Didn't the SDMI folks say that SDMI was a general wrapping specification into which many technologies could fit? But they selected a singular watermarking technology to handle security: Aris. Now it seems to me that of all of the players involved (labels, artists, music VARs, portable device manufacturers, and consumers) the only real winners from SDMI's pseudo-protection are the RIAA and Aris.

Once SDMI-only players are in place, the only way for an artist to get their music on such a device is to use software licensed from Aris to put the "SDMI Kosher" watermark on their music. Additionally, to distribute/sell music from their website, artsts would need to purchase a complex per-user watermarking server, with Aris-licensed technology. Of course, most artists would never have enough savvy to do this: as such, they'll be forced to sign their music to a technology provider that had invested the money and time to put such a system in place. Small, independant musician sites would likely disappear under this paradigm.

Device manufacturers seeking to become SDMI-compliant will have to license watermark-decoding technology from Aris and likely pay them a per-device fee.

While agreed that it is at this time just wishful thinking, if a watermark technology is needed for major content to move to the Net, an OpenSource watermark technology would be the best choice. It would encourage rapid and widespread adoption of a watermarked protection mechanism and would ensure that even the smallest players would have a shot at being able to set up music websites. The SDMI committee may believe that restricting access to the technology will allow valid music publishers to distribute their music while barring "pirates" from "stealing" their music. Instead, it is giving Aris a monopoly and works strongly against small publishers. As a folk artist in northern Oklahoma, how do you convince the RIAA's SDMI Watermark Office that you really are making music: that you have a guitar, are recording original content, and deserve access to the technology? What will allow the RIAA (or anybody) to decide whose music is pirated and whose is valid? Does anybody have answers to these questions?

As a separate thought/consideration, the SDMI committee has made it clear that computers will not be under the SDMI restrictions, only "portable music devices." And yet this distinction gets more blurry day by day! I argued that the Rio was a computer, complete with storage, processing, a display, input/output, and inter-computer communication capabilities -- I created the first patch to allow software to upload music from the Rio back to the computer to prove this. But while the Rio positioned itself as a "computer peripheral," the new devices are incorporating more and more functionality and are becoming PDA/Walkman hybrids. Is the Cassiopeia a computer? Surely! And the Nomad? What if it added calendar support? How can the SDMI hope to have any teeth at all if it doesn't regulate any devices?

To add to all of this confusion, SDMI takes rights away from consumers. SDMI prevents me from storing my music in multiple places, or from keeping it in a central location that I can frequently access. If SDMI eventually incorporates some of these "special cases," it will likely be quite complex: it has to be! Computer technology fundamentally allows for sharing (see my article on this) and the technology to share tends to be easier to write, and thus one step ahead, of technology to prevent sharing. As hard as it is, it would be far wiser for labels to sell their music in the clear like eMusic is doing.

This fake protection is not the savior. It will have its heyday, as did software encryption some decade ago, but it will fade as people realize the power of openness.

See Also: Why SDMI Will Fail