Slashdot Mirror
Sony Music Testing New Copy Protection
RandyOo writes "According to this Reuters article, Sony Music is about to start testing a new type of 'copy protection' in Germany. It looks like they'll be releasing multi-sessioned discs with normal audio in the first session, and compressed, DRM'ed music files in the second session, as well added 'extras', including access to exclusive online content. The article explains that the disc's audio can still be copied, and there's a hilarious quote at the end by a BMG spokesman: "All copy-protections can be hacked, but if (we) give people what they are asking for in terms of value, they won't go out and steal it. It's called trusting the consumer." "
do we get to see iso's of cds on kazaa instead of mp3s?
Runnin' On Empty
Why is that hilarious? Isn't that what you proponents of file-sharing and digital music have been clamoring for? to be trusted not to steal?
Maybe I lack a sense of humour, but isn't that quote pretty sensible rather than 'hilarious'? Sure, they're not actually giving a lot of people what they want, but the quote itself is not at fault, is it?
Daniel
Carpe Diem
how can they ever stop people copying music? even if , at the worst case, it has to be take out as an analogue signal and re-digitised, who really cares? the people making millions (billions?) selling fake cds are going to invest in the equipment to do it. it's these people - largely mafia types - the industry should be worried about (something like 1 in 3 cds is fake) rather than a student copying a cd .
All I Want For Christmas Is My Constitutional Rights
So, what's gonna crack it this time? Green felt tip pen? Rubbing a small kitten on the disc? Looking at it funny? Placing sliced cheese on it?
This isn't new.. I've seen CDs like this before.
I don't think 64kbit WMA's are acceptable, though. (That's how most of these things come)
I've stopped buying copy-protected CD's since none of them plays properly on my discman. As soon as they manage to come up with a form of protection that won't keep me from actually playing my legally bought CD, I might reconsider my boycott...
sony appears to think that by making it more convenient they'll avoid backlash. while it's probably a matter of days before someone cracks it, this seems a lot less stupid than some of the previous efforts the record labels have taken.
ed
Never mind the 10 locks the 5 alarm systems and 30 security cameras I installed. They are just there for your convenience and security.
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
Why is that quote hilarious? Isn't that what we've been saying here all along? If you're waiting for the music companies to start saying that music swapping is just fine and they really don't mind, then you obviously don't understand the situation. There will be some form of DRM, period. This may be one solution. Apple has another solution. The market will decide what works, but you should realize that sooner or later, some form of reasonable DRM will come in to play.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
call it whatever you want but trusting the consumer, isn't what it is.
Its the consumers saying "we are right and there is nothing you can do about it but agree, otherwise we will not buy."
yea, trust the consumer... i liken that to trusting that delightful leprechan with my lucky charms
Eat a Chicken, You know you want to.
Is there a Darwin Award for killing your own career?
If they really trusted the consumer, wouldn't they forget about the copy prevention and the DRM stuff?
I just don't get it. Large scale-piracy outfits have access to large commercial presses, hence their being able to put out CDs that look just like the real thing. They sure as hell don't use burners, so all this copy protection is useless in combatting large-scale organised piracy. So, the only people that these new copy prevention and DRM techniques inconvenience are the consumers.
Tell me again how Sony is showing trust in the consumer?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I expect that the logic behind this is simple - the average consumer will simply use the DRM music on their computer instead of ripping the audio files (which is more complex), and this DRM music will not be sharable, hence the real issue, music sharing, will be cut down.
However, it only needs something along the lines of
1) relying on a custom music playing application (windows only)
2) relying on Windows Media Player (ugliest nastiest application ever)
to make the whole system pointless.
But it is a step in the right direction of not messing with the audio on the CD, adding more value to the CD, and yet trying to maintain the rights of the copyright holder without messing with the rights of the consumer.
Yeah, I guess people are asking for discs that can not be played on their existing gear and compressed files that also can not be played on their existing gear.
:)
One has to wonder what kind of crack do they smoke when come up with such statements.
ps: is it just me, or everyone receives the Thinkgeek anti-RIAA T-shirt ads for this article?
