Slashdot Mirror
CD Copy Protection Head Speaks
Vonatar sent us an interview with the guy who is running the company that designed the copy protection being used in CDs that nobody really buys, and preventing people from playing CDs in their computers and DVD players. The article also mentions the first lawsuit about the record label not providing notice on the package. Anyway check it out if you're interested. There are some interesting bits.
How long does everyone think it'll take for someone to find a way around this?
Whats to stop people using a cable between cd player and computer to make the mp3 ?
I don't think this is going to prove much of an problem for people , except those who pay for the music and want to listen on their computer....
I won't hurn the people who use mp3's at all... they be as happy as ever...
Cruise TT
What it's meant to do is provide a speed bump to people who don't steal things, and wish to use them in the parameters that are suggested by the artists
But what about the average Joe who want's to rip the CD for use on the computer, or a portable MP3 player? These are fair-use protected, as long as you do not distribute.
And most average Joes lack the technical know-how to circumvent the protection, and even that is illegal under the DMCA.
Copy protection is stripping away the last bits of fair use left. They're punishing all users for the actions of some.
Most people do not like to lose their rights, even something as small as fair use.
I like fire ants. They are very spicy!
>> Only hackers will attempt to circumvent the technology in order to prove that it can be done. We're not designing the technology for them. Ever heard of 'script kiddies'?
um...
the audio out of my soundcard goes into my uberamp and that is basically my cd player! so what, now i can't play cd's anymore? also, when i travel i take cd's on the plane with me and play them on my notebook. now i can't do that either? i think that's just dumb!
I wish that they would at least require me to sign a contract to listen to a CD. Then I would at least know what I was getting myself into...
I do everything the voices in my head tell me to...
It makes no sense - they guy SAYS that it can be broken - but it is meant to deter "casual copying". A bit like wrapping a chain around a bike without really locking it - to deter the "casual bike thief". But they bring up the DMCA - so until that gets thrown out, they have a good legal loophole with which they can go after anyone who manages to rip their CD's.
And their big explanation is that the song title and artist don't show up, so therefore people can't copy them? Hell, I was copying CD's long before programs had internet lookup of CD's - I would rip the track - then label it...what a novel concept...
I think the people above me are having sex - or they're sleeping restlessly and agreeing with each other a lot.
"All mankind is at the mercy of a handful of neurotics". - Norman Douglas
"So if someone breaks your anti-copying technology, are you going to sue?
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits users from circumventing copy protection. It's now a crime in America to do that. Having said that, it's certainly up to the record companies to decide how they're going to manage hackers that circumvent the technology in the future. "
I may be naive but I was under the impression that if you've broken the DMCA the record companies no longer have any say in how you are prosecuted - isn't this what happened to Dmitry?
Q.
With DVD players becoming standard fare, how long do you think this practice will last? I only have a DVD player (in the computer and actual standalone unit) so that means that I'm screwed if I actually want to buy a CD anymore. Guess that means I'll have to turn on-line to find music, and we're right back where we started from. These record execs don't seem to understand emerging technology at all.
Your records will still be playable long after your CD's have become obsolete.
What it's meant to do is provide a speed bump to people who don't steal things, and wish to use them in the parameters that are suggested by the artists
Hands up those who believe the artist gets a say in whether their CDs are rendered unusable or not?
Their whole "we are designing the software for the 99 percent of the people who don't want to steal the music" argument is nonsense; it doesn't benefit them.
... if it doesn't work on your computer, can't you just take it back to the store and say "it doesn't work, I want to exchange it"?
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
From the article, it sounds like they do allow some ripping:
Ours is the only copy-protection scheme that doesn't violate fair-use rights...We allow (people) to make copies for their own personal use: for their computer, for their compilation disc and for their MP3 player, so they can have portable use of their music. The only fair use that's left--and it's not fair use at all--is the "fair use" of sending thousands of copies to file-sharing services to be copied hundreds of thousands or millions of times.
I'd like more detail on this. The only way I can imagine them accomplishing what they desribe is having some proprietary app "unlock" the CD. That, of course, would limit the fair use of playing the CD on your favorite non-standard OS. But I'm only guessing.
Does anybody know what their technology actually does? How does is copy protect if you can download (presumably unprotected) MP3s to your portable player?
In the article he said:
The technology that we sell is a padlock to music. If you have a lock cutter, a bolt cutter, you can cut that padlock off. If you're determined to steal the music, the music can be stolen. Our technology is not thief proof. What it's meant to do is provide a speed bump to people who don't steal things, and wish to use them in the parameters that are suggested by the artists...
Ok, cd protection as a speedbump for people who don't steal? Does that make any sense? I doesn't to me!
I mean, if you are only buying cd's and listening to them, then what is the speed bump for? Those people are not ripping and sharing the cds...
And their so-called-protection is to prevent people from ripping the cd's anyways... Sounds like a contradiction to me... I just don't get it.
I'm still waiting for the RIAA and MPAA to go after the software and hardware makers next... I mean, they must know that their products are being used for illegal purposes, so they must be a fault too...
Just wait, it will happen.
Linuxrunner
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
Are the MP3s that they let users download watermarked? Will they actually go after a user if "their" watermarked MP3 showed up in a file-sharing service? Or is just the threat important?
"From our standpoint, we are designing the software for the 99 percent of the people who don't want to steal the music... not for the 1 percent who are going to take the lock cutters and cut the lock off and steal music in an unauthorized way."
If I'm hearing this right, he's basically saying, "Our product doesn't keep people from stealing the music, it just causes hassles for folks who buy music and want to listen to it on their computers."
Where's the reason in that? Who exactly is getting protected here?
~chris
Read the full text my book Perl for the Web
"Still, consumers have not warmed up to the idea of copy-protected CDs."
Hmmmm. I thought we were flaming this idea pretty heavy. Need to switch to Thermite.
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
just boycott the music industry. music is a luxury; we won't die without it. go to concerts if you have to get a music fix.
Q: Do you believe that copy-protection schemes violate fair-use rights?
A:Ours is the only copy-protection scheme that doesn't violate fair-use rights...We allow (people) to make copies for their own personal use: for their computer, for their compilation disc and for their MP3 player, so they can have portable use of their music. The only fair use that's left--and it's not fair use at all--is the "fair use" of sending thousands of copies to file-sharing services to be copied hundreds of thousands or millions of times. That's the only use we've limited and so that's not fair use; it's certainly not fair to the artist.
I'm confused: I can play this on a PC, I can rip it, I can make MP3s. How does the protection scheme actually stop copying? Did I miss something?
"Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
Hes fucking kidding, right? The manner suggested by the artist? So when we listen to a Prince CD we have to wear womens clothing?
What, me worry?
As far as I can tell, there only needs to be one copy made from a CD in order to have the data distributed widely. A better mousetrap will lead to a better mouse. This really makes any attempt to make copying impossible a very futile effort.
The only way I can see a CD not being copied is if it is music that no one at all wants to hear.
-ShelbyCobra
Living life in the right side of the s-plane
...that this guy has fallen into the same trap that most of the media has recently. They believe that the standard model of CD, hard-copy distribution is the ONLY model, and the model that artists want. He seems to take it as given that CDs are the divinely-ordained format for music, that the evolution of players has come to an end.
I hope he goes bankrupt, but not necessarily because he's trying to protect music. It's because he's protecting CDs.
I, of course, used a few p2p music sharers in my day, but you know what? I've filled out everything I want on my playlist, and aside from must-have stuff like the new Cake album, it doesn't change much anymore. On top of that, I bought more CDs after getting Napster than before...it's not a matter of already having the album for me, it's a matter of finding an ENTIRE ALBUM OF GOOD SONGS. If the record labels didn't rush out half-finished crap and charge almost $20 for it, I'd buy lots more CDs...
Co-founder of GerbilMechs
I think this is going to run them into the ground just as the Ebook. They just made the number higher -- by saying you can make six copies instead of two. Granted, it will take longer for people to screw up their machines to run out of their six copies, but the hard limit on the number of copies is always going to run into the same problem -- too low and the consumer is angry, too high and the consumer will give said copies away just to stick it to the industry.
The greater issue -- it's likely that technology can not solve this problem reasonably. Furthermore, the DCMA is not enforcable -- they are going to use it in select cases to scare people into abiding by it. Perhaps, the recording industry should look to create a culture where *gasp* neither the performer nor the consumer feels like they are getting screwed over.
Still an unanswered question: do these 'copy protected' CDs still conform to IEC 908 and can they be legally marked with the compact disc digital audio emblem?
Most of you are wrong. You can play the cd's in your DVD drive, you can play them in your computer, you can use windows cd player if you really want.
YOU CANT READ THE DIRECTORY STRUCTURE. this is not about not letting you play them, its about not letting you digitally rip the files. you can still however rip them in analog (1x record)
play them in your sony walkman, or play them in your sony vaio dvd drive.... its all the same.
Y'know, when I heard Michael Jackson's new single was being distributed on a copy protected CD, I immediately hit the Gnutella net looking for pirated copies. Of course I found several dozen.
I just took another look; it is now several hundred.
CD copy protection won't help prevent music piracy; a few people will always be able to break the protection, and everyone else will download from them. The only people this will inconvenience are the poor schlubs who only want to listen to the song on their Rio players.
It really bugs me that they want to deny my right to make a mix CD. Is that no longer a right? A lot of people legaly (I would think) make mix CD's of their favorite songs but now they will be denied that right or criminalized for even trying.
The protection scheme is stupid. It just slickly breaks the music CD standard, thus confusing some cd programs. Big deal.
I think all someone has to do is read the cd-rom in raw mode and just read all 1152 bytes (or whatever it is) in a full, 'uncooked' sector and you will be able to copy these cd's
yet.
what happens when we don't have a fucking choice? Fair-use seems to be on the way out. What are we going to do when it is all gone?
:( we are going to be forced to buy this shit. Then what do we do?
I have a friend that always buys cd's. This same friend of mine is also an avid video game collector. He does not own a CD player stereo unit, he just plays his cd's on his Playstation. Can he play copy protected cd's on his playstation?
It's my understanding that the CDs will work in regular CD player, but not computer CD players because the computer CD players are build to a different standard. (The regular CD players can ignore the idiosyncrasies that are present on the 'protected' CD and play the music, but the computer CD drivers cannot).
So, how long before CD drive makers market a CD drive that meets both standards (and will read the protected disk)?
And... if a CD driver maker does this, will that break the DCMA's rules?
/. rock
Music Industry is getting everyone up tight..
Look at all these articles and scare tactics they are putting at us. FUD i tell you!!!
Don't let this lull you into a false sense of complacency. It's just being beta tested right now (except for Universal Music). When not enough people complain anymore about not being able to play CDs on their computers (and they will give up soon), some sort of copy protection will show up on every CD ever manufactured.
On the plus side, copy protection is always an arms race and the hackers have the upper hand. Remember when Copy II Plus came out for the Apple II and it could break every single media-based copyprotect scheme that existed at the time? There is still hope.
-sting3r
From the interview -
"From our standpoint, we are designing the software for the 99 percent of the people who don't want to steal the music but instead (want to) use it for whatever means--for whatever personal use that's allowed by the artist and the record label. The software was designed for those people, not for the 1 percent who are going to take the lock cutters and cut the lock off and steal music in an unauthorized way."
So this software is designed to reign in the people who do not "steal" the music anyway? Does that not make this method of "cooy protection" pointless? It seems to me that this guy just admitted his company is ripping off record companies by selling them copy protection schemes that are really no good.
the article claims that the software is for the 99 percent of the customers which aren't 'hackers'. i would guess that more than 1 percent of the customers would try to pay the CD in a CD-ROM or DVD, etc. although it's hard for me to think about such things, as almost everyone i know has a computer.
but, having said that, even my parents use their computer to play CDs now. my wife's grandparents use their computer to play CDs. these are not 'hackers'.
-sam
The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
But this doesn't jive with my father who wants to listen to his music on his computer while surfing the net or my mother who wants to listen to it on her MP3 player. The reason someone buys music is to listen to it. Whether that's on a computer or a portable player shouldn't matter. SunnComms protection scheme definitely does not allow the user to listen to the music with whatever means they want. They know this and they are simply lying to the general public to protect their own image.
If you're right about how it works, and if record labels go for this scheme, it would be painfully ironic ... since what you're describing is almost exactly what they tried to sue mp3.com out of existence for doing.
Their legal arguments notwithstanding, it seems to me that labels don't actually object to the new mp3.com/napster/etc. technologies at all; they just want to go on owning everything in sight.
For instance, the names of the tracks do not appear on a computer's screen, and as a result, the music cannot be ripped and transferred to a desktop.
