Visit Killfile's column >>

KILLFILEHome Page

Epicurean Intelligentsia
Add To Watchlist
Articles Posted: 305; Links Seeded: 7611
Member Since: 2/2006Last Seen: 11/24/2009

Bitmunk: An End to Digital Rights Management?

Bitmunk personal edition.

advertisement

It was 1997 and in the midst of the dot com boom when Shawn Fanning's revolutionary program "Napster" took the world by storm. Though unremarkable from a technological standpoint, Napster revolutionized – some might say destroyed – overnight the very foundations of the entrenched American music industry, upending a decades old revenue model and sending a multi-billion dollar industry into chaos.

In the aftermath of the dot com bust, the recording industry and its now iconic trade group, the RIAA, spent millions of dollars and thousands of man hours seeking to preserve the physical media based revenue model that a Northeastern University student had so handily defeated. Lawsuits were filed, injunctions were ordered, legislation passed and an entire branch of software development was born: DRM – digital rights management.

Digital Rights Management, in conjunction with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, creates an oligopolistic market in music, concentrating market dominance and power in the hands of a small number of very large recording studios. While Napster made possible the distribution of a huge volume of illegally acquired music, it also provided equally powerful distribution channels for small and independent groups and artists. The RIAA's reliance on DRM technologies necessitates an exclusive rather than inclusive marketplace – like iTunes – effectively protecting intellectual property, but also protecting an elitist marketplace from aspiring artists.

But there is another way.

Enter Bitmunk, the world's first completely legal, copyright conscious, peer-to-peer network. Flagship product of Digital Bazaar, a small company in South Western Virginia, Bitmunk rejects traditional DRM, which relies upon access restrictions to authorize content, and instead depends on a proprietary watermarking technology.

The system is elegant in its simplicity. Bitmunk capitalizes upon the scalability of peer to peer networking, allowing each purchaser to function as a quasi-independent retailer to other customers. This model allows Digital Bazaar to compensate not only artists for their music but Bitmunk users for their contributions of hosting and bandwidth to the network as well.

This vast distribution system is only the beginning. "We plan on providing many more tools to help people integrate our sales software into their blogs, RSS news feeds, podcasts, video blogs and personal websites," says Manu Sporny, CEO of Digital Bazaar. "Our software ensures that advertising is not the only source of revenue available to bloggers, entertainment portals and news services - we are providing a sales vehicle that anybody can integrate into their website."

It's a model that has met with success in the past. Youtube, the now famous internet video distributor and recent Google acquisition, found popularity in large part through the ability of users to integrate the service with blogs and other social and communication services.

With a version 2.0 release under its belt and more than a half million files in the catalog, things look good for Digital Bazaar; but it is not all roses and champagne from here on out. Bitmunk 2.0 and the promised future features could put Digital Bazaar on a direct collision course with the corporate Goliaths of the recording and movie industries. While it would be easy to depict Bitmunk as David, that's not what Sporny and his team want.

Notes Sporny: "I want to make it clear that we are absolutely not fighting the RIAA. We are attempting to work with them so that they can navigate this problem - there is a way for everybody to get what they want. We believe that we have built that system, we just need to talk with a couple of key people to explain why our system is better than the current set of approaches to the problem."

The key, says Sporny, is market choice. "Artists will eventually have the choice on Bitmunk to wrap their content in DRM. Just like customers will have the choice not to buy anything wrapped in DRM." This choice, and the free market it creates, is possible because Bitmunk's watermark ties each file distributed on the network to the user that purchased it.

Bitmunk's watermarking technology makes customers accountable for what happens to their files and thus the restrictive side of DRM is something Digital Bazaar thinks the music industry could do without. Even so, the company acknowledges that the technology has a foothold and is unlikely to vanish anytime soon. Sporny says that the Bitmunk technology can accommodate (but does not recommend) DRM protected files, providing perhaps a bridge for artists and labels still concerned about the inherently non-invasive nature of Bitmunk's watermark.