Real life is overrated.
I wonder whether Sony et al have actually sat down and done a cost/benefit study on the losses they make from piracy and the methods they use to try and stem the flood. If they have done (and I expect they have), I wonder if they use the ludicrous monetary values they insist on using in public ?
Seems to me that with the amount of money they spend on trying to protect their offerings, and any sane reckoning of real losses, they're flogging a dead horse...
I can see how thwarting the mass pirateers can be cost-effective, but I really don't see how DRM stuff can work well enough.If I can play it legitimately, I can record it. Sure, not digitally, but since it's going to mp3 or whatever, who cares ? The quality won't be perfect anyway!
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
The old level was, "I lose money but I gain music, and there's no other way to get the music, so oh well."
The most recent trade-off was, "I don't lose any money, but I have this nagging feeling that I'm depriving the artist of the compensation they deserve, plus it's illegal, so oh well."
This new level seems to be, "It ain't free, but I'm getting something extra for my money than I could get by just downloading it (so far), so oh well."
What level of trade-off are you comfortable with? And what level of trade-off can manufacturers impose? At some point, the two sides have to meet.
The Law of Falling Bodies
Putting pre-ripped tracks on the CD is a good idea, but adding "features" that prevent (some) users from ripping the normal tracks will surely have bad side-effects. Weather it's auto-play tomfoolery or altered error-correction data, I'm sure that Sony will piss off more customers with its anti-ripping tech than they will make happy with the "extra features". They should go ahead and put DRMed tracks on the CD to keep the lazy users from ripping, but if the user really wants a high-quality rip that they can play where and how they want, they'll get it. Making them jump through hoops will only increase ill will.
It's a sad sad day when a record company executive can (even if in jest) refer to "trusting the customer" as a novelty. I'd boycott it for this cavalier attitude alone. However, as I have not purchased any new cd's in over 5 years, it's a non issue for me. Further, instead of "trusing the customer" on the DRM front, I think executives should be focusing on pumping quality out of the artists they sign. To paraphrase his quote, "If you give people what they want in terms of value," you'd five them music they actually wanted to hear instead of two or three singles on a cd chock full of crap.
The english language is in beta. It's evolving but has not yet reached a level of usability.
The Register also have an article today on the subject.
According to the article in The Register, the old discs where unpopular with consumers because they could not be played on PCs, or riped to portable music players.
The new discs will have a second session, containing encrypted audio data, that can be played on a PC, using Sony's software (On supported platforms, non lintel users need not apply). The audio can also be copied to a portable music player, but only sony players are supported.
In conclusion, I would say that while sony have listened to consumer complaints about their last copy protected disc, their solution is hardly any better. Even John Q Public will see these new discs as no better than the old ones if he owns another brand of portable music player.
I have become more accustomed to spending $2 or $3 on the 2-3 tracks I like via iTunes, and getting a superior-quality AAC sound file that I can convert to a high quality MP3.
Spending $14-18 on a CD-ROM (no longer an Audio CD) that has CD Audio, low-quality WMA files, links to low-info "exclusive" websites, and tiny music video files, just isn't worth it.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
So the disk will still work on real CD players, and I won't miss all the byproducts and floor sweepings shoveled into session 2. Good enough.
If they used the millions that they spend to research this "copy protection" on finding good artists and not the same junk they've been putting out for the last 10 years, then maybe they could start trusting the consumer to purchase their products.
Cannot be fixed by adding useless crap to the CD's. Make the CD's cost less. Piracy will always exist and always had, it just wasn't quantifiable before the Internet.
I bet it all sucks. How many times does a big company throw "exclusive online content" at the customers only to find out it's really shameless self-promotion. Take Lord of the Rings, for example. I like the films, but a little too much hype, thank you.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
That still doesn't address the problem of some/most CDs having a few good songs and the rest being crap filler. IMO, services like iTunes remain a better idea because you can buy only the songs you want.
