Slashdot Mirror
The Customer is Always Wrong
McSpew writes "Hackers author Steven Levy so far is the only person in the mainstream press to pick up on the the travesty of the SSSCA hearings. He points out that only the media giants could be so stupid as to think treating their customers like criminals will increase sales." Steven's a very smart guy - and very well said on this issue.
... they can build their own!
The SSSCA is just the result of a lazy slob MPAA/RIAA executives who want the PC industry to build them tailor-made-to-order PC technology to their exacting specifications, without having to invest a single penny or lift a single finger of effort. Oh, the industry won't play along? Let's pass legislation REQUIRING them to.
The MPAA/RIAA are so used to having their way with consumers, that they now believe they can hand the jar of vaseline to the PC industry and have their way with them, too.
And the scary bit is that for the most part, they're right...
As always, its the "Music industry has head stuck up ass. People will be mad. News at 11."
Duh.
It's a shame people dont have the time or money to care until it actually happens.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Please! This is basically more of big, rich media companies convicting all their customers without a trial. Guilty because you own a piece of hardware. Yeah, file-sharing and copying is rampant...does it take away their profits? That's not clear...and in MY opinion, it doesn't since there's no guarantee that I would have purchased a CD containing a song I download...yet I know that many times, I've downloaded a song, liked it, then bought the CD.
As for the Apple campaign, nothing in it is promoting criminal behavior, only fair use...which is what these people would LOVE to stamp out.
"I'm not a procrastinator, I'm temporally challenged"
only the media giants could be so stupid as to think treating their customers like criminals will increase sales.
Hrm. I wonder if Microsoft will be able to license their Activation Code technology to the good people of Vivendi Universal.
"We're sorry, but someone is already listening to this pressing of the Britney Spheres CD."
--saint
It's not about piracy--its about destroying fair use and moving America to a pay-per-use business model. The whole piracy thing is arrant bullshit--content will still be created regardless of copying. After all, it's done pretty damned well even after 30 years of rampant analog copying.
The whole scare over "digital copying" is a red herring--what the RIAA and MPAA are trying to do is use this new-fangled technology thing to get rid of this profit-limiting concept of "buy once, play (or read) many times."
Get that message out there folks--its not about piracy, its about pay-per-view everywhere.
Remain calm! All is well!
I think they're safe, especially since none of these are illegal activities. Violation of copyright is illegal. Unlimited distribution without permission of the copyright holder (not "owner") is illegal. But for music you've made, or music you've purchased, ripping, mixing, and burning are entirely legal for your personal use. Not only does common sense say so. So does the law and quite a number of federal courts.
Despite efforts to grab the mindspace, the Content Cartel is simply wrong when it claims that ripping, mixing, or burning are, prima facie, illegal. Don't yield that ground to them.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
As a company, it makes a lot of sense to try to stop people from using your products
I doan theeenk so.
What galls me most about the media oligopoly is that they think they have a right (and congress is, sadly, too eager to oblige) to have the general public shoulder additional costs so that the media oligarchs can easily apply their existing business models to new media.
What a fantastic piece!
Arguing against those who favor copy protection measures extreme as these can sometimes be difficult for people who arn't particularly technologically inclined; that's why we always see anologies to Ford making cars whose engines need updgrades like Windows does. This article does a good job of making the electronic freedom arguement without resorting to such sillyness by pointing to the underlying economic reality: treating your customers like theives will never increase sales.
Let's hope this is just the first in a long line of articles making a sensible arguments against Disney et al., and their handpicked legislators.
Specifically in the area of digital music, if this had been done right this would not be a problem. Music companies offering their catalogs for say .25 or .50 cents a song with a fat pipe and guaranteed quality would have been popular. I would have considered it myself. I would have download from them regardless of the availability of other sources such as the Gnutella network. I would have been happily legal, with clean, correct copies of my music. I think that many people would have also.
Sure, there would be quite a few people still pirating the content, but for audiophiles it would have been a no-brainer. Legal, fast, and clean would have been the watchwords. How many MP3s have you downloaded only to find out that it's a bad rip that took you an hour to get? Misnamed songs, misnamed authors, and things like that would have been things of the past. But no, we have to have paranoia, fear, and mistrust.