Presently playing host to nearly 40,000 independent artists, the Bitmunk network is still expanding fast. Sporny expects "a 1.3 [Terabyte] shipment of albums from some of our digital content suppliers," in December with continued growth throughout 2007. He notes that the company plans "to start approaching the mid-level record labels starting at the early part of next year - people like Neko Case, Sarah McLachlan, Avril Lavigne, Barenaked Ladies, Sum 41, and Dido."

Price-wise, Bitmunk is competitive with other services. Unlike iTunes, Bitmunk tracks and albums vary over a range of prices. Sporny notes that most songs are "around 84 cents per track [and] albums hover around $7.90 to $8.00" but that pricing is up to the artist. That means that tracks can be had for as little as 15 cents in some cases.

What happens next with Bitmunk may very well have a profound impact the future of digital media sales. In a standards war with iTunes, Bitmunk's open and unrestrictive watermarking technology is the clear favorite based on features alone; but Apple's massive market penetration and brand recognition represent a daunting hurdle for the fledgling challenger. Despite the advantage, it's not a war that Sporny wants.

"Nobody wins if we start a format war with our competitors… On Bitmunk, artists have the choice of wrapping their music in DRM - and customers have the choice of buying something wrapped in DRM or buying something else that is not locked down. Digital Bazaar should not be the ones making that decision, it is not our prerogative nor should it ever be. Bitmunk operates as a free market - we let the artists, distributors and customers decide what works for them."

Interested users can download Bitmunk Personal Edition 2.0 at http://www.bitmunk.com/download/.

  • 21 Votes
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

Published to:

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
9.2
{"commentId":403373,"authorDomain":"killfile"}

Thanks are in order to Manu Sporny, CEO of Digital Bazaar who was kind enough to endure my questions and discuss his company's plans, technology, and future in some detail with me.

{"commentId":403373,"threadId":"57883","contentId":"462123","authorDomain":"killfile"}
  • 4 votes
Reply#1 - Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:02 PM EST
{"commentId":403421,"authorDomain":"DrJuice"}

Interesting. I see they have a Mac client, is the media in Mac-friendly formats, and does their watermarking interfere with that?

I'm curious to see how negotiations with the recording industry will go/are going. I think the biggest point of contention is that the system allows me to "sell" someone else's music and I don't think the RIAA would go for that. In fact, the RIAA might not go for the whole thing at all, and as long as they don't have the RIAA's blessing they are not "the first legal, copyright-aware, peer-to-peer distribution system in the world."

{"commentId":403421,"threadId":"57883","contentId":"462123","authorDomain":"DrJuice"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#2 - Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:28 PM EST
{"commentId":403505,"authorDomain":"killfile"}

Most of the music they distribute right now is not distributed by the RIAA. Copyright on those tracks belongs to the artist and is protected by Bitmunk.

{"commentId":403505,"threadId":"57883","contentId":"462123","authorDomain":"killfile"}
  • 1 vote
#2.1 - Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:16 PM EST
{"commentId":403525,"authorDomain":"killfile"}

Sorry -- yes, the watermarking will work fine with a Mac.

{"commentId":403525,"threadId":"57883","contentId":"462123","authorDomain":"killfile"}
  • 1 vote
#2.2 - Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:30 PM EST
Reply
{"commentId":406221,"authorDomain":"ISPY"}
{"commentId":406221,"threadId":"57883","contentId":"462123","authorDomain":"ISPY"}
    Reply#3 - Fri Dec 1, 2006 9:57 AM EST
    {"commentId":411594,"authorDomain":"uspolitics"}

    Killfile - very nice story about DRM. How will this play in the MSFT Zune sandbox, do you know?

    Also, about your request to make suggested corrections ... it's not "champaign" (that's Illinois) .... it's "champagne" (and I drink a lot of it!).