I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
These multi-session discs with DRM-enabled content, videos, etc has got to be taking a toll on the actualt minutes of music you get on a disc. Or is it possible to downsample CD audio files to free up some room? Even without the protection issues, I think these "Extras" like videos aren't worth less music or lower-quality audio.
What's pathetic is the DVD and CD prices differences of like releases. Take Rush for example with their latest "Rush In Rio" live releases. 3-CD set and 2-DVD set are roughly the same price, even though the DVD set gives you a documentary, Dolby Digital audio, etc.
OK, I'll bite...
How will this prevent CD copying? Where's the real extra value in the "compressed" (which I read as lossy) DRM'd content? Oh, I get to go to an "exclusive" website with extra content. Whoopee. If I have the CD, I'm ripping tracks in an unprotected format regardless of whether there are already pre-ripped tracks available. Why would I want to copy DRM'd material to my machine?
Seems to me that by having a multisession CD, that means there will be less unprotected music since it takes up a majority of space. Unless, of course, there is plenty of unused space on today's recordings. I wouldn't know, I haven't bought a "major label" CD in years. Last CD I bought was from a local performer, bought right from the guy after he played a club one night (got it autographed too...another perk in supporting local talent.)
I don't know maybe I'm one of the unwashed, but this makes no sense to me. I agree with the other poster that said "just make a regular CD" and I'll add "and price it reasonably" and we will come.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
"All copy-protections can be hacked, but if (we) give people what they are asking for in terms of value, they won't go out and steal it. It's called trusting the consumer."
His heart is in the right place, but he really has to move away from RIAA word abuse. "Stealing" is something that has never been involved in the issue of copy protection, the p2p issue, etc.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Sony is doing the right thing. For years we have been screaming because the entertainment industry has been treating us like children, thinking that we can't do the right thing unless we are forced to.
Now Sony has come out with a scheme that shows they are beginning to place *some* trust back with the consumer and they are jumped all over?
I for one am pleased to see this small move towards the better from Sony.
tinfoilmedia
How do you tell them apart? Many red book CD's don't have the Compact Disk logo. Many copy protected CD's are not labled as such. Do you take a list of "defective CD's" to the store with you? I've been bypassing lots of probably OK CD's because I don't buy DRM CD's. I look for the Compact Disk logo.
The truth shall set you free!
1) The disc can be played on almost any device conventionally, said Sony Music Chief Technology Officer Phil Wiser.
Almost -- hmm, what does this mean? Surely, this should be "-any-" if it complies with the Philips standard. I notice the article calls it a CD.
2) There are several limitations. The digital files will only play on Sony-licensed digital music players. Wiser said Sony is working on "plug-in's" that will allow the files to be played on more popular players like Microsoft's Windows Media. He expects the plug-ins to be available early next year.
Which players are currently 'Sony-licensed'? If those players are anything like the players that come with the 'copy-protected' discs, no one is going to use them. Why? They're absolute crap.
BTW, what are those other "more-popular" plug-ins?
trusting the consumer?
Is that like trusting the user when designing a peice of software?
Sony Login Screen:
Don't worry about logging in, we trust you, just click here.
Is it a boat?
I think we are all overreacting to it :-)
/.-technominded-caffeiene soap washed-DVD+R eating-nerds.
Normal users are more ignorant about how to bypass copyprotection. And those users really don't care if they have slightly moire noise or quality-loss then us,
I think this is an other copyprotection that most users will have a problem with...
except those that don't want to buy Sony equipment. (like me)
fortune is my favourite linux command
a BMG spokesman: "All copy-protections can be hacked, but if (we) give people what they are asking for in terms of value, they won't go out and steal it. It's called trusting the consumer."
Did you even RTFA? This Wiser character you quoted is "Sony Music Chief Technology Officer Phil Wiser." according to TFA. Nice to see even submitters are not feeling obliged to actually READ something.
Anyway, this is also bringing in a new more serious problem.. according to the article the copyprotected content "will only play on Sony-licensed digital music players. "
This has some serious implications. For starters, you can throw out your existing mp3 player. Of course this only is for the extra content so the actual music is not limited but the extra's offered on the cd is.
