Slashdot Mirror
Is SDMI a Consumer's Nightmare?
"1. It appears you can't move the music files around on your disk. They get stored in an encrypted form and if you try and reorganize them other than through the SDMI compliant software, they go boom!
2. At least with the software I have, it appears all your music must fit on one device, there is no provision for multiple catalogs on several devices.
3. It appears that storing your music on read-only media like CDR will not be possible.
4. At least with the software I have, storing music on removable media like ZIP drives may not be possible.
5. It appears that if you have multiple computers, a laptop and a PC for example, you won't be able to transfer your music back and forth between the two.
6. It appears SDMI is a security standard only and doesn't guarantee interoperability between SDMI devices from multiple manufacturers.
7. I have yet to determine if the directory containing SDMI music can be safely backed up and restored.
8. It looks like SDMI might be one of those "standards" that can't be distributed as open source without its security being broken.
If anyone can clear up any of these questions for me I'd really appreciate it. Right now SDMI looks like it will make it terribly easy for the uninitiated to accidentally lose music by moving it in ways that seem innocent at first, but cause the security to kick in. It also seems to give the music less utility than music on a CD, that is I can carry a CD to work and play it on my PC there, or loan the CD to someone...SDMI seems to prohibit this. I don't have anything against protecting the musicians' copyright rules, but it sounds like they may be creating a consumer nightmare with all this format's restrictions.
Any comments? "
Answer to the questions about the SDMI spec are in line below.
-n.o.
===
Milo_Mindbender asks: "I recently got hold of a solid-state music player
that is Secure Digital Music Initiative (see www.sdmi.org) compatible. While
the player itself is a fine device, the restrictions forced on it by SDMI
appear to make it a nightmare for the consumer. I'd appreciate it if someone
with more knowledge of SDMI could tell me if my concerns are real, or just
the result of a bad SDMI implementation." Click below to read the rest of
Milo's submission and to see the direction the RIAA wants to push us in.
"1. It appears you can't move the music files around on your disk. They get
stored in an encrypted form and if you try and reorganize them other than
through the SDMI compliant software, they go boom!
== Answer ==
The files must be stored in a protected manner, but the fact that the system breaks when the files get moved around your file system is not a result of SDMI. This is probably because the implementation expects the files to be in a particular location.
===
2. At least with the software I have, it appears all your music must fit on
one device, there is no provision for multiple catalogs on several devices.
== Answer ==
Again, not a result of SDMI. SDMI explicitly supports multiple devices for a single user.
===
3. It appears that storing your music on read-only media like CDR will not
be possible.
=== Answer ===
Archived clear text music is not "SDMI compliant" so if you mean you cannot write LPCM to CDR and be SDMI compliant, this is true. However, there is no restriction which prevents you from storing your protected files on CDR as long as it is not possible to make copies that work in any PC. SDMI allows you to store content to any media as long as the media is bound to the media or to the user's "local environment" which might include more than one PC (see below).
===
4. At least with the software I have, storing music on removable media like
ZIP drives may not be possible.
== Answer ==
See above. Again, this is a limitation of the software, not SDMI. Zip disks (I believe) have unique IDs which means the content can be bound to the disk. This will allow them to be played by any computer with the appropriate software, but will also prevent bit-identical copies.
===
5. It appears that if you have multiple computers, a laptop and a PC for
example, you won't be able to transfer your music back and forth between the two.
== Answer ==
Not true. The specification is a little hazy about this, but you are allowed to make copies and move them between devices and PC's. The number of copies is limited, however.
====
6. It appears SDMI is a security standard only and doesn't guarantee
interoperability between SDMI devices from multiple manufacturers.
== Answer ==
Yes, the 1.0 specification says nothing about interoperability. SDMI is scheduled to discuss interoperability in the future, but many people believe that any real interoperability progress will come from outside of the group.
===
7. I have yet to determine if the directory containing SDMI music can be
safely backed up and restored.
== Answer ==
This depends on the implementation. The spec says that backup and restore should not be a security hole (back up on my PC, restore on yours). Of course, everyone knows that this is a very difficult problem to solve well.
===
8. It looks like SDMI might be one of those "standards" that can't be
distributed as open source without its security being broken.
