Music Industry Forcing WMA standard?

CtrlPhreak writes "Cnet news.com has a story up stating that the music industry is considering having cds that contain the un-rippable tracks as well as the windows media formatted files with limited uses ala Microsoft's digital rights management. Just one more brick in Microsoft's continuing monopoly..." And another format that I can't play back. Hope this one dies fast.

Comments

WMA ....

[taniwha]

Leaving a large bunch of pissed but brilliant programmers out in the cold just has to be a bad idea (just look at CSS) don't these music industry bozos ever learn ... if they choose a DRM system that's supported everywhere far fewer people will have the incentive to break their encryption - and it's not like they're in the music player software biz

No more epic albums

[[amorphis]]

Putting monopoly/copyright issues aside for a moment, requiring a WMA version means you lose at least 10% (at 128Kbit), which means that the maximal length would be more like 70min instead of 78min.

This would change the artists presentation of the music itself.

High Speed Analog Dubbing

[ers81239]

I think that most of us understand the concept that anything that is playable is copyable. I first don't really understand how they can write the disc in such a way that a CD player from 1995 can play it, but that the cracker community can't write a device driver for.

Aside from that, you know how your old tape player had High Speed dubbing? I wonder if someone could rig a CD player to play that way, and then capture the sound digitally and slow it back down. That way you don't have to wait the full length of the CD. Its not so easy as ripping is right now, but I'll bet it wouldn't be too bad. It could probably even figure out where songs started and stopped just like old tape players!

Monopoly? Not on talent

[idiot900]

I'm a DJ at my university's radio station. It is de facto station policy to not play anything by really well-known artists - i.e. Britney Spears will never come out of our transmitter. And there is no lack of "underground" music for us to play - music published by labels that aren't part of the RIAA juggernaut and aren't implementing these ridiculous copy controls. And a decent amount of it is of higher quality than anything I've heard from the major labels. Point is, there is plenty of good music out there if you don't want to be screwed over every time you buy a CD.

why not a standard??

[turbine216]

why not use a NON-proprietary standard instead of MP3 or WMA???? Why does everything have to be so controlled and so restrictive? They've obviously got a decent idea here (putting compressed digital copies of the CDDA tracks on the same disc as the music), but they've got their heads up their asses in the implementation.

The RIAA managed to accept and OPEN standard known as Red Book for production of CD's...why can't they just create another OPEN standard for digital music for use on PC's and portables?

(All rhetorical questions, naturally...everyone knows why they aren't doing it...)

Re:why not a standard??

[Tackhead]

> The RIAA managed to accept and OPEN standard known as Red Book for production of CD's...why can't they just create another OPEN standard for digital music for use on PC's and portables?

Because they figured that with 650M of data on a CD, that CDs would never by "copyable".

Because when CD-ROM drives came out, hard drives that could hold 650M cost thousands of dollars.

Because when CD-R came out, it cost thousands of dollars, and they figured we'd continue to listen (or dub) music on shiny black boxes with twirly knobs on 'em called "audio equipment", not PCs.

Because when MP3 came out, it took all night to encode a CD-ROM at 128. And most hard drives were only a couple of gigs. And CD-R discs still cost a few bucks apiece, so it was still usually cheaper to buy the album at the store.

Because they never imagined that we'd do anything with MP3s other than burn them to CD-DA. The notion of an MP3 "player" (whether based on CD-R, flash ROM, or hard drive) was just preposterous.

Because when people started trading MP3s, it was over 56K modem links, and it took all night to download an album.

Because SDMI always was, currently is, and will forever be, a WOMBAT - Waste Of Money Brains And Time.

Because they view us as nothing more than sheep for the shearing.

Because open formats like Red Book allowed the sheep to escape the fold.

Because they're damned if they'll ever make that mistake again.

Re:One solution

[tuffy]

If I listen to /dev/random long enough, eventually some piece of copyrighted music will result.

And then I'll get arrested for violating the DMCA.

:)

Could someone at the DOJ please look at this?

[M_Talon]

If this isn't a clear cut case of Microsoft using its monopoly power to cut into and eliminate competition from other markets, I don't know what is. We're not talking software anymore, we're talking the future of music distribution. This should not and could not happen if our antitrust laws have any power. Allowing WMA to be used here is definitely the wrong answer, as it allows Microsoft to say "Oh look, now you need a Windows machine with our Media Player to listen to tracks on your computer". If it was a general standard, this wouldn't be so bad. However, M$ is not known for general standards. They're known for embrace, extend, extinguish.

In my view, this boils down to "PR"

[garoush]

It's amazing to see how those "big" companies (MS included with there "activation tech.") put a lot of energy and resources to go after such a small percentage of the market segment.

Yes, I can copy a CD for a friend of mine as I have the tools and the means to do it with my PC (not that I will), but hey, for every one CD-copier out there are over 100s tape-copiers. And those tape-copiers do it more often than CD-copiers -- its far more easier. So why aren't those music industry clones going after the tape-media rather than the CD?

