Slashdot Mirror
Ask Ed Felten About Watermarking Analysis And More
Dr. Edward Felten is in a funny position -- or perhaps not so funny. He's the Princeton researcher who took up the challenge posed by the music industry to find flaws in the SMDI watermarking scheme, but didn't enter into the 'no-telling' bargain (here's the click-through agreement [pdf]) which would have made him eligible for a reward, so wasn't bound by non-disclosure terms. When a scheduled academic presentation on the weaknesses [pdf] that he and his colleages found in SDMI became the object of lawsuit threats from the RIAA, and caused him to cancel the planned presentation, Felten decided to turn the tables, and in cooperation with the EFF, sue them instead, for interfering with his scholarly research. Though he did eventually get to present his research, the legal action is still going. Dr. Felten is at a hearing today in Trenton, NJ, but he's agreed to answer questions from Slashdot readers. Please confine your questions carefully (one per post), and we'll pass the highest-moderated ones on for his answers.
Do you believe that what the RIAA is trying to do is mathematically feasable, and that their attempt was merely the wrong way of going about the problem, or do you believe that what is being attempted is fundamentally impossible?
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
If you win your lawsuit, what type of precedent will it set? Will it encourage others to sue to regain their freedom of speech? Was this idea something you thought about when you were deciding upon filing charges?
God is real unless declared integer
What is the best case outcome for the lawsuit that you and the EFF have started. Is it possible that the DMCA (or parts of it) can be found unconstitutional? Or would a "best case" just be a weaking of the DMCA, where for certain purposes people would be allowed to discuss their findings regardless of the DMCA.
Also, how likely (in the opinion of you or your lawyers) are the different possible outcomes of this case?
As of today, I understand that you are able to give presentations based upon the flaws you've discovered in digital watermarking. In essence, you have won this battle...However, you are still continuing your lawsuit against the RIAA.
What do you hope to accomplish further, and in your opinion, what could be the best possible outcome from your lawsuit against the RIAA.
----------
ah honey, we're all resplendent - Bill Mallonee
If you were in the position where you were trying to get a handle on rampant piracy of your work, what (digital) means would you pursue to secure your work?
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
Do you feel that research, your specific research and/or research in general, should be presented in an 'open' forum, if said research is paid for, in part or in whole, with tax-supplied funds?
This gets down to a licensing issue, on the public being charged twice for the research and it's benefits.
Eric Gearman
--
Atomic batteries to power! Turbines to speed!
I wish you the best with regards to your suit against the RIAA; their intimidation tactics are despised by almost everybody in this community. But, though IANAL, I was wondering what precedent there is for this type of lawsuit. What damages have you suffered as a result of the RIAA's actions (you were ultimately able to present your research) and what resolution do you ultimately hope to attain? Do you really believe that such a goal is within reach, given the DeCSS/Napster rulings?
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
Hi Prof Felten,
As an academic myself, I am gratified by your colleagues and your decision to publish your findings instead of claiming the $10000 prize (personally, I find the $10000 "prize" for the HackSDMI challenge measly, and even bordering on insulting.).
The fact that you are suing the RIAA for intefering into your academic activities indicates your stance on the issue of academic freedom to research. However, the RIAA has deep-pockets, and the fight has just begun. It is not inconceivable that in the future, the academia may come under the control of rich corporations manipulating research for their own selfish ends.
So, my question is, do you see a bright future for a "free academia" or do you see a academia that willi increasingly be locked down by corporate interests and their lawyers/lobbyists?
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
In looking at the lawsuit, it looks like to me that it hinges on the facts that the click thru agreement did not apply if you never had any intention to try to collect the reward. If that is held up in court. Does your legal counsel believe that the RIAA's fallback assertion of we (RIAA) never meant to sue you hold up in court?
Or is it more likely that the judge will actually tackle the real issue of the DMCA stifling research (and now foreign visitors presenting papers re: Sklyarov)
-Jerry
Dr. Felten, thanks for your time to answer our questions. We do appreciate it. :-)
First, when you started your research, did you ever expect that you would be at the forefront of a legal battle to keep academic speech free and protected? Do you ever have any misgivings about taking a high profile in this matter? I know there are some researchers (some of my colleauges included) who shy away from anything legal and would rather just do work that might not be as controversial. It's good to see you getting involved and make sure that our rights as academics are preserved.
