Could Bitcoin (protocol) kill file sharing?

[pungopete468]

I had an idea today that Bitcoin or a similar protocol might be used as a digital signature on computer software, movies, or any other form of digital medium. It would prevent the installation or operation of the software unless the license was granted directly to the owner or buyer of the software.

Essentially your computer or device would contain a unique address provided within the operating system. The first time a piece of software is installed it would transfer a portion to the address associated with the digital media owned by the creator of the software. The digital media would require a confirmed "payment" to run...

What do you think?

Edit: Added (Protocol) to the title. Obviously Bitcoin won't kill file sharing. What about the protocol?

[yogi]

I had an idea today that Bitcoin or a similar protocol might be used as a digital signature on computer software, movies, or any other form of digital medium. It would prevent the installation or operation of the software unless the license was granted directly to the owner or buyer of the software.

What do you think?

Most software already has some form of DRM, the versions that are swapped on file sharing networks have been patched to remove the DRM. So, how would using bitcoin/similar protocol be any different to existing measures?

[pungopete468]

I had an idea today that Bitcoin or a similar protocol might be used as a digital signature on computer software, movies, or any other form of digital medium. It would prevent the installation or operation of the software unless the license was granted directly to the owner or buyer of the software.

What do you think?

Most software already has some form of DRM, the versions that are swapped on file sharing networks have been patched to remove the DRM. So, how would using bitcoin/similar protocol be any different to existing measures?

Because you could track the movement of each copy of digital media and in the same manner as Bitcoin prevents double spending the owner of a copyright would be able to prevent identical copies of digital media in two different places.

[pungopete468]

Also, just because most software has some form of DRM doesn't mean it's effective.

It looks like the protocol is exceedingly effective at verifying authenticity of Bitcoin, why wouldn't it accomplish the same level of success for ownership rights of software?

[yogi]

It looks like the protocol is exceedingly effective at verifying authenticity of Bitcoin, why wouldn't it accomplish the same level of success for ownership rights of software?

Because each bitcoin client is dependant on the rest of the network. How will your DRM make standalone software dependant on a network in an unpatchable way?

[HowDoge]

I was actually thinking this recently. I know I'm a newbie but I was thinking that just in the same way as every coin can be accounted for in any given cryptocurrency, then it's not far fetched to apply the same principle to other online digital products. It could be applied in so many ways too, eBooks, films, HQ music tracks, online rentals, anything digital & of value.

[retrend]

Doing that would change nothing about file sharing.  Protections will be removed and the media shared no matter what they are.

[jongameson]

file sharing is stupid.  anyone in the know knows iTunes sounds better than mp3 files

[uxchallenge]

Indeed, (un)fortunately there is nothing special in the Bitcoin protocol that will suddenly make DRM work.

As soon as you protect your creative work with your magic-bitcoin-drm,  I will remove it and stick the unprotected version on thepiratebay

Simples

[freedomno1]

It looks like the protocol is exceedingly effective at verifying authenticity of Bitcoin, why wouldn't it accomplish the same level of success for ownership rights of software?

Because each bitcoin client is dependant on the rest of the network. How will your DRM make standalone software dependant on a network in an unpatchable way?

I think the general idea is to use the same principles as Cryptolocker and instead of making it a viral lock-down program turn it into a DRM locking tool
Making it in-feasible to break at the current tech levels
That said while the cryptography is secure that says nothing of the medium in which to share the digital information

[uxchallenge]

Come on guys, it really is not hard. DRM does not and can never work.

At some point the user will need to have the (music/video/software) in non-encrypted form so that his (ears/eyes/cpu) can consume it.

So please tell me how your magic will prevent someone copying an unprotected version of this and sharing it with 50 million other people?

It is quite frankly impossible.

[pungopete468]

Come on guys, it really is not hard. DRM does not and can never work.

At some point the user will need to have the (music/video/software) in non-encrypted form so that his (ears/eyes/cpu) can consume it.

So please tell me how your magic will prevent someone copying an unprotected version of this and sharing it with 50 million other people?

It is quite frankly impossible.

