Slashdot Mirror
DVD Drives Defeat Cactus Data Shield
jsepeta sends in a story about Cactus Data Shield, one of the schemes to be used for copy-protecting compact discs. A reporter for TechTV notes that DVD drives see right through the disc corruption that Cactus uses to supposedly prevent those CDs from being ripped.
Will this end up like the VHS market where VHS recorders started intentionally mis-recording Macrovision protected content, despite the fact they had fixed the original flaw that allowed macrovision copy protection to work? Or will the DVD drive manufacturers stand up to the recording industry?
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
- RIAA and friends (via their pocket-reps) are trying to push through laws to force everyone to run a "Digital Media Rights" operating system.
- Microsoft have already filed patents on a Digital Media Rights OS.
- If this law was passed, wouldn't that give Microsoft control of 100% of the operating system market in any country where this law and their patent were both in effect.
An interesting turn of events..455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
People will be lining up to buy them. When they notice that they can't rip, it'll be too late- and the only response they will get is "what, you want to pirate music? You are a bad person, I ought to report you." Makes me glad that I've already got a drive.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
You're the loser for not grasping the topic at hand.
You said: I've never copied music, movies or programs and feel damn good about it when I read threads like these. Where's your self-respect? If you can't afford to buy it, you don't deserve to have it. Work and earn the money instead of stealing other people's property. Losers.
I dislike CDs because they only contain an hour or so of music. Therefore, I rip them to mp3 and play them on my computer. I've ripped almost all of my CDs, so I can mix and match them in this way.
I take great offense when a record company decides to produce flawed CDs to stop me from listening to my music how I like.
I do not care about the piracy side.. since pirates will always break any scheme. But it pisses me off that in certain situations I might have to rip to mp3 off of a live analog feed, instead of direct from the CD like I do now.
What the record companies are doing is not just copy protection, they're actually stopping you from using the CD in a perfectly legal manner. Many of these copy protected CDs aren't even meant to play in computer CD drives.
Believe it or not, my computer CD drive is the only CD drive I have after I sold my separates system.. I got rid of my separates because I spend 99% of my time listening to mp3s through my computer speakers!!!!
So, get your facts straight before you bitch at us for stealing music.
mogorific carpentry experiments
And this is of course precisely the attitude they are encouraging. I own upwards of 300 audio CD's, bought in Europe at the ridiculously high prices here.I'm the last customer the record industries want to piss off.
I listen to MP3's to determine what to buy, since most record stores are not that friendly to people wanting to listen to more than one or two cd's before buying. I also rip my CD's to MP3 for convenience. (e.g. to play at work without having to carry a pile of CD's with me every day).
With this sillyness going on, I'm considering just not buying any more CD's. Why contribute to an industry that is trying to alienate me and screw me over?
So record/movie companies, if you are listening:
-> I am buying CD's/DVD's (lots of them)
-> I want to continue to do so
-> You are shafting your customers
-> Shafted customers eventually become ex-customers!
Hmm... just had a thought inspired by some posts in here: Doesn't the DMCA's demanding that people use the products as they are defined start to sound like communism? Every time I read an article like this I keep picturing Adolf Hitler as CEO of whatever company is being written about.
You'd think the industry would learn that a new market has opened up and learn how to profit in it instead of trying to close it. The most damning thing for them is as long as Linux is around, there will always be ways to prevent copy protection from ruining our lives.
How many more subtle changes to the law will it take before it becomes illegal to not purchase a product because you saw the ad on TV?
"Derp de derp."
Sure there's a plan: digital speakers (usb?) that include tamper-proof decoding hardware. Of course they can't prevent you from mic'ing the speakers, but then microphones are just tools of pirates and kiddie-pr0n drug-snorting criminals anyway.
Better yet, first be sure it's got the "copy protected" label. Then insert, rip to AIFF (just a copy command under OS X, which presents audio CDs as implicitly ripped AIFF files!), burn CD-ROM with AIFF files. Then go back to Circus Shitty (they deserve this kind of hassle because of their old Divx "rental" format), whine that "it won't play in my DVD player!" and demand a refund.