Secondly, what has it been like working with the EFF? I have a great deal of respect for them and have been a member for a couple of years now. I am just curious as to the 'behind-the-scenes' process that you and the EFF lawyers have been persuing as this case pans out.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
Why'd you do it? I understand why it had to be done - the onerous law can only be harmful - but what made you decide you, personally, should get involved like this to change it? I've kept and eye on the case and you've been very smart about how you're doing everything, so don't try to sneak off with a "it just happened this way."
Thank you
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
I am not talking about breaking the watermark itself, but the planned presentation and then you not presenting because of the RIAA threat?
Fight Spammers!
Given the attempts of the RIAA to ensure encryption of music products, etc. where do you stand philosophically on the issues of Copyright protections, etc?
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I was always told in my computer studies that water and electronics do not mix. So if you were to mark data with water wouldn't that actually damage it to the point that it would be useless to the user?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
It looks like since you weren't bound by an agreement you have every right to disclose your findings. The RIAA is saying your actions "would subject your research team to enforcement actions under the DMCA and possibly other federal laws."
I understand the reasoning behind countersuing for disruption of research, but why would you choose this option over a direct countersuit to challenge the DMCA? Your victory could theoretically mean the end of the DMCA by setting a valuable precedent.
There are people in the world who can easily pick the kind of lock that most of us have on our front door. Nonetheless, it is illegal to pick the lock in order to gain entry. However it is not illegal to write lock picking instructions, or to present a paper on lock picking.
(now to my question)
It seems that if laws against breaking and entering were not enforced, people (particularly those who wanted to protect themselves and their valuables) would be a lot more concerned about lock-picking. What do you think can (or should?) be done to enforce our existing copyright laws so that measures such as the one you are fighting will eventually be unnecessary?
Amazing magic tricks
Dr. Felten,
:-)
I don't think that anyone on this site would argue for an instant that current law has had a chilling effect on researchers such as yourself. The government has forbidden legitimate research into security circumvention tools, essentially sticking its head in the sand and pretending that crackers and citizens of foreign countries won't continue security research themselves.
That having been said, the events of September 11th really came as a shock to the system for a lot us here. Suddenly, the idea of someone, say, cracking Triple-DES and distributing the crack on the Internet seemed a little more scary than it did on September 10th. If someone (*cough*Al Queda*cough*) were able to read our military secrets, you can bet there would be a real loss of human life associated with it.
Obviously, discussing flaws in SDMI and publishing a Triple-DES crack are two different balls of wax. So, the real question - do you think anti-circumvention legislation is *ever* warranted? Or is any legislation at *all* simply more sticking our heads in the sand?
(proudly wearing my DeCSS t-shirt
If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.
I have the feeling I'm feeding a troll but,
It's clear to almost everyone that your lawsuit was nothing but an attempt to set up the RIAA. The RIAA has been nothing if not exceptionally clear about the fact that they never intended nor attempted to suppress anyone's research.
With all due respect, if someone received a "Cease and Desist" letter demanding they stop doing something, such as preset a paper at a conference, or else face litigation from an exceptionally large and well funded organization with a possible (ie. unproven in court) leg to stand on, most people (and I'll grant you may be the exception) would not present the paper. This could have (most would argue would have) a chilling effect on research. I think it is unethical to say the least to demand this sort of thing and then back-peddle once their objectives have been completed (he didn't present the paper as they demanded). To notice that it might not have been in their best interest and claim "Oh we were just kidding", is a tad insulting.
If they had wanted to be exceptionally clear that they wouldn't sue, then they should never have threatened to.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Everybody likes to talk about standing up for free speech, but many would rather sit on the bench than actually step up to the plate.
How has this situation affected you personally ?
Has it increased your level of day to day stress ?
Do you lose sleep over it ?
I'm referring both to your original decision to publish your work and your current legal effort.
Absolute statements are never true
What has been the tenor of the lawsuit with respect to the RIAA, what has their attitude been? For example, has the RIAA offered concessions, or have they been confident in their position?
