Is Lala's DRM a new way to lock up music?
Correction at 11:10 a.m. PDT: Lala's patent filing is an application. And Lala says it has made no promises to music labels regarding piracy in order to offer 10-cent "Web Songs."
Michael Robertson, the gadfly of digital music, is once again pestering rivals about their business practices.
Robertson--the controversial founder of MP3.com, Linspire, and MP3tunes.com--has accused Lala of attempting to transfer control of its users' music to the recording labels.
Robertson claimed last month on his personal blog that Lala had developed an "insidious new plot" to entice its users to upload music to the company's servers and then trap the music there by embedding digital rights management into the servers. This would enable Lala and the big music labels to exercise greater control over the tunes. He compared Lala's plan with a "roach motel," where songs check in but they can't check out.
Robertson's accusations generated little attention, possibly because he operates a competing site, MP3tunes.com. Both companies enable customers to access music from the cloud, and one competitor badmouthing another won't stop the presses. But in regards to Robertson's accusations about Lala and DRM, the best support for the claims comes from Lala itself.
Robertson directed CNET News to a Lala patent application filed last year and titled "Network Based Digital Rights Management System." In the filing, Lala describes what it is hoping to patent.
"A network-based DRM system manages digital media assets stored in the network," Lala, which has been praised by music labels and has financial backing from Warner Music Group, states in the document. "The system provides consumers with access to the digital media from any device connected to an electronic network such as the Internet, while enforcing the intended uses by the copyright owners."
"The Web restricted nature of the offering," Lala writes elsewhere in the filing, "means that the digital assets are at all times controlled by the system and thus result in minimal piracy."
The patent application proves Lala is trying to develop a new type of DRM, according to Robertson. Instead of wrapping individual songs in DRM, Lala's plan calls for a network to act as a fortress that surrounds an entire music ecosystem.
Lala CEO Geoff Ralston confirmed that Lala filed for the patent but denied the company is trying to wrest control away from users.
"It's a patent around Web Songs," Ralston said.
Web Songs are one of the cornerstones of the company's latest business model. Lala, which has switched focus from two prior models, now offers three main features. In the first, MP3s unprotected by DRM can be purchased and download for rates comparable to iTunes'. A second option offers users unlimited, ad-free streaming access to music they already own. The way this works is that users allow Lala to scan their hard drives and preserve a list of the songs the person owns. Lala's system will then stream its own copies of the songs to the user. This way users don't have to worry about losing their music to hard-drive meltdowns or misplaced music players.
Lala's last feature allows people to listen to streaming music--that they don't already own--for 10 cents per song. Lala calls these "Web Songs." One of the ways Web Songs are different from MP3s is that they can't be downloaded to a portable device.
"A Web Song by definition has a limited set of rights associated with it," Ralston said. "One right you don't have is the right to take it with you. It's not a portable song. Another right you don't have is to copy it. Everything has limited rights, even an MP3. You're not allowed to take an MP3, copy it, and sell it."
Lala said Web Songs offer people a chance to obtain streaming access to a song for the price of a grocery store gum drop. If customers later want to upgrade and buy an MP3 version of the tune, the dime is counted against the price of the download.
Michael Robertson found Lala's DRM patent filing and says it proves the company is taking orders from record labels.
(Credit: Michael Robertson)While Ralston said the filing only deals with Web Songs, the patent document itself, under a section titled "Overview of Present Invention," lists the many applications of its invention.
The patent filing indicates that Lala's DRM invention is designed to lock down music that its users already own. Lala's system doesn't allow people to listen to their own music via anything but a Web browser and the songs cannot be downloaded. Ralston argues that people can do all these things with the original music files they own.
But if Lala's users own the music the company stores, why does Lala restrict it this way? Are these restrictions rooted in some technology limitation or do the major labels require them?
"We're trying to provide a way so that users can have more access to their music than they had in the past," Ralston said. "Look at the iPhone. I can't easily throw brand-new graphic cards into it. It's all closed up. But it's a much better consumer proposition. We're not acting as an agent of the record companies in any way except that we resell their goods. There's nothing nefarious there at all. We repackaged some stuff that we think provides a better consumer proposition."
