Slashdot Mirror
Felten Follower Examines Crippled Music Disks
D4C5CE writes "Following in the footsteps of his famous professor, in his paper "Evaluating New Copy-Prevention Techniques for Audio CDs" (yes, that's pure PS), which is one of many interesting contributions to the 2002 ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management, Princeton student Alex Halderman takes apart (bit by bit, literally) the "tricks on tracks" employed by the music industry to frustrate fair use."
I think examining the strength/weaknesses of algorithms without regard to the surroundings is not a good idea. With Windows providing most of the drivers in signed form, and refusing to accept unsigned drivers, it could be difficult to apply the "breaking" methods defined, in the mainstream operating systems. Ofcourse, in other OS's this shouldnot be a problem.
"Do something man. Right now."
As the paper points out, these schemes rely on "bugs" and "mis-features" in reader firmware, and it suggests that CDDA copy prevention won't last since "[...]Hardware and Software adaption is an inevitable and natural extension of improved design and bug fixing".
The question is if the hardware manufacturers will begin competing for customers by providing the very best fireware in their drives, or if they will join hands with the RIAA and the snake-oil salesmen. So far I see no decisive move in either direction.
Some drives can 'clone' protections just fine or need only better software on the computer side, but on the other hand there's a whole class of typical hardware -- like the Toshiba in this case -- which has been b0rken for so long that I really think the manufacturer is playing nice with the copy-protection industry.
Maybe what we really need is drives with a more capable RAW reading interface, then all errors could be emulated and/or corrected as necessary on the side we control, the computer.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Perhaps it is a sledgehammer to crack a nut but I would rather use GhostScript. Both variants (AFPL and GPL) are esentially and totally free, respectively which I prefer. For such an article, is a commercial (and overpriced)viewer really appropriate?
Looks like we can get ahead of the game here, by ensuring that we have our "Free Alex" flyers and placards printed out in advance.
Seriously, the amount of information in this paper is similar to that which got Dmitry Sklyarov detained under the Downloaded Music Criminalization Act (DMCA). It even gives information as to which programs and hardware are most effective at bypassing these copy-restriction technologies.
It's well worth a read to see how these technolgies only work due to buggy or fragile implementations of the standard.
Sean Ellis
Follow OfQuack's antics on Twitter.
It amazing me that the same battles seem to be fought as computers infiltrate each new market. In the early 80's, personal computer software publishers did everything in their power to copy protect floppy disks, writing on half tracks, out-of-range tracks, and using other floppy format tricks.
This created a new industry of commercial disk copy utilities, such as Copy2Mac, etc etc which enabled any floppy disk to be duplicated. For years it was an arms race of new protection schemes vs. copy utilities.
If I remember correctly (I was pretty young then), lawsuits were filed against copy utility publishers, which lost, the courts holding that making a personal copy for backup purposes fell under fair use doctrine.
I am sure there are plenty of prior cases which would overthrow the DMCA if a test case would only come to court.
This software copy protection war resulted in:
A) Common use of copy utilities by end users
B) Eventual resignation by the industry against protecting media: not worth the cost or user inconvience.
C) Introduction of hardware dongles for high-ticket software.
D) The serial number 'protection' method in common use today for software.
So here we are with music publishers revisiting the same war, and I believe they too will ultimately lose. I believe their actions are the result of old school inertia within the industry, and that ultimately, their business model will necessarily change.
"You have liberated me from thought."
I continue to feel that attention should be paid to how these things interact with home audio CD recorders, and not just because I happen to own one.
Under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, blank media for home audio CD recorders includes a fee which is distributed to publishers and artists in exchange for the right to copy the CD. Home audio recorders are restricted from writing to ordinary blank CD-R media; the media must have the encoding that identifies them as a "Music CD-R" thus verifying that the fee has been paid, and they also incorporate a "serial copy control system" which makes it difficult for people to create huge numbers of copies by making copies for three friends who each make copies for three friends, etc.
Copy-protection schemes have to corrupt the data enough to prevent access by standard computer software. HOWEVER, they must not corrupt it so much that home audio CD recorders fail, or they are (probably) violating the AHRA.
In practice, Universal Music evaded answering any questions I asked them about this issue; however, when I sent them a copy of "The Fast and the Furious" which my home audio CD recorder refused to copy, they sent me a replacement which did! I believe their strategy is "avoid public discussion by taking care of any individuals who complain, on a case-by-case basis."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!