Sony Adds New Copyright Method to CDs in 2003

Natoi writes "Sony is leaving Mac and **nix users out in the cold with their new copyright method called Label Gate CD copyright system. You'd have to be running Windows and use a Sony developed proprietary software to listen to CD's published by Sony starting next year." This seems a little extreme to me, since sitting at the computer just to listen to music is stupid. What about car stereos and high-fidelity CD players?

Comments

whatever.

[jeffehobbs]

Dear Sony,

We're just going to hack it.

Sincerely,

The Mac and *nix Community

Re:whatever.

[analog_line]

More like:

We're just not going to buy your shit at all.

Limiting who can use your stuff = recuding sales by definition. If they make it impossible to use it, people aren't going to buy it. Music piracy has nothing to do with it.

Re:whatever.

[Blkdeath]

Don't you slashdotters understand yet? The music indsutry is trying to obsolete CDs as quickly as possible so that a more "protectable" format can be produced.

While I agree that seems to be their motivation; are they really going to be able to slip that by consumers? 8-tracks and audio casettes went out the window because they were bulky, had poor(by comparison) sound, and their playing quality diminished over time. Audio CDs, however, do not posess any of these technical flaws.

Moreover, at this point consumers have access to so many CD players, not to mention extraordinarily large CD collections (one friend of mine has approximately 900 CDs and growing), that it would be a huge transition. If not an all-at-once thing, surely it'll take them a decade or so.

Even if they DO create a format that, magically, won't allow itself to be digitally reproduced - what's to stop audiophiles from recording and encoding the output stream?

This whole undertaking just sparks of an abortive effort. They attack Napster, a hundred other P2P networks spring up in its place. They create encrypted CDs that can only be played in "{company} approved" devices, and by the release date over 100k people already have the entire contents of the CD. They create DRM on their CDs, people buy a $5.00 cable from their local Radio Shack and circumvent it.

I wonder just how long the record labels are going to survive before they figure out that they, not just their technology, are obsolete.

Re:whatever.

[entrylevel]

This new "protectable" format already exists. It is called DVD. Sure, it isn't "unbreakable" now, nor will it ever be, but...

How many Joe Schmo consumers do you know who have mod-chipped their set-top DVD players with DeCCS? How many people can use "backup" copies of their X-Box games without being kicked off the X-Box live service? How easy and realiable is it (even for us 1337 slashdotters) to get full-length DVD-quality video rips off P2P services? Is this worth your time?

We are reaching the point of dimishing returns, and "they have the technology".

Re:whatever.

[entrylevel]

You are absolutely correct, but I think you are missing the point. Copying digital content will always be (relatively) easy for the tech-savvy.

Joe Schmo, on the other hand, will get pretty fed up with having downloaded the latest Harry Potter flick, only to discover that for the seventh time, he has downloaded an old bootleg filmed with a tripod with an audio track that sounds worse than AM radio and doesn't stay in synch with the video.

I fail to see where I mentioned games, but you bring up another good point. With DVD/PVR becoming more commonplace (OK, PVR is a stretch), who is to stop them from automating "software updates" in the interest of "security"? Granted, this would require an internet connection, but whose to stop them from making deal with cell phone companies? Mod chip your DVD player and you void your "service contract".

On second thought, maybe we should stop discussing this.

So what?

[nutznboltz]

This just means the tracks will be ripped via the headphone jack.

Correction:

[vreeker]

"Sony ... will add a new function to music CDs early next year "

Uh... Shouldn't that read "Sony will be removing functions from music CDs?"

What you are seeing

[lexcyber]

Is the recordcompanies last breath before the whole industry dies. They are scared shitless and they dont know what they are going to do. But I dont feel hurt about it. Since record companies can continue their work. But they have to accept that the golden days are over, where they dictate the prices and have multi-thusand percent profitmargins. Record companies, its time to face the real world. With real competition etc.

It's time to get the power of the music back to the artists and the listeners, from profitering bastards!

Revolution!

Another Excuse

[ELCarlsson]

I can see it now. And then when the sales of Sony's CD's starts to drop off more they'll use it as another excuse to go after P2P and file sharing. It's beginning to seem like a lose/lose situation with these people.

decss part two?

