Slashdot Mirror
Attempts To Stop Music Sharing Pointless?
job0 writes "An interesting paper (Word document) has been submitted by some Microsoft employees (although they are careful to state that that the views are theirs and not necessarily Microsoft's) to the 2002 ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management stating that attempts by the record industry to stop music copying will fail simply because a) the growth and availability of affordable broadband and cheap data storage devices and b )ability of users to circumvent any DRM measures means that the number of people willing to swap is growing and will soon outstrip attempts to shut them down. The paper goes to suggest that the record industry should concentrate their efforts on trying music cheaper and easier to get hold off. I wonder if Hilary and friends have had a read. The BBC is also carrying the story." (OpenOffice has no problem with the paper, btw.)
Users can circumvent everything... except Palladium! That's right, our patented DRM technology is the ONLY thing that our report indicates will be immune to these devilish file-sharing schemes! Sign your record label up today before your business goes to pot, and recieve a free Microsoft Toaster! (Requires MS Bread and an MS Power Converter, best served on MS Plates with MS Utensils.)
# Erik
Trying to stop any popular activity brings more problems than intended. I'll use as an example Prohibition of Alcohol in the USA. It was a big boost to Organized Crime.
Who knows what kind of problems the MPAA is making for itself by going after something that has been done since recording devices were made available to consumers.
Ursula Andress, Catherine Deneuve, and Charo, twice...
... until all means of transfering files over the internet are stopped, and that isn't going to happen. Even if the powers that be manage to lock down everything technological down with DRM, there'll still be ways of bypassing it, and it only takes a single person to figure out how to bypass it for the file to spread around like the email 'viruses' did a couple of years ago.
As I've said a number of times, the music companies know that music sharing is actually increasing sales at the *moment*, but once broad-band becomes fast & standardised, sending a whole album will become as simple as sending a 5kb file... people will think "I'll download that" rather than spending half an hour downloading a file and thinking "I'll buy the album".
I can imagine albums being released, 'music warezers' cracking the DRM within hours, and the albums spreading like wildfire across every instant messaging client in sundry.
It's actually a case of stating the obvious. However, things never get accepted until someone "does a study" or "submits a paper".
It's the classic water leak problem...the RIAA is trying to bail out the extra water while what they should be doing is plugging the leak - ie. take out the root cause - expensive CDs.
This doesn't mean that file sharing will stop altogether. But it DOES mean that a LOT of people out there would cough up the cash because it doesn't burn a hole in their pockets. It also means that artists would get more revenue.
The problem though is that this means cutting all those profit margins - the RIAA would like to have their cake and eat it too. Sorry. Can't happen. In addition, trying to force the issue would just make sure that they end up with some super strict CD protection scheme which will hurt sales and basically backfire in the long run.
Also, it's not like CD sales have decreased. How many studies need to be published before they get it into their heads that sharing music also increases an artist's popularity?
Corporate greed makes you stupid and blind.
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
I really don't see how anyone could think you CAN stop something like this, given the number of people involved in it. Ok let's try looking at it from a logical standpoint:
Given:
Anything someone can invent someone else can invent a way around
Alot of people are interested in file sharing.
Hardware adapts slower than software. (Software can just recompile, hardware needs to be fabbed, purchased, and installed).
Anything that can be read for "authorized" playback must be by definition readable, and therefore can be manipulated.
Therefore:
The contest of technology comes down to a battle of man-hours. Who can put more time in a war of outhinking the other? A team of 100 professional programmers, working 40-60 hour weeks, or 100,000 crackers working nights, weekends, and vactations? No contest.
Also, you run into the same problem as the clipper chip. If you try and hardware protect things, you're stuck with it until you can update hardware if a vulnerability is found. Unless people start buying new CD and DVD players every week, there's no way not to have a window in which someone has cracked your system so it can function as the users want.
Now if your total protected data was small, or you had unique protection for each piece of data, you could probably manage. But having a seperate encryption for each audio file in existance is absurd. Getting the player to work with it would be impossible, and if the player has to work, then there's a way for someone to get the data.
This isn't to say that no copyrighted material goes over filesharing networks, that would be impossibly naieve. However, there's not going to be much that can be done about it other than waging a war that's going to be impossible to win, just because of sheer numbers on one side.
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
The MPAA recently filed a comment on the danish implementation of the European Copyright Directive. The directive demands that "circumvention of effective technological measures" be made illegal in a way similar to the US DMCA The interesting part says:
the legal protection in Section 75c should not be interpreted to the effect that a technological measure must be unhackable. All technological measures can be hacked. It is for this reason that the WIPO Copyright Treaties and the Copyright Directive have introduced legal protection for such measures. (Emphasis mine)
The comment was submitted, because MPAA fears that only truly "effective" technological measures would be legally protected.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
A product like, say, a movie DVD gives the buyer a number of benefits. One of these, the ability to watch the show in high quality on demand, comes with the digital file, and this file will always be copiable.
