Slashdot Mirror
DRM and Threat Analysis
miladus writes "A timely and concise intervention by Ed Felten
on the topic of DRM and the models used (or not used) to represent the
threats to defeat. In brief, 2 models, one based on the potential of
large scale redistribution of copyrighted files implying defeat of DRM
if one user succeeds in bringing file inquestion to P2P network; the
other, refers to the majority of users who would casually copy files.
The implications of the schematization are most interesting because
they explain some the logic behind the often confused and confusing
rhetoric of DRM advocates and the necessity for rational grounding for
technologies."
I am okay with DRM as long as I know who holds the keys. With todays Homeland security, I am not sure that I am the only key holder.
I couldn't bother going to the link, I'll just download it off kazaa later ;)
I'd like to go karma-whoring and leave an interesting comment, but I find I just don't care about DRM right now. Funny, that.
.Information doesn't want to be anything
From the article: ..."
"... leads to incoherent rhetoric
The only rhetoric I hear and see all the time are the many euphemisms used by the "DRM industry".
drm - I best manage my rights by deciding freely what to do with the data on my PC
copy *protection* - what does it protect?
piracy - I am not on a ship in the carribean sea.
etc.pp.
From the ref. article:
"Either you choose the Napsterization model, and accept that your technology must be utterly bulletproof; or you choose the casual-copying model, and accept that you will not prevent Napsterization. You can't have it both ways"
If you're a big enough monopoloy, you can PRETEND to have a bulletproof model - sell the model to the copyright holders, and sell (indirectly) a cracking tool to the mass market. Build yet another platform (Palladium) to break the latter tool.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
come on /. adopt drm in everything you do.
Heck, even my SSN is protected by DRM.
DRM is the digital equivalent of having to keep a drunk, rowdy police officer in your home 24/7 without a warrant. There are constitutional protections against that sort of thing.
Repeal the DMCA!
The DRM advocates must choose the Napsterization Model: It is potentially the most damaging, in terms of profits.
no, you need to think about the actual threats, not your model of the threats. Sure, this isn't a big deal, except if you are pitching yourself as someone who deeply understands something, you lose credibility when you are sloppy.
Gosh... Who would've thought? 'Napsterize' has become a verb... Kind've reminds me how William Gibson used the phrase "Watergated" as a verb in Neuromancer.
But enough about that. The article generalizes far too much IMHO; I find it hard to believe that a large percentage of threats can be categorized into either of the two models mentioned. There is a valid point being made, by all means... but someone needs to elaborate a little more on the subject...
I guess that's what Slashdot is for!
But this article was fairly meaningless in its own right. Nothing new if offered just that the current solution doesn't work. Something we already know.
As a fellow security professional I find it puzzling to read this small, content-free, snippets found on the great ether. It helps to re-identify the issues at hand but does little to solve them. DRM is certainly an issue but it is time to stop complaining about it and offer real world solutions.
Me? I believe that copyright infringement is tatmount to terrorism and can only be addressed by regime change. I feel the only workable solution is the total elimination of the MIAA, RPAA and any other group involved in the creation, publication and distribution of copyrighted material. Also mandatory death sentences should be handed out to anyone who provides content.
Right now I have 3 squirrels in my pants.
Thank you for your support.
It would be far better to approach this problem on a social rather than a technical security basis.
I would perhaps like to see a model where you license a song for life. Something along the lines of paying $1.50 for a song and you get a digital certificate that licences you to own the song, no matter where you got it from.
That would mean that I could get the song quickly from my buddy down the road, and while that is downloading via the loacal bandwidth I could log on to BMI, Sony or whoever (The RIAA homepage!?!?), and pay my royalties.
No wait, I could just log on to the artist's homepage and pay the $.50 directly to him/her/them!!!
it would seem to me that copanies whos software checks in with servers (much like the constant updating of firewall software or even MS OSes) could easily track when software has been propogated throught the Napsterization model. When someone downloads the latest update 100 times you can figure that it has been comprimized.
Can someone with more knowledge on the subject please ream my argument. I, unlike some slashdoters, enjoy intelectual discourse.
note to self:
/. at all times
1. stay logged into
2. get in an early post -- say something inane, yet remotely insightful
3. ???
4. post gets modded way up!
