Slashdot Mirror
Sony VP On Stopping Napster
akira-x writes "I spotted a link to an interesting (and disturbing) article on Gnutella News regarding some comments that were made by Steve Heckler, senior vice president of Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. According to him, Napster WILL lose, because "The [music] industry will take whatever steps it needs to protect itself and protect its revenue streams. It will not lose that revenue stream, no matter what." The disturbing part is what Heckler says Sony will attempt to do to help them win: "Sony is going to take aggressive steps to stop this," Heckler told the Summer Forty-Niner. "We will develop technology that transcends the individual user. We will firewall Napster at source -- we will block it at your cable company, we will block it at your phone company, we will block it at your [Internet-service provider]. We will firewall it at your PC." "
Idiots.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
And I will firewall Sony at my wallet.
'nuff said.
I think not...(*poof*)
So run it over ssh. There's always a technical solution to whatever Sony or the music industry manages to accomplish. Besides, they don't own the infrastructure and their pockets are not deep enough to buy it.
They don't realize that they've already lost. If they block napster (unlikely), something else will popup. They'll probably succeed in destroying the company napster. That will be the music industries defeat because then everybody will switch to distributed solutions like gnutella or freenet (which will have matured by then).
The music industry is not moving or thinking in internet speed. It took them months to realize napster was bad for revenue. By the time they took action it had millions of users already.
So here's what they should do: make sure that napster stays the no1 source of illegal mp3s. This way it is controlled since the users all go to central servers. They can insert adds, encrypted mp3, etc and make some money.
Jilles
A lot of stupid laws restricting technology have been passed, both here and in Europe. For example, in the US, you cannot buy a receiver that covers the analog cell phone bands anymore (although it's easy for a criminal to put one together). Why? Because rather than holding the cellular companies responsible for their appalling lack of security, the cellular companies prevailed on congress to simply outlaw the production of receivers. It didn't make the world much safer, but it removed the responsibility from them and put the burden on the tax payer and consumer.
Or consider that in Europe, people pay a tax on blank tapes, money that is then shipped directly to the music industry. The presumption is that you use tapes for illegal copying, so you might as well pay the "legitimate artists" for that.
And, of course, in the US, the industry already succeeded in getting cumbersome copy protection devices into digital audio systems.
Don't take the current situation for granted, where computer hardware is reasonably open, well documented, and programmable. We may well end up with a situation where most people use proprietary, limited hardware (like a future PlayStation) with tightly controlled interfaces and software, and in which other people have to pay a steep premium for "professional" equipment that is programmable; and even that kind of "professional equipment" may be tightly controlled.
It's pretty clear that Sony and other content providers are going to fight tooth and nail to protect their obsolete business models. We need to be vigilant to keep them from succeeding. Sony needs to figure out how to make money in a world of open hardware and cheap distribution; if they can't do that, they should go out of business. As a society, we have no obligation to protect companies that can't adapt to new technological realities.
This is the beginnings of the old argument: if it wasn't free, would you buy it?
I think you will find that most people who pirate music, software, video, etc. wouldn't buy those items even if the only way to get those items was to buy them.
How an industry claims loss of revenue when they report record earnings is the real problem here. Record companies are making more money this year than last year. Where is this loss of revenue caused by the Internet?
Radio was once thought to be a potential loss of revenue to the recording industry. ASCAP charged outrageous radioplay license fees because of this fear, uncertainy, and doubt. BMI came along and offered substantially cheaper radioplay license fees: crowning Elvis as the King, selling millions of albums because of his exposure to the radio audiences, and pushing many ASCAP artists into obscurity.
The questions are, who is going to be the next BMI, who gets to be the King because of that company, and how many artists is the RIAA screwing out of exposure (like ASCAP did) which could have catapaulted them to King status.
In the words of Purdue University's Professor Steven Robb: "The problem with you kids is you don't bring enough history with you to the table." Mr. Vice President Heckler would probably get the same lecture.
This is a plea for people to wake up. "Citizens" have rights and responsibilities, minds and talents and souls. "Consumers" have disposable income and a valuable database of spending preferences.