The physical commercial DVD offers a number of other benefits though. There are the sleeve notes, photographs, the idea that the item is part of a collection, or provides some kind of link to the people who made the show or its stars.
There will always be people who just want the digital file, but there will also always be others who want the other benefits. Just as in the same way that some people will drink water from the faucet whereas others buy branded bottled water.
"Well, put a stake in my heart and drag me into sunlight."
As it's been pointed out before, they don't need to "stop" p2p networks to stop file sharing. I speak for my self when I say this, but I believe many others will agree: If the music industry gets off our backs (i.e. no excessive DRM), and sells music for a decent price (i.e. lets us buy songs individually and for less than $1.00 each), I will stop using P2P services.
Yes, people will always "illegally" share music. But if given good enough of an alternative, I think a large portion of current P2P users will go back to legitimate means of getting music. And the industry will still make money.
---
Open Source Shirts
Not only is DRM ineffective at stopping real hackers, it actually promotes filesharing. Why? Because of all the things you can't do with a DRM disc:
1. Back it up
2. Make a playlist from it
3. Play it in your car or DVD player
4. Play it on your iPod/Nomad/etc
It's far easier to download your song from any one of a dozen filesharing services. All that's needed is one guy who figured out how to rip it. Many CD-ripping programs, including open-source programs, have already developed ways to circumvent most common forms of CD copy protection.
All DRM schemes are horribly misguided because they make it difficult/unpleasant to be honest, because they are easily circumvented, and because only a few people need to circumvent them for the whole world to benefit.
The ONLY solution that I can think of -- the general solution to piracy -- is to make it not worth the trouble to pirate the songs. If you can get a 320-bit unencumbered MP3 from (say) EMI's site, for $1, without having to hassle with remote queueing, poor quality, getting the wrong file... Most people will pay the $1 and that will be that. I would. But I would never pay a dime for DRM material unless it was for a research project on how to crack it. If I can't put it in my MP3 collection, it's useless to me.
The record industry is like any other evolutionary system -- they'll either adapt or die. I have no doubt some companies will survive and prosper. But those who think they can keep pushing the '70s industry model forever, propping it up with DRM and other nonsense, will spend all their money and then die.
All the current legal efforts are the last desperate attempts of a doomed evolutionary niche to be relevant. They are fighting so hard because they have little time left.
People assume that they have certain rights, which legally they may not have. They will often wish to make a compilation tape (legally), and also often want to give the compilation tape to someone else (probably not legal)
In this case, the law doesn't matter to people. They know they're not doing anything wrong, and would be quite shocked to be accused of stealing. They aren't stealing. They bought the tape/CD. You can argue that they're wrong, but I'm not the person you should convince. Everyone else is.
The thing is that people want to be able to do this. Even if you can stop them with a perfect DRM system, people will not accept it. It prevents them from doing something that they want to do, and the vast majority have no moral qualms over. If the majority disagrees with the law, then surely the law is wrong, not the people.
Realize that it isn't the DMCA where this comes from, but rather from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and a treaty agreed to by some 38 countries. Few of those countries, oddly, are in the EU, even though the treaty was signed in Geneva. Article 11 of the treaty reads:
Article 12 is also interesting, but more or less a corollary. It requires contracting parties to make it illegal to remove copy management information from a work or knowingly transmit a work which has had this done to it. I'd love to see a good page listing to what degree this treaty has been put into force of law in agreeing countries.
You like splinters in your crotch? -Jon Caldara
I would gladly go to a music store and buy CDs at that price, instead of downloading anything. But why would I pay $15 for downloading the music that fits in a CD? Someone would get the CD itself, and everyone else would download it. Let's face it, if the full cost for producing and distributing a CD is less than $2, on-line music shouldn't be more than $0.10 / music.
Look at it from your clients point of view: if you think you are entitled to get something for your $10000, why can't we make sure we are getting something worth it, before we pay $10 for your CD?
You know, by sending a $1 or $5 bill to the artist you are supporting them a hell of a lot more than their label probably is. I know a lot of bands that would much rather have their music be available and have fans simply send them $5 if they like it or whatever than get their 67 cents per CD sold in retail stores.
Maybe it's hokie or whatever, but I bet when an artist gets a hand addressed letter with a crisp $5 bill in it, they remember why they started making music in the first place.
Chicago2600.net more than a lifestyle, its a survival trait.
Although the RIAA loves to squawk about the artists losing money due to file-swapping, the fact is that the artists get nearly nothing in the present system, and the corporations keep almost all of the moolah. This despite the fact that they contribute literally none of the value that consumers pay for when they buy music. You can't just replace Alicia Keys with Madonna; but it is completely irrelevant whether a CD is published by Warner, Universal or my cousin Vinnie.