When they complain about the problem, they seem to be using the Napsterization model -- they talk about one infringing copy propagating across the world. But when they propose solutions they seem to be solving the casual-copying problem.
They complain about the problem, and use the Napsterization model.
Then they kill Napster.
What am I missing?
I just want to make the observation that in real life you don't get to choose your threat, of course; both threat models are present to some extent. You can only talk about which threat model $protection_measure addresses and to what extent.
Another thing is that *AA can hope to bring the Napster model closer to the small-scale copying model by persecuting individual users. Witness:
On most p2p networks there is no anonymity and so there is still a chance of preventing this scenario. But all that changes when freenet comes into the picture. If it gets widely used, an ugly, long-drawn, bloody clash between "content creators" and "pirates" is inevitable. There are two possible outcomes at the end of it: 1) a draconian world ruled by the evil side 2) a severe reevaluation of our current notions on copyright, intellectual property, and revenue models. I dearly hope the clash occurs and the latter outcome results. The sooner we get out of the digital dark age the better.There's another threat model, it's the immortal music. The RIAA is very upset that CD's last so much longer than LPs. They've tried to block the resale of used CDs. With DRM, they can go back to the old mortal music model. P2P is just the scape goat. Funny how much the casual model sounds like fair use.
Without DRM, one person buys TurboTax for $40 and copies it for 5 friends:
revenues: 1 x $40 = $40
losses due to piracy: 5 x $40 = $200
net: $40 - $200 = -$160
With DRM, the same person buys TaxCut and copies it for 5 friends:
revenues: $0
losses due to piracy: $0
net: $0
So by using DRM, Intuit saves $160.
is that at some point the music has to be unencrypted. There is no way to prevent me from intercepting the signal being sent to my speakers, recording it and ripping it to mp3. The quality is not going to be that great, but that's par for the course on Kazaa. The same is true for movies... there will always be cam versions no matter what.
So, if we accept the (logical) "Napsterization" model using any type of encryption/fair use deprivation sceme is going to be pointless when the music/film has to be percieved by the human eyes and ears in the same way it always has been.
These people look deep into my soul and assign me a number based on the order I joined.
If I can hear it, I can copy it. Any usable media is inherently unsafe.
...that this is equally relevant to DRM skeptics.
When we argue that DRM has no place in copyright law we need real understanding of its purpose and effect. Otherwise, we're just fighting windmills. Enough people doing that already...
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
2) I haven't seen a bulletproof DRM system yet, not even a theoretical one.
but what do i know, i'm just a model.
DRM is impossible partially because protection against only the casual-copying model implies that someone can copy the contents and thereby uploding it onto a P2P network, burn it on a CD for a friend or sell burnt CD's meaning we also get napterization (why did Felton fail to mention this?) Also there's the fact that the antinapsterization bulletproof protection is both digitally impossible (reverse engineering is always possible (although it can be made very hard through hardware)) and analoguosly impossible (there's always hi-fi capture.) I might not be able to copy a file but I can always just re-record it.
The only possible DRM - that I can imagine - is burying storageless chips deep into our brains with builtin credit card reader that streams contents encrypted from a sattelite server on demand. That thought however is awful.
The only thing that might help is: public-education (the copyright owner has rights too you know) and/or buisiniss remodelling. Believe it or not but developing software takes millions of $ (even Windows) and record labels are not pure evil (although sometimes not far from it) and serve for the artist and the public as an important middleman.
Shouldn't software developers and artists get paid like everybody in society, they do produce valuable products (even - to some degree - Windows.)
Look a monkey!
I guess you can develop as much copy-protections as you wish, it just won't help. As long as you can hear music you should be able to grab is. If the method isn't digital, it's analog. Just plug a cord from the headphone-outlet to the mic-inlet from your soundcard and it will do the trick most of the time.
P2P networks are here and they're here to stay
/(bb|[^b]{2})/
You're wrong here?
We are talking about the Department Of Digiland Security, not Homeland Security.
Ed Felten has a valid point about the need to choose a threat model, and to stick to that choice.
However, he has not convinced me that the two threat models that he describes are the only ones, or indeed separate threat models at all.
I would view p2p networks as a means to achieving "widespread, but small-scale and unorganized, copying," and not as a separate threat model at all.