Music sales have been falling for years, and piracy is at least one of the main causes. Nonetheless, the four top record labels over the past year have appeared to give up on DRM as a piracy-busting strategy. This trend culminated in January when Apple announced it would strip DRM from the entire iTunes library. So, why then is Lala attempting to come up with a new DRM strategy?
In the patent application, the company offers some clues.
Lala notes that DRM produced by Microsoft and Apple "suffered from lack of interoperability caused by competitive and licensing issues." Most DRM, Lala points out, can also be cracked or broken. Lala says in the patent filing that its DRM approach avoids these issues.
"A network-based approach protects against rampant piracy," Lala writes. "By delivering the product directly from the network, only authorized users and devices can access the media. Access by users and devices is controlled on the Web and can be constantly adapted to changing technologies and market pressures."
Robertson claims that network DRM is simply the latest attempt by the recording industry to jerk control of music away from consumers. He said what may be most alarming about Lala's system is its potential to snatch away someone's songs.
"The system also allows for the 'revoking' of ownership of digital media," Lala writes in the patent filing. "For example, if a user is known to have illegally shared a file, the copyright owner may choose to revoke their ownership of the digital media in the system, limiting the rights of such user to the media."
When asked about this, Lala's CEO was unapologetic.
"Is it controversial that a store has the right to terminate someone that steals from them?" Ralston asked.
A copy of Lala's patent, titled Networks Based Digital Rights Management System.
(Credit: Faqs.org)
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
It's bad enough that Lala pretends to help users by offering a digital locker room for their media, but it looks as though that's simply a trick to steal media rights away from users. Insidious to say the least.
No matter what Lala offers going forward, I'd avoid that company like the plague.
So, err, what DRM? If I want it recorded bad enough, I can record it (barring the invention of a biologic and DRM'd jack that plugs directly into a consumer's head, naturally)
This is not a copyright which is registered. This is a patent filed for examination and must meet certain standards for an Examiner to issue an allowance on the claims (which are not likely to look the same after prosecution and typically represent the broadest claims the inventors/applicant is trying to "claim").
Robertson filed a patent. What you have listed is a "patent application". There is no automatic protection akin to copyright's statutory damages, as the patent has yet to be examined & allowed by the Patent Office.
I have not read the patent APPLICATION but all the folks with pitchforks who oppose patents - here is your chance to read a patent - learn from it - improve on it - search for references that relate specifically to the claim elements (the "metes and bounds" of the "property" claimed) and see if you understand what is being claims (in view of the embodiments contained in the specification) as a "person having ordinary skill in the art".
Patents typically have references cited that the Applicants believe is related. That does not mean there is not more or better references.
And, guess what? even if it does not go to grant, you have learned by his public notice and disclosure and have lost nothing by its examination by the USPTO. That is the purpose of a patent versus, say, a "trade secret: which by "definition" cannot be disclosed (there are specific legal requirements, of course).
If you can identify references that render the claims not novel &/or not - non-obvious (this concept's most recent interpretation is the famous KSR v Teleflex case the SCOTUS ruled on a couple of years ago) & must have been avaialble to the public before the filing date of the Application, then you may have invaliding prior art. This of course is a determination made by the Patent Office or later by a Judge or a Jury ...
NOTE: This does not constitute legal advice express or implied in any way, shape, or form.
btw, Robertson had his 15 minutes of fame and blew a chance at doing this stuff back in 1998 & 1999 ... his time has passed.
Looks like the story was fairly accurate to me.
So, I'm on my way to contact support at lala, so find out just how much control I really have.
Besides it's 100% your media, especially if you ripped it yourself. IP isn't the media. it's the song contained within the media. Every disclaimer on every CD and Cassette, and Record ever made (ok maybe not all of them) makes this point clear.
Here is the crux of the entire DRM problem. Copyright owners have no say whatsoever in intended use. That's covered by fair use. Copyright owners only have the right to enforce their copyright so that they can continue to market their goods. Nothing more.
In other words, so long as fair use doesn't directly undermine the copyright holders ability to market their goods, all is well. When copyright owners interfere in the enjoyment (aka fair use) of their goods they are exeeding their copyrgiht.
