SDMI; MusicNet; Felton

The NYTimes had an article this morning about MusicNet, a new venture of Real and the record industry to provide pay-per-listen music to the masses. (Read the AP version if you don't want to register with the Times.) Meanwhile, CNET reports that SDMI adjourned from their most recent meeting without picking any technologies to go forward with - an admission that they are all thoroughly broken, by the team led by Professor Felton, who spoke yesterday at Stanford.

Comments

Comments on the Stanford Speech

[seaan]

A few observations and quotes from Prof. Felten's speech at Stanford. As mentioned in the article, the hall was packed. People were sitting in the isles, and there were even 15-20 people sitting in the front of the hall (where professors normally get to walk). I'd estimate there were 30-40 people listening in the hallway, which is where I was. As a result, I never saw the slides (and Prof. Felten explicitly said he was not going to publish the slides).

Thanks to /. and a variety of other sources I already knew most of the information presented by the speech. There were a number of interesting quotes (from memory). He said the paper leaked to the internet was part of the peer review process, and the final paper was better (no details were discussed). He refused to discuss future strategy, but said he had not given up.

Perhaps the most important clarification to me was explaining exactly why the RIAA could make this threat. The DMCA encryption research exception only applied to researching, not to publishing (i.e. disseminating). Prof. Felten made some excellent points about the value of analyzing existing systems in security research, which is not generally recognized by the legal system. He also repeated several times that analysis is an important tool in many types of research. Although this is currently a computer security issue, he predicts the DMCA as it stands now will have a dramatic impact on many other areas of science and academia.

One of my favorite quotes, which did not make it into the Salon story went to the effect of "They made the threat, and once it was effective, tried to withdraw it". He also mentioned that there were some verbal communications from the RIAA, which made the threat even more clear.

John Gilmore (of DES Cracking fame) was also part of the hallway crowd. He was wearing his mind-bending shirt (a very brightly colored tie-died t-shirt with the NSA seal on it). After most of the crowd had dispersed, we went into the hall, and John wondered when "they" would be coming after him for his part in producing the contraband (he was waiving his co-authored book around Cracking DES: Secrets of Encryption Research, Wiretap Politics and Chip Design).

Indeed, one might almost think this is a government plot, as well as the more obvious RIAA/MPAA plot. Got any encryption research you want to discourage? Just use it in a copyright protection scheme, and now you have the ability to suppress any information about that technology.

You speak from ignorance

[DreamingReal]

Goddammit, I'm sick of listening to holier-than-thou Slashdotters explaining to me that I cannot be against CSS, region-coding, and the actions of the MPAA because I buy DVDs. I own 60+ DVDs and between my computer, my PS2, and my Region-1 player, I own three DVD players. In my opinion, that makes ME more qualified to speak out against CSS and the DVD-CCA than YOU. By your own admission, you do not buy DVD products so you have no firsthand experience with the negative effects of CSS, Macrovision, and region-coding. You speak out of ignorance, merely regurgitating the experiences of those who actually buy the product.

What experience do you have besides wearing your t-shirt? I've used CSS, firsthand, for legitimate ways to access the content I legally purchased. I've used it to avoid the commercials at the beginning of my The Sixth Sense DVD. I've used it to DivX;-) my Die Hard trilogy to watch on my laptop during a recent flight to California. I've used DVD Genie to defeat the region-coding to watch my legally purchased, Region 2 ER Season 1 DVDs without having to lock my DVD drive to region 2. Can you say the same?

I also mirror a DeCSS binary, DeCSS code (multiple versions), and region defeating software. I post explanations why DeCSS is ethical and legal to use. Not Robin Gross' saying "The MPAA sux" but my own, explaining my own legitimate uses with the 60+ DVDs I've purchased. Hell, I even bought the same t-shirt you did and contributed to the EFF. Let the MPAA laywers come to my door - I am a concerned supporter of DVDs who wishes to use his posessions beyond the limited ways the movie studios have predefined for me. I am a living, breathing example of why DeCSS is right.

So stop fucking telling me that I cannot be against CSS and still "have one of these things". The MPAA will not change their tune by you whiny 0.0000001% of the buying public saying, "I won't buy these. So there!" while patting yourselves on the back. Until they, the lawmakers, and the public at large see that THERE * ARE * SIGNIFICANT * AND * LEGITIMATE * USES * OF * DECSS nothing will change.

Flame away.

-------

Two BIG problem with this strategy

[hillct]

First, Both MusicNet and Duet have:

committed to offering only streamed music -- which has to be downloaded each time -- and "tethered downloads," which have a special license attached to them.

Unfortunately, there isn't a watermarking strategy in existance that hasn't been cracked. In fact, I suggest that there will never be a viable technical solution to this problem. There are simply far too many technically astute consumers and hackers who will be able to crack virtually any SDMI technical solution. The only workable solution to this problem will be achieved through social means. There must be good will between the music industry and the music consuming public. the RIAA has seen to it that this won't happend in the forseeable future.

Second, the systems being proposed in this article aren't flexible enough. Their current model is to alter the consumer music licensing model, moving from a perpetual personal use license, to the rental model mentioned in the aticle:

The demonstration before the intellectual property subcommittee showed that if a person stops their subscription to either service, they may not be able to keep listening to the songs they downloaded. In essence, consumers wouldn't buy music, just rent it.

No consumer would go for this. It ranks up there with Microsoft's software subscription model, but even more restrictive. Microsoft Backed off their plan, and so will these music services.

--CTH

--

Goodwill

[Dutchie]

For me personally the Music Industry has very little goodwill left.

Initially when this whole filesharing stuff started, I was of the opinion that I would listen to new songs and buy them if I like them. For quite a while that seemed very plausible.

However, when the RIAA/MPAA started with their nasties, more and more of this plausability turned into a 'no... these people have no relation with 'art' anymore.' If anything has been established by their actions, it is that they have shown their true face, and so have a whole bunch of so called 'artists'.

Art... to me is an expression of one's inner emotions. It shows just how great people can be when they are in the right frame of mind and talented enough to display their art to the public. But Metallica, MPAA, RIAA, and then some, are like a big stinking oozing sewer leaking poisonous chemicals into a sparkling mountain creek. While I used to like Metallica, now when I hear their music, all I think is 'oh it's those assholes'. While the existance of the RIAA was safely hidden from me before this all started, now every CD branded with their logo is tainted.

So no, I will not use their 'service'. Just like I would not buy Nazi memorabilia.

• Imagination is more important than knowledge.