By transforming citizens into consumers, we have laid the foundation for a new government based entirely on money. It's becoming more apparent every day. The frightening part is that we see it coming, but we feel we have no way to stop it, perhaps even no right to stop it.
From what divine or constitutional source did Sony get the right to an uninterrupted "revenue stream"? Where did we as a society come up with the vocabulary that says a corporation has a "right" to anything at all? Particularly since the largest of them don't seem to have very many accompanying responsibilities.
Remember, Napster's defense is that they do not pirate the music themselves, they only provide a service for sharing the files.
Actually, no. If you read Napster's legal filings you will find that this is not their defense. Nor can it be. They are being sued for contributory copyright infringment, not actual copyright infringement, and contributory copyright infringement is an uncontroversial part of copyright law.
Instead, Napster's first line of defense is quite a bit more simple: the sharing of files on Napster is not illegal. No one is breaking the law on Napster, and thus neither is Napster. The basis for this shocking (well, shocking if you get your news from large corporations as most of us do) argument is quite simple: the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act, which quite plainly makes all noncommercial copying of recorded music legal. Since no one is making any money or getting any commercial benefit for sharing their music on Napster, there is no copyright infringement going on, and thus no contributory infringement.
The RIAA is arguing that when the bought and paid for the AHRA in 1992, that wasn't what they meant for it to say. What they meant for it to say was that noncommercial copying was ok only if it was done on DAT, because the other part of the AHRA allowed the RIAA to charge ridiculous royalties on every DAT tape sold to compensate for the loss of royalties due to copying. This isn't what the AHRA actually says, but the recording industry hopes the judge doesn't notice (so far it looks as if she hasn't).
Now, Napster's second line of defense, if the above fails, is to note that a significant portion of the uses of Napster are fair uses. According to the standard set by the Supreme Court in the MPAA vs Sony Betamax case, this is all that is necessary for a provider to be absolved of contributory infringement. (Actually, according to the Betamax case, it is only necessary that the system be capable of substantial noninfringing uses.) There is little doubt that this is true. A surprisingly large portion of Napster traffic is that of unsigned artists/artists who have explicitly allowed their material to be traded. Indeed, there are several times more artists in Napster's "New Artists" program than there are signed by the major labels--and all of them allow trading of their music. Furthermore, many copies of RIAA-copyrighted songs are made for protected fair use purposes, like sampling and space-shifting.
Amazingly enough, Judge Patel managed to get around this point by insisting that it doesn't matter that Napster is capable of substantial noninfringing uses, or even used for substantial noninfringing uses, it only matters that its "primary" use is infringing. No matter that this test was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court. No mention of how she even figured out that Napster's "primary" use was infringing, except that Napster's internal memos alluded to it. Well, Sony's advertising for the Betamax played up its infringing uses and didn't mention its fair uses, but the Supreme Court ruled that it doesn't matter what the company says, only if the product is also capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Judge Patel doesn't seem to care.
But Judge Patel is going to get overturned on appeal, and that will be sustained by the Supreme Court. Without a new law to replace the AHRA and change the Betamax standard, the RIAA doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. Indeed, they're pushing for such a law now; they held hearings on it a couple months ago, although the Senate wasn't too impressed by the RIAA's whining this time around.
But just so you know, the defense of "it's not us, it's the people using our system" doesn't legally hold water. Luckily all of Napster's other defenses are pretty watertight.
Well there you have it the powers that be starting to show their true colors as their power and financial base becomes threatened. Lets face it, if and when peer-to-peer file sharing becomes a dominant paradigm of the internet, all traditional ways of doing business will be fundamentally altered. The vacuous rhetoric that the internet would usher in a world of global grassroots democracy and the end to centralized power structures could actually happen if P2P becomes reality. In fact P2P was supposed to be the operating paradigm of the internet in the first place until corporate interests have co-opted it.
Until the ridiculous Napster decision came down, I hadn't given IP much thought. But as I've watched the rhetoric fly both ways in the Napster and DeCSS trials, I began to see that it has nothing to do with IP in the end, but the beginning of a global war between corporate interests and the forces of democracy. Although the corps make a good argument about compensating intellectual creators, does this justify the complete elimination of freedom online? Already the MPAA is calling its initial victory in the DeCSS case a warning to all Silicon Valley types, that if they keep it up they will shut the whole internet down if it facilitates piracy! Such a statement is completely insane, yet Jack Valenti, president of MPAA actually said it. And since he and the majority of corporate interests agree with that sentiment, their wishes could become reality. This despite the fact that there are already 25 million people and growing who feel otherwise.
