Slashdot Mirror
Felt Tip Marker Defeats Copy-Protected CDs
We posted this story over a week ago but the mainstream media
has flooded us with stories about felt tip markers and
copy protected CDs so I figured I'd post it again since I'm really sick of
deleting hundreds of submissions from people who didn't read Slashdot on May 13 ;)
Basically you can mark the rim of some CDs and defeat the copy protection.
And we all know what the DMCA says about tools for circumventing copy protection.
Haha they posted a repeat the editors are such...
Ummmm nevermind
I stole this Sig
Where have I heard that before?
I threw out all my felt-tip markers when I read about this... I wouldn't want to have any tools for the circumvention of copy protection around my house.
-Berj
And we all know what the DMCA says about tools for circumventing copy protection.
I thought the DMCA only stipulates laws for devices designed specifically copyright violation? A marker pen clearly doesn't fall into this category. Otherwise they could have outlawed CD burners, photocopiers and who knows what else by now.
If 2600 couldn't even link to sites offering DeCSS downloads, does the DMCA also prohibit news sites and Slashdot from even mentioning that markers can defeat Sony's CD copy protection mechanism? Whoops, did I just incriminate myself?
In a surprise announcement today the justice department attempted to release the details of "Operation Sharpie" in which all felt tip markers are to be confiscated. The press conference ended prematurely when a SWAT team crashed in and siezed the whiteboard and all other presentation materials as evidence.
All my previous sigs now look like this one, I wish they were permanetly recorded when used.
We used felt tip markers to get high. Damn these kids with their fancy gadgets and such.
Has anyone actually been able to prove that this works? I'm not talking about anecdotal evidence, I mean, has any geek with /.'s general communal respect actually taken a stack of CDs, tried to rip them, gotten errors, marked the CDs up, and then got them to rip with no errors?
:) But I'd swear that an earlier posting talked about marking the inside, not outside, of the CD. Anyway, my question still holds -- any geek-written report on this, or do we only have the mainstream press to trust as to whether this actually works, and for which CDs?]
And then documented the crap out of it?
This all smells too much like the audiophile tricks of the 80's where coloring the outside rim of a CD was supposed to "trap stray laser radiation and improve the [clarity | transparency | imaging | other-nonsense-claptrap] of the music." (see the snopes entry on this one).
I ask because I'm really curious what the scientific explanation for this would be. It was my understanding that they (the infamous "they") did something to the actual track of the CD, with bad physical spacing, introduced errors, or something like that, but did it *throughout* the CD. How on earth would marking the inside of the CD fix that?
[okay, I just actually *read* the article.
At this point, I long for the days of trolls posting haikus about a petrified Natalie Portman slathered in hot grits driving the Slashdot Cruiser over to a Beowulf cluster. At least those posts tended to get appopriately modded down as trolls rather than modded up as both insightful and funny.
The DMCA circumvention device joke has been made. Several times. Stop mindlessly repeating it like you're Raymond going through the Who's On First routine. Besides, I hear Amazon.com has a patent on the business model of mindlessly repeating a joke.
(I apologize for cluttering up the comments with meta-discussion, but I felt the point needed to be made. Also, since this is just a repost, most important points have already been made.)
Specifically:
Felt tip markers are not primarially designed to circumvent access controls. Felt tip markers have lots of commercially significant purposes other than circumvention.
But, if you marketed a felt tip pen with the name CD Rip (TM) brand felt tip pens and included instructions for how to circumvent CD protection than you should expect a C&D letter.
It's the same situation as the fellow who's program unset the true type embedded bits and a generic hex editor. The first tool has one purpose, to twiddle embedding bits. The second tool has lots of commercially significant purposes many unrelated to any kind of circumvention.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
The DMCA was used to smack-down 2600.com for simply linking to a copy circumvention device (DeCSS) -- they were successfully prosecuted for providing information on copy protection circumvention devices even though they did not distribute the device or engage in the circumvention themselves.
While Sharpie markers are not likely to be outlawed since they have known legitimate functions (whereas making a non-CD workin your computer is illegal), giving information on how to use a Sharpie marker to circumvent a copy protection device probably is illegal. That's the absurdity of the law and proof that the legislators responsible for the piece of filth known as the DMCA deserve to be shot. And stabbed. And beaten. And boiled. And whipped. And drawn and quartered.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
WARNING: The following image may be illegal under the DMCA. Further, the image depicts the actual commission of a felony offense in the USA. You have been warned.
Marker Method Illustrated.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
Life:
Customer: Hi, where can I find blank CDs?
Employee: Making Copies. huh? They are on isle five.
If Life were like OfficeMAX:
Customer: Hi, where can I find blank CDs?