I'm also not clear about whom he's addressing: Most DRM advocates are aware of the fact that today's systems will not stop a determined adversary, and only mildly deter a casual user.
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
The talk of two copying models and the level of protection needed to minimize each is profound. It speaks of a deep wisdom which many have overlooked.
But I want to add something to it. Everyone here knows what a capacitor is, right? It's two metal plates separated by a little insulator. When enough of a charge builds up between those two plates, the current will briefly jump the gap through the insulator.
The same applies to the Napsterizing/Casual-Copying model. Under casual copying, people make copies and distribute them to one or two friends. With Napsterization, one copy is made and broadcast to a great many people who want it.
The two are separated by a small gap. Will someone make one or two copies, or make it available for hundreds to download? That's where the capacitance comes in. If there's enough pressure, sooner or later a piece of media will jump the gap from casual copying and appear somewhere for everyone to grab a copy of.
What affects capacitance between the two? Well, the better the content is, the more people will want to show it to other people. The easier it is to show to other people, the more people will do so. P2P software today has cut the gap considerably. DRM is an attempt to add insulation and keep things from making the jump from casual copying to mass distribution.
It's been demonstrated, preventing any copies from being made is theoretically impossible, but the Content Cartels continue to try to prevent it. Likewise, preventing the jump to from casual copying to underground mass distribution is nearly impossible, but the Content Cartels continue suing every P2P, university, or network service that doesn't outlaw it outright.
It'd be interesting to see statistics on which results in more copies being made: P2P distribution or casual copying. Because it seems that P2P networks do more damage, but are much harder to prevent. And, in fact, if a DRM is put into place which prevents casual copying, I could see MORE people going to P2P systems to get copies from those who CAN break the "anti-fair-use technologies."
Thoughtful as the piece on different types of copying threat is, it becomes moot as the different types come closer together.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
"they explain some the logic behind the often confused and confusing rhetoric of DRM advocates"
Confusing rhetoric like, say, "inquestation" and "implications of the schematization?"
------
Believe me, I'm as surprised by my comment as you are.
From the viewpoint of someone who created the trust model for the MPEG IPMP framework, Dr. Felten comments are correct though he does not address the fundamental failure of DRM. The *AA of the world are trying to use technology to solve what is fundamentally social and economic failings.
As for DRM technologies, no technology can withstand attack indefinitely, Palladium not withstanding. The question really boils down to who is attacking, how much time are they willing to spend on it and what resources they have access to.
If the answer to the above question is professionals with lots of time and resources, any DRM system will be cracked.
Remember, it isn't a dictatorship if I got elected by the Supreme Court.
Felten's comments come close to, but do not quite repeat, the twin comments I have been making to friends about Digital Rights Manglement for the past year.
First, Digital Rights Manglement schemes assume that the control over use of media offered to producers due to the virtue of being digital -- controls which they have never before possed in any other medium -- outstrip the value of fair use rights for their entire [potential] audience, despite the twin facts that fair use rights are established in law, and that [some of] the controls suggested violate other legal doctrines such as first sale. This alone is enough to dissuade me from supporting any such schemes.
Secondly, even if you are a prolific creator -- such as Steven King or the Beatles -- you cannot create as much media output as you have input. Even for a creator, the fair use rights lost to DRM will outweigh the additional rights gained. Any way you slice the question, the public rights lost to Manglement will outweigh the private ones gained, because even the few beneficiaries also lose -- on a scale far larger than they gain. (The rest of us just lose.)
Do you like Japanese imports?
Way to totally obfuscate!
I'm not promising I'll do much better but:
The article explains how DRM advocates complain about one problem (large-scale Napster-type piracy), but propose solutions that really only solve a different problem ("casual copying", e.g. making an extra copy for the car).
They are just interested in having some sort of encription system and then have laws to protect it.
It just doesn't mather if the technical aspects of the encription methods are strong or weak.
They just want to have laws to be able to go after anybody suspect of breaking the encription systems.
My advice to all the people doing research on ecription and security is this: just be very carefull..