[IshanCaspian]

I can't believe they would be this clueless...don't they realize that if Linux could play DVD's there wouldn't be as much of an argument (or need) for decss? If they just took our fair use rights into account (play it under linux, play it on the computer, on my mp3 player, on my car stereo and so on) nobody would ever need to break their damn encryption.

If you argue that it makes it too easy to copy their work, well, then what they have is an unworkable business model. It's like sheet music. For the really big orchestras who are playing the works of composers who are under copyright protection, they have to buy expensive scores. High-visibility = doing it the right way. This would be equivalent to using music in movies and games and such. On the other hand, if you're going for private lessons, and you need a copy of the blue bells of scotland, the prices of the real thing are going to be cheap enough to make it not worth the trouble of copying it from someone else. This is equivalent to consumers and cd's.

Believe me, I'm all for protection of intellectual property. However, when protection just isn't possible without harassing researchers, threatening consumers, and forcing us to get our songs in a crippled format, it's time for our government to say: "Good luck with that whole music industry thing, you're on your own."

"Free world"

[Anonymous Coward]

SME plans to charge about A5200 (US$1.64) per song for the second time onwards ... so in other words, they are charging for you to be able to store your song on your computer. You have to pay $20 per CD. Nobody is going to use this service, I hope they realize. With that effort, they might as well just take a CD player and put it next to their computer. Voila, free music!

Oh, and this will be hacked within a week of its' release. The data can probably be intercepted somewhere in the soundcard on the way to the speaker...

I Give Up

[aiabx]

I can't remember whose CD's are playable on my equipment and which manufacturers use which copy protection, so I'm not going to buy anything. It just isn't worth the trouble.
-aiabx

What about Playstation?

[iiioxx]

I wonder if the new Sony CD's will be playable in Sony's PS or PS2? Being a CD and DVD player in addition to being a game station has always been a draw of the PS2 (at least, to budget-conscious consumers, like college students). If not, they just removed one of the PS2's selling points. Seems kind of cannibalistic.

Copies vs originals

[javilon]

This days i trust the printed (legal) cd's better than the copies. They are usually better material quality and they play everywhere.
But with all this crap they are pushing into the printed cd's, it is going to be a good policy to just avoid them and trust the copies.
If you come across a copy of a music cd, you know that the person who copied it made the effort to remove the restrictions placed on it.
Therefore in the future, there will be less trouble with copies than with original discs!

Also, an album downloaded from the internet will have more value that a original one because it will play everywhere once you burn it!

I think this is gonna backfire on them.

NOT a new copyright method, a new copy PROTECTION

[Jafafa Hots]

A new copy PROTECTION method. The only way there can be a new COPYRIGHT method is via legislation.

Re:Not CDs

[The Original Yama]

Besides geeks and Phillips, who cares? These things are circular and work in (most) CD-Players, therefore for most people they qualify as CDs. Only geeks care about rights and freedoms. Ordinary people will only care if a gun is pointed to their heads.

not so fast to dismiss the law

[MacAndrew]

Do they trust stupid laws like the DMCA to enforce their silly DRM systems?

Yes.

Remember the DeCCS and Dmitry Sklyarov debacles? Although "someone will hack it," good luck disseminating it and staying out of jail.

The industry does not view these laws as symbolic, and has the lobbying power to see them enforced. There will always be an underground, but it will be economically insignificant, far smaller anyway than the currently easy piracy any high schooler can pull off.

What about ripping from the audio stream, is that illegal too?

It would still be legal under "fair use." But a copyright violation, such as selling the music, would still be a copyright violation, as it damn well should be IMHO (not all artists are rich). Enforcement is not impossible -- for example, Napster; P2P is just farther underground -- but very difficult, like it is now. I doubt it will be long before P2P software is attacked, if it has not already (I don't know).

*

I don't think stealing will work. Stealing is not civil disobedience, anyway, it's just taking what you want because you want it. Piracy is no noble protest. Surely there are better ways, more open ways of protest.

The best that occurs to me, aside from lobbying Congress (ha!), is to boycott the companies, declaring we want fair use back. It's the oldest rule of capitalism: Vote with your feet. If imposing copy protection schemes results in making less money, the industry realize its error a heck of a lot faster than any amount of criticism or lawbreaking. (They'd rather be rich if unpopular.)