I don't know if it's impossible. I know it's a constant struggle...

If you could assign a value to a software key and then distribute it with a blockchain upon installation you could isolate keys which have been used in too many instances by looking at the balance on the blockchain.

It obviously wouldn't be perfect but it seems to me like a more advantageous way to keep track of things. It also legitimizes Bitcoin as another use of the technology.

[yogi]

The thing you 'it can be done' guys are missing, is the fact that there is nothing about the bitcoin protocol that prevents applications from being patched and having its DRM removed. It doesn't matter how clever your DRM is if it can just be removed.

[uxchallenge]

Come on guys, it really is not hard. DRM does not and can never work.

At some point the user will need to have the (music/video/software) in non-encrypted form so that his (ears/eyes/cpu) can consume it.

So please tell me how your magic will prevent someone copying an unprotected version of this and sharing it with 50 million other people?

It is quite frankly impossible.

I don't know if it's impossible. I know it's a constant struggle...

If you could assign a value to a software key and then distribute it with a blockchain upon installation you could isolate keys which have been used in too many instances by looking at the balance on the blockchain.

It obviously wouldn't be perfect but it seems to me like a more advantageous way to keep track of things. It also legitimizes Bitcoin as another use of the technology.

There is a frightening lack of common sense on display in this thread.

As soon as you give Bob your precious sequence of bytes, he can do whatever the hell he wants with it, including spending 5 minutes to remove whatever protection you put in place and putting the rest on the internets for everyone else to enjoy.

[ArticMine]

I had an idea today that Bitcoin or a similar protocol might be used as a digital signature on computer software, movies, or any other form of digital medium. It would prevent the installation or operation of the software unless the license was granted directly to the owner or buyer of the software.

What do you think?

Most software already has some form of DRM, ...

This is not correct. Most propriety software developed in the last 15 years has DRM. Free Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) such as GNU/Linux does not and in fact then GPL v3 is by design highly toxic to DRM making it an excellent FLOSS license for this reason. Also Microsoft software between the mid 1980's and roughly 2000 was free of DRM. This is the period when Microsoft provided the best returns to its shareholders debunking the common myth that DRM is necessary for propriety software and content.

DRM is typically implemented in one of two ways. Hide the key somewhere on the end user's property and hope the end user will not find it. In the early days this consisted of deliberatively creating bad sectors on 5.25in floppy disks. The location of the bad sectors on the floppy "locked" the software to the floppy. Then came dongles, and the more modern method of locking the software to the hardware characteristics of the computer effectively turning the whole computer into the dongles. All of these DRM methods could be defeated with the adversary (the owner of the computer or device) finding the decryption key that had at some point in time to be on her hardware.

The above problem was solved in a much more insidious way. Take root or administrative and thereby control away from the adversary (the owner of the computer for device). This is the model used by IOS, unrooted Android, and Windows 8 RT / Windows phone. Windows Vista, 7 and 8 also use this method since the "Administrator" is not a true administrator as she is locked out from certain "protected" parts of the OS. The consequences of this are very insidious since the "protected" parts of the OS can be used to for example to spy on the user, force the user to only obtain content and software from an approved and censored source and yes also to launch a 51% attack on a distributed cryptocurrency network such as Bitcoin.

The GPL v3 is a very effective tool against the locked device device situation above if it is present in components the OS which require root access to modify, since it requires the ability of the owner of the device to be able to modify the software as a condition of distribution. This is why modern GNU/Linux distributions provide the only assurance that an end user has complete control over their computing devices.


 

[pungopete468]

Come on guys, it really is not hard. DRM does not and can never work.

At some point the user will need to have the (music/video/software) in non-encrypted form so that his (ears/eyes/cpu) can consume it.

So please tell me how your magic will prevent someone copying an unprotected version of this and sharing it with 50 million other people?

It is quite frankly impossible.

I don't know if it's impossible. I know it's a constant struggle...

If you could assign a value to a software key and then distribute it with a blockchain upon installation you could isolate keys which have been used in too many instances by looking at the balance on the blockchain.

It obviously wouldn't be perfect but it seems to me like a more advantageous way to keep track of things. It also legitimizes Bitcoin as another use of the technology.