She sat at the window watching the evening invade the avenue.
Research has started as a public research for the good of everybody, everything public researcher discovered was made public. Now, we can see a trend that some public founded researchs get screwed because of some ridiculous patents or laws. Did you try to make some clear ruling about that with your case against the SDMI? What are your hopes about the results?
All of us here have our own opinions of the RIAA, copy protection, fair use, and the legal actions the RIAA has taken (mostly along the lines of Hillary Rosen must be atomized), but, as someone who has been directly affected by the RIAA's hubris, what's your opinion all this? Do you think the RIAA is legitimatly -- albeit illegally -- interested in protecting the interests of musicians, or do you think their loyalties lie with the producers and labels? Do you think they think they are really the good guys? Do you think they are after money or control?
One more thing: what do you anticipate will be the end result of the intellectual-property fiasco? Will we be condemned to a world of SDMI and single-use music, or will fair use win out in the end?
-- Nerds on toast in the new millenium
At what point would you have said screw my convictions, I'm taking the money. 100k? a million? five million?
No, really!
It seems like every time someone creates a new method to protect copyright works, the protection is bypassed, sometimes within days. Everyone on Slashdot always says if you can hear it, you can copy it and that is very much true, it is just the nature of the technology we have today.
From a technological standpoint, do you feel the RIAA is wasting thier time or do you think they will reach a certain level of protection that will be worth thier efforts?
From a scientific point of view, is there any evidence that technologies could be invented which enable producers of digital content to control how this digital content is used, and by whom? Should there be a difference between theory and real life, I'd be interested in an answer under real-world assumptions, that is, there is an Internet and people connect to it using devices fully under their own control.
http://erichsieht.wordpress.com/category/english/
I'm curious to what your take is on copy protections and the history of their circumventions.
In my view it seems that no matter what copy protection technology comes out, someone makes something to circumvent and defeat it.
Do you think there will there ever be an "unbreakable" protection scheme?
And how easy/hard is it to "alter" an image or a sound clip to defeat it's watermark?
Thanks.
[Connection closed by foreign host]
Since your encounter with RIAA, have you come across other researchers/projects that are hindered in real academic or corporate research? If so, what is the depth and range of the effect? If not, what do you see as potential unintentional implications, which legislators and companies have no considered, but is possible under the new copy protection laws?
I am currently a student and my friends and I all have an interest in "hacking", both hardware and software. Many of the laws that have bound you in the United States will also bind us here in Japan due to the multinational nature of many corporations and agreements on Intellectual Property.
Do you have advice for the curious student, perhaps someone interested in research or experiments similar to yours, but without any resources to assist him in a court of law? I have had a friend who received threats of a legal nature from a large company and he chose not to continue his research since he did not have the resources for a lengthy legal battle.
To conclude my question, what would you recommend to the student who wishes to do as you have done, but does not have similar resources?
Thank you.
R. Suzuka
Is it possible that scientist like Dr. Felton who are working in areas where they might come in conflict with the DMCA or similar legislature, will choose to work at non-US universities rather than subject themselves to possible lawsuits and imprisonment in the US.
And in the same context might foreign scientist refrain from coming to conferences in the US for the same reason.
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
Dr. Felten,
As the old axiom goes, "Hindsight is 20/20". At this point in your battle, having become a public representative of academic freedom and constitutionality, is there anything you regret, any decisions you would have made differently if you could do all of this over again?
As an avid slashdot reader & EFF supporter, I'd like to wish you the best of luck in your fight! I'm sure I speak for the entire slashdot community when I say that you are truly an inspiration to us all.
-Mike
Dr Felton,
Any security protection will deter 80-90%of the people. Of the remaining people, 1-2% will not be deterred by anything and the rest will take advantage of the work of the 1-2%. Copy protection doesn't work in the digital world as well as it works in the analog world. It would seem that perhaps the laws governing the digitial world ought to be different from the analog world, perhaps even different for different types of digital "ideas".
What is your opinion of the best way to implement copyright, patent, or other Intellectual Property protection for authors while protecting fair use rights of consumers?
What do you think the realistic impact on illegal music trading would be if the technology you tested was implemented on a widescale basis now that your research is in the public domain?
