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.
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!
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
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?
That wouldn't have quite the same audio quality (it should be more than good enough though with a decent cable considering the quality of mp3s), unless an optical cable could be used. I'm not sure if an optical cable would prevent the copy protection 'features' though.
J-aims
--
Yo, whatever happened to peas? Join T( H)GS
"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.
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?
...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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
i think dmitri would tell you that this is not a US only problem. ask the boy who was arrested in Europe for his part with the DVD decryption debacle if US corporations can't screw up your life if they feel like it, no matter where you are.
-samThe REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
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
I'm not sure if an optical cable would prevent the copy protection 'features' though.
Don't worry, it can't. All I have to do is feed the optical cable into the optical in on my (expensive) sound card and copy the input sound stream. I'd have to mark the tracks myself like I already do with LPs though. So while it would be a pain, like MP3ing my old vinyl is today, it is certainly copyable.
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.
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.
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
REUTERS - In a landmark case, Sony Corporation (SONY) won a USD $50M lawsuit against Sony Corporation (SONY) for violations of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
The lawsuit accused SONY of producing hardward and software, including but not limited to CD-ROM, Hi Fidelity car and home stereo equipment, and DVD players capable of being used to play standard CDs, thus allowing hackers to rob SONY of billions in CD sales by buying their CDs and then playing them in their computers or car stereos.
"Those stupid bastards," said Sony VP of CD-ROM and HiFi Audio equiment John Smith. "What were they thinking?"
"This will teach hardware and software makers that they will be held responsible if their products are being used illegally," said Sony VP of Music and Movies Fred Barber. "This sends a clear message: break your hardware before shipping or we're gonna get you. If you ship a functional product, you're going to pay!"
-samThe REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
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
Interesting concept... stop piracy but permit fair use at the CD level. How is that possible? Once it's ripped to MP3, you can do whatever the heck you want to with it. This is sort of like stopping gas drive-offs by not allowing cars to be filled with gas. Those who steal gas can drive around, those who don't steal gas can't drive (or have to buy a new car). It doesn't make any sense to me.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
"Be My Yoko Ono" by The Barenaked Ladies.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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!
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'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 at fault too...
They already have. It is called the SSSCA
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
Then play the music in the DVD player, silly!
Shit, I gotta play mine through my Laserdisc since my real CD player crapped out. Think, man!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
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.
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.
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.
What can be heard can be recorded.
Oops.
The article talks about "circumvention" being ilegal under the DMCA. Well, that means it is now ilegal to run a cable from your cd player to your audio-in on your soundcard. Because once you're to that point, you only need to hit record!
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.
This (from the article) clears all that up:
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. The CD, however, will still play in an ordinary CD player, according to SunnComm. Jacobs said what sets his company apart from competitors is that SunnComm does not alter the music itself because the company's technology leaves the tunes untouched.
So while some copy protection technology (from other companies) modifies the music, the technology is question does not. This makes circumvention trivial.
I think it would be very difficult to embed copy-protection signals in the actual music, without causing the music to sound noticably different. But even if that was achived, I'm 100% certain that some sort of filter software to remove the protection will be written. Sure, the software will be ilegal, but if the author can make it high-profile enough maybe it will get spread around like DeCSS.
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
OK how are they designing it for those people? Will those people get some new enjoyment from listening to a cd that's copy protected? Or will they only be frusturated that they can't record tracks of their new cd onto the mix cd they're making with their new PC?
More and more consumers are embracing mp3's and cd-r's. It's not just 'hackers' (someone needs to have the hacker vs. cracker talk with Mr. Jacobs because he's a little confused) anymore. If copy protection becomes widespread, these companies will alienaite a much larger portion of their customer base than they realize. Think how many people own portable mp3 players! Consumers like options, and this technology only gives you less options.
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
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
Uhh.. Dmitry was prosecuted because some companies complained about it.
If Record Copmanies don't complain.. I'd think nobody can charge you with a violation. (If those who hold the copyright choose not to complain, they are, in effect, giving you 'permission' to copy it. IT' sup to them whether they want to let you do it, or have you charged. Please don't read that sentence the wrong way, though)
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
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
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.
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
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 $70-300 MP3 players they just bought just to satisfy the media producers without them making it worth his troubles doing it.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
You just jarred my thoughts, thanks.
The record execs might understand the "emerging technology" of DVDs too well! They may remember that they made a hell of a lot of money when CDs took over from records and everyone eventually replaced their collection. Might they now wish to do it again by making CDs difficult to use? There is no technical reason to kill CDs, so they will make up a few! All it takes is a few random poluters like this to make the whole pile stink.
Friends don't help friends install M$ 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
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
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.
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
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
"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
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
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
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 ?
Speaking of no longer connecting audio peripherals together, it is rumoured that the RIAA is coming out with encypted audio out peripherals that will not accept input for certian encyption schemes to prevent recording. Under the dmca it is illegal to not use old non encypted signals.
http://saveie6.com/
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...
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.)
The point is, telling me that I'm not allowed to use this perfectly good but not quite top notch cd player simply because I might do something naughty with it is stupid. I absolutely refuse to buy a 'certified' cd player to do the job they deem my CD-ROM incapable of doing.
Dyolf Knip
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
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.