== Answer ==
Only partly true, since the SDMI spec is not a technical specification. It provides a high level set of requirements that software and hardware must meet in order to be called "SDMI compliant". These requirements are somewhat general and say things like "SDMI compliant components must authenticate eachother," but it does not say which authentication protocol to use.
The one place where this is true is with respect to the watermarking technology.
===
If anyone can clear up any of these questions for me I'd really appreciate
it. Right now SDMI looks like it will make it terribly easy for the
uninitiated to accidentally lose music by moving it in ways that seem
innocent at first, but cause the security to kick in. It also seems to give
the music less utility than music on a CD, that is I can carry a CD to work
and play it on my PC there, or loan the CD to someone...SDMI seems to
prohibit this. I don't have anything against protecting the musicians'
copyright rules, but it sounds like they may be creating a consumer
nightmare with all this format's restrictions. Any comments? "
== Final Comment ==
To sum up, the problems you identified are restrictions of the particular implementation you have. Most of SDMI is very aware that unless security is invisible to the user, SDMI compliant systems will not be adopted. Provisions were made to allow for the kind of uses that you mention and for other uses which consumers would normally expect. Most SDMI attendees are only interested in SDMI so long as it is possible to make compliant products that are attractive to consumers.
===
Of course you're usually allowed to make copies for your personnal use, but apparently they forgot THAT part of the copyright law when they designed the crap...
I think that's precisely what they have in mind. The corps regard fair use as a "bug" in the law, and are trying to put together a technical workaround to this "bug." Fair use is the bane of the RIAA, MPAA, and their ilk.
I wrote a long column for MP3.com about the dysfunctions of SDMI; you can read it here. The head of SDMI, Leonardo Chiariglione (who is also the head of MPEG), responded in his inimitable manner here.
- Anticipated Technical Functionality of Phase 2 Screening of Digital Audio Content
- SDMI Portable Device Specification - Part 1, Version 1.0 (PDWG99070802)
- Amendment 1 to the SDMI Portable Device Specification - Part 1, Ver 1 (PDWG99092302)
- Guide to SDMI Portable Device Specification - Part 1, Version 1.0
- Int erim Phase 1 SDMI Trademark License and Compliance Agreement
Sorry. I didn't notice they they weren't all fully qualified. Like I said, I just snagged em from sdmi.org...---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The death of DIVX demonstrated that consumers will not accept a standard that further restricts their use of intellectual property when a more open standard already exists. Its too bad the "open dvd" didn't turn out to be as open as we thought. Mp3s are here, now, and will not go away soon. SDMI has to be converted to audio at some point, and as a result can and mostly likely will be recorded, circumventing the technology. Someone will find a way to grab the digital out before its converted to analog by the soundcard. The industry doesn't understand they're fighting a battle they can't win. Until they send the audio directly to people's brains, no format will be secure.
- As far as I can tell, the main aim of the plan [using SDMI] seems to be to confuse consumers as to what is and isn't kosher in the digital music arena so none of them will have time left to engage in music piracy.
Instead of trying to make it harder for the consumer, he suggests that the music industry makeit easier for people to get to music. He contends that searching for illegal takes time and it's difficult to find the exact song you're looking for. If the music industry were to make it extremely convenient to get songs from them, consumers would pay a small amount of change for each song in exchange for the time saved.It wouldn't surprise me if backups are impossible or intentionally inconvenient to the point that a repurchase is preferable (and who's gonna do that?).
Here's what happened to me the first time I attempted to use a "licensed" audio file.
1) I download a "free" 30 meg King Crimson concert at 56k; this takes about nine hours including failures and disconnects.
2) It's in Windows Media format, so I go download the Windows Media Player so that I can listen to my precious, hard-won "free" Crimson.
3) Since Microsoft makes the WMP, I backup my whole system before installing it, including the Crimson show. This is common sense, I think. MS likes to delete other companies' libs without asking and replace them with their own, unstable ones for some reason. Something to do with monopolies or something.
4) I install WMP and it hoses a decent percentage of my system files.
5) I re-install my system, including WMP, and this time it "works" because I didn't install anything hoseable yet.
