Slashdot Mirror
Newest Audio CD DRM Proves Ineffective
The Importance of writes "As noted previously, a couple of weeks ago BMG released a new CD by Anthony Hamilton that included DRM. Slashdot readers speculated that the system wouldn't work. Now there is a report proving it doesn't work by Alex Halderman, a graduate student at Princeton's computer science department and the author of an earlier, definitive report (PDF, HTML version) on first generation CD copy protection. Famed computer scientist Ed Felten asks: "Is this the end of the road for CD copy protection?" His answer? "It ought to be.""
No audio CD should be installing *ANYTHING* on my PC, unless I'm aware of it at first.
If you try to do DRM on a Compact Disc, it is never going to work.
If you ever think you succeeded, you've failed anyway because you violated the standards that define a Compact Disc... you've got a CD-like piece of plastic that just might play in some CD players, but you will not have a CD.
i used to work for a company where they would limit internet access by hiding the address bar in IE. it proved about as effective as this seems.
!(^((ri)|(mp))aa$)
Merely noise to the average user. They'll put the CD in, it plays. They attempt to burn a copy, it comes out like crap.
"Hey...I guess we can't do this."
How many people do you know who are still stymied by DVD/VCR Macrovision copy"protection"?
1.2. Your rights to use the Digital Content are conditioned on your ownership of a license to use and possession of the original Compact Disc (CD) media and are terminated in the event you no longer own or possess the original CD media. (This apparently prohibits using copied tracks as backups in case the original disc is lost, stolen, or destroyed.)
So if the CD fails to remain usable through normal wear and tear, does that put the publisher in breach of contract? They've effectively granted me a license that they are going to renege on should the physical media degrade.
They've got to make up their minds! Is it a physical good, or a digital good? Did I buy a license and the CD was just a nice way for them to fulfill their promise that I'm licensed to use the content? Did I buy a plastic disc (for $15) which I'm free to do with as I please?
$8.95/mo web hosting
Except that Joe Luddite paid one of his son's friends $50 to configure his computer for him, and this friend turned off AutoRun, like any good person should. So, six months later, when Joe Luddite sticks the CD into his drive, he doesn't even notice the copy protection. He just opens up EZ-CD or something and rips the tracks and burns a copy for his friend.
This isn't even going to be effective against the luddites - they've already been told by Microsoft to turn off AutoRun to keep their machine secure.
-T
"This is about as effective as putting a sticker on the front that says 'Pretty please do not attempt to extract data from this CD on your computer'."
Gotta wonder, why hasn't the RIAA tried putting little "Do's and Dont's" pamphlet in CDs? I mean, seriously, the RIAA has done *nothing* to educate people about what's legal and what isn't. This is why people are appearing in court with a surprised expression on their faces. If the RIAA, ages ago, had insisted that record labels put little pamphlets in their CD's saying "please don't copy and give to a friend", then their stance would be a little easier to handle.
The RIAA says their problems are because everybody's a thief, I say the RIAA's problems are a direct result of their own ignorance. At least the movie industry is smart enough to put a list of don't on every movie. Interestingly enough, there aren't as many DVD rips out there.
"Derp de derp."
The funny part is that it's smart people stealing money from stupid thugs who stole money from smart people in the first place. I say we champion their efforts. They're going to get rich, and they clearly deserve it more than the RIAA.
Hell, everybody except lawyers and politicians deserves it more than the RIAA.
-----------------------
You are what you think.
Them running software on my computer without my permission
Actually you gave them permission when you inserted the CD. If you don't like programs autorunning, it's very easy to disable.
So... okay follow me here... By disabling Autorun, I've circumvented copyright protection-- therefore violating the DMCA. Microsoft has provided, and sold, me the tools used to circumvent that copy protection-- are they therefore also violating the DMCA then?
As a Mac user, let me just say that my "virus immune" platform has already been bitten by this. One of the few pieces of malware in the wild that was Mac-compatible was exploiting the equivalent functionality on the platform; it was known as the Autostart Worm. It was an embarassment for Apple and some publishing houses, and eventally showed up on some shipping commercial CDs. Since then, Mac users have disabled the functionality using the QuickTime control panel/system pref pane.
Those who complain about affect & effect on
Doesn't installing a driver on my system without my permission constitute "hacking", thus making BMC terrorists under the Patriot Act?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
What I find interesting is part of the article's description of the CD:
The "Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo is absent from the printed jacket and the face of the disc.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
Show of hands: How many of you were so pissed off by this that your first thought was "I'm going to immediately RIP this CD and share it with the world!" Could it be possible that BMG's strategy may backfire, and make the tracks even more widely available?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
> I don't see this as reverse engineering. I see it as troubleshooting a broken computer.
Funny, I see it as troubleshooting a broken CD.....
Or you know completely disabling the gaping security hole that is autorun/autoplay.
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
Having just read all the posts in this thread, and gone back to the beginning, I see that italicised line from the abstract as the most important. The next generation of copy-protected discs will need a different workaround, but ultimately the recording companies are going to have to think hard about their approach.
Look, dont get me wrong, Im not a fan of copy protection. In fact, whenever I buy a PC game and notice that there is no copyprotection on there I get 'warm fuzzies' for the company that made it. Seriously, its a big plus for me. I applaud 'maturity' in this.
But given that the recording industry thinks it needs to copyprotect, then this way is a LOT better than those !@# systems that actually damage the audio and produce a disc that you cant (legally, and logically) call a Compact Disk.
Case in point:
- a CD with one of the previous copyprotection schemes on it is the equivalent of a CD scratched to the utmost limit. One tiny extra scratch (never drop it, you hear!) and those CDs would become either unplayable or audibly damaged. Every damage protection system the CD standard was originally designed with is defeated, even with an undamaged CD.
- Said CD will only be playable by the graces of good built-in error protection. And even then the result is an approximation of the 'original' audio.
- The CD wont play in 'finnicky' players. PC-player based devices (like mp3cd players), car stereos etc...
At least with this system you dont get something intrinsically damaged.
if we have an established right to do something (namely copy the cd for backup/personal use)
We never had a right. Instead, we had (and have) a partial defense. Fair use (17 USC 107) is a defense, home copying of computer programs (17 USC 117) is a defense, and home copying of sound recordings (17 USC 1008) is a defense. Where do you see some affirmative "right" in any of the three sections I linked to? All I see is "not an infringement." An act can be "not an infringement" but still a prohibited "circumvention."
Will I retire or break 10K?