Ever since they started selling broken CDs, my 'to rip' pile is twice as high - as my flatmates can't rip them easily with Windows, they just toss it to me to do with grip/cdparanoia on Linux.
So now instead of them just ripping their own to put on their MP3 player, I usually end up keeping a copy of the good stuff too. DRM actually increases piracy, at least in this flat!
Beep beep.
I own a few CD's with protection mechanisms, and they are labelled as such. If I encounter a logo like that on a CD in a store, I won't buy it.
If I buy a CD that is not labelled but won't play properly, I'll take it back because it's a DOA, and demand a refund.
"DRM actually increases piracy, at least in this flat!"
DRM the way it has been going usually has had an effect of increasing piracy. You end up with a purchased copy that is crippled in how you can play/use it, encouring going to Grokster to find an uncrippled version you can use.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Well if they gave us value for money, then yes. Perhaps they'll consider dropping the prices then huh?
Audio systems have got more complicated these days, with many able to read ISO-9660 formatted discs.
My DVD stereo system can handle MP3 and WMA CDs as well as Audio CDs, DVD-Video and DVD-Audio (and some other image related formats as well).
The odds on such a system not playing back the audio tracks and instead playing back the WMA content may be quite high!
I wonder if the files will be atrac3. If they are a WMP plugin would be great as I have loads of atrac3 files which I have to use on an old win98 machine as openmg pukepox doesn't work on my win2k machine.
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
This is actually a rather clever move. You see, Average Joe is going to put the CD in his computer and copy off the prepackaged music files, cos it's easy.
They're going to work fine on his computer, and he runs Kazaa so they are made available over Kazaa too. Problem is, others won't be able to play them after they download them from him. However, I wonder if Joe cares. The only thing Joe will be upset about is not being able to play music he downloads from others who are simply copying DRM files from similarly packaged music. But I somehow doubt Joe will make the connection between the files copied off the CD in this manner and the problem he's getting when he downloads random track X from Y.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
It is not fair mostly because it screws the people who actually pay for the stuff and in no way hinders the others.
If you don't believe me, just make a search on Kazaa for any of the "copy-protected" releases. See? It's there for anyone to take.
But those miserable customers who actually paid for these discs, have to find out that it does not play on their CDman/car CD/DVD player/computer and they can not transfer the music to their shiny new iPods.
This "new system" does next to nothing to change that: the audio part is still not standards-compliant, so it won't play in a large nnumber of devices and the compressed files won't play on anything but Sony's players (so no iPod) and on Windows with Sony's player software - and I guess it is something that's not what the people really want.
In contrast, any happy Kazaa user can download the music in mp3 (that plays in his iPod), can burn it to a CD (that plays in his CD players) and carry on merrily.
Real life is overrated.
but only sony players are supported.
Interesting, how do they sell lots of these if it's compatible with only the Sony portable player? I have a feeling this will get wide spread acceptance just like the Data Play music player. The market is already full of incompatable formats. WMA-Music Match, Apple I-Pod-I-Tunes, Napster-Napster branded Samsung, now a Sony only format for a portable player. Sheesh I thought the VHS/Betamax wars were bad. Somehow in the betamax wars, they are probably providing the equlivant of 1/2 inch reel to reel videotape. It existed, but had very limited consumer use.
None of these formats solve the in-dash MP3 player compatibility issues with any of the services.
The truth shall set you free!
OK, so they provide DRMed files on the second session but they also provide normal audio on the first session so grip will work just fine to make oggs or mp3 or whatever. (Note, I have no problem with using the DRMed files per se, it's just that I guess they are wma, which I can't use.)
This seems quite good for Windows users (the music company will presumably at least make decent quality rips) but sucks for compilations as it means they will be able to fit less music on a CD - maybe 70 minutes instead of 80.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
He, what can I do if they tell me to "Steal their Album", but serious that was one of the few CD's I bought in the last year.
What power has law where only money rules.