Re:not so fast to dismiss the law

[MacAndrew]

Er, you may not realize it but you're changing the subject, or perhaps recognizing the unspoken subject here, which is a disregard for copyright as opposed to copy protection. I'm not sympathetic to the former. I've heard more than one artist complain about the money that's being taken out of their pocket -- and none of us would likely approve of someone skimming off their paychecks, why should artists.

If you don't like copyright, "vote with your feet" and buy only from artists who don't impose copyright. Of course if they waive copyright, why buy in the first place. Just copy it from the internet -- you'll be 100% legal and the artists 100% poor. And then you can sense the problem; unlike free software, the artist will have no second chance at distribution or consulting fees.

Well, I forgot live performances, certainly a viable reason for distributing free music. But not everyone goes in for the grueling work (some are dead, or can't sing any more, like Bob Dylan). Many think writing, composing, and recording songs is work enough ... and unlike the functionality of a piece of software, generally each artist's work is in some way unique.

I'm being a little tongue-in-check, but I do see two parallel debates here, one spoken and other subliminal. My idea of progress in the recording industry would be a bigger cut to the artist (current about 50 per $15 CD), a greater variety of alternative low-budget music, and lower prices to the consumer.

Re:not so fast to dismiss the law

[MacAndrew]

I see, I didn't realize your emphasis was on "silly DRM" rather than "enforce." Agreed.

Yes, it does seem dumb, something recognized by public-key encryption: if you rely on a discoverable key for security, you're vulnerable, and passing a law saying "don't look at my key" is pretty futile.

The copy protection is irritating, and so bad business. MP3 recorders are big business, and a lot of people won't realize their new CD's are "defective" until they get home, and they'll be pissed. So I tend to think these schemes will die as economically suicidal. Or I hope so. I find it as offensive as that fscking FBI copy warning I'm forced to watch at the beginning of a DVD -- who thinks that makes a difference to a pirate? Well, the industry does I guess.

I also don't like the precedent of these enforcement mechanisms -- heavy-handed is an understatement.

Re:not so fast to dismiss the law

[Eskarel]

The problem with that theory is that "voting with your feet" doesn't work with the music industry, people have been "voting with their feet" for at least a year now as music sales continue to go down due to lack of decent music and overpriced cd's. If you don't believe this, just think about how many cd's you've bought in the last year as oppposed to years previous and ask yourself why.

This hasn't worked because the industry just blames the loss on people stealing their music and goes on to get more and more mind boggling legislation and implement more crummy copy protection schemes, which like all copy protection schemes inconvenience legitimate users more than they prevent the theft of copyrighted materials.

In my opinion, companies which produce digital media of any kind, cd's dvd's, software, etc have really only a few choices left to them, they can invest in copy protection methods, they can lower the cost and increase the quality and variety of the product they sell, or they can as some software companies seem to do and as the dvd standard certainly did, increase the size of files to a point which effectively limits anything but personal exchanges of burned media.

The first option, which is the one which most companies are likely to pursue is, quite admitedly, a poor option in the long term, not only does it trample on fair use(which they don't like anyway), but it alienates consumers and isn't sustainable in the long run without legislation so draconian it makes the DMCA look like a fluff law. It is however the option which is easiest and cheapest "now", and many the digital media industries may think that in the future they can either create a truly uncopiable media, or that they can get the legislation they need.

The second option, is of course the option which most everyone would prefer, but it is the most difficult to achieve. Lowering costs would involve cutting into profits, and investing in ideas which weren't just derivatives of previously successful groups, or just flashy with no real substance is a risky investment. Personally I strongly believe, as has been posited by other groups, that if digital media, particularly software which is much more expensive and much harder to determine if you actually like it in advance, would sell much better, and get a lot more people willing to take risks on untried products if it were sold at a lower price. This method, which is pretty much the only sustainable option, is very difficult "now", and as such will probably never be implemented by the digital media industries.

The third option which I firmly believe people are actually doing, is just too ludicrous to sustain, and so I won't comment further on it.

Re:not so fast to dismiss the law

[RageMachine]

"good luck disseminating it and staying out of jail."

The weird thing is... Some people will risk going to jail, and know the risk they are facing.

The great Slashdot Alarmists

[David Wong]

Guys, corporations do a perfectly good job of screwing us without all your weird-assed exaggerations.