<p>I really love these simplistic answers, dumbed down so low that a moron could understand it. Right now, I can't recall a time that I've "transferred music to my desktop", especially when the names of the tracks appear on my screen.</p>
<p>Somebody please get rid of this idiot.</p>
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
This guy has a job which is to provide a service to companies. Obviously there is a demand for this type of service. He didn't invent the demand, he merely responded. It sounds to me that he's just doing what economics demand--meet needs.
We rub our greedy little hands and scheme how we can get around this new tool when what we should be doing is pressuring record companies who are demanding this type of protection. We should be economically sanctioning the companies that participate in creating rules that shackle fair-use. Don't buy the Michael Jackson album that has the protection (as if we would)...
Of course we torture people, we need the information --Gen. Pinochet
The article doesn't name names.
I need to know who's going on my shitlist for future purchases. As an aside plea, please see to it that nothing that Bjork releases is ever encumbered by such inane roadblocks to me enjoying music that I purchase on my stereo just because I use a DVD player and someone else might want to make themself a copy of music that they actually own for their personal use, and someone else might want to take a copy of this music and distribute it to the world. The US has long since outlawed cruel and unusual punishment, and that would certainly fit it.
Find and punish criminals, not legitimate paying consumers.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
all ironic since they dont care anything about you....time to step back and think
Sometimes the caffiene simply doesnt help.
'bout a year and a half ago, I bought a copy of Diablo-2. It was copy protected.
/cdrom/foo.file
The copy protection caused data-reads to be corrupted a significant portion of the time. Doing:
% repeat 20 cksum
Would report random numbers about half the time. None of my cdrom drives would read the data 100% accurately.
I returned the game to the store over 5 times, thinking I had a bad disk, or there was a bad run of disks.
Eventually I learned it was "copy protection".
To use the game, I had to make 2 copies of the disk: One without the copy protection, to install the files. And one with the copy protection, to activate the game, in case the original master disk should break.
Last xmas, I bought copies of this game for some friends. For each copy I bought, I had to make 2 more copies, so the recepient could use it christmas day...
What sort of a half-assed broken bullshit system is it that REQUIRES you to produce 2 copies of a cd BEFORE you can use it, all in the name of "copy protection"?
Blizzard is now pretty damn high on my shit list. Warcraft 3 would have to be truly awesome for me to even look at dealing with this crap again!
"What it's meant to do is provide a speed bump to people who don't steal things, and wish to use them in the parameters that are suggested by the artists... Only hackers will attempt to circumvent the technology in order to prove that it can be done. We're not designing the technology for them."
I don't know, from looking at Napster in its heyday it seems NO ONE likes those "parameters" and that there are millions and millions of thieving evil hackers. In fact, their entire customer base...
I think the last question is the key. They are doing the equivalent of ROT-13 to qualify for DMCA protection. From there on, the federal government enforces things. Sad...
[quote]
Ours is the only copy-protection scheme that doesn't violate fair-use rights...We allow (people) to make copies for their own personal use: for their computer, for their compilation disc and for their MP3 player, so they can have portable use of their music.
[/quote]
Explain to me how this can be done if you can't even read it through the comp. Unless of course, you go all out and record the audio, etc etc.
/adam
I know I've set up a few systems for some of the clubs around my area that use computer systems to handle all thier dj'ing. I know from experience that many clubs in major cities are starting to do this as well; mostly because it helps preserve the orignal cd's from becomming scratched and un-usable. Now if the most of the dance, hip-hop and r&b artists decide to go along with this style of copy protection, then the dance clubs will be out on thier ass. I wonder what they will decide to do (both club owners and artists trying to sell thier cds)?
A: The technology that we sell is a padlock to music. If you have a lock cutter, a bolt cutter, you can cut that padlock off. If you're determined to steal the music, the music can be stolen. Our technology is not thief proof.
Umm... so let me get this straight. Those who want fair use (downloading it to their Rio, whatever) can't have it. Those are determined to pirate the music pull out their bit cutters and rip the CD. So basically, you've accomplished the exact opposite.. fair use is discouraged, but piracy is still possible. I think somebody missed the point.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
The record companies WANT media that wears out, it forces you to buy another copy of the music you want.
I love the quote from the article:
So this guy is selling a technology that won't stop thieves, but it will stop users from legitimately copying music from their CDs to their computer hard drives? It sounds like they're tacitly admitting that they're using the guise of "piracy protection" to do what they really want. That is to make music more like software -- eventually if you want to play it in your car and your home stereo, buy two copies of the CD!
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be able to load software onto your computer:
* I have a FireWire hard drive that I use to store all my music, and it's available to all my computers (including across my AirPort wireless network)
* Even within my house, having a hard drive with random access to my entire collection is better than some slow CD jukebox with a crappy UI
* I've had CDs go bad that can't be read (older ones with a lot of paint on them) or have gotten scratched. A copy of the songs on a hard drive provide protection against that degradation
* When I'm travelling, I don't want to bring audio CDs with me. It's easier just have songs on the hard drive
Simply put, I will not buy any CDs that can't be read on my computer -- normally. Some silly copy protection scheme that calls up Microsoft to confirm my credit card receipt every time I want listen to a song doesn't count.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
It appears that they also have some kind of downloadable music format; the player for it apparently checks to see if the CD is present. Their website is maddeningly vague (understandably) and, to add insult to injury, it requires Flash. But there's a mention of using "Microsoft's DRM technology for music downloads".
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Ours is the only copy-protection scheme that doesn't violate fair-use rights...We allow (people) to make copies for their own personal use: for their computer, for their compilation disc and for their MP3 player, so they can have portable use of their music. The only fair use that's left--and it's not fair use at all--is the "fair use" of sending thousands of copies to file-sharing services to be copied hundreds of thousands or millions of times. That's the only use we've limited and so that's not fair use; it's certainly not fair to the artist.
Even if it's bullshit, either this guy or his PR agent has his head pointed in the right direction.
If you can play it, you can copy it. If you have to, do this the old fashioned way: line your cdplayer into your soundcard's line in, and then
record as a wav, then encode to mp3. Geez. This guy is a moron. "I explained to my kids how wrong this is!"
I encourage all of you, to not buy copy protected cd's. We are the consumer, WE decide if a company lives or dies, if a record label lives or dies, or if a artist lives or dies.
As a hacker, I encourage EVERYONE to violate the DMCA as much as possible. In many ways as possible. Tell your grandma how to violate it. Have her rip cd's and pass them out on the street. Defeat encryption schemes and copywrite protection. Only thru sheer numbers of cases, will we truly get this shit thrown out of law. They cannot prosecute millions. Right now, they are de facto - nobody has the resources to truly challenge and win. If we stand together tho, work as a team, we can defeat the DMCA. We can boycott record companies. Their propoganda "sales are down" is complete bullshit. Sales rocketed up after the mainstreaming of napster, and then sales declined due to the closing of napster, AND of course, economic decline all over.
Don't let them lie to you. Violate the DMCA at will. If they lock us all up, then noone will be around to buy their stupid shit.
Continuity, DMCA Killer.
Our technology is not thief proof. What it's meant to do is provide a speed bump to people who don't steal things, and wish to use them in the parameters that are suggested by the artists...If you give people what they want with respect to their ability to copy the music in ways that they think is reasonable, they will not ever attempt to circumvent the technology. Only hackers will attempt to circumvent the technology in order to prove that it can be done.
What in the world does that mean? To me he seems to be saying that he's trying to prevent law abiding, honest people from making a backup copy with poorer sound quality (MP3) on their computer or portable MP3 player, but he's doing nothing to stop the "hackers" who will steal the music and then publish it on the web... this seems ridiculously backwards. I think it's awful that record companies and the music industry are moving towards not allowing indivuduals to make digital backups of their cd's. Is this an attempt to stop people from making a CD with all of their favorite songs on it from their album collection, so we'll be forced to buy those cheezy greatest hits albums off TV? Apparently they don't care if people steal the music and distribute it all over the place, but if you're just a normal person who doesn't "wish to steal things," they don't want you to be able to use what you purchased. I sure hope somebody stops this.
~ now you know
This isnt copyright protection, this is control of the digital contect of what you own. If they can lock it down, so they can control how and when you use media, then expect a lot of bad things. Prices skyrocketing, no more buying and owning cd's, only renting, or licensing them for a period of time. With digital media comes the ability to copy, but also the ability of corporations to control the contect in a way that is profitable for them.
"Someone better come up with a way to get better and better at protecting the rights of the artists, because without doing that, I think that the art and the ability to distribute the art goes away. If somebody can show me that I'm wrong, I'll be out of this business in two days. But I don't think that I'm wrong."
Napster was the ULTIMATE distribution center, we NON-CD purchasers could finally find complete albums that were decent instead of CDs with 2 good songs and 14 pieces that a 3yr old with kitchen utensils could sound better than(vocals included). FIRST think about the needs and wants of the LISTENERS...find out WHAT they want and start providing it instead of just flooding the market with shitty CD's that have 1 or 2 good songs...
As for the 'art' going away...who the hell is he trying to kid? maybe we'll get more quality instead of quantity...is that so bad? I think not, I think it is what needs to happen to the music/record industry...they have enjoyed exploiting listeners for long enough, and it's time we all stood up for our rights.
"Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
In May, SunnComm provided anti-copying technology on a CD release by veteran country music singer Charley Pride. But before the CD was shipped to U.S. stores by Nashville, Tenn.-based Music City Records, free copies of the songs appeared on the Internet. Eight of the 15 songs ... were posted on a private Web page hosted by Yahoo.
... after they were taken down, all 3 of the people who downloaded the files swamped SunnComm's complaint lines...
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
This is what I want everyone to do about this situation. If accidentally buy a copyrighted cd make sure you listen to the whole thing, but while you are doing that copy the audio to your computer.(by feeding the speaker output to the input on your soundcard) This is like when you used to copy records to tapes when you were a kid. It could take up to an hour or so but you'll have your digital copy. Then return the cd to the store, and make sure you tell the clerk you returned it because it is copyrighted. If everyone is returning those cds the record companies wont mess with that shit for very long. They are worried about their money more than anything else.
First the guy says you can't even play it in a cd-rom but later in the interview hes like u can make 6 copies. how am i gonna make a copy of a cd my dr-rom won't recognize. this guy is talking in circles and what a pansy "i didnt inhale" sure u didnt bill
Matt
That's the effect of most criminal laws these days, unfortunately. Speed limits, gun registration, age limits on alcohol, etc.
Does anyone think this was inevitable? Let's assume (in some mythical different dimension) that illegally-distributed music isn't a problem for the industry. Digital piracy, in this hypothetical world, is minimal enough to not alarm the record companies.
Do you think they would go ahead and slip in these copy protection technologies for the hell of it...as a preventive measure? Meaning, do you think that regardless of the current climate, would the major labels have implemented these measures as time went along?
"All mankind is at the mercy of a handful of neurotics". - Norman Douglas
Hope thet helps the artists get to know the REAL numbers of record sales.
Nah, probably that's not part of business policy.
Joe
*sigh*
Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again....
You get nothing for nothing.
But you should expect it when you're backseat driving and your hands aren't on the wheel, dude.
Now, it's easy to go along with the crowd. But the thing is -- you find later on what you say isn't allowed.
And, as every geek knows, that's the way to find what you've been missing.
Whatever. I'm heading out to the highway.
Got a full tank of hot grits and a penis bird in the glove box.
1. you have the right to not buy any CD recorded by an artist you think sucks.
2. you have the right to not buy any CD sold by a company you think sucks.
-sam
The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
This is typical geek issue that's being blown way out of proportion.
What do 99% of all CD buyers do with CDs? They listen to them in CD players at home and in the car. Then there's the 1% of people who put audio CDs in their CD-ROM drives. Some of those people are actually listening to them at work using their $2000 computer instead of a $50 CD player. Most of them, though, are ripping the files, especially from CDs that they borrowed from fellow office workers or dorm mates.
The bottom line is that record companies aren't doing anything that interferes with what CDs are designed for. The people who are complaining are, as is the norm for these kind of topics, cash-poor students who use ripping as a primary method of getting new music. You can try to bring up other exotic justifications ("making mix CDs"), but they're too irrelevant to bring up. This cannot be considered any kind of breach of civil rights. Heck, if you want to record a friend's copy protected CD on to audio tape, no one is stopping you.
The copy protection does make things harder, but one of its crucial features is the fact it makes fair use activities ILLEGAL.
From the article: "Peter Jacobs faces a daunting challenge: convincing millions of music fans that he's not a policeman."
And when asked about if someone bypasses the "protection" scheme:
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits users from circumventing copy protection. It's now a crime in America to do that."
And he says he's not a cop, but his technology now means the cops and courts can come after you for doing what used to be legal. They take away our rights using technology, we try to take them back, again using technology, and we are punished by the gov't! If they are allowed to use technology to stop us, we should be allowed to use technology to protect our rights.