DRM etc. actually dosn't have anything to do with copyright or fair use. It is a tool that some IP holders try to use to prevent actions that could interfere with their marketing, but by itself it's just a tool.
You have this wrong. Copyright owners have control over the marketing of their works. Not the fair use enjoyment. They don't automaticly get to control copying becaues copies don't automaticly infringe on copyright. Copyright is a limited protection. Fair use is a universal defence because it's a part of english common low. (It didn't need to exist as a legal term before copyright but it did exist before copyright). For a copyright owner to ban copying they have three tools. 1) Show the copy infringes on the copyright. 2) TOS 3) EULA. The latter two work by stripping away legal rights.
You need to get it into your mind that fair use is what allows us to enjoy copyrighted works. Fair use is what actually gives that work any monitary value. No fair use. No market. No market then copyright doesn't matter.
I repeat. Fair use gives copyrighted works value. Copyrighted works in and of themselves have no value until someone else is willing to pay. When they do it's their fair enjoyment that defines that value. That's fair use.
You work so hard to fight it you don't see symbiotic relationship. You need fair use far as much if not more than you need the copyright.
Wrong. Fair use is a specific right that is part of copyright law. It's not some nebulous thing that somebody dreamed up after the fact to try to justify their actions. It is just as much a part of copyright law as any other "right" granted to copyright holders.
Second, the 4 criteria you speak of are not inclusive, ie. you don't need to satisfy all 4 of them for something to be considered fair use.
Speaking of Fair-Use Turnitin the anti-plagarism company set a precedent for the use of the entire work for commercial purposes as fair.
@contentcreator--2008
""Fair use" is a specific legal defense you can use to a lawsuit for infringement, not a "right" and doesn't mean that you can do whatever you think is fair. "Fair use" permits some activities that would otherwise be infringing to be considered legitimate, based largely on 4 criteria."
A quote from form the Wikipedia article you linked to:
"The frequent argument over whether fair use is a "right" or a "defense"[19] is generated by confusion over the use of the term "affirmative defense." An affirmative defense is simply a term of art from litigation reflecting the timing in which the defense is raised. It does not distinguish between "rights" and "defenses," and so it does not characterize the substance of the defendant's actions as "not a right but a defense." The First Amendment, for instance, is generally raised as an affirmative defense in litigation, but is clearly a "right." Similarly, while fair use is characterized as a defense in terms of the litigation posture, Section 107 defines fair use as a "limitation" on copyright law and states clearly that "the fair use of a copyrighted work ? is not an infringement of copyright."[20]"
The nice thing about reality is that you don't have to believe in it for it to be real. Fair use is grounded in English Common Law. Once you sell me your work, I have the right to enjoy it. As I see fit subject only to copyright restrictions. That's true without a contract. The thicker the contract you want to attach to that on top of the copyright protections that already exist the less value your work has becuase quite frankly you are getting in the way of my enjoyment.
Case in point. DVD's with "mobile device" downlaods. Utterly worthless to me. The DVD itself. Sure, if I like the movie I may rent it, and if I like it enough I may buy it. However I won't pay one red cent more for the DRM laden crap that doesn't work the way I enjoy my mobile devices. I may actually only be willing to pay less out of fear that the DRM crap will prevent the DVD from working on my DVD players.
Another example. Sony has a newer higher quality CD for music. Great. But for one thing. It won't play on my computer. Well heck, my laptop is behind my plugged into my stereo where I can organize and sort my CD rips and play the music much more effortlesly than keeping my 300+ CD library handy. So for the way I like to enjoy my music the new Sony format is worthless. Not because the music is bad, some of it I'm sure I'd enjoy but because the DRM and the hidden contract (that my computer won't play it is no contract I ever signed) make the media it's on so much more a PItA that I can't get my fair use enjoyment out of it rending it useless offering.
You are married to fair use and you don't have to like it but your understanding of it directly relates to your livelyhood as a content creator (or a content aggregator like a media company).
1. Why would anyone want to store music on a network that does not work 100% of the time, when there are a variety of virtually free non-network mediums for them to store their music on? Like, hello, no music when the Internet is down or there's a power failure? How about when your WiFi acts up?
2. People who are pirating music are getting it for FREE and don't believe that they're doing something wrong. So cheap streamed music is not exactly an incentive for them.