Sorry, posted in the wrong topic !
the necessity for rational grounding for [DRM] technologies
hahahahahhaahhahaha
Rational Grounding:
1. The only possible solution is to not give information to people you do not trust with it.
2. Once you accept item 1, there is no item 2.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
otherwise it's a hate crime, and the penalties are much more severe
DRM is very simple. If there is a file on your machine that others can read and write but you can not, then someone else owns your machine. If all machines are owned in this manner and the law supports it, the law has violated the first amendment gaurntee of free press. If I can't make one of these or an anyonymous handbill equivalent with my own equipment the way I chose, then there is no free press. That is a much greater threat than the colapse of the pulp music sheet industry and it's illegitimate vinyl and radio broadcasting heirs.
DRM is the largest threat to the free flow of information ever. It has the ability to undo not just the digital revolution, but the benifits of mechinized paper publication as well. Once books were chained to their shelves in libraries and only a privaledged few could look at them. DRM chains are stronger than any steel.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
...it reminds me of my younger self as C64 owner and copyright infringer.
Back then, many game producers used DRM in different ways. There was no internet, I had very little money, no access to BBS'es and copying a single game took several minutes swapping disks. Yet I knew a couple of guys who could lend me bunches of new games for copying, DRM cracked and all. Everyone I knew had boxes stuffed with illegal games and perhaps one or two originals tops. Darknet indeed.
If that was the state of things back then, how can we reasonably expect that DRM will really limit copying today? I think we'll fare better informing people about the consequences of copyright infringement - both to themselves, but more importantly to the artists. I'd like an easy technological solution, but we don't have it, and we're not going to.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
I'd like an easy technological solution, but we don't have it, and we're not going to.
In fact, I suspect we do have one now: Easy and cheap online sale.
Smart content providers will beat the pirates on ease-of-use, not to mention good-conscience. It's not perfect, but I'm generally optimistic that it'll be good enough. While waiting for the un-smart content providers to die off we should fight to stop copyright law from becoming too badly "fixed".
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
"Justice" Scalia has explained that you are wrong. You see, "Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires." But don't worry; he promises to protect the constitutional minimum. I feel safer already.
Felton is right about the way the *AA use these two threat models; however, I believe that this is at least partly intentional. I think they talk up the Napster threat to gain sympathy for their cause, when in reality they're more interested in killing casual copying. They're using the "perfect digital copying" menace and "sky is falling" P2P scenarios as a smokescreen to take away existing consumer usage rights. Content publishers have resented the fair-use and first-sale doctrines ever since they came along, and now they're grabbing a unique opportunity to turn back the clock and regain complete control over the consumer. A prime example is HDCP, which will destroy the ability to make simple analog copies of video, which was specifically allowed under VCR rulings of the 80's. The ironic thing is that they're using a digital scheme to do it.
Yes, they killed Napster. They managed to get rid of AudioGalaxy, too. But FreeNet, Kazaa, WinMX, and any P2P systems likely to show up in the future are comparatively unkillable. The killing off of the first few centralized sharing networks accomplished nothing except to make 'the enemy' harder to get next time around. They can't possibly affect them anymore, so instead they announce their uncopyable (and often unplayable) CDs as the solution to all copying problems. Not only is it a bad solution, it's a bad solution being applied to an entirely different problem. Similarly, a hardware/OS-level DRM-ed music file will only work until it is broken once, after which it gets shared as an ordinary unprotected file and the solution is worthless, inconveniencing only the non-sharing customers.
Dyolf Knip
... which was discussed several months ago on /. IIRC, goes into much more detail on the dynamics of the cat-and-mouse game of DRM and copy distribution and is very insightful about the possible outcomes.
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
well put my good man
The point made by the author can be generalized to any form of problem solving. When approaching a situation, you must first understand the problem before you can even begin to formulate an adequate solution. In my experience, this is the #1 thing that people do wrong in engineering (software or otherwise). Why just the other day, I was conversing with a collegue who was trying to decide between two ways of structuring a web application that would affect how the client used it. I asked him how the client currently does their business. He didn't know.
I just want to make the observation that in real life you don't get to choose your threat, of course; both threat models are present to some extent. You can only talk about which threat model $protection_measure addresses and to what extent.