A company that would trust its customers a little bit could reap huge rewards. There will be piracy regardless of what they do. If it was created by man, it can be broken by man.
The first company to engender a little trust and lay on a little guilt "If one of your friends wants this song, send them to us so we can continue to offer you this premium service" would have made them money.
...Steven Levy so far is the only person in the mainstream press to pick up on the the travesty of the SSSCA hearings....
Uhmm...am I the only one who sees how obvious it is that mainstream media, controlled by the companies that are backing the sssca, wouldn't be reporting on it? Unless it wasn't going their way, that is.
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
Here's yet another reason why increasing the size and power of Government will only deteriorate the rights of the common man. These anti-speech measures will only increase in number as long as the average person votes for the three parties above.
Advocating liberty means supporting the decrease of big government. Stop asking for handouts, no matter what type (corporate subsidies, welfare, social security, etc) because those handouts come with reductions in our rights, like the big corporations want. If you want to end these ludicrous and obviously unconstitutional laws, then vote for the only party that advocates disassembling any law that is unconstitutional: the Libertarian Party.
I hate being a broken record, but ALL these laws (SSSCA, DMCA, etc) are unconstitutional, but as long as Congress is more powerful than the Constitution allows, they will never be repealed.
My view on copy protection: let manufacturers make an unbreakable copy protection scheme if they want. Let hardware developers get in bed with software developers. But DO NOT LET THEM have laws that prevent reverse engineering. Do let the free market consumer power choose between an encrypted uncopyable format, and possibly an open format advocated by another group of software publishers.
As long as we allow the RIAA and MPAA and other large organizations lobby Congress to overextend Congressional power, we'll always be victims. The free market works, but only if you get government out of it.
Business-school professors could feast for years on the unintended consequences that come from treating Britney Spears tunes like nuclear secrets.
So we might have Britney Spears tunes locked up with only a select few authorized to listen to them? Maybe there is a upside (albeit a tiny one) to this after all.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Actually, it's perfectly valid to view this as slashdot charging for the service, not the content. They organize the servers, the software, maintain the archives, etc. Through their reputation (such as it is) and their userbase, they supply the eyeball.
Hey, sort of like open source.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
By making clear that your company opposes illegal use of your product, even going so far as to lobby for the enactment of laws restricting your product's use, you remove liability from yourself and transfer it to those who seek to use your product for illegal purposes.
Unfortunately, you transfer the liability to the hardware manufaturers, the courts, and the government. Its easy to implement crappy copy protection, and then rely on other people to protect you when somebody figures out how to circumvent it.
As a company, it makes a lot of sense to try to stop people from using your products illegally.
I agree. And I have no problem with any company trying to do this. If they want to, then there should be nothing trying to stop them. I, of course, am free to not use their products, and I am free to support any company that chooses not to use copy protection that interfers with my fair-use rights.
The problem is that they are trying to pass a law to remove these rights from me. They are taking the actions of a few illegal traders (who are outnumbered by legitimate CD buyers - Somebody must have made O-Town a #1 record) and turning them into legislation that will effectively, remove my ability to choose and to fairly use my media in a way that I see fit.
This scares the hell out of me.
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
I guess ALL innovation comes from the halls of corporations. We don't need no steenking startups. If you *think* about what's really needed to implement the SSCA as currently envisioned that's what happens.
If our government thinks we're in a hi-tech slump now, just see what happens if SSCA passes. Just watch the US fall on the wrong side of the digital divide as innovation moves elsewhere.
As others have said, it's not just hardware, but software, too. You can add all the DRM hardware you want, but unless you've got a DRM OS with signatures, security, and verification everywhere, it's broken. An OSS kernel is dead in the DRM age, and userspace may well be in trouble, too. Imagine SSCA-certified compilers that guarantee the 'DRM Devices' are only used properly.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I hate to use Adult industry examples, but there is a very good example of taking advantage of a market instead of trying to shut it down.
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. was probably one of the most pirated companies in the history of media when it comes to original content. I don't know about you, but I've read hundreds of articles talking about Pamela Anderson or whoever being #1 on most search engines, etc etc.