They've been able to do this because they have had control over three elements of the music business:
Now, technology has loosened their grip on all three of these areas, especially the last. Neither the corporations nor anyone else can control how music is distributed any more -- it is, or could be, entirely in the hands of consumers. And distribution networks have a "word-of-mouth" effect on spreading knowledge about new music, so that corporate marketing is a little bit less important. And although they still run the studios, and probably always will, manufacturing CDs is almost obsolete now. All you need is a file; the costs of replication are nil, and consumers can do it all themselves.
I believe that most consumers would be willing to go along with schemes by which they pay for copied music, as long as the music costs significantly less than it does now (say, $1 for a CD), and if most of it goes to the artist (say 90%). The record companies will get much, much less than they do now, because we hardly need them any more. Of course, they do some work that is necessary and should be compensated, but it will end up being much closer to their true economic worth -- and that means a very small fraction of their current income.
But before that happens, they are going to bite and scratch and scream, and it's going to be ugly. They have a multibillion-dollar cash cow, and they will do everything in their power to save it.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
I have a fat unmetered broadband pipe to my PC. I can download entire albums in the tiume it takes me to fix a coffee. Yet I still buy three or four CDs a month. Why?
I'll tell you why.
1) CDs sound better.
Most Internet monkeys can not encode mp3s to save themselves. My sound setup cost me a bomb so I can tell the difference between 192kbps and the CD itself.
2) CDs are not just music.
Some album sleeves are works of art in their own right (e.g. Tool - Lateralus). There is also an assosciated boast factor in having proper CDs compared to home-burnt ones - like the difference between a beige box and a Cooler Master. There are subtle physical differences, but the Cooler Master owner is infinently cooler than Mr. Beige. And that's partly why he bought it.
3) If I didn't buy CDs, the artists would stop making music.
Even if I'm talking about purchasing demos straight from the bands themselves. Giving the band my money, no matter how indirectly, helps ensure that they will continue to make music in the future.
Hint: go get CDex and use the LAME encoder at 192kbps (or make it vorbis). All my CDs are ripped like that, and my WinAmp list all sounds great.
-Mark
Not to beat up on you any further (I see the other geeks have done a pretty thorough job of that), but I disagree. Your investment of time, talent, and money in making the album is just that: an investment. Nobody guaranteed you a profit.
Now, given the REALITY of the situation these days, you have a choice: sign a contract with a label, let them run things, and hope you get some money out of all their hype and networking. And get pirated, if anyone likes your stuff.
Or, you can go directly to letting people pirate your stuff, and with a little marketing effort of your own, hope that enough people want more of the same to make your money back.
I'd say the odds are pretty tight either way. Playing gigs aint exactly a goldmine either, though. So tough for you: you are finding out that being a musician/composer does not guarantee you a life of leisure and wealth. Join the club.
So cry me a river about your production costs. If you had a reasonable expectation of making money on it, you probably already did before the mp3s started flying around. And like everyone says: prove that pirating hurts sales overall.
Anyhow, it comes down to this: do you want people to hear your music, or do you want to make money. They can't BOTH be your first choice, man.
I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.
If the big labels continue to impose restrictions on CDs, the bands that are really into music will simply leave the label.
No, they won't. Because they have iron-clad contracts and they are not allowed to leave unless the label kicks them out. The labels have full control, and the artists will be just as trapped as the music lover. Look at Dixie Chicks, they tried to leave Sony, and after a long court case they finally settled and came to better terms (Sony realized how bad it would look to let them win, esp after earning over 200mil off of them while the girls only got 50k each). Anyway, they are still with Sony, that's how strong those contracts are.
Back when this first came up in major news... june 2001:
This is in regards to the proposed plan to 'protect' copyrighted audio recordings distributed via CD.
I think you are making a big mistake, as other consumers will confirm for you when your products are either boycotted or wholesale pirated as a result of this 'protection'. Regardless of what you do to 'protect' this material individuals will make recordings and redistribute to the demanding public. (Any CD player that supports your new 'protection' is certain to have a standard AV port, a really easy way to re-record audio data.)
Ever hear of a thing called supply and demand? Nothing you do will stop this. The only thing this proposed plan will do is take away any control you currently have.
The biggest problem you have created for yourself is pricing albums at $15 - $30 each. Consumers feel as if they are paying enough to justify redistribution to close friends, etc.. especially when they may only really enjoy one or two of the songs on the album. Selling singles of hits isn't enough.. the radio usually plays those particular songs enough.
Your only rational recourse is to create a distribution channel which adds value to your products which consumers will pay for. Obviously they don't feel the current situation provides enough.
