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
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.
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?
"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
...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
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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!
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.
Why don't we take that as a point in fact? The deluge of digital music available on the internet has not been followed by the collapse of the record industry. We do not see top 40 artists hanging out on the street pushing shopping carts full of pop cans. What we're seeing is a previously invisible economy of traded and shared music. Fifteen years ago, I did this with cassette tapes. Now it's done with mp3's. But the phenomenon remains the same. "Hey, check this tape out." If I like the tape, I go and make a conscious decision to buy into what the artist is selling. If not, I don't.
Now that the economy of music-sharing is no longer invisible, record companies want a cut of the game. They don't yet understand that without the game of music sharing, there is likely no game of music buying. I get introduced to most of my music, most of my die-hard, must-buy-all-imports-and-special-prints artists because someone gave me a tape or (these days) an Mp3 of the music. I would not have even known most of these artists existed, or were worth checking out, if I hadn't had the "pirated" copy of their one of their seminal recordings given to me.
They can't cut open the goose that lays the golden eggs without killing her. Culture exists as a free exchange of ideas. Putting gates at every point of exchange with the idea of collecting tolls is simply a guarantee that people will find other roads to travel. I don't understand why a multibillion dollar industry can't get enough, but I don't have any sympathy for them. They will soon find out how lucky they are to get any. I will not buy copy-protected CD's. I will take them back to the store and I will take my money elsewhere.