So what did PEI do? They capitalized on the market. They didn't try to prevent you from copying JPG's and MOV's. They gave you a service so killer that it's not worth the time trying to pirate it. Most adult companies try and charge like $30 a month for a crap ass website with lousy content and slutty women.
Not Playboy. They charge like 6 bux a month. The price of a paper magazine. All of their playmates in an online archive. HUGE libraries of content. New features weekly if not daily.
Playboy recognized it could benefit from a potential source of huge revenue or it could be like the RIAA and MPAA and try to prevent it's content from being copied. By providing a service with such value at such a reasonable price point, I'm quite sure Playboy is making a killing.
I wish the RIAA and MPAA could pull their heads of out their respective a$$es and open their eyes to the REAL market they COULD capitalize on without screwing things for us: the consumers.
Msft gets off scott free, able to leverage one monopoly into as many as they can grow tentacles (buy one, you have to buy them all! No "mix and match" no mo...) but hardware companies like WesternDigital, Maxtor, IBM etc. are required by law to put secret undocumented protection features in their products to give Msft unlimited control over distribution, installation and use ("Please enter your 24 digit auth code to begin performance of this content, or contact your vendor for assistence in obtainly a copy authorization code.").
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I have the solution to the "Piracy" which should make everyone happy. The problem is not in the technology, it lies in the simple fact that the content providers actually give consumers the first-generation copies in the first place, which facilitates second-hand copying. This practice needs to be stopped.
The solution is deviously simple: when a someone goes to the record store and buys, let's say, the hot new Alicia Keys CD, they should only get a copy of the liner notes, not the easy-to-copy CD.
Voila! No original, no copies, and the problem is solved. You can't pirate a CD that you don't have. Sure, album reviewers might have a harder time with this scheme, but your average Britney Spears-listening vegetard won't know the difference. They'll still be a part of the excitement as they clutch their empty CD case, their small, vapid minds unaware of the change. Since most pop music is brand and marketing, the music studios could concentrate their efforts more efficiently.
It will save money on studio and recording fees as well.
Someone get Sen. Fritz Hollings on the phone, if he helps set this plan into motion, there's a nice vacation condo waiting for him!
For those who are unfamiliar with the details of the bill, you will find them here
Also, please sign the online petition that is posted online here
It would also be good if you write your elected officials, but at least add your name to the petition.
The future you save just might be your own...
When faced with a problem, many web developers say "I know, I'll use JavaScript!".
Now they have two problems.
I know I'll get mod'd down for this but I just had to point it out.
/.'d and people purchase the movie (which is bound to happen), he will get a percentage from the sale! Talk about using the /. effect to one's advantage.
The guy who submitted this story included a link to purchase the movie 'Hackers' from Amazon.com (as opposed to the movie's website which would seem more logical) as part of the stories description.
I was curious about this for a minute until I released that he included a referer ID in the URL so as the URL gets
Capitalism is wonderful, isn't it? I'm amazed that the editors let that slip by. I think this is a whole new category of karma whoring...
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
Before you flame me, I realize there is a distinction in that supposedly you paid for that DVD you only want to make a backup copy of. But if the seller of the DVD and law say that is not what you paid for, then why are you arguing with the seller? You should only be arguing with law.
So maybe that's the commonality of the two opinions, both advocate that the law should be changed in the consumer's favor. One to allow consumers access to strong encryption, one to to allow consumers the common law right of fair use to DVDs they have purchased.
* BTW, Why hasn't SlashDot reviewed Levy's new book yet? It's been out for two month's now.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Why is it that the software industry can have suffered from piracy for longer than most of you have been alive, but just a few years of Napster warrant stepping all over our freedom and forcing us to lose control of the hardware we purchase?
The music/movie/software/everythingelse industry is not interested in spending a lot of money to completely eradicate piracy. What they want to do is to prevent casual copying (ie napster) and distribution. If they put out crippled CD's that can't be copied by the common person, then the volume of piracy will go down. Similarly, if they go after the major file sharing networks then they make it harder for the _average_ person to pirate their goods then the volume of piracy will go down. People like me (and most of slashdot) will always have the skills to get things for free, but if most of the rest of the population doesn't know how then the losses due to piracy are far lower.