They're putting restrictions on their product, we find it inconvenient. 1) don't go flying off the handle and claiming we can't play their CD's on anything but our PC's, and 2) don't act like some fundamental God-given right has been raped away from you.

It's a product inconvenience, making the product less desirable. The free market always solves these problems in the end. If loss of sales due to these features offsets the sales they're allegedly losing due to P2P, they'll drop it. That's all.

Calm down. You don't have some basic humanitarian right to listen to popular music.

for once, this actually sounds REASONABLE

[CrudPuppy]

prior attempts by th music industry have left people who primarily listen on PC's and high-end cd players out in the cold, because they have relied on garbage parity data to stop copying (which stops playing also)

now this allows the cd to be played in normal dumb cd "players" as well as on a PC while still accomplishing their goal of making it tougher than a normal cd to rip to mp3 and trade.

so, except for the fact that most people actually like trading music for free, it sounds like a pretty good plan.

as an addendum, I will add that I wrote a couple really nasty letters about prior anti-pirating technology because of the 6 players I own, only 1 was capable of playing those protected disks because all others are either in my PC's or are $500+ head units in cars!

It'll backfire on them...

[Kjella]

...as more and more people grow tired of problems, lack of choice in players and incompatibilities. It'll go something like this:

1. Shell out $$$ for protected CD, run into trouble.
2. Store refuses to take it back, claims it's not broken
3. Find mp3 (or ogg or whatever, let's not get int that) on internet, burn a 100% plain vanilla RedBook-compliant Audio CD.
4. Enjoy music.
5. Lesson learned: Next time, skip steps 1 and 2.
6. Record companies complain about increased piracy.
7. Even more protected CDs come out
8. Goto 1 (Basic anyone?)

And, unlike CSS, this isn't really a copy protection. This is just a crude hack to use different ways of interpretating a CD to make life difficult. Sometimes I wish CD-manufacturers would just give us the raw output of the CD, complete with lead-ins, lead-outs, only providing the error data but doing no error calculation of its own. With all the data, and a software ripper that could fix whatever tricks they pull, maybe they would realize just how pointless this is.

Kjella

Put down your mouse, pick up your guitar!!!

[alfredo]

Fuck them, make your own music.

You may even score with a real woman, not some digital recreation.

What about computer obsolescence?

[mobilityguy]

I read the article. Like all the DRM schemes I've seen to date, it still doesn't deal with my biggest question: What happens when my computer gets old?

A computer, over its useful life, can accumulate thousands of dollars worth of digital rights. Bought at $1 or even $20 apiece they don't seem like much, but it all adds up. When my computer gets old (or eats its hard drive), and I buy a new one, how do I transfer those rights which are specifically designed to be non-transferable? Am I violating the DMCA by even trying?

Do DRM keys survive a backup/restore? How about a disk-to-disk sector copy?

Think of it in today's terms: You go out tomorrow and buy a new computer. Before you can boot it for the first time, you must call the RIAA. They send a truck around that picks up your entire CD collection and takes it away to be crushed.

And if the stuff you like isn't popular enough, and the record companies haven't decided to keep it in print, forget about ever getting your hands on it again. Oh well, you'll always have your memories.

DRM is new now, but we should be discussing what happens when it matures. Until someone invents a key ring technology for digital rights, I'm buying nothing with copy protection.

Re:Extraordinary Claims Require Coherant Evidenden

[Kragg]

I know the original saying is "Extraordinary Claims Requires Extraordinary Evidendence", but in your case, you're leaving the rest of us scratching our heads. You're assuming we know too much, so I've listed some questions to help you elaborate.

1. Are you partly saying because Sony manufactures hardware and the copy protection, it will be picked up and implemented?

No, the other way round. I'm saying that hardware sells anyway, and Sony, due to their presence in both the music media and music device industries can use influence in one to help out the other.

2. Which SPECIFIC horizontal markets are you talking about, and WHY are they the way to go?

Music. From distribution, through music hardware to normal pc hardware to copy protection software.

3. If Microsoft supports everything off of Windows sales, are you saying Sony will support everything off thier CD sales???

No, the other way round. CD sales are the endangered market at the moment, with sales dropping off. Artists are going to start losing money, and they don't want that at all. So if Sony can offer then better royalties by signing the to record on Sony copy-protected media, they will be happy. And to listen to the music we will have to buy the Sony hardware, making Sony a profic on both sides of the fence, and helping to keep the CD sales afloat.