If the courts and politicians decide to ignore their constituents and pander as usual to their corporate backers, it could mean a complete re-engineering of the infrastructure to prevent so-called piracy in the future. The nature of the internet is so dynamic, that to accomplish such a monumental task would effectively mean squelching any remaining freedom left on the internet. We'll be left with some draconian super-surveillance network, where all communications will be monitored and censored, and all communication will be increasingly centrally channeled. That is the only system I can imagine that could possible have any chance of stopping piracy. Since such a system is completely repugnant to most people, rather than stop piracy, the nature of business and society should accept it for the prosperity that it really is. Prosperity for the people that is. Imagine that - a society based on individual rather than corporate profits!
Regardless of how anyone feels on this issue, they need to ask themselves do they want a society based on consumer power or corporate power? When corporations start telling its customers what to do, rather than vica versa, then we can start saying good bye to a democratic society. If only the Democratic and Republican Parties, both supporters of stronger IP laws, got a clue. But since when did they give a hoot about the people anyway?
www.enthea.org
We shall fight at the cable companies, we shall fight at the phone company, we shall fight at the ISPs and in the PCs, we shall fight in music stores; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
(Woops - drifting off-topic there - sorry)
..when you let people like senior vice presidents talk to the press without being kept on a leash.
These sound to me like, ah, technically ill-informed comments - I'll bet you he's got no idea how they're going to go about all this firewalling in reality, and it's quite likely he hasn't spoken to anyone with half a clue about the technical viability of it. Sounds like he just came out with this rant rather than actually, well, thinking first.
I predict a rush of conciliatory noises and, er, "clarifications" from Sony Music's PR folks to smooth these comments over once it's realised that what they're talking about is, well, pretty close to technically impossible on today's Internet.
And then, our l33t HaX0rz will convert all of your VHS tapes to Betamax!!!
"Blue Elf shot the food!"
Because you can't, you won't, and you don't stop...
"We will develop technology that transcends the individual user. We will firewall Napster at source -- we will block it at your cable company, we will block it at your phone company, we will block it at your [Internet-service provider]. We will firewall it at your PC."
Do they control the horizontal and the vertical as well? Should I not be adjusting my TV?
Sony - Electronics and Communications
Products include:
compact disk players
mini disc players
Walkman
WEB TV
Digital Video Discs (DVD)
camcorders
televisions
radios
video cassette recorder (VCR)
phones
Digital Satellite Systems (DSS)
Computers
digital imaging
CD-ROM
CD-ROM storage products
business communication systems
audio and video tapes
data storage
batteries
Wireless Telecommunications
JumboTron
Sony - Movies & Theaters
Columbia Tri-Star
Columbia Pictures
Tri-Star Pictures
Jim Henson Productions (partial interest)
Mandalay Entertainment (partial interest)
Phoenix Pictures (partial interest)
Sony Pictures Classics
Sony Pictures Entertainment
Columbia-Tri Star Home Video
Theaters
Sony/Lowes Theaters
Sony - IMAX Theater
Magic Johnson Theaters
Loews - Star Theaters
Sony - Merchandise & Finance
Merchandise
Sony Signatures - (entertainment related clothes and merchandise)
Insurance and Financing
Sony Life Insurance Company
Sony Finance International
Sony - Games & Interactive
Games
Sony Play Station - machine and games
Psygnosis Limited - video game developer
Interactive
Sony Online
TheStation@sony.com - online entertainment network
Jeopardy Online, Wheel of Fortune Online
Columbia - Tri-Star Interactive
Sony - Music
Labels
Sony Music
Legacy
Sony Music Nashville
Sony Wonder (children's music)
Sony Music Products (promotional music for business)
Sony Music Soundtrak
Tri-Star Music
WORK
Crave
57 Records
550 Music
Columbia Records
Epic Records
Epic Soundtrak
Shotput Records
Relatively Entertainment
RED Distribution
Relatively Records
Harmony Records
Sony Music International
Soho Square
Dance Pool
Mambo
Rubenstein
Squatt
Sony Classical
Arc of Light
Masterworks
Sony Broadway
SEON
Vivarte
Sony Music Publishing (copyright owners, joint venture with Michael Jackson)
Columbia House (50% venture with Time - Warner)
Music Choice (with Time - Warner, EMI, General Instrument - digital stereo for cable TV)
Music Choice Europe
Sony - Television
Production & Distribution
Columbia -Tri Star Television (programming)
Columbia -Tri Star Television Distribution
Columbia -Tri Star Television International Television
The Game Show Network
International Television Ventures
Cinemax Latin America
E! - Latin America
HBO Ole
HBO Brasil
Mundo Ole
Warner Channel - Latin America
Showtime - Australia
Encore - Australia
TVI - Australia
Channel V - Asia
Cinemax Asia
HBO Asia
Beijing Television Arts Center
Viva 1 - Germany
Viva 2 - Germany
Carlton Productions (U.K.)