Some people equate digital copying with analog copying, but the primary difference is the volume of piracy, and that's what they're scared of.
The RIAA and all the lawyers in the world will never be able to completely stop pirating. Look at how much money the feds throw at drugs and the number of addicts on the street. If enough people want something, they'll get it.
:).
;)) in XP to fake the IP address and have it ban the hapless 'regular' user in the ISP.
To put an interesting spin on it, what if the RIAA were to attack the source of the MP3s.. Not so much trying to force Morpheus or whomever out of business, but to taint their supply of MP3s? I know one of my chief frustrations is to search for a song and either have it incomplete, or be of poor quality (e.g. pops or other defects) or to simply have it not be the same song that I downloaded. If I could search for a song, pay a penny for it and download a 'known perfect' copy at my choice of bitrates (e.g. 128, 160, etc.) then sure as heck I'd do it.
In that vein, what if RIAA / third party went ahead and started 'poisoning' the well? Started distributing broken or otherwise junk MP3s? If they could find a way to diminish the signal ratio by spewing so much junk I'd have no other choice but to find alternate means of obtaining the mp3, be it buying the CD, obtaining it from a friend, or buying the mp3 online.
Now, before you say 'That's impossible!' consider the following little scheme:
1) Entity (be it RIAA or some 3rd party company) contacts recording studio and asks "Which song/artist would you like us to poison?"
2) Record company gives them a list, and a certain amount of money (e.g. the Entity charges on a per-song or per-artist basis).
3) Entity floods the Napster / Morpheus / etc. community with junk MP3s.
Now this would take an enormous amount of bandwidth, so said Entity would have to have some sort of agreement worked out with ISPs and a mass-content provider, say Akamai. Akamai has tens of thousands of servers located in hundreds (if not more) of ISPs throughout the nation. I think on peak usage they're pushing out 100 GB/sec. in the US (if not more). Simply say "Ok Akamai, can we buy 10GB on each of your servers and push all these MP3s out?". Then you write a gnutella client for each box which offers all the MP3s up for distribution.
I can't remember how the gnutella protocol works but I think it broadcasts search requests to the nodes who store a cache of what they have and what their neighbors offer and then can pass the request off. Have your client log all the requests (so you can tell the record companies which songs were requested more) and of course offer up your files when requested. If you do this with 10,000 boxes full of identical content chances are you're going to drown out any signal out there.
If you're really tricky, you can even have the client 'fake' files so you don't actually need to have the file on the box; you could send a pre-existing obfuscated file.
Of course, all of this is moot if you still don't have a very easy, cheap method of offering MP3s online for the mass public. You could pitch it like this "Yeah, so you won't make much money off of offering a penny for each MP3. But you're a fool if you think simply shutting Morpheus off will result in even 10% of the Morpheus users buying the actual CD or using a painful, userUNfriendly pay-per-MP3 system. However, what if we have a method to net you 20 or 30% of users who wouldn't pay you anyway?" So the pitch would be "We can't get you all of them, but our method would give you more than you're getting now!". Frankly the people who post on SlashDot (from the very negative response to the Subscription model) are not a good cross-section of the vast majority of internet users out there
So in your obfuscated file you have it play maybe 20 seconds of the file and then say "Sorry, this is a copywrited file. Pirating files costs artists money. If you want to buy this MP3 for a penny, please visit http://www.somestore.com. 80% of every penny earned will go directly to the artist."
It gives them a reason to buy it - not only do you have SomeStore.com very easily accepting payment of the penny, but you ACTUALLY PAY THE ARTISTS A MAJORITY OF THE MONIES EARNED! So it can quell the naysayers who say "Well the artist wouldn't receive anything anyway!" (rant: but who are you hurting more, the billion dollar-industry or the Artist who NEEDS even the small cut they receive from each CD sold?).