As far as I'm concerned, RIAA record companies have got the best kind of copy protection of all: they don't make anything new that I would want to pirate, much less buy. And the old stuff I can usually find much cheaper used, if I care enough to want to hear it.
Just about all the music I listen to these days, aside from talk radio bumper music, is from JASRAC, not ASCAP or BMI. In other words, anime music and J-pop. And I prefer the original CDs when I can find them, because they almost always include the lyrics, and printed lyrics are helpful in one of the most homophone-laden languages on the planet.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
I've thought about the following for a while. There ought to be a two-track system of copyright. Whenever anything is released for public consumption, the publisher would make a choice:
In other words, the content publisher doesn't get to eat his/her cake and have it, too. By restricting Fair Use access, by cordonning off the material from the public domain (essentially forever), the publisher loses the protection of the courts. If you don't want to play ball with the justice system, you don't get to use it, either.
This approach is entirely justifiable, as copyright is a privilege granted by the state, not a right inherent in the content. As Litman and others point out, historically, copyright has been viewed as a bargain between the publishers and the public. If publishers try to unilaterally change the terms of the game -- by, for instance, encrypting data streams -- then the public has every right and justification to revoke the copyright.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Why am I somehow not surprised at this? Anyone got information on what it sends and where, if it does turn out to be spyware? If I was the kind of fool to write software like this I'd probably have it look for mp3s on the assumption that all mp3s are by definition contraband. If I was more of a fool I'd have the program delete them or something. Has anyone studied the behavior of this apparently annoying and awkward program?
For a fun little diversion, go to the midbartech website and try to get information about one of the Cactus products. You'll get to a page that has a one-field form asking for a password. Get your browser to show you the source for the page, and groove on the unbelievably sophomoric obfuscated password verifier. Ha!
The issue we were seeing was customer resistance to disks that were "defective". End users weren't terribly technical, and tended to call a colleague company's help line whenever their disks didn't read.
Of course, stealing copies of our program was as illegal as breaking copy protection is now, and that was sufficient for the majority of our customer base. When a customer called our help line with what turned out to be a stolen copy, we first helped them, then arrange for them to get a copy of the update release (with some bug fixes they needed!) for the regular update price.
I recollect actually going out to both a local college and high school and helping them set up whole labs of our product after they agreed to put us on next year's budget at the reduced academic rate (;-)).
Just like they were non-technical, you see, they were also well-meaning and faily law-abiding. We played to these, gained friendly customers, and got our profit margin back by selling upgrades, which were much chaper to produce than the whole package with manuals, etc. This approach allowed us to entirely avoid the known, quantified (and large) cost of copy protection. And this in turn allowed us to survive far longer than our management deserved!
My conclusion? Companies selling ordinary CDs without copy protection will have a business advantage over the ones trying to shoulder both the costs of DVDs for normal-fidelity audio and the support costs of "copy protection". Scofflaws will further reduce the profitability of copy-protected DVDs if they target them preferentially...
davecb@spamcop.net
I have several apps (like Wavelab) that are capable of burning red-book spec CDs (unlike Nero, Roxio, Adaptec)- ie. able to adjust PQ codes, etc... These same apps can also extract audio. I am very curious how this software (vs. a freebie ripper) would handle a "protected CD"- (unfortunately there isn't any protected music worth buying).
.wav file at 44.1 sample rate, 16 bits... no format conversion occurs. The only issue is the layout on the CD- but the raw data is identical. I seriously cannot believe that this cannot be extracted intact through software.
I realize Universal has implied that this is a hardware issue, but I have a hard time with that "line"- my guess is that anyone could write software "error detection" that emulates that of an audio CD player capable of playing a "protected CD". My understanding, and I may be wrong here, is that a PC's CD drive uses a more exacting form of error detection (since they spin faster, and let's face it- one bit of error sneaking by in your walkman's CD playing in real time can be interpolated with less impact than on a data CD for a PC).