6) I click and attempt to enjoy the grandeur that is Crimson, but I can't because I'm no longer "licensed" to do so. The "license" was an invisible file that, if moved, no longer functioned. I could at this point either A) re-download the whole thing just to get a 10k "licence" text file, or B) say "Fuck this."
7) I say "Fuck this," delete everything, and vow never to futz around with "licensed" content again. SDMI/WM et al lose one customer.
I would expect this scenario to repeat in the homes of millions until SDMI joins DIVX in Acronym Hell. I hope it does, anyway.
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
To echo another response to this post, the important part of your post is "and much like the recording and movie industries, the real artists don't make beans". That is what I think the MPAA and RIAA are trying to ensure -- that they maintain control of the *production* of content, to keep a monopoly position and to reduce costs. There's no way that a Hong Kong pirate shop or an internet rip site is going to compete with these guys in serious ways (and, yes, the maintenance of the perception that we are buying content, not media, is essential to making these competitors seem illegitimate). But, if independent musicians and filmmakers felt they could cheaply distribute their work, and not have to sign away their rights to the studios, that *would* threaten their monopoly.
Ironically, they try to defend themselves as protecting the artists!
Mind you, I think that, for all the reasons you mentioned, they are on balance still dumbasses.
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
Where do you draw the line between protecting the musician's interests and giving the consumers value for what they pay for?
SDMI has nothing to do with musicians. Probably 8 out of ten of them oppose it. SDMI exists solely for the major record companies. MP3 has major record companies scared stiff-- not only because of piracy, but more importantly because it allows bands & independent labels to cheaply & easily distribute their music worldwide without the record companies getting their cut. By implementing these kinds of senseless restrictions, the majors hope to kill off any & all forms of digital music distribution. Obviously, in the long run it's a losing battle, but they've got the money, so they won't give up the fight easily.
On the same subject, BMG has withdrawn it's copy protected CD's, Wired has the story.
Where do you draw the line between protecting the musician's interests and giving the consumers value for what they pay for? This is kind of like buying a car and being told that you couldn't drive it at night or on certain roads. There is no way I would pay money for digital music with these kind of restrictions.
The fundemental question is not wether SDMI is good or bad..its wether its even relevant anymore.
Music has and will continue to be produced on simple, plain-jane audio CD's because you're not gonna convince the American public that they need to throw out their CD players and buy a new box to listen to their Milli Vanilli with. Videos will still be released on VHS, because for most people, they dont care if their movie has digital quadrophonic Dolby THX surround-sound. They just want to see a damn movie.
What _is_ relevant now, are applications like Napster, and how its existance and similar "community trading" apps will impact how media is reproduced and sold. Not just music, but all sorts of things. Napster for movies. Napster for warez. Hell, even Napster for porn.
See, nothing prevents Sony Music from setting up a server, and selling MP3s securely..You could purchase the MP3 online two weeks in advance, before the audio CD hits store shelves. Nothing prevents Virgin from setting up kiosks in their stores that let you burn your own custom audio CDs from a catalog of artists. Infact, they would probably make more money in the long run doing that, than they would by selling a CDs of individual artists. Most people are reluctant to pay $17 for an album where there are only one or two songs on it they like -- I'm sure they'de much rather pay $20 for a custom-burned CD where THEY decided what got put on it, so they could ensure that every song appealed to them, and the whole 75 minutes of the disc were used.
The cat is already out of the bag, and its meow sounds suspiciously like "MP3".
Who loses if digital media dies?
It sure ain't labels? Nah. They've still got their distribution networks set up, and the massive payola scenario they engineered with (former) radio station owners means that the advertising networks are locked up pretty tight too.
They've got the songs, the stores, and the stations. What they didn't have is the software, and the hardware that comes inside. By threatening to sue and/or refuse to license standards to consumer audio hardware manufacturers, they get to force some absolutely ridiculous amounts of anti-consumer design.
Would you want to buy a player that would refuse to play your music? Are there market forces that are pushing you to say, "Gee, I wish my music collection just didn't work. I'd love it if I could lose my entire investment to a rogue hacker. If only nothing worked together, and I could only use Windows, and I was only allowed to have a single music playing device, and I was miserable with anything but CDs!"