Some drawbacks could be of course that someone writes a 'detector' to find and ignore the invalid MP3s, or they block the IP addresses of the servers, etc. but that is easily fixed. Most non-power users (e.g. the great and huddled masses of the internet) don't want to update their Morpheus client every time a new version is released. Heck, even programs which offer hassle-free updating (e.g. antivirus, windowsupdate.com) very rarely are by the majority of internet users. Also, you'd work out the server IP settings with the ISP so that they would rotate to a random IP in their pool - since most of the servers are located in most ISPs you couldn't ban the single IP but perhaps a subnet. But since the IPs are in the ISP, you have now banned a large chunk of users. If they are in every ISP, you will have to ban every ISP (see the problem in banning IPs?). You could also use the EVIL RAW SOCKETS (sorry had to poke fun at XP haters
So, to boil it down to a few bullet points:
*Poison the well
*Have very easy-to-use, hassle-free, cheap, reliable, etc. method for users to buy MP3s and they WILL.
Thanks,
--
Matt
Seriously.. i was a macworld subscriber back when they were GOOD, and i consider steven levy to be one of if not the biggest badasses in computer journalism. And this article is just about perfect-- i would have emphasized the anti-competitive nature of the RIAA middlemen, and maybe put in something noting that the sssca effectively illegalizes computer engineering research (the copyright protection-in-everything rule does not have an exception for test models, last i checked.. no?), but i can forgive that.
But the question comes up of how much help his support is. This is being printed on msnbc.com.. which is a step removed from, say, slashdot, true, but not a huge step. If someone is reading msnbc.com, there's an excellent chance they're aware of the SSSCA. These are not the people who we need to reach. The people we need to reach are the random uninformed trailer trash and soccer moms.
My question is this: this piece is copyrighted by newsweek. Is it being printed *in* Newsweek? If it is, i'm overjoyed, because that gives this issue the kind of public exposure it so violently needs. People read newsweek. Like, mass numbers of people who are not already relatively in touch with the slashdot groupthink.
We don't need a scattered collection of geeks with excellent philosophical, moral, and constitutional arguments against the SSSCA. We need a large body of uninformed persons who, while they may not be able to understand what "DeCSS" is even if you explained it to them, understand vaguely what the SSSCA is saying and understand *EXACTLY* what its repercussions would be. The congresscritters aren't afraid of lone gunmen with weblogs. They're afraid of herd behavior-- afraid of anything that the uninformed voter mass begins to do en masse that they aren't either in total control of or able to escape blame for. If a lot of people start asking questions about the SSSCA and have begun to realize an answer like "Congressman R. J. Theonomist has a tough anti-piracy stance and is pushing new digital encryption technology to help e-commerce and fight copyright theft" is just dodging the question, the congresscritters will spook and skitter away from the SSSCA like roaches when you turn on the kitchen light, trying to make sure they're not identifiably supporting the SSSCA in any way when the common voter figures out the people supporting the SSSCA are trying to take away consumer rights.
Again, it takes a lot for people to understand what DeCSS is, it takes a lot for people to understand what the DMCA does, and it seems to take a hell of a lot for people to begin to consider source code as "speech". It takes a lot to get people to the point that they understand that napster workalikes do less hurting of the revenues of the music industry than guns do killing people, much less to decide considering the first illegal and the second legal is absurd.. so there may not be hope for the DMCA anytime soon. But the SSSCA is simple to describe-- It makes it illegal for your teenage son to wire together circuitry in your garage because of the possibility your teenage son could potentially be making devices that have the effect of enabling people to listen to music without paying!-- and so there may be hope in stomping it down forever, if the steven levys of the world can bring it up to enough people..
In the meantime, i'm wondering if there's anything we can do to help that process along. Maybe starting a mass movement for computer-savvy geeks to start emailing to their less computer-savvy relatives URLs to news articles explaining what the SSSCA does would be a good idea?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Yes, laws being put forth are indeed unconsitutional. However, they have nothing to do with the 'size' of government, and everything to do with the 'size' of companies who can bribe the government. Reduce the amount of money any particular group of private interests can make, and you reduce the likelyhood of 'purchasing' laws. Of course, Disney has been doing this for years, but we're really approaching some sort of 'make-or-break' point here. I've never really been interested in living in the US, but these days, the very thought sends shivers down my spine. I don't think its your government, I think it's the size of your companies, the size of the pot of gold to be won (tho I think that the pot of gold is largely imaginary, part of the mystic prize of unmitigated free-markets), and the complete lack of any kind of regulations banning private influence on government.