I also find it difficult to believe that all of the glass mastering facilities have been retooled to accept masters with "errors." Obviously there is a great difference between "pressing a CD" and burning one- and the error tolerances are very different.
The actual digital data of a CDDA file is identical to that of a
Labels need to realize that a compressed format such as mp3 poses a legitimate compromise to fidelity. It is not unlike making a mix tape on(cassette). Granted many people also are copying entire CDs with the wave audio intact, but if the labels wanted to show a gesture of good faith, they would INCLUDE mp3s at a decent audio quality (above 128!). This would at least make purchasing the CD "valuable" (since it is higher quality than mp3).
But keep in mind that we will soon see high resolution audio on DVD, and the labels will try to resell you your entire collection with audio at least at 24 bits, and likely twice the sample rates... likely with surround sound mixes, etc. This of course if overkill considering most people's listening environments. Again, this could be viewed as a value added service worth paying a premium (and I consider the cost of a new CD at that price point, considering what little you get for your money). An mp3 will look like a very inferior medium to those with discerning ears.
To address another point someone raised, it will be VERY EASY to fill a DVD audio CD- the audio files themselves could easily double if not triple, and they will likely add alternate mixes of the same songs, and dump a bunch of other multi-media crap on them... and probably add "commercials" promoting other artists or products .
They CANNOT mandate copy protection for PCs. Hardware has historically been ahead of media (think VCR if you must... or cassette tapes). Look what a flop the "pay-per-view" DVD players were... consumers voted with their wallets.
The DIRECT DIGITAL copy argument does not apply here if we consider that a blank DVD could cost more than a high-res audio DVD (which it could- for the time being). In the meantime, people need to use the technology to unseat the stranglehold that the centralized form of distribution places on content (FOUR major labels controlling everying, including the LAW?!- certainly promotes a grassroots "open source" movement for artists to distribute their wares directly- most consumers would arguably rather pay the artist than the label anyway, and arguably actual production costs are at an all-time low and are headed lower... as long as you don't need that top shelf producer).
Universal and others truly are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
Those that suggest you "dance like no one is watching" really want to see you make a complete fool of yourself.
Please excuse any rambling here. Your post started this stream of thought, so it's a reply to your posting.
Since neither option would be attractive to most publishers, it would appear that widespread copyright violations (and violators) will be with us for a long, long time.
Really, the RIAA is facing nothing that retailers haven't faced since the beginning of commerce. While copying (or theft to use their term) is a bit higher than for retail, but their loss per copy is also lower.
At the same time, retailers have faced a serious threat to their profits for many years that the RIAA never sees in any realistic way....Competition in a free market.
Imagine starting a new department store in an environment where some sort of DSIA (Department Stores of America) controled every single advertising medium you might use to advertise your existance except for word of mouth.
One symptom of this state of affairs is that prices are much higher than they would be otherwise. In any sane pricing in a free market, the seller has to strike a balance between profit per unit and consumer willingness (and ability) to pay the price that results. Since the barriers to entry for the music market are artificially high, the RIAA has been able to consistantly keep profit/unit high. At the same time, they have created an unusually large population that really wants music, but can't/won't afford the price they charge. By consistantly making large profits while the artists make very little, they have also made themselves easy to despise.
That is a combination that makes widespread copying (or theft as they prefer) inevitable.
Returning to your equasion, I believe it will better reflect the real world as:
Rc = (Cp - (Ce + Cm + (Ca*Pa))) * Vd
I agree more or less with your analysis of the controlability of the variables (Though RIAA HAS tried hard to manipulate Cm and Ca through legislation and Ce through stupid copy protection scheme). Note that this version of the equasion subtly changes the meaning of Rc to utility (to the consumer) of copying.
For the sake of convieniance, I will define Cc, cost of copying, as Cc = (Ce + Cm + (Ca*Pa)).
Note that in any case where Cc < Cp there will be negative utility in copying. In those cases, the RIAA is a commodity manufacturer and gains it's profits from the efficiencies of mass production vs. individual copying.