There is a frightening lack of common sense on display in this thread.

As soon as you give Bob your precious sequence of bytes, he can do whatever the hell he wants with it, including spending 5 minutes to remove whatever protection you put in place and putting the rest on the internets for everyone else to enjoy.

I don't think it's a lack of common sense and I don't think it's impossible. I'm a Libertarian... I agree with you but I know that means very little to large labels and it's a legal minefield.

Sure you can copy a sequence of bytes or remove it but in this theory that series of bytes would be linked by a recorded transaction to another specific series of bytes on the operating system that the software was first installed on... This would be a record on the blockchain and unless the rights were transferred from that OS to another OS it wouldn't be verifiable.

If I'm mistaken please explain the error in my thoughts so I can learn something new.

[uxchallenge]

You are an audio producer, you have just got a brand new album and you want Bob to check it out. You don't want him filesharing it so you use your magic bitcoin protection system.

You give your copy protected MP3 file to Bob.

Bob runs your software which checks that he has the rights to play the audio. He does.

He records the audio and uploads the unprotected version to the internets. The next day 50 million people have it.

There is zero solution to get round this.

[ArticMine]

You are an audio producer, you have just got a brand new album and you want Bob to check it out. You don't want him filesharing it so you use your magic bitcoin protection system.

You give your copy protected MP3 file to Bob.

Bob runs your software which checks that he has the rights to play the audio. He does.

He records the audio and uploads the unprotected version to the internets. The next day 50 million people have it.

There is zero solution to get round this.

The solution currently promoted by the industry especially for video called HDCP (High Definition Content Protection) is to first ensure that Bob does not have root or administrative access on the computer, device playing the source (Windows Vista or later, Blu-ray player, etc.) and the source checks for a trusted display (existing untrusted displays end up as ewaste creating a massive environmental problem). This is the reason why newer Blu-ray players do not support component outputs for example. Nevertheless this DRM scheme can simply be defeated by cam-cording from a TV, as proposed by the MPAA. http://boingboing.net/2009/05/07/mpaa-to-teachers-don.html

The real solution to the DRM issue is for the major studios, record companies and propriety software vendors to change their business models from those suitable to the 19th century to those suitable to the 21st century. If they cannot or will not change then they belong in bankruptcy court.

[freedomno1]

You are an audio producer, you have just got a brand new album and you want Bob to check it out. You don't want him filesharing it so you use your magic bitcoin protection system.

You give your copy protected MP3 file to Bob.

Bob runs your software which checks that he has the rights to play the audio. He does.

He records the audio and uploads the unprotected version to the internets. The next day 50 million people have it.

There is zero solution to get round this.

The solution currently promoted by the industry especially for video called HDCP (High Definition Content Protection) is to first ensure that Bob does not have root or administrative access on the computer, device playing the source (Windows Vista or later, Blu-ray player, etc.) and the source checks for a trusted display (existing untrusted displays end up as ewaste creating a massive environmental problem). This is the reason why newer Blu-ray players do not support component outputs for example. Nevertheless this DRM scheme can simply be defeated by cam-cording from a TV, as proposed by the MPAA. http://boingboing.net/2009/05/07/mpaa-to-teachers-don.html

The real solution to the DRM issue is for the major studios, record companies and propriety software vendors to change their business models from those suitable to the 19th century to those suitable to the 21st century. If they cannot or will not change then they belong in bankruptcy court.

The real issue is that it is time for studios to step up to the digital age and stopped hiding behind 100 Year old copyright licenses.
Mickey Mouse Legislation is just delaying it.
One could argue though that a whole new form of content creation is being created already that is usurping the old role the big studios and bitccoins could have a role in that but that's another story.

[zeetubes]

Copyright is not a bad thing per se, but mainly just to ascertain who the original creator is. Bitcoin could probably provide that capability. It could also be used to prove the authenticity of a particular work, especially paintings. It would be funny if the real satoshi came out and no one believed him/her. But that person could reasonably prove it by their knowledge of the original private keys. Is the original white paper signed?