4. What does your Conglomo link mean? It looks like a fan website. HOW does this tie into Sony?

Never saw Rocko's Modern Life then? :) Ah well. It's a big company in a kid's cartoon. In fact, it's the only company in the kid's cartoon and it makes and sells everything. Name from conglomeration.

5. A Record label offers them more? What's them?

artists. more money.

6. What's the blank before "Profit. Massively."?

I included spoilers in the original post... that bit with the '*' on it..?

Basically, I am trying to point out how Sony is aligning itself to play the music market, both in terms of media and electronics, by the prodution of this closed copy protection mechanism, and how throwaway comments like 'the recording industry is scared shitless' are shortsighted and naive. Large companies have clever people in them that devote all day every day to planning a successful future for their company, and people shouldn't throw out their 5-minute's-worth-of-thought opinion like it's God's Own Truth.

Does that help?

Mac/Unix users

[MacAndrew]

Hey, you're talking about millions of users. Millions of users mean millions of dollars. Ask Apple with their well-received iPod (now available for the PC) whether Mac users (1) have money and (2) listen to music.

I wish Sony all the worst and am glad my CD collection was "completed" when I got pissed off at the ridiculous prices several years ago.

But hey guys, clean up your act and I'll rush out and spends ... dollars. The US kind that are worth more than other dollars (at the moment anyhow). Really.

Immature

[Dogtanian]

DRM is new now, but we should be discussing what happens when it matures.

Depends on what you mean by matures; attitudes towards DRM don't seem particularly "mature" to me. Short of turning every western country into a draconian state with no freedom to do anything `unapproved' with a computer (including all those embedded ones) - a lot of hard work if you ask me - the music and film industries will *never* be able to change things back to how they were before.
'Mature' DRM would exploit new media, not attempt to suffocate it (current DRM technology just reflects these attitudes). But I think there are too many vested interests in the old way of doing things...

Until someone invents a key ring technology for digital rights, I'm buying nothing with copy protection.

I'm not doing that either. I'll just wait until someone cracks the protection and get a copy of that instead. More useful for me, but no money in that for Mr.Sony (*sob*! Just picture the faces of his ickle kiddies when there's no food on the table- remember, MP3 KILLS CHILDREN. JUST SAY NO.)

Sony can go to hell until they stop trying to charge me 10 times to listen to 1 CD where *they* want me to listen to it.

Re:This sure makes me want to be a Sony consumer

[Gumshoe]

Am I stealing? Yes, yes I am

No, no you're not. However, you areviolating copyright law. Big, big difference.

Music is not an commodity product.

[Valdrax]

It's a product inconvenience, making the product less desirable. The free market always solves these problems in the end.

What free market?

You seem to be under the illusion that music is an undifferentiated market where all the products are interchangeable like wheat or crude oil. This is known in economics as perfect competition. Sadly, it doesn't happen in most real-world products people buy. The market for music is an imperfect competition, and it's hardly an open market right now.

Instead there is an oligopoly controlling music currently. All it takes is for the major members of the RIAA to band up together to introduce a scheme like this (which they are all in the process of doing) and 99% of the music you hear on the radio will only be accessible via this format.

Then what? Where does your average consumer get their Christina Aguilera, their Faith Hill, their Enimem, etc.? What competing publisher publishes the particular artists and even whole genres that they like? No one does. There isn't a wide variety of sources from which to get an artist's song that you like. Oh, if you're "indy," you can go underground to the local artist from your city, but 90%+ of the population likes what they hear on the radio, and what they hear on the radio is what the RIAA pays independent promoters to have them play.

So what if people buy less CDs because the TCO is higher? As long as they pay the same total amount of money, the RIAA is doing well. Heck, it even saves them money because they don't have to promote nearly as many artists if fewer CDs will make them more money through pay-for-play arrangements. The masses will continue to "vote with their dollars" to pay for these schemes when they're the only source of music that they like. The "free market" will decide this one for us because that market isn't truly free.