Golden Square Productions (U.K.)
Frensch Productions (Germany)
HBO Poland
Sony has licensing arrangements and interest in:
Kirch Group (Germany)
FORTA (Spain)
BSkyB (U.K.)
JSkyB (Japan)
Telemundo Group Inc. (formed venture with Apollo Management, Bastion Capital Fund, and Liberty Media. Sony is managing partner of group and will oversee programming and marketing.)
While this may seem like a heavily Draconian method, the question is: what else can they realistcally do to curb piracy?
They can do nothing, wipe foam from their faces and start thinking, what model they can use to still benefit from that even if it will drastically reduce their profits. And if they will find none they can just leave music alone and let other, more smart people, get into that field.
There is nothing in the nature of music that gives them right to make their current amount of profit from it, and even IP laws are not cast in stone, and must be adapted to changing situation in technology and society. They were lucky that they were able to profit from it, but luck ran out, and their privilege will be taken away -- just like it happened thousands of time in history. Magical word "property" doesn't matter -- slaves were "property", too, yet social progress made slavery obsolete, and more advanced relationships between employer and employees taken its place, and now no sane person would justify restoration of slavery by applying the idea of "property rights" that former slave owners had over slaves and their families. The same thing will happen with intellectual property -- when existing model stops working new one takes its places, regardless of old laws, dogmas, threats and propaganda.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
we will block it at your phone company,
we will block it at your [Internet-service provider].
We will firewall it at your PC.
-Steve Heckler
- No you fucking won't.
Fine.-Me
Kill Napster in court.
Firewall them ports.
We have, uh I forget - is it 2^16?, more ports to choose from.
Go ahead and have your fun. .html files), or we will keep producing new varients of file sharing programs.
Kill Napster and we will replace it with a new way of sharing files 5 minutes later. Either you must ban the whole class of programs to share files of the Internet (ftp & web browsers included, after all web pages are just
So long as I have the right to swap .zip files with other people over the Internet, how can he know if I am swapping .mp3's in them?
And as for his last sentence - if he thinks he can do a damn thing to our PCs, then please would someone explain this whole open-source thing that has been going on around him. It makes controlling people that bit more difficult.
Final Thought:
-
"The [music] industry," Heckler said, "will take whatever steps it needs to protect itself and protect its revenue streams. It will not lose that revenue stream, no matter what."
Sorry, was that protect 'musicians rights to have a say in what is done with their art', or protect 'that revenue stream' - I couldn't quite hear.G
Prepare to witness the most concerted and massive engineering effort -- both social and technical -- ever undertaken by mankind: The digital equivalent of damming the ocean.
I wrote about this on Slashdot almost a year ago, in the vague hope it might become a featured article: The music and movie industies are working very hard to prevent you from using your lawfully-obtained material in any way they don't want. To that end, they have formed the Copy Protection Technical Working Group (CPTWG), which is working hand-in-hand with a ton of high-tech companies to bring pervasive copy protection measures to your PC.
I saved my original screed on the subject, and it's reproduced below, with appropriate updates. Bottom Line: Do not let them sneak this garbage past you or your friends. If you find that a product contains copy protection, don't buy it, and encourage others to do likewise.