Exactly, if anything - this article shows why it is an all or nothing game. Either they will half to try and controll all information, or none of it. But in all fairness we can't choose our threat either. The threat is not big media companies imposing overbearing and "glorious" sounding schemes, it is our own belief in copyrights and how far we will let them go in terms of pushing them down our throat. The sooner we refuse to believe in copyrights and all the fradulent arguments that go with them, the harder it will be for them to impose on us.
No, the windmills are still there.
Until every windmill is destroyed, until every breeze flows freely through the sacred atmosphere unhindered, until Man is force to stop enslaving Air Elementals to do his bidding, I will be there. Join me, and Free the Wind. There can never be enough people doing that.
If you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. A time of reckoning will come, air-enslavers!
Okay so I'll give some details and ask a question or two for you slashdotters. (I finally made an account too, needed to post instead of just reading).
GIVENS: I am trying to finish some side projects for my own company, but on the side I wanted to create a site where artists can freely distribute songs they want heard and take contributions. I will do it for fun so it may not necessarily be the biggest thing around since my server capacity sucks right now (just a couple of old celerons and an athlon 1000 former gaming rig lying around and a cable connection (soon to be a full server, via @home/@work, if i can blow the cash on it).
QUESTION: What I wanted to know is... if I build it and moderate it and take care of it... does anyone think it might work? Might it give the fearful artists (i.e. the ones who'd do it if someone would help them) enough gall to stand up to the bastards in power (tm) (i.e. RIAA, MPAA, whoever) and go it on their own with the help of a few of us dedicated individuals on the net? Do you think that as long as we keep corporate interests out and maintain it as a free group, it would work? GNU/BSD style? Might it become a WE thing instead of a 'me myself and I team'?
ELSE: Should we all just sit back like cowards and watch the world spin out of our reach?
The world is being ripped out of our grasp as are our rights. If we want any freedom when this administration is done catering to the filthy rich and stepping on the soon to be festering corpses of our rights and freedoms (for which my parents risked death to come to the US from the old soviet block) I daresay we need to start ACTING not just debating. I'm neither an activist nor a fool, but I am concerned that if nobody proposes, or tries, nothing will get done. Just as nothing got done when the elections were doctored a scant few years back. When I was growing up, we didn't have the right to act, at least here we do. So I'm going to try to do my part. This is the clear, non violent way to do something right. Marches and petitions work but they stand a great chance of failure (the politicians and lawyers have to compare popular support versus large payoffs from filthy rich corporations which the public inadvertedly supports). Providing alternatives to the providers instead of attempting to persuade the deaf and rich overlords that enslave those providers may work.
AND: If necessary we could charge a small percentage for site maintenance and time spent, but either way not stealing over 90% of the artists proceeds for our own greed. I say if we want to kill the RIAA and MPAA and their GREED we need to MAKE a different outlet for artists up and coming.
We've got the technology, and between just the slashdotters I'd say we got more than enough skill to make it happen. We just need the motivation.
-DaedalusHKX
PS - I welcome all opinions on this, if I missed a site that has possibly tried this (and been thorough, and failed) then please give me the links in question. Thanks.
PPS - If you feel like flaming me, go ahead, but I believe its about time the rest of us sitting on the sidelines step in, instead of just further wasting our breath preaching to our already convinced audience (ourselves) about this subject?
PPPS - if anyone's interested lemme know okay? I'm willing to risk a flamewar to find out how great the interest is, instead of just the constant and irrelevant bitching and complaining we all do.
AND if you DARE mention MP3.com I will FLAME you. All I've seen on there are "popular top 40 (RIAA sanctioned songs)"
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
I am NEVER okay with DRM. As long as someone else holds the keys, they can change the rules anytime afterwards.
Consider, you buy DRM protected music this year.
Next year, through spending lots of money in Washington D.C., the industries are are granted the legal right to specify that the music you bought cannot be copied to any other form, and your DRM is automatically updated to enforce that without ever asking your consent.
The year after that they get a law where your purchased music will expire after ten years of use. Just won't play after that.
And the year after that, instead of unlimited plays allowed within your remaining eight years (the ten year limit was made retroactive, of course), you now have to pay a few pennies for each play. And btw, it now expires in seven (for you four) years.
You can't do anything because they own the keys and can change the conditions of their use any time they wish (true of any DRM system, to deal with compromised keys, if nothing else). Your only recourse is to the law -- and they've already preempted that route.
