Microsoft Patents DRM'ed P2P, Torrent Method
Could you imagine a Windows Live Torrent client?
Today, the whole idea of P2P file sharing scare copyright holders as it allows for the easily distribution of material. While having convenient and reliable avenues such as Hulu certainly take things in a good direction, Microsoft sees a future in DRM'ed material and P2P networks.
Microsoft has been awarded with U.S. Patent 7,639,805, which is for a "Digital rights management scheme for an on-demand distributed streaming system."
The abstract reads:
A DRM scheme that may be optionally invoked by the owner. With the DRM protection turned on, the media is encrypted before it is distributed in a P2P network, and is decrypted prior to its use (play back). The peers may still efficiently distribute and serve without authorization from the owner. Nevertheless, when the media is used (played back), the client node must seek proper authorization from the owner. The invention further provides a hierarchical DRM scheme wherein each packet of the media is associated with a different protection level. In the hierarchical DRM scheme of the invention there is usually an order of the protection level. As a result, in one embodiment of the invention, the decryption key of a lower protection layer is the hash of the decryption key at the higher protection level. That way, a user granted access to the high protection layer may simply hold a single license of that layer, and obtain decryption keys of that layer and below. The invention further provides for a process for managing digital rights to a scalable media file wherein a different encryption/decryption key is used to encrypt each truncatable media packet with a base layer without requiring additional storage space to store the key.
The whole system works similarly to a torrent network, where content is split up and then shared amongst peers in a secure and encrypted manner. Learn more about it at Cryptopatents.
- microsoft ,
- bittorrent ,
- p2p ,
- file ,
- sharing
- Shuttle to Standardize Notebook Mobos, Manufacture OEM Laptops
- CES 2010: New Tegra 2-Powered Quanta Tablet Spotted
- Shuttle to Standardize Notebook Mobos, Manufacture OEM Laptops
- Intel's 40GB Value SSD Selling at $129.99
- MSFT: Windows 7 is Fastest Selling OS of All Time
- Intel Announces WiDi - Wireless Laptop A/V Out
- Intel CEO Unveils x86 Moorestown Smartphone
- TRENDnet's Wireless-N Router Provides 300 Mbps
- HP Has a Second, Android-powered Slate PC
- CES 2010: AMD and Eyefinity6
- Apple Tablet Confirmed by French Carrier Orange
- MSFT Releases New Versions of Word and Office
- Firefox 3.6 is Almost Done, RC1 Download Here
- Nvidia Fermi Production and Availability
- Monday Deals: Specials for January 11, 2010
- Acer Recalls Laptops Due to Burn Hazard
- Plextor Announces SSDs in 64GB, 128GB Forms
- AMD Prepping Triple, Quad Core Mobile CPUs





Good luck to them, I give it 1 month before someone cracks the DRM and removes it. The whole point of file sharing is that file are shared in an open and free natured, adding DRM undermines the core principle of P2P file sharing.
Ok so you mean it is decrypted after you get a license? As in decryption on view so we can cap/record it and set up a now unDRM'ed torrent.
What a great pointless patent.
It's probably not a useless patent if Microsoft want to distribute software by torrent - they can do it and require a licence key without someone then suing them with a dodgy patent (well, since it's America, it's probably with just a slightly lower chance of being sued with a dodgy patent).
Personally DRM wouldn't put me off using a torrent to download something, most of the time the speed ends up being similar to proper downloads or if it's an overloaded server then it's faster (unless my router is mucking about, then it's useless). So long as it's not hugely interferring DRM that is, somehow the implementation never quite seems as straight-forward as the principle.
Why would anyone use their own bandwidth to distribute someone elses files?
Presumably, if it's DRM'd files then you're paying for it. If you're paying for something then the company providing you with the file should pay for the bandwidth to provide you with the file that you've paid for.