____________________
Recent stories on Slashdot have told of the ongoing "tennis match" between digital content providers versus consumers and technically skilled people. The recent cracking of DVD's Content Scrambling System (CSS) lent ammunition to the opinion held by computing professionals and users that copy protection systems are doomed to fail. The effort has been likened to building a dam against the ocean; a foolish and useless exercise. In Slashdot discussion fora, the point has often been raised, "If you can perceive it, you can copy it. What are they going to do, encrypt the bits all the way to the speaker/electron gun?" If the Copy Protection Technical Working Group gets its way, that is precisely what's going to happen.
I received a piece of email spam today, which actually turned out to be useful (probably the only time that's ever happened anywhere). It directed me to a flat panel display industry group. Among others, one of the links pointed to the California Display Network, which had a link pointing to technical info on flat panel technology. Since I currently earn my living writing graphics card and display drivers, I clicked through to see what I could learn.
I found an entry for an overview of digital visual interfaces, provided by Silicon Image. As I reviewed the headings of the slides, one entry stopped me cold: Conten t Protection Status. Content protection? In a flat panel?? Yup: "Implementation of DVI content protection is suitable for PCs and monitors." [emphasis mine]
Thus began an evening of link clicking and Google searches to find out what this off-handed remark could mean. The slide made mention of the 'CPTWG'. This is the Copy Protection Technical Working Group, a consortium of content providers (movie companies), consumer electronics manufacturers, and players in the IT industry. This is the same group that developed CSS for DVD players.
One paragraph from the above page is particularly disturbing:
The most recent meeting of the CPTWG was yesterday, 8 December, 1999. Their meeting announcements may be found here. It costs $100 to attend. According to the site, their last meeting was on 11 April 2000. It's not clear if additional meetings have been held at regular intervals.
The attendance roster from the April meeting (RTF file) lists a very interesting, and possibly worrying, mix of organizations. A partial list of representatives included:
If you download the roster and read closely, you'll see every major piece of your computer represented. There is no doubt that at least one part of your computer -- your CPU, your RAM, your disk drive, your graphics card, your monitor -- is manufactured by one of these companies.
If you look further still, you'll see there are no consumer advocacy groups listed.
What are they all working toward? Quite simply, to prevent you from using your lawfully obtained digital material in any way they don't want.
Here's one example of how they'll do it: If you've visited Fry's or CompUSA recently, you'll notice that full-size flat panel displays are starting to appear. Currently, most of these displays are based on the old VGA analog signals, which are converted into the digital signals needed by the panels. The Digital Display Working Group is working on a new connector and signalling standard called Digital Visual Interface (DVI) that will allow computer displays to go all-digital. You won't need a DAC on the video card; the digital signals will be fed straight through to the display. Image fidelity will be much higher, since there won't be any intervening DAC/ADC conversions. Version 1.0 of the standard has been published and is available for download (PDF format). The DVI spec currently does not stipulate copy protection measures. However, plans are in the works to incorporate it.
Intel is one of the primary contributors to this effort. On Intel's developer site, they have some papers on copy protection for IEEE 1394 (Firewire) digital streams. In two separate articles, 1394-based Digital Content Protection: an Intel Proposal, and Content Protection for IEEE 1394 Serial Buses (the latter being a Powerpoint presentation masquerading as a PDF file), Intel outlines its proposal for protecting digital content over Firewire. By using cryptographic authentication techniques, a device offering digital content will "handshake" with other devices on the bus to assure that digital data is only received by, "compliant devices." In a revised overview of the proposal, IDF Talk: Content Protection for the IEEE 1394 Bus, Intel offers concrete implementation details, including:
The full proposal (currently version 0.91), with lots of technical detail, is mirrored on CPTWG's site (the links to Intel's site don't work).
Intel's proposal also recommends that the copy protection system be field-upgradeable to thwart ongoing attacks, and that it should be possible to revoke (read: disable) a device determined to be "compromised." (The tone of the proposals is also interesting. It's previously been thought that, because of USB, Intel is hostile to IEEE 1394. Yet these proposals suggest that Intel's quite enthusiastic about 1394... Once copy protection is incorporated.)