Let's be clear here: DRM IS NEVER OKAY. Got that?
And if you're foolish to think the rules never change on something after you've bought it, look at how copyrights on old music and movies continue to be extended beyond ever expiring? Even now, copyrighted material first published before you were born will never expire in your lifetime.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Considering the complete content of many CD's today, the industry is already 90% there.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
People also talk about "ticket scalpers" and that term is probably more recent, but nobody seems confused about what they do.
As others have commented, Felten doesn't say a lot or add much value to the debate that I can see.
On the other hand, just yesterday I stumbled across a couple of [PDF] white papers by Andrew Frank and others at divine.com which are really rather good.
The first of these is a couple of years old, the second is a 2002 follow-up, and I'm kind of surprised I've seen no reference to them before now.
Although written from the perspective of a consultant pitching to the content provider industry, these tell it like it is: either the industry "gets it" and develops a compelling digital delivery proposition, or any and all of their DRM efforts will merely accelerate Darwinian processes in the P2P and filesharing fields that make their loss of control over distribution inevitable.
Of course I'd be interested. I assume you mean dedicating time and energy. Unemployment=broke=can't help financially.
I wonder who else would be...
you have to see the bigger picture: TaxCut for $0 will soon be gone because of intellectual property, "freeware is communism" propaganda, software patents and so on.
then, drm actually works.
Copyright is, after all, a deal between the copyright holder (CH) and the public - CH gets a limited monopoly, the public gets control after it expires. Anyone going beyond the limited monopoly is not following the rules, and shouldn't get the benefits of copyright protection.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Scalia requests ban on broadcast media at talk
03/19/03
Stephen Koff and James F. McCarty
Plain Dealer Reporters
C-SPAN, the cable television network popular with political junkies and insomniacs, is outraged that the City Club of Cleveland has banned broadcast media from covering today's speech by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Especially galling, says C-SPAN, is that Scalia is coming to the club to collect its Citadel of Free Speech Award.
More at giant link, funny as heck except he really IS a "supreme" court judge.
Maybe we should escape to orbit, nuke the whole site, only way to be sure.
the hen house. Hense, the hens aren't too interested in sqwuaking or all of a sudden the next CD of their "isn't selling so well, so we'll pay you $40,000 this year and you'll owe us your next 5 releases.."
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
Let's simplify even further. On one side you have the people who will do things for their sole gain, and the detriment of others, no matter what. With rationalization generally following in their wakes.
On the other side you have people of a more alturistic nature, who don't do things solely for their benefit, nor to the detriment of society, also no matter what. And generally rationalization doesn't follow in their wake.
I suppose in due time we are going to find out which side is the correct one. Wonder how many lives will be ruined in the process? "I told you so" can sometimes be a hollow victory.
Yes, I think it would work. You will, however, need to find a way to get information to artists that (might) want to use the system. (Attend a lot of live concerts?)
A "Sample" section with links to buy CDs (or full albums in digital format) direct from the band may not be a bad idea either.
Best of luck with your idea.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, however, there is.
Be that as it may, the moral underpinnings of intellectual property rights are the same as those of other property rights (which alas, too many lawyers and others have abandoned any moral justification for), namely that people have a right to control themselves and the fruits of their labor, just as John Locke outlined in his books 300 years ago. As I see it, anyone who does any kind of work, whether it is making shoes or writing songs has a right to set the terms on which he exchanges his goods for whatever kind of compensation the recipients choose to exchange. that said, there is great advantage in establishing standard kinds of agreements which are well understood and easy to agree to and enforce, and as I see it, this ought to be the grounds of the debate on how intellectual materials are exchanged. Should the default be "distribute anything for free no matter what"? Should it be "Never use it in any way that the producers (or their agents) approve ahead of time."? Both of those are clearly wrong choices as defaults. I think that the traditional copyright defaults were pretty good (requiring payment for copyrighted works at market prices and fair use of the works once you own them). The problem is that the media monopolies don't like the idea of market competition so they don't offer their stuff for sale in the first place. They'd make a lot more money if they actually started selling their wares on the open market than they do now as they cower before the notion that they might have to compete on the open market.
I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say. If only you werent posting as AC perhaps you could actually reply with a clarification.