My answer to my own question is simple: CD is high tech, while tap is not. Thus, doing it in the CD market, creates more "noise" in the media which leads to more reorganization.

Re:In my view, this boils down to "PR"

[isomeme]

Tape copiers are less dangerous for two reasons:

1. Tape copies are analog, so they degrade with each copy. Chains of three or more copies on standard consumer equipment result in sound quality poor enough that most people consider it unacceptable.
   
2. Sharing tape copies requires transfer of physical media. A single non-rights-managed digital file can be distributed to thousands of people in a matter of minutes, limited only by bandwidth. Tape copies, even with high-speed dupe decks and the like, take much longer to create -- and distribution is at the speed of face-to-face meetings or postal mail.
   

That's why tape copying is no longer seen as a threat, relative to the dangers of digital media copying.

Will this severely weaken the industry?

[sulli]

Okay, we all hate the RIAA and their stooges in the copy-protection business. Still, here they are, and this is their latest salvo in their war against fair use.

However, it may be a huge double-barreled shot at their feet. Here's why: Ripping MP3s is already mainstream. When they ship these crippled CDs, and the word gets out that you can't rip them or you have to go through some user-hostile WMA download every time you want to add tunes to your jukebox, sales will drop.

And, as others have noted here, indie bands won't behave this way (why should they? MP3 trading will help spread the word about their tunes). So they will get a sales boost from users who may not give a shit about IP and fair use but certainly care about ease of use.

Don't believe me? Look at the commercial failure of Sony's Music Clip. It fell flat on its face because customers wanted the standard (MP3) not something else that required many extra steps to use it.

So, as for the music industry: fuck 'em. If they want to sell useless drink coasters for $15, and wonder where a big segment the buyers went, let them take the financial hit. Just don't invest in any of the big five, and you won't personally pay the price. Maybe now is the time to short Vivendi-Universal, for example.

EULA for MediaPlayer

[dackroyd]

To use the 'secure' version of MediaPlayer you have to agree to Microsoft being able to install any software they like, and disable any other programs.

From the EULA agreement for MediaPlayer 7.1:

Digital Rights Management (Security). You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ("Secure Content"), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update.

Does anyone else have a problem with this ? Every C.T.O. in the world should be alarmed at Microsoft being able to download and run any code they feel like, as well as switching any other programs off that they don't like.

Sure they can do that

[Greyfox]

They just label the cracker who writes the driver a terrorist (Legislation's in the works, don't say it can't happen) and hold him indefinitely without bail. Do a couple of people that way and the rest of the community will shut down so fast it'll make your head spin.

*Ahem* that is MRWMTMA, not WMA.

[gosand]

Dear pawns,

You are hereby requested to cease and desist using the acronym WMA, as it is not compliant with Microsoft® Corporation's current legal trademark notation. The new acronym shall henceforth be referred to as MRWMTMA, for Microsoft® Windows Media(TM) Audio format.

Thank you. All your base are belong to us.

Microsoft=Monopoly

Re:*Ahem* that is MRWMTMA, not WMA.

[fobbman]

"Thank you. All your base are belong to us."

...not to mention the midrange and whatever is left of the highs after compression hacks the hell out of them.

Maybe that's o.k.?

[Isldeur]

You know, I'm also against this whole non-rippable CD thing as well as MS's monopolies but I've recently gotten away from mp3's somewhat.

That's because a few months ago I got a Sony MZ-R700 (about $200 then) minidisc player. (I have no affiliation with any electronics company). It is about 1/4 the area/size of a CD player so it is completely portable. The minidiscs cost about $2 each and they can hold up to 300 minutes per disk. The battery life is more than 40 hours (rechargable in the unit) and I can use a USB-to-optical connection for a straight digial rip. All I need to be able to do is play the thing. I know I can't transfer the files off the minidisc, but we're really not supposed to be doing that too much anyhow, right? :)

I had been waiting for mp3 players with > 64 megs to come down in price but this seems to make much more sense. Once I heard that minidiscs can hold so much, I completely swapped and haven't looked back. Also, I can just pull out one disc and put in another! I don't need to reload the unit with other music and erase what's already on there. You just can't do that with the solid-state players...

Just something I thought you'd all be interested in. Best wishes.

Re:One solution

[garett_spencley]

Yeah it's pretty much equivalent to buying a Britney Spears cd, except you don't have to pay for it.

--
Garett

Record companies will regret this

[Blue Neon Head]

Someday Microsoft will use this power to push around the record companies, just as PC manufacturers were bullied through oppressive contracts. Someone needs to teach them some history.

Re:Is it just me...

[double_h]

that's like saying "You have the right to walk through this door, but we don't require the doorman to actually unlock it for you." And THEN, if you pick the lock (because the doorman is being obstinate) they throw you in jail for violating the DMCA!!

That's a pretty accurate assessment of how things stand. The Home Recording Act of (I think) 1994 states that you are legally allowed to make personal copies of recordings you've purchased. That is to say, if you copy a CD to listen to at work or in the car, the record companies do not have the right to sue you or have you arrested. It doesn't say the record companies are REQUIRED to give you this right, merely that you haven't broken the law if you do it.