A social question .. do you feel that the pervasion of technology as a means of security contributes to the number of people who feel comfortable with trying to do something illegal (ie, Napsterize, for example)? Do think disproving the effectiveness of current watermarking schemes is an incentive for the RIAA to combat piracy as a social problem, or simply as an incentive to develop more secure, uncrackable copyright protection schemes?
"Old man yells at systemd"
MicroSoft, RIAA, DMCA...
You're playing with the big boys.
Where do you see yourself ending up?
Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra
Is it much more difficult (outside of mass distribution issues) to mark each distinct copy with a unique watermark, than it is to use a single generic watermark?
Assuming that you win the case and the court awards reimbursement of legal cost. I read that it is expected to reach up to $2M. How much of that is covered by donation and what will the money be spend on. Further efforts against DMCA or some of the newer Sept. 11 induced attacks of civil liberites?
Help fight continental drift.
First, congratulations on a nice piece of work!
The RIAA seems clearly out-of-line in their legal attempt to stop the publication of your work. Hopefully your legal case against them will set usable boundaries for Intellectual Property disputes in future.
My question is: How did the RIAA get themselves in this situation? It appears really stupid for an organization of their stature. Didn't they know where to find a good mathematician when they developed SDMI? With all due respect, surely you weren't the only guy out there who could solve this problem. Then to lay it out on the table and bet the world, it couldn't be read. It just all seems like a comedy of bad management.
How did it happen???
People have long decried the increasing trend in university scientific research whereby private corporations seem to be dictating more and more what should be the subject of academic interest.
Now we have a private entity blazanly attempting to suppress research they didn't even finance because it shows critical weaknesses in their technology (even if they make the weak claim they have a disinterested motivation for their action). Not withstanding the incredible poor taste of telling a professor he can't present his work, after having asked for said research to happen in the first place, because the conclusions the work comes to aren't the ones desired. I am left with the bitter cold feeling that we are slowly slipping into a new era of corporate meddling where all manner of 'unpopular' academic research will find itself the subjects of lawsuits because some crafty lawyer has found a new way to extropolate the clauses of the DMCA in such a way that it protects his clients product in some fashion.
What are your thoughts on this and how do you assess the willingness of america's academia to resist this trend?
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
Personally I feel very strongly that legislation banning or regulating reverse engineering is wrong in the moral sense. Scientists, mathemeticians and students of literature reverse engineer nature and the human mind. Reverse engineering a few man-made items seems to me to be part of the same pursuit of curiosity. Would you care to comment?
If the watermark was of a tree falling in a forest, and no one was around to hear that tree, would it make a sound? Could be a good watermarking scheme ;)
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
Where do you feel that academic research and law will go from here?
Who do you blame for the current debacle? Those who drafted the law or those who in an over zealot reach asked for the law (and possibly wrote it)?
And, what's your worst fear of these groups trying to legislate their commercial rights?
Henry
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
After Napster and all the other file-sharing services it seems downloading music (and movies) without paying a cent has become the norm. .
Do you think that, by using cryptography, watermarking or other copy-protection/prevention technologies, the entertainment industry can go back to the past situation when everyone paid (a lot) for having their copies of music/movies or, on the contrary, the technologies don't exist and will never exist to prevent the parallel distribution that we have nowadays?
To me, it looks like the RIAA attempted to use the threat of a lawsuit to attempt to deter Dr. Felten from presenting his results, even though they knew there was no basis for such a lawsuit. This attempt was only temporarily successful. I have heard many other instances of threats of unfounded lawsuits being used "tactically".
My question is for Dr. Felten's legal team, not himself: Is there any precedent in American law for collecting damages for legal threats made without actual intention to sue or any good reason to think a suit could be successful? Would you recommend legislation to make it possible or easier to collect such damages, e.g. for the cost of a lawyer to check out the threat and delays incurred in planned activities while studying the matter?
Is my assessment that SDMI is dead as a doornail correct, or not?
sulli
RTFJ.
What do you see as being the future of digital media: a business model based on consumers having little or no control over the information they pay for and consumers willing to put up with this, or something more similar to traditional rules where a company has little control over its product once it is sold, digital or otherwise?
