whether people pirate or not, then:
As a 'legit' consumer? Remove the DRM anyway. Less hoops for me to jump through to enjoy the content I paid for on the devices I want.
As a movie studio? Remove the DRM. Take the money I was spending on expensive DRM schemes that don't work and spend the money on beefing up bandwidth for my online streaming service.
As a pirate? I couldn't care less.
@nabberuk there will always be people who copy and that isn't so bad. that whole "home taping kills music" thing is as old as the first recording equipment and music is still there. drm and keychest is a solution for a problem that only exists in the heads of the studios and labels.
@Xstream
How exactly are you classifying this as DRM? Yes, I can see a valid argument in the general sense of the term, but not as it is colloquially accepted. Secondly no one is forcing anything on you. Think of it as a registration of your product. If you go to Walmart and buy a DVD are you currently forced register it before you can watch it? No one has said that this system would do anything differently.
@Xstream
It would seem I never complete my thoughts before I hit the pretty button... Any way, just wanted to mention that I DO see your privacy issue point. Again to this point, it should be up to the customer whether they want to register or not (give up digital ID aggregation rights and so forth), but even then there should be the standard opt out clause. I guess the real issue here is with trusting Disney...
@credo
The key is used to check if you are allowed to watch it for free (because you paid already), the acronym for that is DRM or Diital Rights Management, duh
How the hell would a person not call that DRM, it's the dictionary definition of it.
@credo in essence drm is software that lets you play or not play media depending on you having the correct license and obtaining that license via a server for example from your reseller. the only difference here is that it is one server for multiple resellers.
"nobody tries to force something on you", well lets see:
vhs can use macrovision copy protection.
dvd uses css to stop copying and also uses a country code to control which dvds you can play where to prevent sales of before the official release in other countries.
blu-ray has the same capabilities as dvd but also uses a copy protection that also allows to deactive whole series of tvs or blu-ray players from playing movies via updates on new movie disks or via online updates.
do you see where this is going?
@Wwhat
Because when most people say DRM they mean there is some type of registration on the media, and if the registration on the account of the user playing the media doesn't match, then this individual cannot play said media. Also, most "DRM" is prorpietary. i.e. a user who bought a song on iTunes 2 years ago was locked into playing it on an iPod (the real problem with "DRM"). Hence the term colloquially in my post. Duh.
@Xstream
this is what I thought you meant. "software that lets you play or not play media depending on you having the correct license". Then in that case you are wrong in defining the KeyChest system. It does NOT dictate whether or not you can play said media. It simply maintains a list of your previous purchases that other entity can check before they decide to transmit the media to you. If they decide to impose software registration on the media then that's up to them. However KeyChest is not dictating whether you can or cannot PLAY the media. That would infer you needed a "KeyChest compatible player".
And NO, I don't see where you're going. Again you miss the point. KeyChest, as explained in this article, has nothing to do with the physical (yes even digital is physical) media you play nor the protection mechanisms that media employs against copy protection. The problem here is people posting before they understand what they are posting about.
@credo DRM means "Digital Rights Management" which means a method of restricting access to the content to only those entitled to it.
This is totally DRM in every sense of the meaning. It does depend on other DRM methods for encryption or locking methods, but it is still DRM.
@RandomGuy
I didn't ask for random people to give me the definition, I know the definition. I asked one person to explain his post so that I might have a better understanding of where he was coming from. k thx any way.
@credo the keychest system alone doesn't dictate that you can or can not play the media but it is the infrastructure to do so. the whole "you don't have to pay twice" stuff is just publicity they came up with to make people (like you) accept the system.
@Xstream
okay
I think Disney's trying to do a fair thing, here. They're offering a way for companies to protect themselves with DRM and are simply making it so the innocent aren't affected by it; if you bought something, you won't need to pay again for the same content. The comments in here show why there can't be a fair solution. It doesn't matter what the companies do, people will continue to download for free and continue to blame it on the media companies for some unfairness. Grow up, guys.
@MisterK do you see the words "recording rights" in the diagram above? that means they want to control if you can record a tv show and things like that. with my old vcr i could record everything i want, how is it fair if someone comes along and tries to stop me from doing that just because he wants me to buy the same stuff the tv station has already paid for broadcasting which in the end costs my money.
@MisterK
"It doesn't matter what the companies do, people will continue to download for free and continue to blame it on the media companies for some unfairness."
Agreed, so it makes sense for the media companies to stop punishing those few consumers who are willing to pay by removing DRM.
As you've said, DRM makes_no_difference to the pirates.
It does however make a big difference to those of us who choose to pay. We get a sub standard experience because of it.
It's the media companies that need to grow up.
@Xstream
Actually it says "record rights". Your simply assuming its the verb tense of the word, while it could in fact be a noun. i.e. "The user's database record".
@credo
you're. ha. I beat you to it.
@credo yes maybe my interpretation was a bit hastily but the argument is still valid, they try to take control over things that should be none of their business.
@Xstream
They are not taking control. They are offering a service which they think consumers would appreciate. A service which should allow someone to download a new copy of some movie they lost somehow. The fact that they are at the top of the system is a smart business move yes, however it should not lock you into requiring a registration to play media you paid for. I'll let the Lawyers argue that one when it comes down to it. Think of it this way, you purchase a movie from the popular Acme corp. As a SERVICE, since they pay some money to Disney, they offer you a digital backup of your movie, from any vendor that participates in the system. This way if Acme corp. goes out of business, you can still access your media. One should only worry if Disney files for chapter 11... And even then, you only need to worry if you lost your original media, or if Acme had some "DRM" on the movie and Acme is now (also) out of business so you can no longer verify your rights to it. While both companies going out of business any time soon is unlikely, you would be no worse off than if you bought the DVD in the usual manner and lost it...