3. People who are buying music are totally annoyed by mechanisms that punish only those who buy music (that's why I will ONLY buy CDs which I can turn into non-DRM MP3s). This is like the ultimate punishment for someone who wants to give the recording industry money.
DRM, in every current incarnation, doesn't do jack to protect IP holders. All it does is **** off content buyers.
If they really want to network secure DRM they must give something away. For exampe: charge a fixed price for unlimited streaming from a very large library. You are told straight out that you'll never own any of the songs, but for a small fee, you can listen to any songs you want. Then, give people an attractive FREE portable player that can maintain lists of their music and can (only) receive network streams.
The concept of a subscription isn't any worse than Satalite, but to be viable it needs to be portable and it's not there yet.
One day, so will consumers. It's called the Zune, and it works great. Wirelessly to my device sitting in my audio console in my living room.
--mark d.
<a href="http://www.ultimatedefensesystem.com/">Self Defense Moves</a>
"Is it controversial that a store has the right to terminate someone that steals from them?"
:D
As for DRM, the answer is simple. I don't buy music with DRM. I also very rarely buy anything that comes through the RIAA. If you don't like DRM then do as I do and vote with your pocketbook.
This is a generalization. I used to buy music all the time but the major labels insistence on only signing bad pop music made me slow down my purchases to almost a stand still. The few CDs I buy now are all imports/indie recordings or oldies the labels don't care much about.
Just sounds like a version of Youtube with encryption. Since you can't sniff out the URL of the MP3 file that the SWF is downloading, you can't use a downloader to grab the file (unlike youtube).
There is plenty of prior art. Online software downloads work on the same principle. The URL is kept secret, and only works for a limited time. Often a 3rd party provides the download itself, so it is not under a login.
If I absolutely had to stream my music, I would either go somewhere free ad supported service like Last.fm or setup a private shoutcast stream or use Winamp remote which is even simpler and no DRM.
Good grief. That's the problem with DRM: The intended uses of the copyright owners are anything that fatten their wallets. How about just the enforcing the intentions of copyright law--including fair use--especially when the consumer has actually PAID for the product. --mark d.
They want to lock my music up so they control how I listen to it? That doesn't make any sense to me? What exactly is it they are trying to sell me that I don't already have? Isn't that the fundamental question of any business plan?
Can someone explain that to me? Only authorized devices? What does that even mean? Right now I'm the one who authorizes what device plays my music? Do they think I'm going to give them money to tell me how can I use my music? This is makes no sense whatsoever. It's like a mad man talking.
Also, after reading about it other places it appears the technology to crack this DRM would be pretty straight forward and easy. I hate to break that to them.
The only way this would work is if the Government comes in and forces us to use only certain devices and forces us to download software that deletes all our MP3s and controls which operating systems we use. I really don't think that'll fly and actually that's still crackable. Unless they come in and confiscate my MP3 collection that I payed for by gun point? And sit there and watch me at gun point and make sure I don't crack through their DRM. Is that their magic business plan? Sniper rifles and theft of public property?
Can someone please explain to me in plain English exactly what the heck their business plan is? I can't see why anyone would pay someone to take control over their music, computer, or network?
"Look at the iPhone. I can't easily throw brand-new graphic cards into it."
This isn't some insidious plot of Apple to keep the iPhone from being upgradable as there hasn't been a cellphone with graphic chipsets. Perhaps a videogame console would have been more appropriate?
- by KevinCarmony May 9, 2009 7:06 PM PDT
- Greg,
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(31 Comments)As the CEO for Linspire, I had the misfortune of working closely with Michael Robertson for seven years. He's the most unethical business person I have ever been exposed to. You can read my response to Robertson's exaggerated claims against Lala here: http://kevincarmony.com/indexBLOG.htm (My last two blogs were about Robertson's misleading claims against Lala.)
I have no stake in Lala, other than as a very satisfied user. It's a shame to see Robertson smearing Lala, the same way I watched him try to do with most of his competitors over the years, including Skype, Google, Apple, Dell, Intel, pretty much everyone. Don't play into his propaganda scheme.
Thanks,
Kevin Carmony
www.kevincarmony.com