Intel's proposal mentions only IEEE 1394. However, it also mentions that there's nothing preventing the technique being applied generally to any bi-directional link. So for all occurrences of '1394', substitute 'DVI', and you've got an idea of what to look forward to in your new digital monitor. And your new DVD player. And your new HDTV set. And your new USB speakers.
Intel goes even further in their paper, A Framework for DVD-Audio Content Protection. In it, the author suggests that DVD-Audio recorders permanently remember the IRSC (International Standard Recording Code) of every song the device is asked to copy, so that it may only be copied once, period. They go on to suggest that the recorder could have a modem built-in to authorize (read: purchase) the ability to make additional copies.
In short, through this industry consortium, Hollywood proposes to exert control over every link in the digital chain, from the digital camera, to the disk drive, to the CPU, to the graphics card, to your display. They will decide what rights you have. Even if a court decides Fair Use includes multiple copies for personal use (such as assembling a video montage), it won't matter. Your computer will still refuse to make the copies (and probably fink on you, as well).
This coordinated effort is ostensibly to combat unsanctioned copying (which the industry chronically refers to incorrectly as 'theft' and 'piracy'). However, no one has ever been able to provably quantify the value of unrealized sales due to such copying. All dollar estimates that have been published are just that: estimates, based on idealized extrapolations of what-if scenarios. Moreover, although the industry claims to "lose" billions every year, they continue to post record profits. Finally, despite the proliferation of CDR drives and the Internet, most unrealized sales are the result of organized mass counterfeiting rings, not casual copying. None of the proposed methods I've seen appear to thwart mass counterfeiting at all. So clearly there's some other reason for all this.
The thing that puzzles me most is why the computer and consumer electronics industries haven't told Hollywood to take a hike. Intel's copy protection proposals state, in bold letters, "No content protection = No Hollywood content." This belief is taken as axiomatic by all the players, and appears to be the driving force behind the entire effort. This belief is also false.
Audio on CDs are recorded as plaintext, and the music industry continues to earn rapacious profits. Even the with the advent of CDRs, no music industry executive in his right mind would suggest dropping CD sales and going strictly with cassettes and vinyl. If nothing else, the manufacturing costs for CDs are lower than those for cassettes and vinyl. Likewise, DVDs are tremendously cheaper to produce than videotapes. Videotape duplication is a labor-intensive process; DVDs can be stamped out automatically. The savings in cost-of-goods alone would more than balance against any unrealized sales from casual copying. Corporate shareholders, always mindful of the bottom line, will also demand that the studios move to the cheaper, higher-quality process, copy protected or not.
The fact is that the computer and electronics firms are in the driver's seat, and are free to dictate how the new digital formats will work. Hollywood will use whatever format becomes popular, whether it has copy protection or not. They may grumble about it, but they'll use it. The economics afford them little choice.
We are only now beginning to explore the social and ethical consequences of a Star Trek-like universe where everything can be infinitely duplcated at zero cost. We have no idea where things will end up. But now is not the time to start erecting electronic walls and imposing artificial scarcity. The ignoble and richly-deserved death of DIVX showed -- fairly unequivocally, I thought -- that consumers want to make free, fair use of their digital media, without interference from outside. I believe its death reinforces the future toward which we've been pushing for centuries: Increased abundance at reduced cost. We can only hope that the lesson of DIVX will be repeated until it is learned.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
"And we will bury you!"
I don't find this scary at all -- it's just a litany of 1950s solutions to 21st century problems, none of which will work. I don't have stock in Sony, so why should I care that the people in charge of the company don't have a clue?
This is emblematic of the whole Napster/DeCSS/DMCA battle that's going on now. The status quo has changed fairly radically and the institutions that profited from that status quo are begging any authority they can think of to shove the djinni back in the bottle. The authorities, who are lovers of the status quo themselves, will try to comply, but this djinni isn't going anywhere.
Sony and the like can bang their shoes on the table all the live-long day, or they can go look for other models to make money from music. If they don't, they will be replaced by others who do.
This is the beauty of the free market, da?
-
-
Give me liberty or give me something of equal or lesser value from your glossy 32-page catalog.