I believe that the RIAA CAN compete with Gnutella! There is value in not having to hassle with crappy quality tracks, nodes that are too busy, or never seem to actually provide the tracks they claim to offer, misnamed tracks, etc... In addition, video tracks in free and open formats can also up the Cc without 'cheating'. If Cp is low enough, the only people who will copy are people whose time is worth nothing (who couldn't pay anyway since they are unemployed and unemployable).
The RIAA can also boost their profits through business innovations. At a low Cp, they might be best off by terminating their expensive ad campaigns and instead producing a subscription based review service. They could also capture value by charging a nominal fee to broadband providers to colo a music server (yes, charge a fee to allow a provider to colo!). The provider could then use that as an incentive to sign up and reduce their costs for upstream bandwidth.
Other sources of revenue could include providing a content rating system for parents and paid advertising in their review media (website, magazine, television show, streaming broadcasts etc).
In short, they could switch from their current strategy of poisoning every well in town but their own to the strategy that made them big in the first place: providing something of value at a reasonable cost.
Where is the profit for the artist? The same place it is now, concerts, merchandising, paid television appearances, a small cut from the RIAA's income, etc.
Not that it's probably not still over priced at $20, but the fact that it's simply more expensive than the $6 is explanable.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
First, does this mean it's Windows-only? Probably. What happens on a non-Windows system? Is the disk labelled accordingly?
Second, unless the install process ("install process to play an audio CD?") makes you sign a EULA, that spyware thing could be considered hostile code, and might be illegal under anti-hacking laws. This is definitely worth litigation.
An AC wrote:
> Oh joy!
>
> So now we can get back to stealing from the artists!?
>
> What a wonderful discovery!
No discovery. Artists have been stolen from all along by the recording industry. Hardly anything you pay for a CD goes to the actual artist. It goes to a bunch of greedy exploiters that call themselves the RIAA. Now they want to make the artists to work for a paycheck so all their IP belongs to the record label they work for.
To make matters worse, they want to restrict what law abiding people can do with their overpriced CD by selling broken ones (only their broken ones still don't do what they want)! As far as we know, these Universal CD's only play on Windows PCs with their crappy software, or on (some?) Windows PCs with DVD drives. If you want to play the songs using Windows Media Player on a PC without a DVD drive, you are out of luck. (Has anyone even tried to use Universal's player on a Windows XP PC? Does XP even let you run it?) If you want to use the XBox's feature to rip songs and play them as you game (or even just play the idiot CD's) you are out of luck. (Why Microsoft, patenter of the all-wonderful DRM OS and all around monopoly-abusing juggernaut, isn't screaming bloody murder here, I'll never know.) If you have any non-Microsoft OS, computer, or game console, you are seriously out of luck.
No, I don't trade mp3's. I'm not into mass-piracy, or even the "information should be free" movement. But I am also not into paying $20 (or whatever they are now) for broken CD's, especially when the money goes to greedy sharks and not to the artists. On the other hand, I happily paid $60 (and waited months to get) the two disc "Mothra 3" soundtrack, partly because it is the only way, without a US distributor, to reward Toho for one of their best Mothra movies, and because I have had so much fun translating the label and writing English lyrics to the instrumental pieces.
"They bind our hearts: 'Let's sell them again and again!'"
From the fairies' song "Infant Girl" in the Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961).
Jobs' recent quote when the iPod shipped was right on the money:
"Piracy is a social problem, not a technological one."
That really sums it up. And you can see in Apple's products that they really believe this.
Ripping MP3's (or AIFF's) in iTunes is ridiculously simple. Like it should be. (Single click rips an entire CD)
Copying those MP3's to a portable music device is also incredibly simple. Even automated if you use an iPod (though iTunes works great with other MP3 players too!)
The only copy protection on my iPod is the fact that it's a one-way sync. And for what it's worth, it's a LOT LOT LOT harder to do a 2-way sync than a one-way sync. So I really don't believe the conspiracy theorists, and I think it's all about keeping things simple!
Steve's on the right track here. He understands.
There's no real technological reason that other companies can't do what Apple's doing. But for some reason, they "get it" and folks like MS, etc. don't.