OK, so it's not DRM in terms of encryption that keeps users from repurposing content, whether the repurposing is legal or not. But the very reason KeyChest is necessary is because of DRM, because DRM systems are incompatible with each other, a way of letting you buy the rights to more than one walled garden. I don't think this will really work in reality anyway, the companies that make the walled gardens in the first place seem to like having them to keep users from leaving. It seems more likely that Disney is patenting it, will try to market it in a half-hearted manner, but they'll pack it away and the patents will be locked away. In other words, it may be an elaborate way to prevent someone else from actually making a go of it.
This is simple *rights management*, not like old systems that are both DRM *and* copy protection schemes.
Think of it this way: basically separate the key/rights management from the copy protection. This system is simplify the consumer end by making the back office management fairly complex, think isan.
And yes, if no one gets on board it promotes individual media companies to manage their own DRM, which then this is useless--that's a TCO question the media companies need to answer.
Whats with the iMovie icons?
The best part is that the key can be used as a sword! Oh, wait...
I had this very same idea a year ago; glad to see it actually coming to life. This "keychest" concept is the only way I foresee consumers ever making the move to an all-digital lifestyle, as it makes DRM irrelevant to the consumer. It also negates the need for all digital distributors to share the same DRM and file format, which is something that never would have happened.
@Cory Bauer
Well glad that you didn't already put it out there back then, the longer we are without this the better IMO.
@Wwhat If you think this is bad for consumers, then I don't think you understand how it works. Buy a movie on the iTunes store, and get free allowance to download it on the Sony store for your PSP, and the xBox 360 store to watch on your tv. All in their original format and DRM scheme. The file remains locked to the device, but your PURCHASE is acknowledged by them all.
@Cory Bauer
As I stated before, I don't want all companies to share info on what I purchase.
Not that they didn't already made me decide to never purchase in the first place some time ago already, and if I would it would be in a shop with cash.
But nothing from sony, to hell with them.
@Wwhat You must be into some really kinky fucked up shit if you're paranoid about the people selling the movies knowing what movies you're buying.
Apple should put some DRM on that iMovie icon. Massive irony props for stealing something to illustrate something that prevents stealing.
Are you really going to buy your alter kinky fetish porn on iTunes or a similar site with your credit card and link it to the account in your name?
That is what I don't get about the "excuse" for not wanting a system like this. If you don't want company b to know about the purchase, why would you want company a to know about it? That's why you either pay cash for your kinky fetish porn, use an anonymous account with a gift card, etc. If not, company a already knows you bought it, so someone else could find out.
iTunes/amazon/whatever have histories of my purchases going back for years. If you made the purchase in a traditional matter, they know already. For all those kinky fetish tapes, just watch it in the original format.
@AmandaGal
Yeah OK, you are clueless and don't get the human concept of privacy unless it's to watch porn (or torture prisoners), have fun on facebook then, bye.
@Wwhat I apologize. Actually that was supposed to be a reply to comment from the first page where it was posted that a danger was that if you bought fetish porn and ran for office, it could be looked up.
My point is that if you're truly worried about privacy, you probably shouldn't be using any of these services anyway, because they store and track your data already (amazon and iTunes both recommend things based on past purchases, for example...I keep using them as examples because they are so large). They keep testing the limits of this data all the time. If you're using them, you're already "under the radar" for someone to see your purchases.
If you're not worried about it already, than this service should be fine with you.
I've always lived under the assumption that anything I buy with a credit card be traced. If I don't want someone to know about it, I don't buy it with a credit card or link it to my iTunes account.
@AmandaGal
I agree with you...I was thinking the same thing as I was reading previous posts. Anything you purchase online with a CC can, and more than likely is, tracked by the company you buy it from. Any time you use a rewards card or loyalty program at, for example, the grocery store or Best Buy can track what you are buying, even if you pay cash.
I don't understand the privacy concerns for this system. If you have a problem with it, then you must currently be going well out of your way to hide your identity whenever you buy anything in today's marketplace, regardless of the product.
oh sweet!
If Amazon and iTunes joined, I could finally start buying disc+ from Amazon - and downloading the vid from iTunes on my Mac!
Cause I want physical and digital media
This concept is worthless. It relies on other services giving you things for free just because of a purchase you made somewhere else. Why would comcast, netflix, or any service use their bandwidth for something you bought at a place like itunes or amazon. Sure, you probably wouldn't have bought it in two places, but you might have. Lets say 90% of people refuse to buy something if they already have it in a different format. Well then the other 10% is all money lost if companies were to support keychest.
I agree we need a way to buy once and view on many devices. But what I find more likely is that most major media companies will begin storing your purchases in the cloud, which can then be accessed by the majority of the devices you own. Comcast is working on this for their subscribers, and it looks like Apple might be moving in that direction as well. Once day my cell phone, my computer, and my TV will all have a way to connect to the movie/TV/Audio libraries that I maintain on a variety of services.
It's DRM.
Sheesh, I can't understand how people get confused by marketeers.
If a system has to check in to see if you're authorized to do something before doing something it's perfectly capable of doing, then it's DRM.
i think content creators are finally getting it. this is brilliant because you shouldn't have to pay multiple times for the "license" or right to view/enjoy content.
examples of this concept should be: i pay my blu-ray ONCE, i can access it on my phone, tv VOD, stb, car, over friend's house (using my own login), anywhere. pay once, access everywhere.
what is what we do when we rip our own encodes and take it everywhere... but now we don't have to (conceptually). i would be willing to pay for that =).
The only thing I noticed about this is 'Hey, it's the Sansa e-series!'
I used that exact picture for a project in Digital Illustration a couple semesters ago.