You're right on one point. It's not a basic humanitarian right to listen to popular music. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be upset about being forced to pay more for goods while their utility decreases. It may not be "some fundamental God-given right," but it's certainly not fair and just treatment. It's someone making like a tinge less enjoyable for millions of people to greatly profit a few. It's like spam that way. The level of inconvenience that one person suffers is inconsequential, but the level of inconvenience that the total mass of affected people suffers is inexcusable -- especially when it's all done just to pump money out of people with providing them any benefit.

Re:Read the article before posting

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you really read the article. The article later details which 'audio devices' will be able to play the music ...

"Copied music on a hard disk drive can be transferred to audio devices that comply with SME's OpenMG digital rights management (DRM) technology for a number of times set by the music company."

So this means that only 'audio devices' that use SME's OpenMG DRM tech will be able to play the music, which was downloaded to them from a PC.

Sounds like a PITA to me.

I hope the technocrazed Japanese find this too much of a PITA as well and that sales of the CD like things are bad so that Sony decides not to continue using this technology.

Not out in the cold.

[supabeast!]

Sony is not leaving *NIX and Mac users out in the cold, because they know that their copy-protection scheme WILL be broken by *NIX/Mac geeks who are already used to taking the road less traveled.

What this scheme will do is make it harder for computer-illiterate young girls (Teenage guys can figure out anything on a computer, so I stick this on the girls.) to rip the latest top 40 hits and share them on P2P networks with all of the other file swappers. This will leave the music being shared on the systems of clueful users, making obvious supernodes that the record companies will be able to hack once they are given vigilante privileges by the US government.

Re:But they're giving the music away anyway

[dmaxwell]

"Given the fidelity limitations of MP3, an FM stereo or stereo TV broadcast is more than the equal of most CD rips."

As far as the 128kb MP3s that are typically shared around on p2p networks go, I agree with you. However, cd audio ripped on a Plextor with cdparanoia and then encoded with a LAME preset like --r3mix is another kettle of fish altogether. I doubt most people could tell difference between those and the original. That is as long as things aren't the way so-called Golden Ears like them. They don't things that contribute to objectivity like double blinded testing. They have to absolutely see the hand built tube amp to KNOW they have quality.

NewtonsLaw is right, most mp3s that are traded around sound like FM radio taped onto a cassette. I did it when I teenager. What are they getting excited about? Oh yeah, that's right. They tried to kill cassettes too.

Re:Dear Sony...

[symbolic]

After reviewing your letter, something dawned on me. You can keep your media, your $25.95, and your humble $95 billion company. I want no part of it. I will immediately cease purchasing any products from Sony or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries. You see, I figure that there is at least one enlightened competitor in the marketplace that can offer a reasonably-priced product with a reasonably fair licensing policy, and it is this competitor that will gain my loyalty as a consumer. While it's obvious that you see customers as a right, and not a valued resource, hopefully my actions will serve as a reminder that this reasoning is seriously flawed. Your competitor may offer a more limited selection, but I value my freedom far more than I value your product.

Sincerely,

John Q. Consumer

Copyright != Copy Protection

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

I'm suprised this mistake was not caught. The article has nothing to do with a new copyright system, which is a legal fiction. The article is about a new copy protection/restriction system.

This appears to actually be part of the copyright cartel's plan. First they twist the meaning of Pirate to include bootlegging, now copy protection becomes copyright, giving it a whole new outlook.

It's not the DRM that bothers me, but...

[ShadowDrake]

The attempt to "slip it under the door."

For a comparison, look at say, a VideoDisc (them big old record-like things). There's no way you'd ever confuse it with a VHS casette, and as such, not really expect it to work similarly. This, it looks like a CD, is marketed similarly to a CD, fills a similar niche to a CD, yet strangely isn't a CD.

If you want to do a DRM format, make it very different. How about the size and shape of a British two-pound coin? This benefits you in several ways:

1. Completely new and potentially propriatery player base, no need to worry about some old equipment designed in a way that can look through your attempts to maintain compatibility and DRM in one disc. I can easily see them giving away free DRM-disc players, perhaps with the purchase of some number of discs, to buy market share.

2. No problems with people returning "broken" discs because they thought they were CDs that work properly.

Consumers also win because they can make intelligent purchasing decisions, and not have to guess if a disc will work or not; it also allows them to see the true effect for them of DRM (because market penetration will probably never be 1000%, you'll probably see both CD and DRM-D releases together, and be able to compare sound quality and price.