Employee: Making Copies. huh? They are on isle five.Right next to the felt tip pens which can be used to circumvent the copy protection of the CDs taht you may be copying. Here I'll print out the instructions for you. And here is my username and password to ftp.phat-warez.com
Let's see what you folks make of this.
The way that democracy and judicial system of yours works at the moment, just about the only thing that will get lawmakers to stick up for Joe and Jane is public outrage/ridicule.
Basically, I think the EFF should throw the DMCA at the people who make Crayola. Sue the pirating bastards.
Don't tell me that wouldn't make headlines. And headlines would raise public awareness of the DMCA issue.
If the DMCA is ridiculed in public over its potential uses, I don't think it'll last long.
Never mind whether the EFF would win or lose; the whole point is to showcase the idiocy of this law.
Anyone listening?
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
I don't know about the rest of you but I think that ThinkGeek should start selling DMCA Circumvention Devices. e.g. a Sharpie with a custom label with a caution symbol and the text "This object may be used as a device for circumventing copyright protection methods as outlined in the DMCA."
I think they'd sell. Who wants an entire office toolbox filled with copyright protection circumvention devices? I do, I do!
No, the DMCA in section 1201(E) stipulates that the devices are banned if they are (a) designed to circumvent, or (b) have limited commercial purpose other than to circumvent, or (c) are marketed as circumventing a "technological measure that effectively controls access to a work".
...provide ... any ... device ... that is marketed by that person ... for use in circumventing [encrypted content access]." So my guess is, can tell you a marker pen can be used to defeat access controls on non-redbook CDs, but then I am not allowed to give you a marker pen.
The third part is important and reads "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
Cut out the guff not related to marker pens, and we get: "No person shall
In California I can't keep pet snails, molest butterflies or ride a bicycle in a swimming pool either.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
This latest hack is a twist on that theme - the marked lines invalidate the disc track that's supposed to keep make your PC think it has a bad disc. If you kill the bogus track, the PC's CD-ROM drive can simply go on to rendering the next one, the real one.
No matter what you do in the digital world, there is still the possibility of ripping at the analog level. Standard consumer equipment exists that can make a really good A/D conversion and get a high-quality rendering of the audio content back into the digital realm without any DRM encumbrances. CD players exist that have digital output (S/PDIF) - run that output back into a sound card with matching inputs and you're done. Any of these so-called protected discs can be played, and ripped, in such a set-up. My goofy DVD/CD/MP3 player has such an output (yours too?). Once you have one digital copy, it'll show up on the Internet all over again.
Only by encrypting the data all the way to a closed rendering subsystem (decrypting speakers or headphones?) could you prevent this - and consumers will never stand still for that. Any solution that prevents consumers from getting their fair use out of purchased content, by that I mean the ability to play it wherever they want (iPod anyone?) is akin to handcuffing everyone in order to prevent crime.
This is a war that can never truly be won, the only solution is for the content producers to embrace the technology rather than trying to kill it. A new business model that exploits the Internet and its bandwidth and provides a reasonable exchange of fair value for goods received is the only way they can inhibit (not wipe out) piracy. If discs were fairly priced, rather than selling for 30 times their manufacturing cost, there would be little need or impetus for Joe-Sixpack to participate in piracy. If you could buy the songs you wanted, rather than pay full price for an album that has more filler than meat, that would also help.
I'd really like to see an unbiased, non-knee-jerk-reaction analysis of the so-called harm done to RIAA member studio profits by the file sharing. We've all read analysis that suggests CD sales were actually helped by the emergence of Napster. Recent downturns in the industry are more likely due to general lagging in the economy rather than lost sales due to piracy. Any 'solution' to this problem needs to take a cold, hard look at those facts, first.
I have a very curious view on this given that my 'job' for the last few years has been on the side of the protectors...
Ok ok ok, we get the jokes (most of us anyway).
The important thing is not whether felt tip pens will become illegal. It's that somebody figured out a laughably simple way to defeat something Sony must have spent a good chunk of money coming up with. I'm thinking meetings, demos, testing, approval, and at least one large congratulatory catered lunch. And now they look like idiots. Nothing, I mean NOTHING, upsets corporate management more than being made fools.
Right on.
> Tell that to Dmitry.
You know, I'm not kidding when I say that I accidentally read that line:
"Tell that to Disney."
It's really sad when when people have started to subconsciously associate wholesale abuse of the law and the public with the company which brought us Mickey Mouse and DisneyWorld. Wow. I guess the real question becomes--what have they done for us lately, versus what have they taken from us lately?
Draconian copyright laws designed solely to keep Mickey from becoming public property like he would have years ago, and to keep their artificial-scarcity DVD racket going. The shredding of tons of documentation to prevent the family of Pooh's copyright licensor from proving that they weren't given their contractual percentage of the incredible sales. Some "family" company it's become, eh Walt?
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Okay.
--Betty
This signature is self-referential.