SACD-CD Hybrids -- A Way Out For Us Both?

net_shaman writes: "As reported in Stereophile Magazine online -- There appear to be some serious moves afoot by the recording industry to move en-mass to another compact audio disc format. No doubt frustrated with the utter failure of every attempt to copy protect Compact Discs. But this could be an opportunity for both better sound, strong copyright security and reasonable fair-use rights. The Hybrid Super Audio Compact Disc contains two layers of encoded information; one for standard 'Red Book' Compact Disc, and another for high resolution audio recordings (SACD). Here is a description."

"An interesting feature of the SACD layer is plenty of room for strong digital rights management code.

Here's my proposal: it should should allow artists to get paid, and the citizens to have archived and portable copies of the recording they have purchased. The record companies should produce a superior audio product and get to protect it from serial copying. The CD layer should be freely available for personal copying such as to a computer or portable digital player. These 2 basic concepts are a model that can be applied in the future, when better formats become available. It may also serve as a model for digital visual recordings. Perhaps we can get the artists, publishing companies, electronics manufacturers and the federal trade commision to all agree on this compromise: 1.The high quality recording allows only one copy of itself to be made for archival purposes. 2.The lower quality recordings are available for personal copying.

Personal digital technology has brought a tremendous change to the realtionship between media publishers & consumers. It's time for a new paridigm that will re-define that relationship for modern times."

Comments

Re:uh

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

But wouldn't recording the super resolution sound from your speakers be a waste? Some downgrade in signal will occur, and you wouldn't want to use lossy compression, because then why bother with high resolution?

This makes a lot of sense to me--except why have copy protection at all? No one's going to try to get the gigabyte sized lossless high resolution songfile from P2P networks--just sell the high resolution copy to audiophiles, use advertizing to brainwash everyone into thinking they're an audiophile and need the high resolution copy, bang, boom, money made, fair use rights retained, internet freedoms protected, everyone wins except the lawyers.

Why this won't work...

[killmenow]

Here's my proposal: it should should allow artists to get paid,

1. RIAA doesn't care if the artists get paid...RIAA only cares that the production companies get paid...how the musicians fare is their problem.

and the citizens to have archived and portable copies of the recording they have purchased.

2. RIAA doesn't believe you have this right. If you want the music on more than one machine or in more than one format, buy it again.

The record companies should produce a superior audio product

3. Less than 10% of the music buying population want or care about higher quality audio...you can't tell the difference over the road noise anyway...

and get to protect it from serial copying.

4. If it can be read, it can be copied...plain and simple. Copy CONTROL (protection is a prophylactic) does not work. Music will continue to be pirated by the same percentage of listeners who pirate it today.

The CD layer should be freely available for personal copying such as to a computer or portable digital player.

5. So music production companies will actually LOWER the sound quality of this layer to something worse than cassette tapes, effectively eliminating its use.

These 2 basic concepts are a model that can be applied in the future, when better formats become available. It may also serve as a model for digital visual recordings. Perhaps we can get the artists, publishing companies, electronics manufacturers and the federal trade commision to all agree on this compromise:

6. Chances of getting all of those groups to agree is somewhere around .3%

1.The high quality recording allows only one copy of itself to be made for archival purposes.

7. So this copy will be ripped to MP3, thereby making the whole point moot. Pirates will just have MP3s of the better quality layer.

2.The lower quality recordings are available for personal copying.

8. I reiterate, RIAA does not believe in fair use. I don't think they'll ever agree to any scheme in which you can copy decent quality audio even once.

And #9, the main reason it won't work: MP3 is the new format. All the other attempts at introducing new formats are pointless. People like MP3s, MP3s are the new way. Audio players now support MP3s, car sterios are already supporting MP3s. The music industry, or RIAA, cannot change this. If they want to jump on the bandwagon, fine. If they want to push it over and knock everyone else off, they are too late.

But, as Dennis Miller might say: "That's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

Here's the fundamental problem

[melquiades]

There's a white rhinoceros in this whole debate. Copyright law -- fair use in particular -- is too subtle and too contextual to implement in software. It is impossible to create rights management software which implements the law; such software will always err in favor of the consumer or the copyright holder (or both).

Let me repeat that: It is IMPOSSIBLE to implement copyright law in software.

Period.

Re:uh

[Bearpaw]

You have a new business model that would equal their current revenue streams?

Not having an alternate suggestion doesn't mean that one has to pretend that the current model isn't seriously flawed. Just because I don't know how to build a warp drive doesn't mean that it's not worth pointing out that somebody's scheme to do it by strapping JATOs to an old 57 Chevy probably won't do the trick.

Coming up with a workable business model is their business -- or should be, if they want to continue making money. The universe doesn't owe them any revenue stream, equal to their current one or not.

And these companies are not making the art. They're just delivering it.

I don't like it. The problem is...

[einhverfr]

This looks to me like a transition strategy. The basic idea is that CDs are a format that the music industry does not like for the reason that they have no control over the content (but Disney did not like the VCR initially for the same reason). Their solution to dealing with the opposition is as follows, suspect:

1: Release a hybrid CD-SACD

2: Push SACD hardware, with built in DRM.

3: Eventually drop the CD format as obsolete.

I say this does present a way out-- these hybrids will be initially costly, but as long as the demand exists for redbook hardware, the plan cannot succeed.

The way to win here is to ensure that the demand remain high for redbook only hardware and hardware without DRM.

This is pointless . . .

[npsimons]

. . . and here's why:

Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. The sooner people accept this, and build business models that take this into account, the sooner people will start making money again.
-- Bruce Schneier