An inexplicable "No", along with an equally inexplicable "They", combined with an utterly inexplicable italicized "not working" and a general assumption that there was a purpose behind your typing- Did you read what I said as saying that consumers like you reject CDs when they can do what they want with them? I have no idea wtf you were trying to say in your post.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I agree that it's about time for a different means of producing and distributing content. I've been thinking about it a lot lately. Have a peek!
<stream style="conciousness">
Seems like a few new online business ideas might work as a replacement for the current artist support structure... Group bidding might be a valid alternative to the current method of supporting artists. How 'bout reverse auctions for recording time? Online voting for contract (re)negotiation?
While we're voting we could even vote for recording representatives to work directly with musicians. Hmmm, if we can democratize the world, maybe it's time for a "Music Declaration of Independence" and matching "Music Constitution" and "Music Bill of Rights" -- this may be going too far!
Anyway, what if future musicians could compete online for your bid? With enough people willing to pay a reasonable amount, it seems the results could be acceptable to the bidders, artists, and support structure.
</stream>
Being a luke warm body, I'm not really ambitious enough to do anything about it right now. Best of luck to ya!
Thanks guys, I will try to do what I can... as I've said its little, but in view of how the corporate world is now buying both our government and our lives, someone needs to start somewhere or we all WILL end up living in pods with serial numbers before long.
Having a say in the way things run is what the artists ALSO gave up just like small startups hoping that wallstreet cash would save them... it sank them instead. The people that played at the original Woodstock did not drive around in million dollar latest trend of tour buses. The purpose of that act was exactly what music no longer is... free.
Curious: If I paid 99 cents to an artist or even 59 cents for a song I really liked... hell I'd tip 'em... and i'm sure I'm not alone. And this kind of system would most likely work better than the MPAA demanding 19.99 for a cd of 8 or 10 songs of which maybe TWO are even remotely memorable... That is not business... its extortion. We need to offer an option. I wanted to buy a grand am, and they told me no manuals available. I told them, fine, watch me buy a ford... and I did. I had a choice. That's what music shoppers need. Those who want to pay the extortive prices for the wrong featureset can do so, the rest might welcome the idea.
-DaedalusHKX
PS - I am now going to ask that ANY of you who have some background in reaching musicians ears, or finding them, that you try reaching me over the next few months. Getting this thing together will take politics, legalese (without moneyhungry lawyers) AND lots of work.(I'll try to take care of teh work part, but the reaching out part I can't also do).
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
I'll reply for him, since his AC status apparently means he can't (??). Not really sure where your logic comes from, but moving on...
He's trying to say that although most consumers may not look for a "Compact Disc" logo before buying, they sure as hell return the CDs that don't meet their expectations (ie: don't rip to MP3 in their computers, don't play in their older devices).
As for you thinking the logo was a stupid idea: it indicates a standard. It lets a consumer know that they can play this disc on any device bearing the Compact Disc logo. Just because you can't see a use, doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
For a couple reasons: If you dont tell people what it means, all the compact disc logo says to consumers is: "This is a small plastic wafer with a hole in it"
/everything/- makes no sense. /case/. Here's an old Rage Against the Machines CD I just grabbed randomly. No indication from the outside that a standard CD exists inside. /container/, which seems to be saying nothing more than "this container is designed to hold a disc of these dimensions" /anywhere/, yet I find nothing which can't read it.
/logo/?
And when you get right down to it, that's all the compact disc logo really does me. What I'm talking about is putting the logo on
A lot of CD Jewel cases have the logo. Sounds completely stupid, doesnt it? The Logo is meaningless on a jewel case: You can stick a DVD or a mini-pizza in it.
Some of my CD-Rs have the logo on it. Again, meaningless: If I burn an MP3 CD, it can't play on anything that has the same logo on it, it can only play on a device which can read MP3s - a completely unrelated format.
With so much tension between companies wanting to use the logo even with broken discs, it seems much more likely that these "rejected CDs" were from people who just didnt want to slap an extra logo on their CD- or on their CD
Here's an old Third Eye Blind CD. The only "Compact Disc" logo on this one is on the inside of the plastic case. Not on the outside, not on the inside, but on a
Miles Davis, same thing. Charlie Parker, no sign of a logo
Obviously if a CD doesnt play on your player, you'll return it. I never meant to imply otherwise. But for lack of
You aren't helping.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Yes, the logo exists on a lot of jewel cases... so what? The company that produces a non-redbook compliant CD, and uses such a jewel case, is guilty of false advertising. And putting your own CD in a case doesn't negate that usage - we are talking about purchasing a CD, not storing your MP3 CD-Rs. The two cases have nothing to do with each other.