A couple years later, the DMCA comes along, which DOES make it a crime to circumvent copy-control mechanisms. If the door is open, you're free to use it; if the door is locked, you're not allowed to pick the lock.

This is further muddied by the fact that the Home Recording Act specifically mentions "recording devices", and the jury is still out over whether a computer is legally classified as a recording device or not. Therefore, as I understand the HRA, ripping a CD you own onto your computer is still a legal grey area in any circumstance.

They think they "get it" but they don't

[kindbud]

"I think this is a glimpse of the future," said P.J. McNealy, a digital-entertainment analyst with GartnerG2, a division of research company Gartner. "This meets both sides' needs. It gives people the compressed audio (to play on computers), and it protects copyrights."

It does not meet both sides' needs. People don't want to play compressed audio on their computers, specifically. They want to listen to the music they buy at their convenience, in whatever format that entails. Right now, MP3 is popular, and home computers are a prevalent playback platform. Next year, it might be Ogg Vorbis, or something that hasn't yet been invented. People most decidedly do NOT want to be told how and when they may listen to music they have bought. They just want to listen. The details of formats and platforms are unimportant in the long run. If the music can be coded into any digital format, then it can and will be transcoded into whatever format the listener needs at the moment for his convenience, either by resampling from the analog signal jack, or directly transcoding a digital music file.

I'll respect IP when IP holders respect me

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's that simple.

I can go to my local music store and pick up a tape for $9.00, but I have to pay $15.00 if I want it on a CD, why?

I can go to the video store and pick up a movie for $13.00, but I have to pay $20-35 for the DVD, why?

So we all know that CD's are better than tapes, but we don't want to pay an extra six bucks to listen to music on a medium that is actually cheaper to produce. So what do we do? We push back. We make MP3's, we share them on Napster, Gnutella, Audio Galaxy, etc. We screw them back.

If you could get that brand new CD you wanted for $9.00 you'd be less likely to rip it from a friend. But you can't. So you push back.

As for the WMP format being used as the "standard" on new CDs, that is just bullshit. MS and the recording industry are just scratching each others backs on this one.

This IS a blatant misuse of Microsofts monopoly. Oh but they will get away w/it. If lawsuits are filed, MS will just release WMP for Mac and everyone will just look the other way. I for one will not. I don't have a problem w/IP, be it Microsoft's or the recording industry's. But I am sick and tired of hearing the word "standard" thrown around as if it actually meant something. Something that only works on Windows is not a "Standard" -- it is a lock-in mechanism. MS wants to lock us into windows.

I think companies should be required to implement new technology on all platforms -- or if they claim that is too difficult -- open up the specs so that it can be implemented by others. That can be a "Standard". And if they refuse to, they should lose their right to bitch and moan when someone circumvents it.

Re:Been Screwed

[PerfectWorld]

Your analogy is not quite correct. Of course I need a CD player, but there is no specification of who I must buy that CD player from. Pick your vendor ... build your own if you want and have the means.

To play WMA files, I must be using M$ Windows, or at least an M$ licensed WMA player (are there any WMA players for other platforms?). We have here a 3rd party (the music makers) dictating which computer OS I must use. We have a 3rd party that is dictating which software vendor I must deal with. _That_ is the problem.

My car dealer does not stipulate which mechanic I must got to, my barber does not stipulate which shampoo I must use, my dentist (ignoring the ORAL-B/Crest monopoly) does not dictate which toothpaste or toothbrush I must use, and my herbalist does not specify where I must buy my weed ...

I don't use illegal MP3s, or go beyond my 'fair use' rights, but preventing me from exercising my fair use rights via such controls is in direct contrevention of copyright laws.

Go ahead and introduce copyright protection mechanisms, but those controls must function entirely within the realm of copyright law, and they must be cross platform and based on open standards that everyone has free and unrestricted access to.

- Mark

Re:Unrippable != Unlistenable

[Snowfox]

Totally... mp3 or anything else in that category, is lossy compression. If you're willing to live with lossy compression, making it analog rather than digital won't really kill you. It's just the time factor (5 minutes to rip digital vs. 45 minutes analog), which the poster was commenting on

For those that do mind the longer rip - what they're doing is ineffective. Basically, they're stepping on the heads of people (like myself) who buy CDs and rip them for their own use.

Here's the brilliant bit - if I expect that I can't buy CDs and store the tunes on my home and work boxen without much work, my path of least resistance becomes to just start downloading tunes instead.

Implied license to pirate?

[Gorak]

When I buy blank media, I'm not just paying for the media itself -- I'm also paying a "piracy tax" on top of it, because a percentage of the media is used for piracy, and this is how the RIAA (and MPAA) try to make sure they don't miss out on any of that loverly money.

So, given that I've bought my blank media, I've paid my piracy tax -- isn't this an implicit license to copy the material? After all, I've paid for the rights to do so...