    *smooch*

    {"commentId":411594,"threadId":"57883","contentId":"462123","authorDomain":"uspolitics"}
      Reply#4 - Tue Dec 5, 2006 4:41 AM EST
      {"commentId":411696,"authorDomain":"killfile"}

      All of Bitmunk's content is in standard non-restrictive formats. You can play it anywhere that will handle MP3, WMV and other open standards.

      {"commentId":411696,"threadId":"57883","contentId":"462123","authorDomain":"killfile"}
        #4.1 - Tue Dec 5, 2006 7:56 AM EST
        Reply
        {"commentId":414083,"authorDomain":"federal-legal1"}

        Interesting article. However, I see several legal issues raised by this "legal" peer-to-peer system and I think the company may be exposing itself to serious derivative liability. Maybe they have not read "Grokster" but they should hire a lawyer who can understand it (I think my billable rate is outside their budget).

        In essence, I do not see this as a workable mainstream distribution model. I would never advise my clients to sell or distribute information through a service that would allow the first purchaser to sell the information to a second purchaser and so on. Record companies have fought long and hard to insure that their product is disseminated from the distributor to the purchaser with restirctions that would not allow the purchaser to further distribute the work. There are strong legal and economic reasons for this. (see Posner on Antitrust Law).

        Bitmunk may be okay flying under the radar as they are now but once they begin trying to encroach on the RIAA's territory they're in for a rude awakening. Mr. Sporny, I hope you have counsel lined up because I think you have a fight coming.

        Prediction: this little company ceases to exist in one year. Maybe they can go get jobs with a real company and get the heck out of 'Southwestern Virginia." Ugghh. I guess they run their business out of a trailer. I suppose their just Va. Tech guys still living on daddy's dollar.

        {"commentId":414083,"threadId":"57883","contentId":"462123","authorDomain":"federal-legal1"}
          Reply#5 - Wed Dec 6, 2006 12:10 PM EST
          {"commentId":414105,"authorDomain":"federal-legal1"}

          ooops, it's "they're" not "their". scrivener's error.

          {"commentId":414105,"threadId":"57883","contentId":"462123","authorDomain":"federal-legal1"}
            #5.1 - Wed Dec 6, 2006 12:21 PM EST
            {"commentId":414566,"authorDomain":"DrJuice"}

            Agreed. Even if the RIAA went for a paid p2p distribution model, the fact that the peers could make money themselves is what would kill them. Of course the RIAA probably won't go for that model any time soon either.

            {"commentId":414566,"threadId":"57883","contentId":"462123","authorDomain":"DrJuice"}
              #5.2 - Wed Dec 6, 2006 4:20 PM EST
              {"commentId":414620,"authorDomain":"killfile"}

              Obviously I didn't do a great job of explaining this part.

              Let's say you buy "Killfile's A Newsvine God" off of Oldfogey's latest blues album. You pay Bitmunk $0.99 for the track.

              Now The Otto Show comes along and he also wants to buy "Killfile's A Newsvine God." Bitmunk is charging $0.25 for its hosting fee for the song, but you've decided to charge $0.10. Bitmunk is thus the more expensive of the two and so Otto decides to "buy" the song from you.

              Bitmunk still has to authorize the transfer, otherwise it'll go to Otto with your watermark. Bitmunk authorizes it and stamps the file with Otto's watermark before it's sent from your computer to his. Otto pays Bitmunk $0.74, and pays you $0.10. The artist and label get the same cut as when you bought it from Bitmunk.

              Otto isn't paying you for the royalties, just the bandwidth. Bitmunk still gets its money and so does whomever presses Oldfogey's records.

              Is that clearer?

              {"commentId":414620,"threadId":"57883","contentId":"462123","authorDomain":"killfile"}
              • 4 votes
              #5.3 - Wed Dec 6, 2006 4:41 PM EST
              {"commentId":415406,"authorDomain":"uspolitics"}

              It's more simple and more complex at the same time. Does this scenario capture it?

