Media on OS X is dead unless someone comes up with a licensed DRM scheme

I'm worried people, and I really need you all to know why.

The Internet Tubes(TM) were full today about how the BBC are on the cusp of releasing an on-demand service for their license fee payers to download programmes.

Once that lot had sloshed through, the next wadge of cybernews to pop out of the pipe was the new Bittorrent Network and how they're going to effectively be getting their users to pay the bandwidth bills to distribute a wide selection of content - including some very interesting HD content from prime-time providers.

And the biggest problem with all this?

Not a single second of any of this content will play on the Mac.

So, this isn't a post when I'm going to rant about Microsoft and their proprietary formats ad nauseam... I've been there, done that, and to be honest, I can't really blame Microsoft for wanting to get the dominant hold on the media market.
Its not fair that they are doing it by sheer dumb-numbers (with 95% of all computers sold having Windows Media installed on them by default really without the user having much say or knowing much different), but bollocking-on about how this isn't fair nah nah nah isn't going to change the situation.

Competition is.

The most exciting news today is that iTunes is on course to beat RealPlayer to the number 2 slot for installed based of media players (http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/07/02/27/itunes.beats.realplayer/). This really isn't a mean feat, when you consider the sheer overwhelming effort it takes most pig-thick or appallingly apathetic users to realise there are other players out there, and figure out how to download and use them.

Content producers, at the end of the day, don't really give two hoots what digital format is being used to distribute their content. So long as Johnny TwelveYearOld isn't able to stick the movie on his £10 memory stick, take it into school, and give it to all his mates, they're happy. DRM. Yes, that most-hated of acronyms is the real lynchpin here. It makes no sense for the content providers to be releasing big money content like movies without DRM right now. The cost of a DVD is significantly higher than the cost to a user of downloading a movie file off some P2P network - un-DRM'ed movie content would quickly kill DVD and any pay-for content.

But the problem is that content providers actually don't have an option right now. Their only choice is to go with Windows Media protected DRM, or do nothing at all. Both the BBC and the Bittorrent Network both could not to nothing any more, and had to bite the bullet when going with WMV DRM. I'm guessing neither really had a penchant for WMV over anything else, but there was no 'anything else' to go with.

So, all us Mac users are left with is one line at the end of some ****** FAQ:

Q: Will this video play on my Mac/Linux machine?
A: Currently, video playback requires Windows XP or Vista with Windows Media Player... etc....

...blah, blah, blah...

The only answer to this is a cross-platform DRM scheme not controlled by Apple or Microsoft. Ideally, it'll plug into iTunes, so that Windows and Mac users at least can gain access to it. If Apple aren't going to license FairPlay, then someone else has to do it for them.

Let's be honest, if Apple were keen to license FairPlay, this would instantly solve the problem comprehensively. Of course all the content providers would instantly jump on the bandwagon - they'd get the video iPod / iPhone 'for free'.

The prognosis for video on the Mac, if the current state of DRM goes unchecked, is that the Mac platform is going to become increasingly more ostracised as a media platform. Apple are winning no war by keeping FairPlay unlicensed, and a complete lack of any alternative to WMV makes this decision even more dangerous.

Someone needs to do something. And now.

I want to be able to participate in this digital movie download revolution. Apple are dragging their heels releasing movies (both a reasonable collection, and outside the US), and I don't care for their download-to-own model anyway (works for music, but I rarely want to watch a movie more than once. I only want to rent movies). Or, I want someone (like Real tried to do with RealPlayer, but not so sucky) to come up with some kind of cross-platform DRM system - maybe even something that plugs directly into iTunes (works transparently).

I'm worried that unless someone does something, I'm going to have to be watching my media on something other than the Mac systems I love.

This is a plea to all software developers and bright sparks out there. Come up with an alternative to WMV. License it across platforms. License it cheap. Please help keep my platform viable.

What I can't understand, above everything else really, is why some enterprising company doesn't just come along and write some clever bit of DRM that slots into iTunes (or has a cross-platform viewer).

All you've got to do is write this DRM scheme and find a way to hook it into iTunes. Sure, this is probably technologically very challenging, but its not like you've having to write an OS or anything.

With a cross-platform, good performance, pluggable DRM format someone could make a mint. As I said before - like Real, but less sucky (cos Real player did suck arse big-time).

Southernboy said:

With who? Apple have a formidable cross-platform armoury: Quicktime, Fairplay and iTunes. Why do they need to partner with anyone?

Click to expand...

Sure, they have the technology, but for whatever reason, they're not exploiting it to its fullest. Apple are the people best placed to provide a good cross-platform DRM but, for reasons only Sir Jobs himself knows, they're deciding not to. Meanwhile MS take over the world (again).

The only alternative HAS to be some third party coming up with a tenable alternative.

Sir Stephen Jobs said:

Taken from: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/

The second alternative is for Apple to license its FairPlay DRM technology to current and future competitors with the goal of achieving interoperability between different company’s players and music stores. On the surface, this seems like a good idea since it might offer customers increased choice now and in the future. And Apple might benefit by charging a small licensing fee for its FairPlay DRM. However, when we look a bit deeper, problems begin to emerge. The most serious problem is that licensing a DRM involves disclosing some of its secrets to many people in many companies, and history tells us that inevitably these secrets will leak. The Internet has made such leaks far more damaging, since a single leak can be spread worldwide in less than a minute. Such leaks can rapidly result in software programs available as free downloads on the Internet which will disable the DRM protection so that formerly protected songs can be played on unauthorized players.

An equally serious problem is how to quickly repair the damage caused by such a leak. A successful repair will likely involve enhancing the music store software, the music jukebox software, and the software in the players with new secrets, then transferring this updated software into the tens (or hundreds) of millions of Macs, Windows PCs and players already in use. This must all be done quickly and in a very coordinated way. Such an undertaking is very difficult when just one company controls all of the pieces. It is near impossible if multiple companies control separate pieces of the puzzle, and all of them must quickly act in concert to repair the damage from a leak.

Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies. Perhaps this same conclusion contributed to Microsoft’s recent decision to switch their emphasis from an “open” model of licensing their DRM to others to a “closed” model of offering a proprietary music store, proprietary jukebox software and proprietary players.

Click to expand...

This is Apple's reasoning for not licensing FairPlay. Almost everything else Jobs says in this article is true, but this argument is fundamentally flawed.

I would argue that licensing FairPlay is exactly what Apple need to be doing right now. Sure, technologically its going to be a difficult job to keep up with people cracking FairPlay, but:

1) You're a technology company. Architect some cunning way to make keeping the DRM updated simple. You've got some of the brightest computing minds in the world working for you. Make it happen.
2) Since iTunes 6.something, there seem to be far fewer FairPlay cracking apps floating around. Perish the thought that Apple may have actually finally made it a little too difficult for the crackers to circumvent it - I wouldn't suggest this for a second for fear of phlamewars of the highest order. But Hymn seems to have languished in obscurity, perl scripts to intercept audio streams after iTunes decodes them are a) Windows only, and b) still very geeky (i.e. no easy to use UI), and Apple are still selling more digital music than ever. Maybe FairPlay is actually quite difficult to crack?

Its worth realising that DRM on music and DRM on video should be considered as two separate concerns. With DRM on music, you're only worried about, say, three minutes of audio worth less than a quid. With Video, you're talking about a single much higher price for the content if you were to buy it conventionally.

So the DRM scheme is far more important to get right, and it is based on a completely different set of customer wants and needs: namely, you're probably going to want to keep music, as you'll listen to it over and over again, whereas with video you're probably going to only want to watch it once. So there needs to be a rental model for video. Jobs is right to push for non-exploding music content (i.e. pay to own) since the typical user isn't going to want to lose their entire music collection if they stop paying. Whereas, I'm quite happy for movies I watch to 'expire' after a week. If I really like it that much, offer me an option to 'upgrade' the purchase to keep it for a few quid more (or I'll just buy the three-disk DVD).

Could Apple's real motivation for keeping FairPlay closed be more to do with wanting to restrict users of Macs and iPods (and iPhones and AppleTVs) to having to use the iTunes Store to get their digital stuff? I had no problem with this when it came to music - since Apple had a great product (good range, good price, reasonable quality), but when it comes to movies, their content range sucks, their pricing options suck (I don't want to buy, I want to only rent movies), and it isn't even available outside the US anyway!

FairPlay (or a worthy competitor) needs to be licensed cross-platform if the Mac (and all Apple's other devices) is going to be a viable platform for digital content in the near future.

Solution Found!!!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6411017.stm

This, my friends, is the solution we've been looking for: BBC strikes Google-YouTube deal

This is the answer.

This is the solution.

Cross-platform - YES
Content provider-chosen DRM - YES
Supports rental (probably) - YES
iPod / iTunes / iPhone / AppleTV support - NO (but I'm over that now)

Until Apple licenses FairPlay, this is as good as it gets, and it ain't arf bad. Not much proper content will be put on YouTube (as opposed to the BBC's hateful iPlayer app), but they've got two years to do something cross platform (according to the terms of the BBC Trust propsal).