....
Incidentally, you might be interested to know that the closest thing to total-free-market libertarianism that has occurred so far in western society (UK, 18th century) resulted in MASS poverty, and the price of bread rising above levels the vast majority of the population could afford. Under totally free markets, people 'compete' until there is no time/money left over after production to inject back into the economy or use to enjoy said fruits of the system.
Most countries that have seen their GDP rise over the last 10 years (India, Japan) have done so using decidedly anti-free-market tactics (choosing and awarding development to oganizations that are more likely to help the economy in the long run than provide the 'cheapest and best' in the short run), and of all the countries in the EU that have been placed under WTO sactioned IMF reforms, where everything has gone free-market, only Poland has seen their GDP rise slightly. All other 12 countries have seen their GDP fall under true freemarket reforms; even the WTO admits nothing has worked out as planned in their 2000 annual report
So where does that leave you? With a decent system, some things to fix, and a immediate need to cleanse your political system of big business brown nosers. Life wasn't so bad in the mom'and'pop days, no matter what these huge corperations want you to believe. If you can find a non-violent way to restore your government to being more pro-people than pro-business, and temper your fears of market regulation (you dont want total regulation, of course, that doesn't work, but 'checks and balances' when things (read: MS, or RIAA) get out of hand, much like the checks and balances that supposedly prevent any one political body from owning all political decisions), you might have the greatest chance of stabilizing the situation.
"Old man yells at systemd"
...only outlaws will have CD burners.
And the funny thing is the record industry will STILL have CD burners. I wonder how they'll get around that little problem. If all CD burners have to be crippled so that they can't copy protected content, how the fuck is the record or movie industry going to produce its product?
Answer: They will have CD burners that aren't crippled. But won't that be illegal?
Answer: Obviously not. So, the SSSCA is even worse than these bastards wanting to cripple all of the electronics in the country...they want to cripple all of the electronics in the country EXCEPT FOR THEIRS BECAUSE THEY NEED FUNCTIONAL ELECTRONICS TO MAKE THEIR PRODUCTS!!!
In fact, I might support the SSSCA if it would apply to everyone, since that would fuck the content industries, and I could live without CDs or movies for a few years before things get straightened out.
When you're writing about the SSSCA to your congressmen, please point out this little piece of hypocrisy. The fact that the industry will keep for itself functional devices and deny these same devices to everyone else. If they can't trust us, why the fuck should we trust them?
Or, maybe I could declare myself to be a record or movie company and get the "privilege" of obtaining the uncrippled devices.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Rip, Mix, and Burn.
I think they're safe, especially since none of these are illegal activities. Violation of copyright is illegal.
yes, and shooting someone with a gun is illegal. 99% of gun owners don't shoot people, yet look at their constant struggle with gun laws.
don't put it past our government to pass irrational and unreasonable laws under the influence of a small unethical subset of our corporate population. where there's a will, there's a way (of course 'will' in this case means lobbyists, lawyers, and millions of dollars.)
_______
2B1ASK1
Weird how the universe works. Today's Foxtrot knocks the CD copy protection garbage.
/. reader... His "UNIX Underpinnings/UNIX Underpants" strip really makes me think so...
Sometimes I wonder if Amend is a
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
Appearances at hearings are dependent on campaign contributions. To appear at that type of hearing you would have to donate approx $50K to the members of the committee.
And no, I am not being sarcastic, I am not making it up, that is the way your Congress people behave. If you don't like it write them a letter asking them why Red Hat etc. were not invited and ask directly if campaign contributions are the reason.
The response you receive will of course make an outright denial. However the probability that Red Hat and the Linux crowd will be allowed into the hearings will increase substantially. With Cheney in hot water for selling access to Enron and his oil company friends the hint that you might fight them on the contributions front would be very frightening.
As they say in Washington, money only buys you acces, it does not buy legislation. Well the crooks who charge for access should be considered no less a crook than the ones who sell legislation.
So next time there is a hearing, go down to Washington with a nice bunch of signs saying something like 'We don't like the SSSCA, but Hollings won't hear from us because we won't pay'. Then go to his office and leave them with his staff.