Remember, connecting an digital out to a digital in will circumvent the protection, but it won't circumvent the statuatory damages ($250 - $2000, no proof of you profiting or them being harmed is required - they ask for it and the court grants it), it won't circumvent "actual damages" (whatever Judge Kaplan and similar thinking judges want to steal from you and give to the RIAA) and it won't circumvent you being locked in a cage for 5 years of your life.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Hand it to the recording industry to complete piss off there buyers. I WILL NEVER BUY A COPY PROTECTED CD! I strongly suggest that people boycott, email, write letters, and call recording companies and demand this practice be stopped or no new sales PERIOD! Money doesn't talk, it screams!
"Yes, I have. I've used Napster, and both my kids have used Napster...I (also) smoked once but I didn't inhale..."
What is this guy trying to do? run for president?
SunnComm embeds a technology, called MediaCloq, into a CD to make the CD's directory structure invisible so it cannot be read by a personal computer. For instance, the names of the tracks do not appear on a computer's screen, and as a result, the music cannot be ripped and transferred to a desktop.
:-P
I'm at a loss for words. Never before have I read such an elegant and technically accurate description of the ripping process.
i think that is the most telling remark about the attitudes and models that this company is trying to support and nurture. it's a real shame that this mindset is still so strong in the industry.
check out my comic: Essential Tremors
Since only hackers will copy music and under new proposed guidelines. Violation of the DCMA by circumventing the copy protection to make a backup copy, fair use is punishable by life imprisonment. Also the new proposed rules are retroactive, so being on that Napster user list could be used as evidence against you.
Welcome to the fourth reich.
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
this clown is so full of crap. he's sugar-coating his real intend. the goal of the record companies, his customers, is to eliminate every fair use that could possible to used in a way they don't agree with--it doesn't even have to be direct copyright violation. they don't want you playing cds in your computer at all for the risk of copying the music, or at the very least, you'll have to use some secure cd player program.
he can bullshit consumers with promises of keeping fair use intact, but in the end, it's the record company he has to make happy. i hope this clown fails, and fails big. sad part is, he probably won't.
This is like saying that a CCTV system is for monitoring the 99 percent of people that don't commit crimes. Utter nonsense.
There's only two explanations for repeated use of such obviously flawed logic - the CEO of SunnComm is either an idiot or a liar. I say both for thinking that it would pass anyone by without ringing alarm bells.
I was expecting some evil severed head to be the focus of this piece, given its title.
Oh well, we may feel like these things are created by giant, evil aliens deep in the earth's crust sometimes...
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
"The technology that we sell is a padlock to music. If you have a lock cutter, a bolt cutter, you can cut that padlock off."
AND
"If you give people what they want with respect to their ability to copy the music in ways that they think is reasonable, they will not ever attempt to circumvent the technology."
So i I buy my kids the new NiN CD (ok, ok, Britney Spears), Can I, or Can't I copy it? I copy CD's for my kids, and store the originals (Games too) So when they screw it up touching it with their grubby little hands, I can make another copy and have not lost anything. This wasn't a problem with Records or Cassettes..
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits users from circumventing copy protection. It's now a crime in America to do that."
So I CANNOT do this? But I thought:
"If you give people what they want with respect to their ability to copy the music in ways that they think is reasonable, they will not ever attempt to circumvent the technology."
There never WAS any technology to circumvent in the past, but because of the fragility of CD's. It's become necessary to do what was never done in the past, therefore technology that did not exist initially will now be circumvented to continue to do things we've been allowed to do for years.
I think what I've been doing is reasonable, but you've added a padlock to prevent me from doing it. So IS this copy protection or not?
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
The technology that we sell is a padlock to music. If you have a lock cutter, a bolt cutter, you can cut that padlock off.
There's that bullshit analogy again. Well duh, I'm going to cut the lock off anything I buy and put in my own home. If I bought a 2-slice toaster and it had a lock across one of the holes (upgrade to our Professional Toaster Pro and get the key) there is an incentive for me to cut it off!
Combine that with the fact that "Software encapsulates skill" as Bruce Schneier (sp) says, and everybody who wants to, will cut the lock off. Painting people who do this as hackers is missing the mark.
Of course let's not forget, bolt cutters ARE PERFECTLY LEGAL to own and use in your own home. Of course you can commit a crime with them but you will be punished for your crime, not for owning bolt cutters!
Actually if I got one of these MEDIA-COCK CDs I would probably just return it and then Napster myself a copy. Or smash it to bits and mail it to Peter Jacobs.
Okay, CD, is all a one or a zero, nothing more, nothing less. *ANY* software designed to read a cd in RAW mode will be able to pick up the individual tracks, and rip them to HDD.
They missed a vital point. Only *ONE* person has to do this, and the mp3's will spread faster than locusts. Becuase the average Joe wont even know of copy protection on cds, will still look for his songs he wants online.
Its not like hes gonna found out its copy protected and think, "Oh, looks like Ill have to buy the cd now". MP3's brought in a NEW way of listening, distributing music. Enforcement of OLD copy protection on NEW methods is NOT going to work.
My 2 cents.
Carpe Noctem -=- Seize The Night
If you're determined to steal the music, the music can be stolen. Our technology is not thief proof. What it's meant to do is provide a speed bump to people who don't steal things, and wish to use them in the parameters that are suggested by the artists...
I'm confused. Is this an out-right lie or a really bad analogy?
First of all, I just have to state that I am very offended that I am being labelled as a THEIF simply because I would like to exercise my fair use rights.
Second, it's not just a "speed bump" against my fair use rights. A "speed bump" would mean it merely slows me down. This "speed bump" is an assault on my rights and an insult to my character. It also makes me a felon under the DMCA and I'm definitely not down with that.
"Hi, my CD-ROM drive is broken."
"What problems are you having?"
"I can't play my Michael Jackson CD. It works fine in my stereo, but not in my computer."
.. 10 minutes later
"Well, that sucks."
"Sorry we couldn't help you, do you have any other questions?"
"Yeah, why can't you kiss prostitutes?"
Anyway.. I can see this type of scenario becoming an annoying problem.
Stupider like a fox! - H.S.
Somebody already said this, but read page 2. If what they are saying is true, then you should have no problem. I am a little unclear myself on how they can let me burn my compilation CDs (90% of why I buy music) w/out letting me upload an unprotected copy (not something I would plan to do in any case). Also how does a read only medium "know" how many copies I've ripped?
I find the speed bump analogy in the interview interesting, because speed bumps are also devices that punish the legitimate users. Doesn't matter how slowly you drive over them, you're still being punished. Sure, they might discourage someone from driving like crazy, but the people that we going to are probably just going to drive really fast between bumps and slow down at the last minute.
So they are only doing this copy protection mechanism to the people that don't realy want to make ilegal copy of the music.
Because, as they admit, a realy commited burglar can retrieve it with a small extra effort.
Isn't it logical? They harass us with this shit, and it won't help the pirates to copy the cds!
Yes... the world is a logical thing!
:-)
Long live TUX!
okay. pc sound cards have audio in/out jacks. cd and dvd players, similarly, have audio in/out jacks. if you connect the audio out on your cd player to the audio in on your sound card? i mean... whatever. has no one at the RIAA ever visited a radio shack? encrypt my ergo-flattened ass.
Note to the RIAA: if it can be heard on A set of speakers, it can be heard on ANY set of speakers. Your attempts to control and alter this defeats your very existence.
Yah, what he said is pretty much par for the course from Big Media. Guys like this piss me off. From the article:
"Ours is the only copy-protection scheme that doesn't violate fair-use rights...We allow (people) to make copies for their own personal use: for their computer, for their compilation disc and for their MP3 player, so they can have portable use of their music. The only fair use that's left--and it's not fair use at all--is the "fair use" of sending thousands of copies to file-sharing services to be copied hundreds of thousands or millions of times. That's the only use we've limited and so that's not fair use; it's certainly not fair to the artist"
waitaminit... This is a bit contradictory. You haven't stopped the distribution of copies, you've prevented copying outright. I can't copy this to my MP3 player, or in my Philips CD recorder, or for my computer. Furthermore, did anyone actually ask the artist? I don't think anyone told Charley Pride that he was in mortal danger of being ripped off, and asked him if he wanted copy protection. Or, if someone did, I'm willing to bet my left testicle that the someone spun it in such a way that "evil hackers will pirate your music, thus ripping you off."
And of course, if artists don't get paid, they won't produce. Yah, I'm sure that Van Gogh knew his paintings would be worth millions, so he just cranked them out. Or that da Vinci really wanted fame and fortune, which is why most of his works went unsold and were done for personal benefit, oh wait, that doesn't make sense. I know! It's why we have all these little garage bands in my area that perform nightly all over the Dallas metroplex and have day jobs and aren't really interested in making it big, because they like to play music, oh crap, I'm undermining my own argument.
RRRRRR!!!!! THIS SHIT PISSES ME OFF!!!
have I mentioned I hate these evil corporate bastards?
You can't have strong cryptography on a mass produced product. The record companies are trying to use the DMCA as a club to get by with weak cryptography. The alternative would be to use strong cryptography, requiring a customized product for every person, and registration to acquire the key. I think it will actually come to this. It only hasn't yet, because: one -- it would be too expensive (currently); two -- the buying public would be too resistant. It is probably not an intended strategy (but then again maybe it is), but if they keep making their products crappy enough, with enough wailing about the hacker community, then they, the media companies, will probably be able to get the public to go along with registering every media purchase, and wrap it up in the American Flag and Apple Pie to boot.
Letter To Iran
He's _hoping_ to make $200 million a year off the music industry? That's it?
I hope he starts to realise how much money goes into the coffers of the large music houses compared to his and the artists' and starts thinking about telling them to drop the price on CDs a little. Now _that_ would help copy protection issues.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Windows Media Audio is a loser. Nobody wants it, nobody uses it and Microsoft just keeps trying to screw you with it. MP3 won, and MP3 Pro will finish it off. If their ever was more evidence that Microsoft uses a monopolistic position to bully its way around, I don't know what is.
You gotta like someone with the cajones to make
two contradictory statements one right after
another.
He insists that their tech preserves "fair use" rights and then says the only wait to use
the copies you make of the music is to keep the original cd in your machine.
Now THERE's a useful redefining of a copy. Hmmm.. if it doesn't work without the original cd around then it's not a copy is it? It might as
well be a Windows shortcut to the cd drive. It would save space.
just because his idea is so fucking stupid. And look at the guy: probably drives a Lexus to the golf course every day. Is this the guy you want controlling your music collection?
Yeah, yeah, I'm preaching to the choir, but hell, what is Slashdot for?
Yeah, this guy is a real hero to the recording artists out there. Check this statement out:
.
"Yes, I have. I've used Napster, and both my kids have used Napster."
What this guy is saying is that while he was downloading Jim Nabor's songs during his permanent unemployment from the DJ business he realized that those recording industry executives probably didn't like this whole file sharing thing.
Being that most of these execs are still convinced that there is a really small needle that is used to play compact discs he realized that there is probably a lot of money in creating a "copy protection scheme" for audio CD's using a technology that uses a lot of technojargon with just a hint of smoke and mirrors
By the time this copy protection gets bypassed by someone in his youngest childs daycare class he would have already pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars and can then work on the latest release of his product which uses higher quality mirrors and a different color smoke.
Bravo to him for moving from turntable flunky to recording company fleecer.
Oh, and a correction. Those aren't speedbumps, those are the folks that are buying CD's and trying to use them in a legal fashion.
Our technology is not thief proof. What it's meant to do is provide a speed bump to people who don't steal things, and wish to use them in the parameters that are suggested by the artists...
So they're making it harder for regular people to use CDs, but people who want to pirate still can? Doesn't the "If guns are illegal, only criminals will own them" argument apply here?
--trb
"we are designing the software for the 99 percent of the people who don't want to steal the music"
Anyone else noticed how the record companies are in the 1% that steals music. Ok well maybe its legal theft, but its no better than the antique dealer who will only give you $1 for your ugly old 15th century table with matching chairs. Record companies have a far better idea of what music is worth than the musicians do when they first get signed.
Notice what artists have actually made money. Aerosmith, Madonna, Recently TLC. Each of these artists remained popular after their contracts ran out, and thats when the money started to really come in. I am not talking about the thousands that artist get when they first get popular, (which most of them waste on women/drugs/fast cars/ect.) after their contracts ran out they start making millions.
I just have issues that when I buy a CD, The store gets $5, the warehouse gets $1, the CD Factory gets $2, and the record company gets $8, and the artist gets $0.25. I bet if I just start downloading all my music of then net and send a check for $10 made out to the artist, I would be happy, (Its Cheaper for me), the artist would be happy (they would get more money), and the record company would be red in the face because their "we are protecting the artists" line would be invalid. The only defense they would have after that is "We are protecting our investment.", a statement with which no one would sympathize, but is the real truth.
Slashdot is an anagram for Has Dolts, and I am Dolt number 468543
"The software was designed for those people, not for the 1 percent who are going to take the lock cutters and cut the lock off and steal music in an unauthorized way."
OK, Has anyone heard of 'Authorized Stealing'? Media company lingo for fair-use maybe?
*cough*
Looks like I spoke prematurely. He goes into more detail on the second page. Of course...I'd like to know how to copy a CD without it being in the CD drive of the computer with the burner in it.
"All mankind is at the mercy of a handful of neurotics". - Norman Douglas
They say that it is not to prevent the hacker from ripping the CD, and most users don't want to rip it anyway... So what exactly is this doing? It prevents users (whom the guy in the article is quoted as saying don't pirate) from pirating, but hackers (aka people with half a clue) can circumvent this crap, and make a copy...
So what the hell is the point of this copy protection? It's too simple to be effective against someone determined, and the only people it would really stop from pirating would be people who don't even know how to run a computer... WTF??? What kind of a messed up concept is this?
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
from what i understand, if i own the gate, the lock, and the bolt cutters i can cut that bolt to pieces without breaking any laws. are we now just licensing music? i don't agree to any licenses when i purchase music, so how can i not have fair use of a piece of non-animate hardware? what's next, an EULA for purchasing a cd?
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
This technology is not really about protection, it's about providing the RIAA with a legal weapon.
In the article, he says it's not going to stop anyone that's determined to break it, it's designed for the person who is not a thief. Then he says some other stuff about the DMCA, and fair use.
If their system allows the song to get on a computer, then it won't be a week before the tools to convert those files are readily available, just as DeCSS is now.
So, they know their technology will be broken, they're just trying to be a pain in the ass for people who are not trying to break the law, and a big legal mallet for those that are (allowing the RIAA to take people to court because they broke a protection scheme, therefore they are felons).
I don't see him as a cop. I like cops.
Only hackers will attempt to circumvent the technology in order to prove that it can be done.
Those nefarious, evil bastards.
We're not designing the technology for them.
Oh, good. So I guess it's ok if we break it then. Yoink!
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits users from circumventing copy protection. It's now a crime in America to do that. Having said that, it's certainly up to the record companies to decide how they're going to manage hackers that circumvent the technology in the future.
And all this time I thought that it was the legal system's job to deal with law-breakers. I stand corrected: I guess the record companies are now charged with handling our laws.
From our standpoint, we are designing the software for the 99 percent of the people who don't want to steal the music but instead (want to) use it for whatever means--for whatever personal use that's allowed by the artist and the record label.
Oh, so the law no longer governs the fair use of a purchased item, now the record companies have that power. Hm. This must be an extension of the fact that the record companies are now making and enforcing our laws. I guess this also means that a person no longer owns the items they buy. So what is the law now? Do we just pay for the privilege of using said items?
The software was designed for those people, not for the 1 percent who are going to take the lock cutters and cut the lock off and steal music in an unauthorized way.
Hey! You mean there's an authorized way of stealing music?
How many copies do you allow people to make?
It's up to the record company, but six is the standard right now.
Right, cause if I'm making more than six copies, I must be pirating it. And the record companies are really trustworthy, so we should let them decide.
Perhaps this is the source of the mental blocks people have when they stand against fair-use and creating technologies like this. They seem to think the record labels should have absolute power over what the user does with an item they purchased and now own.
Why are you in this business? It's not a market that would make someone rich,
Oh no, of course not. How many billions of dollars a year are music sales? How much would the music companies pay to ensure that they couldn't be copied? How many protection schemes have already been tried? How many have already failed? Do you notice how they keep trying? Uh-huh, this is definitely a losing market, no money here.
The problem is, if digital property just becomes public domain the minute it's released, then the whole incentive model for distributing that property goes away.
It doesn't become public domain, it's still protected by law and owned by the creator. If I create a machine and start selling it, is the design now public domain? No, of course not. Where is this guy from? Mars?
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
hehe, jim nabor's songs....hehehe, that's funny. but having uses the very thing he wants to stop other people from using, wouldn't he be MAJOR-HYPOCRITE-MAN?
...is to leave the CD blank. Tape recorders, MD Recorders, and MP3 recorders can all record CD audio, and all can be used to make copies. This man is an idiot.
is that he talks about how the 1% diehards will be able to break it no matter what. He then mentions Napster, but doesn't see the connection. If 1 person can break it, and it gets posted or put on Napster, then it will propagate. And anyone who wants a copy will get a copy.
Aside: hey people, frickin read the article! It mentions being able to load songs on your mp3 player, etc. No idea how it works, but it bears mentioning. They have a pretense of Fair-Use.
He says many times that the copy protection scheme is designed to stop the 99% majority, NOT the 1% of hackers. i.e. the 99% of people who don't offer their files over Napster will not be able to do so (darn!), but the 1% who already do still will be able to. What a great investment this technology was.
The guy has had his PR training, but what a fscking joke. Anyone who suggests that you have to download a music clip (and I bet it's not MP3) just to listen to it from a CD is smoking a particularly strong brand of crack. What, he never heard of laptops? On airplanes? Or dial-up connections where internet access is so slow that a download is impossible?
I hope this guy goes bankrupt, and sooner rather than later.
sulli
RTFJ.
... most of them will also be happy with rips from decent analog sources. Companies can invest entire GNPs into research on how to prevent it, but analog ripping will be an option for a long, long time.
This whole anti-piracy push seems to be a sign of companies that have reached the apex of their business plan, where growth has stagnated. So they're trying to squeeze a few more growth percent fractions out of stolen music, but what after that? How are they going to maintain growth after achieving zero piracy? I guess the next big thing will be perishable media, forcing you to re-buy the same things again and again. Circuit City was the pioneer there with DIVX, may they all share its fate.
He says they are providing speed bumps for the people who want to use CD legally and providing copy protection against the people who won't want to copy the CD...
He also says that his technology won't work against people who want to circumvent it...
So he hinders the law abiding citizen and ignores the thief.
The value of this is...?
Go figure.
What annoys me the most about these kinds of copy protection schemes is how they limit me, the average consumer who does buy my music. I spend 9 months out of the year away at college. Frankly, I don't want to take apart my entire stereo and cart it back and forth every year. It's a pain in the ass, and I just know that something would sooner or later get broken. My solution? Play all my CD's in my computer. I paid $2000 for this thing, I damn well better be able to do more than type papers on it.
Furthermore, I like to rip a lot of my lesser used CD's to .mp3 so that I don't also have to bring my entire collection of >200 CD's to school each year. That is just another invitation for something to get lost or broken. Not to mention, I don't have enough room in the car for all that crap.
Oh yeah. I also like to run. (Yes, I am a geek who likes to get exercise.) But you know what I like to do when I run? Listen to music. Music on my solid state mp3 player that will not skip as I run. Let me rephrase that: I like to listen to my legally purchased music on my mp3 player while I run.
I'm not going to lie and say that I've never used Napster. I have, and I probably do have a few mp3's for which I do not own the CD. But for the vast majority of my mp3 collection I also have the CD's to accompany them. All the record companies are doing is serving to piss off people like me. People who do buy their music, but who wish to listen to it in a device other than a standard CD player. In fact, if I ever purchase a CD that I cannot play in my computer, I will return it. And then do you know what I will do? I will turn around and download the mp3's off my favorite p2p file sharing utility, because I have every confidence that despite whatever copy protection methods the record companies try to use, the mp3's will always be out there. After all, if I can't listen to my legally purchased music in the device of my choice, why should I pay to listen to that CD at all. If you're going to treat me like a criminal, then I may as well act like one.
Although, I must say that I am certainly glad that I am not a Michael Jackson or Charley Pride fan, because I loath the day when the record companies force me to actively pirate music just to listen to it on my preferred listening devices.
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
Yeah, god forbid you take a chance or something.
More whining from the digital generation.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
The only thing this copy protection will do is turn your average user into a pirate. Because he can:
A> Buy your protected cd and not be able to play it in certain devices.
or
B> Download the tracks off a P2P share and burn his own cd that he can play anywhere.
I use shares and I also buy cds. If I saw a cd in a store that I wanted but it was "protected", I'd just pass it over and get it off the shares.
I don't pirate to rip people off, I pirate for convienence. Protected cds are going to be inconvienent.
Buy a CD that uses this technology. Open it. Guess what? It doesn't play on your computer. Bring it back. Let the store exchange it for a new CD (they hate to give your money back). Keep returning these defective CD's until they DO give your money back.
The stores will just LOVE flooding their inventory with opened CD's.
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
You have bought hook, line and sinker into the Geek stereotype if you believe "This is typical geek issue that's being blown way out of proportion."
Replying out of order, you state You can try to bring up other exotic justifications ("making mix CDs"), but they're too irrelevant to bring up. I may be a Geek, but my mom, a Protestant minister, has made about 12 of those "exotic" mix CDs to date from her 200+ CD collection. I know, I had to show her how to do it on her PC. I also have three friends, besides myself, who've made compilation CDs (GASP! from their own CD collection!). I guess these examples are just too irrelevant to bring up...
You state "Heck, if you want to record a friend's copy protected CD on to audio tape, no one is stopping you." Also, if you want to record your own copy-protected CD onto your computer, onto another CD for your office, car or other location, I guess you're screwed even though these are Fair Use rights too, just like dubbing to tape. God forbid anyone wants to duplicate their own property for Personal Use.
You state "The people who are complaining are, as is the norm for these kind of topics, cash-poor students who use ripping as a primary method of getting new music." It wouldn't in a hundred years have Anything to do with the fact that the demographics you describe are also most likely hackers who are -way- ahead of the general public when it comes to tech issues like this, as opposed to say, my mom the minister? The reason Joe Sixpack isn't complaining is because this news is -not- getting widespread, traditional media coverage (yet). That leaves techies...
I can refute every stinking sentence of your Corporate Shill post, but I have to go back to work. I think I'll just slip my Radiohead compilation into the Dell desktop I have to use.
Please try to see both sides of an argument before posting.
So, they're designing it to annoy the 99% of people who want to legitimately purchase the music and make a legal fair-use backup copy or who want to copy it to their computer for use while storing the CD as the backup archive?
So, they admit that the people who will make an active effort to steal the music will hardly be hampered by this at all.
What a sales pitch! We'll stop the people who don't steal, and we won't stop the people who do. Now, could someone explain just why anyone is paying them for this technology?
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
I dont like this at all, he says that this doesn't violate fair-use rights, but I say it does. My opinion of fair-use rights is that I want to be able to play the record in any way I want (in a computer, on a dvd-player etc.). And also to put it on another media, like a minidisc or in my mp3-player. I even want to make a copy for my personal use. Ok, he says that you can make 6 copies of the record, but he also said "I (also) smoked once but I didn't inhale...", yeah right, what a hero eh? I wonder how they does to limit the number of copies that can be made to 6 when you cant write to the original cd in the first place. How does the cd know that it has been copied 6 times?
What I heard about this matter it certainly not seems to be able to copy the record at all, put it on another media or anything else that duplicates it contents...
So what does he really want? I think he's just a guy who wants to get _alot_ of money from the record companies. Just consider the fact that he says "we are designing the software for the 99 percent of the people who don't want to steal the music". I think that if 99% of the ppl don't steal it, why bother doing the copyprotection in the first place. He also says the income for his company will be about $200 million revenue because of this!!
I think that most of the people that copies records from friends or so, doesn't afford (or doesnt want) to buy the original anyway, so it all evens out in the end.
2 reptiles beneath your current threshold.
First he says you can't rip the cd, next he says you can make copies for your mp3 player.
How do you do that without ripping?
Cnet has an article that talks about some studios releasing the music in "protected" CD format and Windows Media format for those crazy people who want to play it on their (MS) computer.
There, see, problem solved.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
I would like to see some numbers on how much of the (supposedly) recovered revenue is actually going to artists.
This is just a scam and it has been since say one.
Easiest way to break it? A stereo-splitter cable.
$2 cable hooks up to the headphone jack on one end, and the microphone jack on the other.
Plus, existed before copy protected CD's, and DMCA, and has many other redeeming uses. Go stero tech!
Its simple. You the consumer have the ability to cripple RIAA members, hit 'em where it hurts most, BOYCOTT CDs. Corporations WILL bow to consumers when the consumers en masse stop purchasing their products. THEN let the whiney artists, and greedy record companies cry in their beers.
The software was designed for those people, not for the 1 percent who are going to take the lock cutters and cut the lock off and steal music in an unauthorized way.
So what is the authorized way to steal music?
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.
You can try to bring up other exotic justifications ("making mix CDs"), but they're too irrelevant to bring up.
Huh? Have you bought a CD in the last 5 years? There's only one or two good songs on each album these days, if you're lucky. Not everyone out there can afford a 125 disc changer for their car, so us commonfolk get a cd burner and take all of our CD's and create our own CD's with the songs we actually WANT to hear. The record industry is just a bunch of bastards who want to continue to produce crap at the rate of as much as possible per day (just look at Cash Money Records as an example - the day after Juvenile's first song got really big there were 15 albums out by Cash Money, and they all sucked.) Anyway, letter of the law aside, the moral obligation of the music industry is to entertain people for a price, and if those poeple pay that price then they should be able to use what they buy, as long as they don't try and sell it to others.
~ now you know
If the disc is labeled with the compact disc logo, it's supposed to be compliant with the specification. If it is not compliant (and NONE of the copy protected stuff is...), it's either fraudulently labeled or the disc is defective.
Run this one past them- do they willingly sell defective products? If they don't make the above point to them and see how fast they give your money back to you. They NEVER want the impression of knowingly selling fraudulent or defective products to the consumers. Bad for business and could bring on lawsuits like the one against these people on them.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
The software was designed for those people, not for the 1 percent who are going to take the lock cutters and cut the lock off and steal music in an unauthorized way.
:)
Since when have we had authorized ways to steal? I'm sure the other 99% would like to know
See this article: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-201-7320279-0.htm l
At least in some cases, the tracks are WMA. So even this level of so-called fair use is not available for non-Windows users. I don't know if the guy being interviewed above is part of the WMA-using company or not.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
All of our discussions so far have focused on ripping/storing/playing these CD's via PC drives. What about the new dual well audio cd recorders?
I bet Sony, Phillips, Pioneer, etc. are getting a bit of heartburn over the recent surge in copy protection news.
- If we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made out of meat? - Steven Wright
They take away our rights using technology
When did I see in the Constitution that I had a right to make illegal copies of other peoples' work?
I listen to mp3s. The vast majority of which I don't own the cd for. I realize it's wrong and I can rationalize that "nobody loses money because I wouldn't have bought the cd anyway" all day. That doesn't mean it's legal, let alone a right (there's a huge potential for educating people that legal does not equal a right).
The DMCA opens a very broad door that I don't think should be open the way it currently is. However, assuming that because you disagree with a law and you feel it can be used against you in unfair ways means you get to ignore. If you're making legitimate copies of cds for fair use, you're part of a small minority and I feel for you.
Most of us aren't.
This guy goes on about how only 1% of the people out there are hard core music pirates that will have the diligence and know-how to defeat the protection schemes, but what happens when these skilled CD ripping individuals put the ripped tracks on Morpheus/Gnutella/(insert favorite P2P file sharing app here)? Then the 40% of us who are the casual pirates have the music just like before.
Most of us never rip our own tracks. We get them over the net and share them over the net. It only takes one person to rip a song to get the song beyond the copy-protected barrier for everyone.
The ultimate plays for Madden 2006
No. They don't. The Red Book standard makes quite rigid statements on how a CD should be organized. Within the framework of Red Book any CD is copyable. However, I don't remember any case of anyone actually being charged for incorrect use of the logo.
There is absolutely no reason to panic.
What in the world is a "protected" digital copy? Jacobs later talks about setting up some kind of monthly fee music service that will dispense wares "of lesser quality, like MP3 quality," as if MP3s were inherently inferior. Is access to poor quality junk his idea of fair use? Once I have that piece of junk, what's to keep me from making as many coppies as I feel like?
This is just more of the same BS from the people who once held a five company oligarchy over the publication of popular culture. It's over and all these efforts to turn back the clock are doomed to fail. I'm not going to buy it, and most people already don't. It's 2001, but the airwaves are filled with the same old music you grew up with or the radio station goes bankrupt. Why can't these clowns figure out that demand is low because their product sucks?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Until They realize this is an easy probelm to solve. All They have to do is change what the standard says. They have the money to do it...
It's called misrepresentation of a product, otherwise known as fraud. In this case, the product was labeled with a specific logo, indicating that the contents of the disc in question could be played on a digital audio disc player (The Philips CD-DA logo...)- when, in fact, it couldn't properly be played under those conditions.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
You have the same problem with computer games. However, I had a game that didn't work and I emailed the stores general manager and told him it didn't work. He let me return it for store credit. So you just have to talk to the right person. If that doesn't work, you can always exchange it for another copy of the same CD. Be an ass and keep doing this until they get the point
DefTonez scheme is simple. They turn all of the tracks on a CD into static garbage. This makes it impossible for hackers to aquire listenable songs on their computers and distribute them online. In fact, this even prevents people from recording onto tapes or other media directly, as the sound waves themselves are modified.
DefTonez CEO, Maximillion Profitz, describes his technology as being designed for 99% of all music consumers. "Most people probably only listen to one song on the CD anyway, and are too hard of hearing from listening to all that heavy metal crap to tell the difference between static and the crappy Backdoor Boys stuff they are used to listening to."
When inquired about those who complain about the music being "defective," Profitz replied, "These people are not in the majority of 99% of all listeners. These people who complain about 'not being able to listen to the music' are nothing more than social ingrates who want a free ride. Our lawyers are already using the DMCA to make sure these people get 5 to 20 in ass pounding federal prison. Any responsible American knows that artists would never take the risk of allowing people to actually let people have a copy of their music that would allow them to play it in public, where many people who have not paid lisencing fees might hear it."
When asked if consumers would seriously spend $20 on a CD they couldn't listen to, Profitz answered, "People have been shelling out $20 on Michael Jackson, Prince, and other crappy CDs. Why should this be any different to them?"
DefTonez copy protection scheme will be featured in Britney Spears new album to be released later this month entitled, "You're CRAZY if you think my rack is real."
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
From our standpoint, we are designing the software for the 99 percent of the people who don't want to steal the music but instead (want to) use it for whatever means--for whatever personal use that's allowed by the artist and the record label.
/. here). Therefore I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that at least 10 million individuals out there are trading mp3s with software that your average Joe can use. In the year 2000, 2.5 billion CDs were sold (according to this link). Assuming that average Joe buys, say, a couple CDs a month (reasonabe?), this comes out to about 100 million average Joes buying cds each year. Using my super-human mathmatical capabilities, I figure about 10% of the general cd-purchasing population wish to make mp3s with their cds. He's an order of magnitude off! In physics or chemistry this is fine, but for the CEO of a business, isn't it a bit much?
99% of the general populion don't want to make mp3s of their cds?
From CNET's stats, it seems like about 13 million people have downloaded Kazaa, and about another 20 million have downloaded Morpheus (not to mention various other file sharing programs talked about on
"Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
I know you were being sarcastic, but that is how those jokers think.
MS' media player doesn't run on my MP3 CD player from Memorex, nor does it run on any of my desktop machines at work or at home. As long as MS has it's attitude (and I've mine about their software) it never will. I don't consider their problems solved. All I'll do is play it from a hi-fidelity CD deck into the analog port on a hi-fidelity sound card and MP3 or OGG encode that recording ( If I buy a copy protected CD to keep. I've too much stuff that I use as sound system equipment that this tripe won't play on!)
The MP3 genie has been let out of the bottle and unless someone comes up with a decent format that's NOT inconvienient and doesn't cost the manufacturers a lot of royalties (MP3's royalties on devices isn't bad at all, and OGG's even better in that regard...) then it's just not going to happen. And Joe Sixpack's not going to forego all those nifty $70-300 MP3 players they just bought just to satisfy the media producers without them making it worth his troubles doing it.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
If i have a cd player with headphones, i could just as well get a cable, connecti it from the headphones (anything will work, not necessarily headphones)to the soundcard and voila!
Not the exact content of the CD since it had to be converted from digital to analog and back to digital.
Also, the problem would be the output quality of the CD player.
What will be next, a small chip to put in our ears to decode the sounds emitted? Or maybe special headphones with a decoder integrated?
However, the sound must get to our ears for us to be heard. as long as that is true, it will be easy to copy it.
Just get the output of whatever is emmiting the sound and feed it back to a PC (as long as it is current and voltage, of course)...
You really think there's no encoding/decoding process in analogue vinyl? Do you have any idea what cutting engineers have to do to audio just to get it onto a record?
;)
Thank you, come again
You just jarred my thoughts, thanks.
The record execs might understand the "emerging technology" of DVDs too well! They may remember that they made a hell of a lot of money when CDs took over from records and everyone eventually replaced their collection. Might they now wish to do it again by making CDs difficult to use? There is no technical reason to kill CDs, so they will make up a few! All it takes is a few random poluters like this to make the whole pile stink.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
..that allows this sort of thing and I'll bet that it's also restricted to specific players and not all MP3 players for this thing to be effective at "protection" (and even then...).
I largely don't use Windows and I don't plan on booting into it just to get my fair use rights.
I also don't plan on owning anything other than the MP3 players I choose to play content (If I can't get a file so I can burn a CD-R for my MP3 CD player, it's not useful to me in the fair use department...).
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
In acutality, a hi-fidelity recording, when encoded with OGG or MP3 will be virtually indistinguishable from a rip from a CD. There's ways to do it with sound cards so that you can't tell much of any difference.
Once you realize this, it's obvious where things are going to go...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Yup. And most people want the music they copy to be either a direct CD copy of the music, or rip it in a standard MP3 format. So... if his technology allows that then how exactly is it protecting anything?
For their MP3 player? Hmm... now I notice he didn't say in standard MP3 format. Maybe he means "for their MP3 player as long as it uses the special no-copy technology XXX and plays WMA format music". I would bet that his technology would prevent it from working on my MP3 player. Since I'm just doing what I want in a way I think is reasonable he wouldn't want to stop me right?
Yeah, that's great. Thanks for treating customers with such respect.
So he's saying you know that the technological solution you've created is weak, and you intend to use the DMCA to enforce it? If the gov't were't owned by big coprorations like the record companies, I'd expect they'd complain. If I protected my house with a flimsy screen-door lock then expected the police to do everything they could whenever someone broke in, I think they'd get pissed at me pretty soon.
No Britney Spears, no *NSync, only people who are into music for the sake of music. Man, would that ever be a great world!
Ok buddy. So you think you're going to be in a lucrative business. You think you're gonna make loads of money when your goal is: "Make it easier for the record companies to squeeze me and prevent me from doing what I want with the CD[*] I bought". Guess what. I (and a few other people) want to convince you that it's *not* lucrative.
Any takers?
[*] Note, the product bought, whie a shiny disk in a silver case is not actually a CD, sorry for any inconvenience.
Okay... so... they're designing anti-piracy software for people who "want to use it for whatever personal use that's allowed by the artists and the record label", not 31337 hax0r pir-8's who'll crack the encryption anyways. So... what exactly is the point? If the people who're going to pirate the music are still going to pirate the music... why are they building copy protection schemes to protect music from people who aren't going to steal it in the first place? It just doesn't add up.
I think that this dude is just some smart capitalist who knows that his software sucks, that it's going to get cracked anyways, but he's riding on the fad-of-the-day, and as soon as record labels give up on this form of CD copy protection, his company will too, and start catering to whatever the flavor-of-the-month is then.
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
It seems to me it is those that own cheap computers with M$ operating systems and IDE drives might get a headache or two making a copy. Using SCSI drives with flashable rom, Unix(like) OS's and quality applications like 'cdparanoia', 'cdrdao' and 'cdrecord' will circumvent all possible problems.
Secondly, i would like to see mandatory labeling if there is any attempt to protect a CD. It would give me assurance my equipment is up-to-date. If i could not make a backup for any reason, i would exchange it for another from another lot. If the problem persisted, it would be time for a hack. Seriously, i believe every method of "copy prevention" has been broken before it was ever used on the open market. This is software, CSS and CDDA. This is simply the 'broadcast phenomonom' that states you cannot distribute "secrets", all the same to all the public!
Finally, it seems a bit distressing that SCSI drives that are flashable have moved into the seriously expensive "professional" market. I happen to have several players and burners that have suddenly become 10x more expensive! I think even the hardware makers see a quick buck here, while the situation lasts.
Oposition to anything like the DMCA here in Europe is quite fierce. It is a basic right to reverse-engineer any device and create more technical jobs. It is an obligation to publish all details for general use.
"...it's certainly not fair to the artist."
They always say 'it's not fair to the artist' it's the record companies that get the majority of the money from album sales. that's what this is really about. the poor artist only get's about a dollar for each cd if that. the artist makes all their money from merch sales and from playing live. if an artist is 'fortunate' enough to get a 'big time' record deal then they want as many people as possible to have and like their music. i don't speak for all artists obviously but the more people that have and love the music the better chance the artist has of them coming to their concert and buying their merch. the more people that come to concerts, the bigger venues the artist must play. the bigger the venue the more money the artist makes. i know this article was about the technology but i'm sick of the artist being blamed indirectly for this crap. it's the evil record companies that are to blame ultimately i believe. yes, i'm in a band that does not have a major record deal...am i bitter, yes...i can deal with it. my point was that this is all about money...but not for the artist, for the record companies. let's not forget that.
\\overdose\in\moderation
In exchange for the essential monopoly on the distribution of Copyrighted works, the public as a whole have been given certain rights with regards to the disposition and use of those works once we have recieved them. These are called "Fair Use" rights.
Under Fair Use, I may make as many copies of a covered work for my own personal use after I have purchased the rights to use this work. Personal is defined as for your and only your use- as in you can make backup copies of just about anything in question, just in case the original gets destroyed.
Under Fair Use, I may sell any primary copies I have to another individual, so long as I destroy all copies I have that were not licensed to be copied by myself. In other words, if you have a license to make copies (such as the GPL) you may give the primaries or the backups to another individual, but if you do not, you must destroy all backups you have upon the giving of the primary copy to another individual.
Under Fair Use, I may copy non-substantial portions (and in some cases, even substantial ones...) of a covered work for the purposes of the discussion of the covered work, parody, etc.
This is NOT a classic geek view, but rather what the laws have been worded- DMCA and SSSCA seem to be conflicting laws that don't remove the "rights" (as that would draw an outcry real quick) but make them effectively withdrawn.
Right now, there's some substantial discussion that the laws that extend the durations of the Copyright and Patent grants violate the bounds Congress has with respects to this that has been laid out by the Constitution (This is not the Bill of Rights- this is what the Constitution has to say about what Congress can and can't do, and that hasn't been ammended either.). Also of note is that there is substantial discussion as to whether or not the DMCA or the SSSCA, as they currently are written, are legit within the Constitutional boundaries set up by either the Constitution itself or the Bill of Rights.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Is it just me, or does this guy look like Rush Limbaugh's separated-at-birth twin?
Second, rewrite the above for books:
What do 99% of all book buyers do with books? They read them in at home. Then there's the 1% of people who put book CDs in their CD-ROM drives. Some of those people are actually reading them at work using their $2000 computer instead of a 50 cent paperback. Most of them, though, are ripping the files, especially from CDs that they borrowed from fellow office workers or dorm mates.
The bottom line is that publishers aren't doing anything that interferes with what books are designed for. The people who are complaining are, as is the norm for these kind of topics, cash-poor students who use ripping as a primary method of getting new books. You can try to bring up other exotic justifications ("criticism or quotations"), but they're too irrelevant to bring up. This cannot be considered any kind of breach of civil rights. Heck, if you want to record a friend's copy protected CD on to paper by hand, no one is stopping you.
Kind of different if you think about where it could go. Books that can never be shared, read only once and removed from circulation at will. Who needs a memory hole when you've got DMCA? Ah the wonders of thechnology. It all starts with rights no one cares about.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The only thing I can see is that he's trying to cash in on the paranoia of record companies, making a buck without actually solving any problems.
The recording industry wants to make it harder for consumers to directly copy CDs, but one of the hurdles is that any barriers to copying must be "backwards compatible"--meaning the new technologies would have to work on old CD players that don't screen pirated material and vice versa. What is SunnComm doing to overcome this problem?
What we do is we own hundreds and hundreds of CD players dating back to 1983 and forward. [What you do is you do huh?]...That's how we ensure that what we build today will work on CD players from 20 years ago.
Speaking obviously isn't this guy's forte. But the real question is, what are they doing to ensure that the CDs play in modern CD players, which may contain CD-ROM drives?
What kind of initiatives are you undertaking to prevent consumer backlash?
By allowing the consumers all the fair-use opportunities they had prior to having the protection on the disc itself. That's how we do it.
Pronunciation: 'dü 'it, d&(-w) &t
- do it : to have sexual intercourse
Have you ever used Napster?
Yes, I have. I've used Napster, and both my kids have used Napster...I (also) smoked once but I didn't inhale...I've tried to explain to my kids how wrong this is.
What?? I can't tell if he's being serious or trying to be funny. And if so, was he kidding about using napster or weed? Or both? It's file sharing sir. It's not inherently right or wrong.
Someone better come up with a way to get better and better at protecting the rights of the artists, because without doing that, I think that the art and the ability to distribute the art goes away. If somebody can show me that I'm wrong, I'll be out of this business in two days. But I don't think that I'm wrong.
No, it really doesn't. Take a lesson from the software industry. It's not at all difficult to copy or distribute most software electronically, yet Bill Gates has managed to become the wealthiest man in the world. If that's not proof, I don't know what is. You can post your resignation here, thanks.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
a few things in the article don't seem to add up.
but six is the standard right now. So they can make six copies; as long as their disc is in the tray of their computer, they can make those copies...
ok, so they can make 6 copies, i would assume to a proprietary format so you can't make a copy from a copy (surely not mp3 format), but then he goes on to say,
We allow (people) to make copies for their own personal use: for their computer, for their compilation disc and for their MP3 player.
huh? you can make a copy for use in your mp3 player? then what's to stop you from copying the song as many times as you want?!?
here's the other part i don't get:
I hope to see a file-sharing service in the near future that will allow people the same effortless ability to download music even if it's of lesser quality, like MP3 quality, for a very small amount of money a month.
huh?? lesser quality? i think our boy Peter Jacobs is jumping on the MS bandwagen trying to make the mp3 format sound like it sucks (no pun intended).
The MP3 players will need special software to read the new CD's... in which case, someone will write a program to read those CD's... and convert them into MP3's on your HD.
Someone transfers a track from thier CD to their MP3 player... then, they transfer the MP3 from their MP3 player to their HD... now whats stopping them from connected to a peer to peer network and sharing this?
And what about DJ's who mix their own songs? Is swiping part of the song now going to mean breaking the DMCA?
"From our standpoint, we are designing the software for the 99 percent of the people who don't want to steal the music... not for the 1 percent who are going to take the lock cutters and cut the lock off and steal music in an unauthorized way."
Um...right. What were the numbers on Napster at one point, were they not in upwards of 10's of millions? Granted the 1% using the so-called 'lock-cutters' seems a fairly correct figure; there are really only a small number (overall) who make the circumvention tools. But I gather the other figure would be much lower. Despite hearing people say "uh, I did not realize I was 'stealing' music.", I venture that most people have been, are and always will be cognizant of the supposed illegal nature of their music file trading. A lot want to 'stick it to the man'; a lot just want a free lunch.
- AC
Most of them are nothing more than a standard DVD-Rom drive in consumer electronics clothes and being driven by an embedded processor instead of a PC. If they fixed DVD playback, they fixed PC playback- or did they fix some of the fancier DVD players and left all the cheaper ones (like Joe Sixpack uses...) broken?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
There were technical reasons for the move from Vinyl LP's and 45's to CD and Compact Casette- and the move was precipitated by that. There's similar technical reasons for the MP3 and similar format players and flash/ROM storage of content. There's nothing that DVD offers (other than superior capacity)- it requires much more precision, it's more heat sensitive, etc. It's a win-lose situation in the case of DVD's; the consumers get a format that's easier to trash than Compact Casette or CD that brings little to the table and the producers will reap money from the consumers that get the new format foisted off onto them.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
No, their website is completely unusable. The main page is all imagemaps, which is a violation of the ADA since it limits use by visually impaired people.
Their website also demands something called shockwave, plugins for which are not available for the system I use. Shockwave is not just an insult, it is a show-stopper.
Of all the dot.coms that have gone dot.bust, this is the most deserving to be the next.
So lemme get this straight.
The CD will only be uncopyable, if and only if I choose to install on my PC, an application from the copy control people in order to prevent myself from being able to copy it.
Shee-it, that's even dumber than saying the world can be made safe from terrorists who use crypto by passing a law asking all the terrorists to stop using real crypto and start using backdoored-crypto.
Well, I guess we know who this guy will be working for when his copy protection scheme falls flat on its ass.
I sent the following as an email to Mr. Jacob's company (http://sunncomm.com/). Please excuse the funky formatting issues - Slashdot acting up again. Anyhow, enjoy! :
m l):
Mr. Jacobs,
It was was with great interest that I read the interview you had with Gwendolyn Mariano about your company's content management system for CD
music. Noticing that your company is based in Phoenix, where I am a resident as well, I couldn't help but check out the website (which I must admit, is a pretty impressive Flash website) and see if you had an email address. Alas, that was not to be, which is why I am having to send this through an intermediary.
I wanted to address the questions and answers contained in the interview, so I will cut-and-paste the interview here, and respond to
each in turn (from http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1014-201-7311791-0.ht
Q: Many people say copy-protection schemes don't work. If you can hear the music, you can copy it and steal it. What makes your technology different?
A: The technology that we sell is a padlock to music. If you have a lock cutter, a bolt cutter, you can cut that padlock off. If you're determined to steal the music, the music can be stolen. Our technology is not thief proof. What it's meant to do is provide a speed bump to people who don't steal things, and wish to use them in the parameters that are suggested by the artists...If you give people what they want with respect to their ability to copy the music in ways that they think is reasonable, they will not ever attempt to circumvent the technology. Only hackers will attempt to circumvent the technology in order to prove that it can be done. We're not designing the technology for them.
[ME]
Then what is the point? Your company is creating copy protection measures to prevent "people who don't steal things" from stealing stuff? Huh? Furthermore, you acknowledge that the music can be stolen, but these measures can't protect against that. Let's keep honest people honest, right?
Don't run the argument past me regarding physical locks on physical doors protecting physical items. To be honest, if a "thief" could come into my house, and make a perfect duplicate of anything he wants in the house, and walk away with that duplicate, that would be fine with me. He has not deprived me of the original. Unfortunately, in the real world, it doesn't work this way (of course, in the future, with possible replication systems of physical objects, using nano-assemblers or other technology, it may. What then, copy protection schemes on the next T-bone steak template to prevent starving people from eating in third-world countries?), which is why we need physical locks. Data is information. Information is numbers. Numbers can be copied: Always have,
always will.
Q: The recording industry wants to make it harder for consumers to directly copy CDs, but one of the hurdles is that any barriers to copying must be "backwards compatible"--meaning the new technologies would have to work on old CD players that don't screen pirated material and vice versa. What is SunnComm doing to overcome this problem?
A: What we do is we own hundreds and hundreds of CD players dating back to 1983 and forward. Before we release any copies of our MediaCloq product, our CDs are tested on all of those different CD players for playability, sound quality, everything. That's how we ensure that what we build today will work on CD players from 20 years ago.
[ME]
Is your company testing all CD-ROM drives as well? What about that old Tandy THOR drive? Does your company have one of those devices hooked up to a Tandy 1000 whirring away to make sure it can play as well? What about my old Amiga CD-32 console system? Will it play there? Or that old Phillips-Magnavox CD-I player I have sitting on a shelf for playing VCD movies?
It is good to see your company is at least making an attempt to respond to this issue, but that is all it is. It can't be guaranteed such technology will work everywhere. In fact, who cares about drives from 20 years ago. I want to know if my CD with this protection will play on a drive 20 years from now, or even a hundred years from now...? By breaking the Red-Book standard (which it sounds like what is being done - and if it isn't, then it will be even more trivial for those with the skills to crack it), such problems arising are sure to be the case.
Q: So if someone breaks your anti-copying technology, are you going to sue?
A: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits users from circumventing copy protection. It's now a crime in America to do that. Having said that, it's certainly up to the record companies to decide how they're going to manage hackers that circumvent the technology in the future. From our standpoint, we are designing the software for the 99 percent of the people who don't want to steal the music but instead (want to) use it for whatever means--for whatever personal use that's allowed by the artist and the record label. The software was designed for those people, not for the 1 percent who are going to take the lock cutters and cut the lock off and steal music in an unauthorized way.
[ME]
First off, it has already been proven that the DMCA is most likely an unconstitutional law: If not in whole, then at minimum in part (likely a
number of parts). The simple act of writing a book in backwards script would render the manufacture, distribution, or sales of mirrors a crime
according to the DMCA. Even discussion about holding the said book over a pool of water to read it would be a violation! I hope your company can
cope when a test case is finally decided on the DMCA.
I could go on about the DMCA, but I won't, simply because a discussion on the unconstitionality of it could go on for a long time, and while it
is pertinant here, I simply can't let that sidetrack this discussion.
Should you wish to discuss the DMCA, please feel free to contact me in the future.
You mention that your company's protection scheme is software, but it isn't mentioned what operating system this software is for. In order for it to "fool" the computer system into not reading the music of the CD, there has to be software on the CD itself, or it must be downloadable from somewhere. Furthermore, this software has to be for a particular operating system. I tend to think (without proof, of course: Correct me if I am wrong) that this software is more than likely meant for the Microsoft Windows operating system.
I don't use Windows at home. I use Linux (a SuSE 6.3/7.2 hybrid, to be precise).
Will this software work there? I doubt it. Will it matter? I doubt that as well. The truth is, what if I take a CD-ROM drive and build an interface for it to my Apple IIGS, or my TRS-80 Color Computer 2? Or my Commodore 64? What about my Mini-VAX?
Seriously, I doubt the software will work there, nor will it matter if I can write my own drivers and build my own hardware to get around any
issues. You could respond that I am in that "1 percent". But what if I am doing this for my own fair-use reasons, and I am blocked? Don't I
have a right to play my CD on a player of my choice? I daresay under copyright law I do...
Q: Do you believe that copy-protection schemes violate fair-use rights?
A: Ours is the only copy-protection scheme that doesn't violate fair-use rights...We allow (people) to make copies for their own personal use: for their computer, for their compilation disc and for their MP3 player, so they can have portable use of their music. The only fair use that's left--and it's not fair use at all--is the "fair use" of sending thousands of copies to file-sharing services to be copied hundreds of thousands or millions of times. That's the only use we've limited and so that's not fair use; it's certainly not fair to the artist. I've got a whole line of artists that would agree that's certainly not fair, but there are a whole lot of artists that agree you ought to have your own personal copy or be able to make copies or do whatever.
[ME]
No, it isn't "fair use" to send your copy to thousands of others.
Q: How many copies do you allow people to make?
A: It's up to the record company, but six is the standard right now. So they can make six copies; as long as their disc is in the tray of their
computer, they can make those copies...It's hard to get your arms around copy protection as a technology, and I get that. Everybody here gets
that. The thing is how do you make it warm enough for people to accept it.
[ME]
However, it will violate fair-use laws of copyright if, say, the user takes the CD, makes one backup of the CD (copy #1), a copy for the car
(copy #2), an MP3 for their kid (copy #3), an MP3 for work (copy #4), and a copy for their spouse's car (copy #5), then the dog comes along and chews the original disk. You make another copy of the backup (copy #6).
There are your six copies. Now what happens if that new image of the backup is destroyed? Where do you get another copy from? Or what happens
if the MP3 at your work is deleted? By the way, if you could transfer that MP3 to your work, and play it, without the original CD, what stops that copy from being copied? Or do you have to have the original CD in the drive to play the copy (at which point, why make an MP3)? Or is there a "key" placed on the drive, and a special player to play the "MP3"? Which, at this point, wouldn't be an MP3 anymore, right? It would be a proprietary system, thus not allowing me to exercise my fair-use rights to play the music in the way I see fit on the device of my choice, even if that device happens to be a homebrew MP3 player cobbled together from a DSP, some RAM, and an MP3 decoding chip unsoldered from a RIO...!
Q: What kind of initiatives are you undertaking to prevent consumer backlash?
A: By allowing the consumers all the fair-use opportunities they had prior to having the protection on the disc itself. That's how we do it. Because I think in the end, music lovers will do what's right. They expect to use music for their own purpose and be able to continue to do that. We're the only protection technology in the world that allows people to do that and at the same time protect their digital property, and that's what we're going for here.
[ME]
And I have already outlined why what has been said has to be an impossibility. The only way honest people would be able to use their music in an honest fashion would be if each device that could potentially read the data, if it has a computer of sorts (like an MP3 player), that device would have to be able to run the software, to really secure the system. Any homebrew (or off-the-shelf Linux box) should be able to bypass whatever measures are in place. This system does nothing; it can't. Worse case scenario is a simple line-out/line-in copying solution. In effect, what this system really does is limit the fair-use rights of ordinary people to six copies. It does nothing to differentiate between those copies as to what is a backup copy, what is a music copy, and what is an MP3 copy. A copy is a copy, and thus uses up one "use". You have said it will work with MP3 players, but that isn't possible unless that player (be it hardware or software) can run your company's software, to guarantee it is a "good" copy. I somehow doubt my copy of WinAmp 1.0 is going to work, or if it does, whether it will care, about this "system"...
Q: So how much money is in this?
A: We need to protect about 4 billion CDs a year. That's what we'd like to do. We'd like to be the market leader in this business and protect about 4 billion CDs a year. And we think, just like Hershey's, we can make our money a nickel at a time, and it adds up, you know, 1 or 2 billion adds up.
Q: Can you translate those 4 billion CDs into a monetary figure?
A: That would be in the neighborhood of a $200 million revenue stream.
[ME]
Well, at least we now know the motivation behind implementing a copy protection scheme, to keep "people who don't steal things" from stealing
music (huh?), a scheme which cowers behind the DMCA, a law which in all probability isn't even constitutional!
Q: Have you ever used Napster?
A: Yes, I have. I've used Napster, and both my kids have used Napster...I (also) smoked once but I didn't inhale...I've tried to explain to my kids how wrong this is. We need to explain to people that the financial result of using file-sharing services is not good even though getting the music for free is "cool." It seems cool; it's really not in the end, when artists don't get what they need. Having said that, I hope to see a file-sharing service in the near future that will allow people the same effortless ability to download music even if it's of lesser quality, like MP3 quality, for a very small amount of money a month.
[ME]
Former President Bill Clinton also said he smoked, but didn't inhale. We also know that Mr. Clinton was later found to have inadvertantly stained
a dress owned by a Miss Lewinsky. I dare say your company's product shall also stain another dress, should it prove successful in the marketplace: The dress of Lady Liberty herself.
Q: Why are you in this business? It's not a market that would make someone rich, nor is it a business that would make consumers adore you.
A: I'm trying to change that. You see...you're driving along and you see a policeman in your rearview mirror. You know he's supposed to be the
friendly guy that helps you. But that's not what you think when you see him in your rearview mirror, is it? You think, "I'm going to get a
ticket." That's just like I think. OK. Well, I'm trying to change that for us. I don't want to be the cop in the mirror for people who are driving along. What we want to be is a company that develops a way to transmit digital property within a business model that will continue to develop digital property. The problem is, if digital property just becomes public domain the minute it's released, then the whole incentive model for distributing that property goes away.
Doesn't anybody want to think about what happens in the world where no music is paid for?...This business can be a very lucrative business if
it's done properly and if it's done with a sensitivity toward record companies and record buyers. I think there's a huge opportunity for this company to expand not just from the CD music but also for CD software, digital data, streaming, et cetera...It just takes more development time
for us to get into those different areas. But don't you think that as everything moves from analog to digital, the ability to exactly copy things creates a threat for any property owner--whether it's art, or books or music? Someone better come up with a way to get better and better at protecting the rights of the artists, because without doing that, I think that the art and the ability to distribute the art goes away. If somebody can show me that I'm wrong, I'll be out of this business in two days. But I don't think that I'm wrong.
[ME]
Do you remember the 1980's? Don't you remember the hundreds of schemes attempted by software manufacturers to "copy-protect" floppy disks. Some
were highly elaborate, involving physically altering the structure of the disk, even using quirks in certain types of floppy drives to enhance the copy protection.
The key thing is that all of these efforts failed in the end, mainly by causing the honest people to shop elsewhere for their software, because
invariably these schemes caused problems for honest people (indeed, I myself have a floppy from that time which would only allow you to make a
non-playable backup on another floppy - if your original died, you were supposed to copy the backup to the original disk to restore.
Unfortunately, my original died, along with my backup, simply from age. I would give a lot of money to play that game again, but alas, the
company is long out of business. Where are my fair-use rights now?). Thus, the publishers found that it wasn't worth it, and went back to making copyable software.
History is repeating itself. I am not even done laughing at what happened before!
The truth is, how can a number be protected? Because that is what is being attempted. While that number may be very large, and it may be
expressed in binary, in the form of pits and valleys on the substrate of a CD, which a laser reflects off of, changing light intensity from high to low. That is all it is, nothing more. How can this number be protected? What is the likely hood that said number could be found within the limitless boundries of what we know as "PI", or "e"? The honest fact is that it isn't possible to lock away numbers.
Digital data is natural data. Natural information, information that permeates and saturates the universe. In a way, digital data makes up all the life on this planet, in the form of DNA, built as a ladder of four base proteins. In theory, a song could be expressed as a long strand of DNA, which would be true are to play, via some kind of high-speed digital DNA sequencing machine. Perhaps that song could then be replicated via RNA in a polymerase reaction, then those copies played on other sequencing machines...
That, sir, would be true art - something that I definitely pay to see.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Seriously ;)
;)
We've got all the essentials -- decent beer, good crypto, and a lack of the DMCA
Life after capitalism? The participatory economics project
Since their official policy is at odds with several State and Federal deceptive practices laws, you can take them to small claims court and win- they have to re-imburse you the money and they eat court costs. If they don't show up, the Judge often hands down a summary judgement in favor of the Plaintiff- which you can then collect upon one way or another.
I don't care how big and uncaring the company is- if they find out that a manager got them involved in any lawsuit that could have been avoided by way of bending/breaking their non-return/non-exchange policies, they'll usually fire the manager on the spot for violating other policies that they hold to be of higher import than the non-return/non-exchange one.
Since the managers know this, they'll usually back down from the official stance when faced with one of these situations and justify it to their manager accordingly.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
> We allow (people) to make copies for their own personal use: for their computer, for their
> compilation disc and for their MP3 player, so they can have portable use of their music
I don't get it. On the first page he clearly says that the directory structure is invisble and cannot be read in a PC. But then he goes and says this?
Does this mean that SunnComm have some software that allows a PC to read the CD's and make copies etc, but for only a limited number of times? If so, does this software come at a cost or per copy licence scheme?
-- Mike
"I raised this point in an earlier artcle, and there was some speculation that the copy-protection is actually in the music; that even if I held I mic to a speaker and recorded it the copy-protection would still be there and mp3 encoders would still choke on it.
If it can't be transcoded to MP3 correctly, it will be very audible. If it can't be transcoded to OGG correctly, it will be very audible.
That won't work that way. It's in the music- but it's in the music's track stream so any ordinary player will play it with minimal distortions at best. The human ear is a fincky beast at best and unlike something like MacroVision for video, there's little you're going to be able to do that won't be noticable that will prevent re-recording/encoding of the sound.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
.
... and ...
When it comes to the debate of digital IP, the American industry is enforcing methods which are illegal in some countries.
In my country, Sweden, I found some law text on this issue.
Below are some excerpts of which the first apply to works available to the public:
"Producing copies for personal use
12 Everyone may produce single copies of published works for personal use. The copies may not be used for other purposes.
The first paragraph does not give the right to
erect buildings,
produce copies of computer programs, or
produce copies in digital form of collections in digital form.
The first paragraph also does not give the right to for personal use have an outsider
produce copies of music or movies,
produce utility goods or sculptures or
by artistic proceedings copy other works of art.
Law of 1997:790. "
Concerning purchased items the following is said about penalites:
"Special rules regarding computer programs etc.
26 g He who has acquired the right to use a computer program may produce such copies of the program and make such changes to the program that are required for him to be able to use the program for the intended purpose. This also includes correcting bugs.
He who has acquired the right to use a program may produce backups of it, if it's necessary for the intended use of the program.
Copies produced by support of the first or second paragraph may not be used for other purposes and may not be used once the right to use the program has expired.
He who has the right to use a program may observe, investigate or test the function of the program to determine the ideas and principles behind the various details of the program. This applies under the condition that it is done during such loading, displaying, running, transferring or storing of the program that he is entitled to perform.
He who has the right to use a collection may use it in such way that is necessary for him to be able to use it for its intended purpose.
Any license terms that limit the users right according to the second, fourth or fifth paragraphs are void. Law 1997:790."
"He who for his personal use copies a computer program which has been published or of which copies have been transferred with the consent of the copyright holder, shall not be fined, if the original is not being commercially used or used in public service and he does not use the produced copies for other purposes than his personal use. He who for his personal use produces copies in digital form of a published collection in digital form shall under the previous conditions also not be fined. "
Any claims that limit the buyers ability to make personal copies are void.
Enforcing protection which limits these rights are not legal.
In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda ~ Bill Durodié
That's what I get for skimming articles while I'm in the middle of a compile...
I AGREE with your premises.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Of course, the whole point of copyright is to encourage releasing to the public domain. It's just that that public domain is a bit more expansive than these imbeciles have realized.
Yes, it's analog.
Yes, it's noisy.
Thing is, most of the stuff on CD nowadays is pretty much lame. (It's not noise, just not terribly good or innovative- it's pablum...) and the stuff on the LP's and 45's if you don't find it all scratched up is quite good.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
The music industry is so upset that people are copying music by using mp3's. Do they not realize that before it became popular to copy music to your computer people still borrowed their friend's CD's and copied them to audio cassette? They didn't pay for it, the weren't going to pay for it. All they wanted to do is hear the song whenever they wanted. Do they not also realize that alot of people then and still now record songs off the radio on to an audio cassette? And did they freak out then and try to alter the audio cassette industry or put some sort of copy protection signal in the radio waves then to stop people from copying music? Did they try to copy protect CD's then so people couldn't copy them to tape? No, and no one really cared. True it took longer then, you had to wait for your favorite song and get to the radio to hit record before the song progressed to far, or just happen to have a friend who had the CD you wanted, But you still got free music that you could listen to anywhere and whenever you wanted. Now instead of putting your free music on blank tapes you can put it on blank CD's. Instead of recording it on the radio or getting it from a friend you can download it from a "virtual friend". It's the same concept, and back then no one cared one way or another. It was quite common to find people with tapes full of favorite songs they had recorded from different sources. The only difference now is the technology used to record and listen.
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
MUSIC to you vs. sell it. So when the CD wears out send it back and have it replaced for the cost of the media just like ALMOST any software company will do :)
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
There is a disturbing trend in American industry as a whole towards maximum return through increasing spending and development on producing value-reduced products that falsely present themselves as fully-featured products.
Munged CDs should contain a big yellow label identifying them:
FUCT CD:
This CD contains fair-use circumvention technology. It cannot be backed up, and its contents are not usable with computers or other digital media devices.
They trust a company named SunnComm to protect their intellectual property from being ripped off?
I'm speechless.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
Why don't we, consumers, and record companies create a system that makes all of us happy, so that we can get our music on computer etc, and they can get their damn money?
How bout new mp3s with an add string that play in a add bar, so when you play an mp3 by a certian record company, they get that add space while you listening to it. They could either sell that add space to make profit, or they could use it to promote other artists. We would get our mp3s, and they would get their music. There, problem fixed, now wasnt that simple?
What if we listed all of the "uncopyable" CDs in a web database? That way people will be able to connect to the website, and list all of those CDs. Mabie it would generate some negativity towards the new CDs.
I've always wondered what exactly the purchase of a music CD represents.
... if a company sells CDR/CDRW drives that have bit-level copying and reading included in the firmware, would they be prosecuted under the DMCA -- even if they made such devices without any intent to defeat such copy-protection?
Is it a single-user license for that intellectual property -- much like that granted when you buy software on CD?
It seems not.
For instance -- if I buy a software title on CD and that CD gets damaged, the vendor will, virtually without exception (including Microsoft) replace the CD for the cost of the media and handling.
Now -- if your favorite Sugar Babes (guffaw!) CD gets scratched and you front up to the recording company demanding a replacement -- they'll laugh you out of the building.
Yes, you'll have to go and pay full price for another CD if you want your music back.
Therefore it seems you're not buying a *license* for the music -- so maybe you're actually buying a copy of the music (rather than a license to use)?
Or are you just buying the media itself and the music is incidental -- insomuch as if/when it disappears because of damage or whatever, there's no obligation to fix the problem.
What I want to know is
Are those drives which are already capable of DAO ripping and writing now in breach of the DMCA because they can copy some weakly protected disks?
What's going to happen in Germany where vendors of CDR/RW drives are already paying a "copyright tax" because the drives are said to be costing the recording industry money. Will the introduction of copy-protected CDs mean that this tax will now be dropped?
And now we have the suggestion that CDs that have copy protected audio tracks may also ship with the music provided in Windows Media format (complete with digital rights control) for those who want to play it on their PCs.
What about those who have spent good money on portable MP3 players? What about those who are smart enough to use non-Windows computers?
This is not a simple issue and for the past two years the recording industry have shown that they simply don't have a clue.
They're way out of their depth and don't seem to realize that every time they try to tighten the thumbscrews they're simply making their predicament worse!
I just bought a JVC KD SH99 car stereo. This car stereo plays regular audio CDs, and CDs that are burned with MP3s. No way am I leaving a CD that I bought in a store in the car in freezing/boiling temperatures to warp or otherwise get damaged(OK, maybe I'm a little paraniod). I want to be able to copy all of my LEGALLY PURCHASED CDs onto MP3 CDs so that I can excersise my fair use rights and listen to them in my car (without carrying around 400 CDs).
Man I hate speed bumps!
Sig free since 2/6/2002
Is there anyone out there compiling a list of "copy protected" CDs and the more obscure, less popular systems they will and wont play on? I'd be happy to obtain the odd CD and run it through my collection of old CD players and CD-based gaming consoles. It's just a shame I sold my CDTV a number of years back...
In Vietnam, the US had a policy of limited escalating response. We did not set out to annihilate the enemy, but rather we used arms to send messages to the enemy leadership. By putting the enemy through limited combat, we gave them experience and an opportunity to improve their organizational capability. In effect we trained them and created a much more powerful adversary.
This kind of half-assed copy protection will have a similar, beneficial effect on piracy. There are a lot of people out there who are used to ripping with whatever program they were first able to find. Now that simple approach won't work. But I don't expect those casual pirates to surrender, as the bozo being interviewed does. Many of them will take that next step. They'll do a couple of hours of research and find the online communities and FAQs they need to circumvent this measure.
If you don't like my first analogy, here's another one: once a casual pirate taps into the piracy community, it's like sending a minor offender to prison. When the casual pirate comes out of that usenet group or Direct Connect chat, he'll know a lot more about his craft, and he'll be in a position to let other people know that it is possible to get around most any copy protection.
Speaking rhetorically to Mr. Big Ticket Musician: If you're not popular, your material likely won't show up on Napster. If you are popular, you can command thirty to sixty to three hundred dollars a ticket for people to see you play. And if you can't manage to do the work required for that, and make money at it, I have no idea what you're doing wrong, but it's something serious. At some point, you have to play if you want to get paid. I think record companies and their manufactured "artists" have completely lost touch of that concept. They want to stand at the banks of their "revenue stream" with a sifter and just collect cash.
You'd be surprised (I sure was) to find that a really good vinyl player & needle coupled with a non scratched LP have superior sound as opposed to CDDA.
CDDAs have a sampling rate of 48 KHz as opposed to the analog LPs which have a sampling rate of infinity. A casual listner probably would'nt notice, but an _audiophile_ would.
So far, the only digital medium that overcomes the sound of vinyl is the "Super Audio CD" which samples audio at 96 KHz, which is beyond the capability of the human ear. I don't know much about the standard (capacity & such) but I assume it uses the same capaity as a DVD disc.
I don't know of anyone actually BUYING one though.
Keep in mind that we're talking about _Really Expensive_ hardware and not what you've seen as a child.
The easiest way for record companies to reduce piracy is to reduce the price of their cds... i know i would buy a lot more if the price wasnt close to AUD $30 for a 5 cent cd.
/conspiracy theory!
I think the record companies are scared the cowed mass consumers are starting to realise just how much they are being shafted, if it was just 1337 hax0rs then they wouldnt care...
An another note, i think the corporate world hates the internet and the freedom of information it provides, its a huge threat to the pointless consumerism they need us to believe in.
Instead of watching Toughman, I'll venture to say that I've registered copyprotectedcds.org, and will maintain a list of "protected" cd's.
It'll take me a while to get the domain forwarding going and sort out the page (I'm away next week) but stop by my *very* basic page and email me with info.
Audere est Facere
It seems to me that its the music industry that is getting taken for a ride. This guy so much as said that it would be the record company's choice to sue a person circumventing their copy protection.
He does not seem to have a lot of faith in his own technology does he? Why no vigorously defend your protection scheme? It doesn't make sense to me.
Someone better come up with a way to get better and better at protecting the rights of the artists, because without doing that, I think that the art and the ability to distribute the art goes away.
Now as far as I can remember, art was around long before there were recording companies to distribute it, and long before even copyright legislation was around. IMHO it's not something we're going to be losing because it becomes more widely distributed, electronically.I think it's pretty obvious that it's the RIAA and the recording industry as a whole that's pushing for this. It's not in the interest of any performer that wants people to enjoy their work, nor the consumer who only wants to appreciate it.
Just my $0.02.Matt Ryall <gholam@start.com.au>
-- Matt Ryall
The first amendment codify's every human being's right to free speech.
The copyright law, by claiming that some speech cannot be said, contradicts the first amendment completely, and thus *IS* unconstitutional.
As a workaround, to preserve the constitutionality of the act, the copyright act is to restrict speech the minimum possible.
Fair use is not something that is granted, it is just a codification of some of the things that the first amendment guarentees. If the copyright law infringes on the first amendment more than the minimal amount, it should be declared unconstitutional. (But, regrettably, hasn't.)
only so difficult to play in the car stereo or at work ya know?
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Sounds more like All Creatures Great And Small to me.
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
don't get any executable (if I exclude -g and use tlink /x everything is fine)
Other thing I found out is that the code mov ax,seg variable mov ds,ax mov di,var loads ds:di with different (however
valid) segment and offset than equivalent
Dud3 - there's your problemo
FBINLADEN
I guess I'll just have to close my ears and wait for the next Seattle-like musical revolution, cause I'm gonna go Postal if I hear "Pop" one more time......
Never overestimate the intelligence of the individual and never underestimate the stupidity of the masses
The Ammendment comes after the part of Constitutional law that grants Congress the authority to come up with Copyright and Patent laws- this is not to say that some of the later on laws overstep that authority by a long way (I believe they do). So long as they don't come in direct conflict with the First ammendment, the Copyright/Patent laws will hold sway as they DO have the authority of the Constitution behind them.
Not everything you do is something that could be considered "speech" with regards to the First Ammendment.
Parody is protected as something under the First- because it IS speech.
Copying an entire book, movie, tape, CD, etc. isn't "speech" per se and isn't protected under the First. You can claim until you're blue in the face that it's a protest, etc. but nobody will listen because it just doesn't work that way.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
a CD merely means compact disc
that could be a compact disc of cow shit if there's no definition
great idea.
I'd love to use my spare cash buying all the annoying CDs and returning them for being faulty
If I buy one of these CDs, for use in my computer's CD player, and it doesn't play, and I have no warning that it may not, I want to be able to return it. I have grounds for a refund, that the product is not "fit for the purpose".
In Australia, there are several sections of the Trade Practices Act which may be relevant (IANAL)
SECT 74D
Actions in respect of goods of unmerchantable quality
SECT 74B
Actions in respect of unsuitable goods
(1) Where:
(a) a corporation, in trade or commerce, supplies goods manufactured by the corporation to another person who acquires the goods for re-supply;
(b) a person (whether or not the person who acquired the goods from the corporation) supplies the goods (otherwise than by way of sale by auction) to a consumer;
(c) the goods are acquired by the consumer for a particular purpose that was, expressly or by implication, made known to the corporation, either directly, or through the person from whom the consumer acquired the goods or a person by whom any antecedent negotiations in connexion with the acquisition of the goods were conducted;
(d) the goods are not reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied; and
(e) the consumer or a person who acquires the goods from, or derives title to the goods through or under, the consumer suffers loss or damage by reason that the goods are not reasonably fit for that purpose;
the corporation is liable to compensate the consumer or that other person for the loss or damage and the consumer or that other person may recover the amount of the compensation by action against the corporation in a court of competent jurisdiction.
SECT 74C
Actions in respect of false descriptions
If a CD won't play in a CD player, and a refund is refused as the package is opened, I think you would still have grounds as the product is not fit for the purpose.
if a lot of people keep returning CDs, that's a lot of work they have to pay someone to do
this is a totally different situation, faulty manufacturing and labelling, NOT change-of-mind
part of the money you pay is for the licence of the music. but if your cd media fails, you cannot take your old CD back for a discounted trade in on a new CD. so in purchasing new media, you pay AGAIN for the licence
even with the switch from vinyl to CD, if you had to repurchase to listen to music you've already paid a music licence fee for, you pay that fee TWICE when purchasing the same title in a different media, or even the same media as a replacement for wear and tear.
The first amendment codify's every human being's right to free speech.
every American has the right to free speech under the American constitution. not all countries have freedom of speech.
although America is not the only country to have free speech
call your local government consumer affairs department. they should be able to inform you of what your rights are. if the store doesn't listen to you, call consumer affairs again and let them know what's happening.
Insightful
So, I have one of the Sony CDs in my possession. Initially, I did not think much of it until I went to listen to the CD while working... now I am fairly irritated. I know that the goal is to prevent theft, but I now want a solution for those of us who honestly want to listen to the CDs on a computer. Is anyone interested in working on one of these CDs?