              Primary Host Bitmunk -> Sells song to Kathy (VPI, 77) for 99 cents

              Kathy has an agreement (contract?) with Bitmunk. For this song, Bitmunk will pay her 75 cents for every sale. Kathy has unlimited bandwidth and decides to push this song because she loves it. She believes the price of songs is elastic (easily affected by price) so she is going to "mark up" the song only 5 cents. She puts the song on her unlimited bandwidth host and includes promos in her signature line for all her social groups/e-mail accounts. Soon, she's the #1 vendor of this song. The artist gives her front row seats when they visit Seattle. ;-)

              Am I correct to assume that the "sales" price will vary by song/artist?

              This is the same model as Tupperware, Mary Kay, etc, by the way. The true beneficiary here is the artist/band, IMO. Fans as a substitute for record label distribution - I like it.

              {"commentId":415406,"threadId":"57883","contentId":"462123","authorDomain":"uspolitics"}
              • 1 vote
              #5.4 - Thu Dec 7, 2006 12:55 AM EST
              {"commentId":415621,"authorDomain":"killfile"}

              Well the front row seats part makes marketing sense but isn't in the contract anywhere -- but yes, in a somewhat simplistic manner that is the crux of the system.

              {"commentId":415621,"threadId":"57883","contentId":"462123","authorDomain":"killfile"}
              • 1 vote
              #5.5 - Thu Dec 7, 2006 8:09 AM EST
              {"commentId":417041,"authorDomain":"uspolitics"}

              Then I think it's brilliant -- and, barring legal interference from the big record companies, it is based on a proven business model. It is also not unlike an Amazon affiliate system, conceptually.

              {"commentId":417041,"threadId":"57883","contentId":"462123","authorDomain":"uspolitics"}
              • 1 vote
              #5.6 - Thu Dec 7, 2006 8:41 PM EST
              Reply
              {"commentId":422085,"authorDomain":"federal-legal1"}

              Hmmm . . . I suppose it's similar to a pyramid scheme, however, it seems very economically inefficient and nothing like Amazon's business model. Look, the RIAA will challenge any model that allows downstream distribution. Their goals are: 1) to insure that purchasers buy works from an original source; and 2) prevent the product from being distributed further downstream by that purchaser. The courts have consistently sided with the RIAA in effectuating that goal. This is so because it balances the goals of economic efficiency and protection of limited resources--specifically aesthetic talent. I really do not know any intellectual property attorney who would bless a scheme inconsistent with those goals.

              Also, I looked at their Bitmunk website, and I could not believe how poorly done it is--looks like something done circa 1996. Frankly, I know 9 year olds with better programming skills than these guys.

              {"commentId":422085,"threadId":"57883","contentId":"462123","authorDomain":"federal-legal1"}
                Reply#6 - Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:55 AM EST
                {"commentId":422135,"authorDomain":"killfile"}

                Digital Bazaar is, as I understand it, in the market for a talented designer though I don't know what their budget is. You may wish to re-read the article however, Bitmunk doesn't give users the right to re-sell the content itself -- that transaction happens between the downloader and Digital Bazaar. Rather, it allows users to re-sell their bandwidth for whatever songs they may already have.

                Moreover, at this stage Digital Bazaar isn't dealing with the RIAA - they are distributing non-RIAA music.

                {"commentId":422135,"threadId":"57883","contentId":"462123","authorDomain":"killfile"}
                  #6.1 - Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:32 AM EST
                  {"commentId":422535,"authorDomain":"uspolitics"}

                  Well no, it's not similar to a pyramid scheme - other than it is using a network to sell a product.

                  Why do you think it is economically inefficient? Frankly, it seems far more efficient than most advertising, IMO.

                  Basically Bitmunk is paying individuals to promote/advertise a product to their friends and people with like interests. It's a micro-payment form of advertising. In this manner, it is *exactly* like the Amazon model. [The other service that's being offered by the person getting the commission is streaming - but I think the promotion is equally valuable.]