Personally, I've never rejected a CD for lack of a logo, but I *have* demanded a return slip in case I took the CD home and it didn't work. Neither CD nor case bore the logo, and so I took steps to prevent any unintended consequences (such as not being able to MP3 my new CD).
You sound like you just have an axe to grind because you personally don't bother to investigate things you purchase.
I have personally never had any trouble with ripping things due to copy protection measures, so that's wrong.
/wont/ work.
For some reason people are reading my "returning a CD for lack of logo is stupid" post as saying "returning a CD which doesnt work is stupid". I have no idea where the fuck that leap comes from. Stop saying it.
Putting my CD in a case doesnt negate the logo. Buying a case which has the logo on it does. A CDR also has the logo in some cases. What does the logo mean in either of those cases? Squat. Nothing at all. That's all I'm saying there.
Are Blizard, Lucasarts, Activision, ID, Monolith, Microsoft, Sierra, and all other software companies, guilty of false advertising because they use the Standard CD case to hold discs which can't be read by your car stereo? No, that's just stupid. So here's the point there:
Because these Jewel cases which have the "Compact Disc" logo are used in thousands of products which can't be read using a standard stereo, the logo does NOT mean that it can. Because plenty of artists simply would rather not dirty up their disc art, inserts, and non-standard cases, with a meaningless logo, a lack of logo is also no indication that it
So I stand by it: Rejecting CDs because they dont have a logo is stupid. Because of such, the logo in general is stupid.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Are Blizard, Lucasarts, Activision, ID, Monolith, Microsoft, Sierra, and all other software companies, guilty of false advertising because they use the Standard CD case to hold discs which can't be read by your car stereo?
Are you deliberately trying to be retarded? This is the reason the logo has different formats. Practically every Blizzard, LucasArts and Sierra CD I look at has a logo that reads, quite distinctly, "Compact Disc Data Storage". The only CD I have that reads "Compact Disc Audio" is a game that comes with the soundtrack stored as such (and can be played in a stereo).
"The logo is stupid, because I can't read".
I'm sorry, maybe the fact that what you said is completely untrue is why I claim it to be completely untrue. In fact I have never seen _any_ CD case marked with the "Data Storage" mark. All CDs I just referenced come in cases emblazened with "Compact Disc: Digital Audio"
The CDs themselves are usually without the logo, But I have not seen a single CD or case which boasts "Data Storage"
I dont know why you're fighting me on the point that these standard cases which everyone uses regaurdless of content are standard cases which everyone uses regaurdless of content. There are probably errors I've made along the course of this discussion- The logos on CD cases being utterly meaningless is not one of them.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I think many of you will appreciate U.C. Berkeley's Digital Rights Management Conference of 2003. Audio, video, transcripts, conference papers, and more are available at: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/bclt/drm/index2.html patrick
I'm arguing the point because your experience does not match mine - I cannot find a disc marked 'digital audio' when it only contains data. And I have no small collection of CDs...
As for this idea of a standard jewel case, that's nuts. I have well over 30 CDs with logo-less jewel cases, and the only cases that came with a logo originally contained audio CDs.
What country are you living in? Perhaps that has something to do with it.
Baldur's Gate II: Data storage
Riven: Data storage
Medieval (total war): Compact disc (not digital audio)
Black and White: no logo, no logo on case either
All my CD-Rs have "recordable" below the 'compact disc'.
It is an important and popular fact that things are not always what
...
they seem. For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed
that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so
much -- the wheel, New York, wars and so on -- whilst all the dolphins
had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But
conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more
intelligent than man -- for precisely the same reasons.
Curiously enough, the dolphins had long known of the impending
destruction of the of the planet Earth and had made many attempts to
alert mankind to the danger; but most of their communications were
misinterpreted
-- Douglas Admas "The Hitchhikers' Guide To The Galaxy"
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...