Whatever you do, don't listen to the fools who tell you to play the DC game, they will walk all over you if they think you will be quiet.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Here's a business model for the **AA to kick around:
Get yourself a fat pipe and fast servers (and make sure you support resuming and are dl-client friendly). Trust me, it'll pay for itself. Get yourself a good login and automatic billing system that doesn't charge the user's account until the download is confirmed complete. Make the download catalog easy to use (workable in any browser and no damned javascript), searchable, and as complete as possible.
Offer MP3s as follows:
64 kbit mono -- no charge. Okay for previewing stuff to decide whether you want to buy it or not, but not really good enough for cuts you want to keep and play a lot. (And will prevent complaints and billing disputes about songs that suck too much to pay for.)
128 kbit stereo -- 25 cents each. Good enough for most people and not too much of a bandwidth hog.
360 kbit stereo -- 50 cents each. (Or, since this system obviously will have login and tracking of purchases, just 25 cents if you already downloaded the 128kbit version -- effectively a discounted upgrade price.) This satisfies the more-devoted audiophile's need for better sound quality.
If you want to make sure no one avoids billing by stopping the download with 2 seconds to go (since incomplete MP3s *do* play), ZIP 'em, since that will largely defeat people who try to cheat the system. NO ENCRYPTION or "phone home before it can be played" crap, tho.
Yeah, people will still trade MP3s, but why should I spend hours searching for and dragging home unreliable files from some slow cranky server, when I can cough up 25 cents and get the same material, in guaranteed quality and complete condition from a fast reliable server, at the very moment I decide I want it?? Hell, for that price it may beat the bother of ripping my own.
I'm sure a similar model could be developed for downloadable movies -- a highly-compressed 320x200 preview copy for little or nothing, and a top quality copy for a buck or two. Why spend all night dl'ing an AVI that proves to be someone's grainy screencam when for a couple bucks I can get the same thing in close to DVD quality?
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Honestly, 80 percent of the people who dont buy CDs and download stuff from the net, wouldnt buy CDs.
I mean really, if you wanted CDs you'd buy CDs. If you want music, you'll listen to the radio, you'll record it on a tape cassette and you'll have music.
Now wait, you'll say the quality of the cassette isnt the same as CD, but thats what people did before they had the net, they'd tape stuff on cassettes.
Its like saying by law all VCRs should remove the ability to record because you might record a movie from cable or satelite.
Thats just bullshit.
Its also bullshit to say that every movie you'd record from satelite you would have paid to go see at the movie theaters, thats bullshit.
Most movies arent worth paying to go see, but most movies that are halfway decent are worth recording on a blank VHS tape.
I go see maybe a few movies per year, sometimes i dont see any movies for the year.
When i go see a movie, i'm not paying to "see" the movie, I'm paying for the atmosphere, the ability to see the movie on the big screen, to have surround sound, to see the movie immediately.
Just like the movie theater vs the VCR, people will pay to get music immediately, waiting for it to be spread throughout the net is not going to work if you want the music now.
People will have to buy the music or else it wont spread throughout the internet, all the music companies have to do to make people buy their CDs, is to slow the spreading of the music, this can be done by making the CDs more difficult to crack and pirate.
Its fine to sell copy protected CDs, i dont like copy protection but I'm fine with this because the movie people have a right to do this, just dont buy their CDs if you dont want it.
As far as controlling how we use our computers, this is a totally diffrent issue, no one should have the right to control how we use our computer, NO ONE!
This is as important as our right to freedom of speech.
Tell me, 20-30 years from now, when we have some sorta brain to computer interface, Will thoughts be under copyright? By sharing illegal thoughts with someone else will you go to jail? Think about where this is going, technology should overrule copyright. Someday technology is going to be so advanced that to enforce copyright would require mind control and render us total slaves to these people so they can protect their secrets and make money.
Some things in life are more important than money, Freedom is more important than money, the USA, was it founded on capitalism or on freedom? You all have to decide, because if we keep going in this direction will we be giving up our freedom for capitalism. All the talk about communism and facism, well just wait, capitalism is going to lead to the same thing.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac