A Copyfighter’s Musings

There are a couple of interesting elements in this LA Times article (via biplog) (see also News.com) about the Content Reference Forum.

1. This sounds like mediAgora with a couple of limbs chopped off. In mediAgora, there’s no DRM, and sharing of the actual files is allowed. It also sounds a lot like Altnet, as mentioned in the article, except in Altnet you share the file. Here, it sounds like there’s still a bunch of DRM and you’re downloading from a central server, even though you might find the references on P2P. It takes advantage of P2P inasmuch as Napster 2.0 allowing you to look at other people’s songs is P2P. The Forum’s white paper seems to think of P2P as a marketing rather than a distribution tool.

2. This model seems to add in flexibility, in that you can get a file that suits your system. But think about it: how does change the situation of a Linux user if he cannot play MS DRM or Apple FairPlay files? And, isn’t it a little funny that flexibility in this context means that some central server must have or be able to refer you to 12 different versions of a song to fit all the different compatibilty requriements.

And isn’t this the trusted computing dream? Take this example from the Forum’s white paper:

“For example if Joe’s friend Pierre in France clicks on the content reference, Pierre’s identity, location(France) and possibly hardware & software configuration will be sent to the Reference Service along with the CR.”

Now go back and read Seth Schoen’s piece on trusted computing and remote attestation.

What does this all mean? I don’t really know. I’m glad that they’re thinking about P2P and how to take advantage of it. But this doesn’t really sound like a genuine step in that direction.

Filed by Derek Slater at 9:31 pm under General news
1 Comment