Dr. Felten,
It seems, from the outside, that you are in a position similar to the "Gambler's Ruin" fallecy.
(For those not familliar with this, it works like this: Bob goes to a casino. He bets $2 on a game of chance. If he loses, he plays again with $4, and with $8, $16, $32 etc, doubling his bet each time he loses. The idea is that if he wins, he wins back all the money he lost up to that point, and the odds of his losing streak continuing very deep - assuming reasonable house advantage - are pretty small.
The "fallecy" par crops up in that the casino has access to far greater resources than Bob. Bob's bet gets pretty big in a hurry (and the amount spent is culmulative, until he wins) so the odds are that for reasonable values of Bob's bankroll, the casino can outlast him and take his money in the end)
The RIAA (and Microsoft, and Hollywood studios, and similar offenders) have very deep pockets, whereas individuals like Dr Felten are close to Bob. The problem seems to be that any of these rich organizations can keep the legal battle going indefinately (spending money on lawyer's fees all the while) and eventually bleed Bob (or Dr Felten) dry.
Dr Felten, based on your recent experience
1) Do you agree with this analogy, and
2) How can you expect not to be bled dry, financially, by the process?
.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
If you live in student halls, and the marks are yellow, then i think i can answer your question...
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
How supportive has Princeton been during this process? Have you ever felt any pressure from within not to expose the University to costly lawsuits, or have they been behind you all the way?
After reviewing the paper on the the DMSI's
watermarking techniques, I was curious about
the effect this has on the quality of the recording--especially in classical music.
Are there any audible artifacts?
(even the SLIGHTEST?)
Do the watermark techniques you've seen affect the timbre or pitch?
thanks,
Bill Klemm
Rice University
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Given that you've been so prominent in demonstrating the weakness of watermarking techniques thus far, how do you like his company's chances of succeeding, and has your academic interest in defeating watermarking schemes resulted in some interesting debates in the lunchroom?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Dr. Felten:
Some commentators would characterize the last 25 years or so as a conflict between patent holders (the manufacturers of consumer technology) and copyright holders (the producers of consumer culture). The landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Sony v. Universal, was set up as typifying this conflict.
However, it would seem that, many years after the movie studios lost their attempt to prevent consumer VCRs from being sold, the VCR has, if anything, benefitted the motion picture industry.
Similarly, in the recent Napster case, it is worthwhile noting that after the RIAA successfully shut down Napster, their sales started to immediately decline, and have continued to decline. Many have argued that Napster provided a vastly superior method of music promotion, especially for older records, than radio, and its shutdown has resulted in music fans not finding out about records they might otherwise buy.
Do you think that this conflict is more imagined than real? In other words, is it more likely to the benefit of the cultural industries to work with technological development, rather than fight it?
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
We keep seeing cryptographic copy control attempted and broken. DVD-CSS, SMDI, the high bandwidth crypto stuff mentioned on slashdot recently.
Do you think it's at all possible to create a true playback control system? Perhaps using public key crypto and un-hackable hardware? Or do you believe that it is truly mathematically impossible to do
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
It appears that until you or some other legitimate researcher goes forward with publication and is sued or prosecuted for it, the courts may think you are just crying wolf to try to get a law you don't like changed. A number of researchers have stated that they now intend to stop working on analyzing content protection. If this court decision is upheld, that will prevent the DMCA from being overturned.
Are you willing to go forward with research and publication in violation of the DMCA? The only way to stop you then will be to actually use the DMCA against you, and it can finally be tested in court. Will you take this risk when so many researchers are backing away?
Watermarking on the other hand seems to rely on hiding in the least significant bits of the data. Pretty soon any images that are supplied in Jpeg2000 format or converted to it would have an automagic way of killing any watermarks present.
I think watermarking has already lost. What do you think of this?
t.
CCC1: "Dude, they want us to come up with something stronger."
CCC2: "Shit, haven't they got it through their thick skulls yet? It won't work."
CCC1: "Let's tell them we need to spend more to come up with an effective system."
CCC2: "Cool, time to buy some more Nerf guns!"
CCC1 & CCC2 (unison): "Man, I love this job."
-Legion