One idea is to create a subscription service, wherein the user would get to pick out several songs or albums from the genre they subscribe to. Consumers might prefer to have a complete set of songs from which to make their selection instead of the mixed and potentially corrupted selection they have from online sources. For this service you could charge a monthly rate dependent on the genre or number of downloads, etc. use a focus group or something to decide how to bill people..
I think you'll find that all people want is the selection of songs they get to listen to without the overhead of buying every CD that comes out. People also like the fact that when they 'get over' a particular song they don't feel like they wasted their money. Some music does 'get old' rather quickly.
What I'm saying is that you need to abstract the value you are selling from individual recordings or artists. Music is an ephemeral sensation... what gets me going one day may change the next, that's why radio works, they can adjust for the current environment. Not to mention that there is sooooo much music available now, compared with 20 years ago. Personally I don't have the time to listen to it all but I can listen to the song a friend recommends or sends to me via ftp etc... do you get it. We don't have time to go to the store to buy the cd that has one song we like and if we're going to take the time to buy it online we may as well spend the same amount of time finding a free copy.
By providing 'free' access to all the types of songs that I like you would make it alot easier and quicker for me to find the music I enjoy. How about charging me $15 a month for access to 'hip-hop' or 'rock' genres with a full search on title and author so I can grab 20 songs I really want to listen to that month. What's to keep me from keeping them and trading them? Nothing, but why would I want to go to all of that trouble when I have the convenience of my monthly selection online. Storing all that data is a real pain. Keeping track of which song is on which cd is also a pain. Programmers have spent lots of time trying to make free software to keep track of that stuff and none of them do it right. Plus, you get $15 monthly from me just so I have access to new titles, old titles, whatever, in a convenient and time saving system, w/o the overhead of storing them all, etc.
Okay, do you get it finally. We want service, selection; added value. We won't pay for anything less (ie: cd's with just the songs on them)
Sincerely,
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Man, those big companies need nothing like DRM to stop p2p networks. They just need their boxes in the network sharing corrupted copies of their copyrighted content. Considering most of the new p2p sharing applications make use of advanced protocols that let you copy files from several people at the same time they would just need a few boxes sharing content on high-speed connections and voila'... you're making it hard to get the right thing. And this is DRM free.
;-P
Remember, the weak point of p2p networks is that not everyone wishes to share... so they would only need to make sure that what they want to share (the corrupted file) is ALWAYS available for a big number of connections. Hell someone could even start a company to offer this service to media giants for a small ammount of money, and I bet the bastard would become rich in a matter of weeks.
Heh, I better go copyright this idea before it's too late.
Decameron
diegoT
I think another solution to piracy is to create something of genuine value that can only be attained if you purchase the CD legitimately. It amazes me that record companies are not conducting market research to determine what such "extras" would be best to motivate people to purchase their CD's. Case in point -- I know a lot of people who've purchased copies of Blizzard's new "Warcraft III" game because with a pirated copy of the game, you can't login to Blizzard's Internet play servers and play against other users across the world. And this is clearly a feature that almost any player of the game is interested in. Case in point -- Some DVD's contain things like extra angles for some scenes, dubs of the speech in the soundtrack into other languages or large photo galleries that can't be converted into JPG's automatically. This type of content can almost never be downloaded online, and people buy the DVD in order to get a hold of it. Case in point -- The latest CD from Garbage contains a unique ID that allows you to subscribe to their web site, where you can download software that allows you to create your own unique remixes of some of the songs on the disc. While this didn't motivate me to purchase the disc personally as the software is only available for Windoze machines, I know several people who did purchase it for exactly this reason. If record companies are concerned about CD sales, they should make this sort of thing the norm. They should be spending their money researching the best way to motivate people to purchase the CD, not on ways to stop people from downloading it. Unfortunately the problem with big business is that they almost never think about giving consumers more value for their buck. The idea is simply abhorrent to them. They can't wrap their tiny little minds around it.
Please God, let me find my blue hat with the red trim. (Frances Farmer)
While not from the paper in question, my favorite quote on the topic is "The marketers can compete with free; it just has to be better. Look at bottled water if you don't believe me," - Jonathan Potter, Digital Media Association.
(Found at http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1982
Pretty much sums up my feelings on how the entertainment industry can survive.
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
Thus, the DRM has to be at the end source, at wher the final product is released(ie. the speakers, the TV screen, etc.)
So to support this new technology, you're asking consumers they have to effectively scrap their entire system?
The depressingly slow adoption of new consumer equipment to migrate to the "required" new HDTV broadcast standards in the US is good proof of this model failing in real-life. Arguably, high-definition TV is a lot more value-added than protecting the already-hated record industry's bottom line.
If it came to that, I'd go back to vinyl.