Nope, but there sure as hell are labels that wouldn't mind you saying that.
SDMI's doomed to fail, because that's what it does best. SDMI fails. People are proclaiming the death of a PC over a failure rate that is infinitely lower than SDMI's <i>intentional</i> rate of failure.
And when it fails...the status quo, pre MP3 but post payola, will be maintained for the labels. That's the plan--musicians, consumers, hardware manufacturers, linux coders be damned.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
SDMI devices are coming to market, and MP3-based devices are already out there. The one thing we all need to keep in mind here is that MP3 already is the de facto standard for digital audio. If the consumers stick to MP3-enabled devices, SDMI will die on the vine, like Betamax. Ultimately, all the consumer electronics manufacturers will act in their self-interest, and stick to "fishing where the fish are".
Ultimately, SDMI's fate is in our hands, because we control our own pursestrings. If we don't buy it, they'll stop selling it. The recording industry may think SDMI is the be-all-end-all of digital playback, but it doesn't matter how much they market it or how pretty the box is if we dogs won't eat their dogfood.
What can slashdotters do?
Buy only MP3 devices for themselves. Do not buy devices that support SDMI instead of, or in addition to MP3.
Evangelize your friends and the less technically astute. Don't hammer them with the technical details of why SDMI is inferior. Say things like "you'll want to back up your songs, right? SDMI can't do that" or "Only MP3 players work as-is with your existing CD's, just like making tapes for your Walkman". Keep it simple. MP3 still wins.
Write to the big consumer electronics resellers. If Best Buy and Circuit City alone emphasized MP3 players they could almost single-handedly ensure the death of SDMI. They may support it now, but if they do that's because they genuinely think the marketplace will accept SDMI. Circuit City, in particular, should have learned their lesson about proprietary systems from the DIVX fiasco.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
http://www.sdmi.org/
Just so we know what we're talking about. From that site:
What SDMI is: A forum for these industries to develop the voluntary, open framework for playing, storing and distributing digital music necessary to enable a new market to emerge. SDMI is working on two tracks. The first has already produced a standard, or specification, for portable devices. The longer-term effort is working toward completion of an overall architecture for delivery of digital music in all forms. What it is not: SDMI is not producing a single format, technology or design. The SDMI framework allows a variety of competing technologies and download formats to be used within its system.Last year, an RIAA official publicly stated their intention to eventually "phase out" MP3s by putting an "off switch" on all SDMI compliant software. After the SDMI standard becomes widespread, the consortium would "flip the switch", and make MP3s completely unplayable on all computers with SDMI installed.
This is made particularly incideous because the Digital Millenium Copyright Act makes a copy control system legal, and makes it a criminal offense to remove such a system (regardless of your intent!) However, the RIAA has gone beyond a copy control system.
By considering (and possibly implementing) such an "off switch", and other attributes of the SDMI standard, the music industry is group boycotting the MP3 standard. They can't do that, at least not the way they are planning to do it now. The DMCA doesn't allow it, and it may be an antitrust violation.
When they do, a number of us will be here, waiting. And for the RIAA/MPAA/DVD-CCA lawyers reading this (We know you're there), recognize that some of us see the potential antitrust violations you've wired or may wire into your software codes. If you keep your efforts limited to honestly restricting piracy, and don't prevent competition with your proposed proprietary formats, and if you stop using your monopoly on movies and/or music to control the downstream market for players, then your industry associations have nothing to worry about. But we're watching, like thousands of hawks.
The moral of the story: we should stick to open MP3 players not made with SDMI, for now.
There are several interesting results:
For the people who don't have music available on the web, there were several reasons given. Piracy was halfway down the list.
56% of the people responded No to "Has the lack of a uniform secure distribution system limited your distribution of music online?"
33% responded "RIIA" to "Do you feel that SDMI has furthered the objectives of the RIAA or the industry as a whole?"
64% responded "Detrimental" to "Do you feel that the fact that the SDMI decision making process, not being open to the public, press or interested parties, had a detrimental or positive impact on the group's work?"
There are many more questions on the survey, read it for yourself.