                  Or you could compare it to commission sales - but I think that comparison falls flat because of the employer-employee relationship, among others.

                  And anyone who believes that a oligopoly [RIAA music sector] is economically efficient hasn't studied much economic theory, IMO.

                  {"commentId":422535,"threadId":"57883","contentId":"462123","authorDomain":"uspolitics"}
                    #6.2 - Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:50 PM EST
                    Reply
                    {"commentId":422426,"authorDomain":"federal-legal1"}

                    So how much money did these guys pay you to write this article and level a defense on their behalf whenever anyone challenged the legality or economic sense of their product? And your statement that you have an understanding about their plans to hire a "talented designer" certainly undermines any claims you have of being an uninterested party. Sounds like you have a very intimate understanding of their little business and your use of phrases like "the world's first completely legal, copyright conscious, peer-to-peer network" shows your support of their little project. I always thought journalists were supposed to be objective. I guess you play HALO with these guys online, right?

                    Look, this whole idea is crap. It may work for independent artists who aren't selling that many records, but for mainstream artists who seek to restrict dissemination of their works, this system has serious problems, whereas DRM is a proven method of protecting an artist's work.

                    {"commentId":422426,"threadId":"57883","contentId":"462123","authorDomain":"federal-legal1"}
                      Reply#7 - Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:44 PM EST
                      {"commentId":422476,"authorDomain":"killfile"}

                      So how much money did these guys pay you to write this article and level a defense on their behalf whenever anyone challenged the legality or economic sense of their product?

                      I have never accepted any form of compensation, goods, or services from any interested party seeking to influence my writing and coverage. Ever.

                      Your statement that you have an understanding about their plans to hire a "talented designer" certainly undermines any claims you have of being an uninterested party.

                      I spent some time interviewing Mr. Sporny for this writeup. We discussed the look and feel of his application and the problems therein. He explained to me that Digital Bazaar has been unable to hire a designer that meets their needs.

                      Sounds like you have a very intimate understanding of their little business and your use of phrases like "the world's first completely legal, copyright conscious, peer-to-peer network" shows your support of their little project.

                      The phrase "the world's first completely legal, copyright conscious, peer-to-peer network" comes from press materials provided by Digital Bazaar. I found it to be an accurate and reasonable description of their service and I questioned Mr. Sporny about the claims made. Any writer committed to quality would undertake to have such an understanding of his subject matter.

                      I always thought journalists were supposed to be objective. I guess you play HALO with these guys online, right?

                      No I do not, and I find your insinuation that I have been less than objective in this matter insulting. Bitmunk has a number of problems as a piece of software and as a business model but neither of these are relevant to the angle I sought to explore as part of this write up.

                      Look, this whole idea is crap. It may work for independent artists who aren't selling that many records, but for mainstream artists who seek to restrict dissemination of their works, this system has serious problems, whereas DRM is a proven method of protecting an artist's work.

                      If that's your opinion than I respect that - though I would ask that you provide at least one example of a DRM solution that hasn't been cracked.

                      {"commentId":422476,"threadId":"57883","contentId":"462123","authorDomain":"killfile"}
                      • 2 votes
                      #7.1 - Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:15 PM EST
                      {"commentId":422540,"authorDomain":"uspolitics"}

                      I don't know you DA, but I find your not-very-veiled insult at Killfile to be offensive behavior.

                      {"commentId":422540,"threadId":"57883","contentId":"462123","authorDomain":"uspolitics"}
                      • 1 vote
                      #7.2 - Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:51 PM EST
                      Reply
                      {"canLink":false,"threadId":"57883","isPrivate":false}
                      Leave a Comment:
                      You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                      As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                      {"threadId":"57883","contentId":"462123"}
                      Start TrackingStart Tracking
                      Stop TrackingStop Tracking