Words fail me. Soon, the only way I'll be able to get content that plays on my lunix box will be through P2P.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Since the copyprotected audio is only going to be playable on Sony-licenced players, this would obviously give Sony an advantage in the portable (mp3) player market. I mean, guess who's devices are going to be the only ones able to play these things?
So, I won't be able to play the CD in my car (presumably) or on my PC, and I won't be able to play the FILES in Winamp or the portable player of my choice. So I'll be paying 20 PLUS whatever it costs to replace my car and portable players with Sony models, and be forced to use some crappy Sony software on my PC.
Sounds great.
If they used the 700 - 640 = 60MB that older cd players cant read to store compressed DRM/whatever the original CD part would be exactly the same with no loss of space, is this what they are doing i didnt RTFA? or would it not be possible to do so that old players could still read it?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
people who -buy- CDs are not their problem. Never have been. People who no longer buy CDs, but download all their music online -are-. But these people are -not- buying CDs, so how will DRM stop them?
Ripping a CD to any desired format for use in a personal mp3 player, or on the computer or for any other purpose is clearly covered under fair use. There's no reason someone who purchases a CD should be additionally limited by some hackneyed copyright scheme.
All the RIAA is trying to do, is make someone click 'ok' to some licensing terms when they copy music from a CD, so that when their watermarked copy shows up online, they don't even have to -prove- that it ever got traded, or even got traded outside fair use guidelines. its mere existence is proof of guilt. (lower legal burden of proof)
no copy protection scheme will ever stop hackers, and they know this - but they're trying to leverage an inconvenience against all their -paying-customers- to try to make life easier for themselves in punishing the few criminals.
it is however, a self-fulfilling prophecy for the labels. the more they sue customers, the more they illegally fix prices, the more they monopolize all methods of distribution and cripple their primary product -- the more customers they'll lose.
they of course will only interpret this as being 'due to filesharing', and in a sense they're right. but to be complete, it's due to their -response- to filesharing.
beyond all that, there has never been any data to prove that downloaded material online represents lost sales. CD sales rate fell well within the bounds of every other industry who has been taking a hit in the economy -- and only knocked sales Ffrom their -all-time-high- in 2000. (pre bubble bursting, post napster)
the RIAA is simply fighting to maintain their distribution monopoly. they aren't worried about losing customers - because if they win, you'll have no choice if you want music (as now). but if they lose - they'll cease to exist.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Interesting that all the whiners about DRM are typically those that *do* steal music. Without theft there would be no need for DRM. It's the honest people who are inconvenienced because of the activities of the dishonest. DRM is coming whether the thieves whine or not. And they are to blame. If they don't like it they can take the time to write and produce their own music.
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
from my experience, extra content, even online content, isn't worth squat. usually these online sites are only maintained for a month or two, and they offer limited material -- maybe some wallpapers, a few shots of the band, and, if you're lucky, a downloadable live track or work-in-progress.
i've also had a few cds with extra content not work properly on my computers.
at most, this stuff is only worth looking at once. i just hope it doesn't increase the cost of the cd any.
"Sony Music Testing New Copy Protection"
"The article explains that the disc's audio can still be copied."
Experiment: failure. Move on.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
But Apple at least lets you transfer drm rights from one computer to another. THe tracks are yours as long as you own a system. And you can use 3 devices and systems at once. This means a friend or two can hear and decide if the file is worth buying.
Face it guys. Pirating is stealing. Yes I like downloading music but it costs serious bucks to make an album.
I hope Sony will do something similiar or just use the Advanced AUdio Codec that Itunes uses. Great sound quality.
http://saveie6.com/
I don't exactly agree with the way that Sony are going around this, but I do wish that rabid anti-**AA types would shut up.
Sony are trying. True, they're still on what is (in my opinion) the losing side of the battle, but they are trying. They're actually trying to find a solution that everyday consumers (not geeks and slashdotters) might actually not complain about.
To be honest, what do people expect?
The internet is a distribution medium that surpasses what has gone before. And data is just so easy to copy and send. But record companies are still built around the older model, and they rely on their products not being easily distributed for "free".
Protecting their business model makes perfect sense. I don't agree with their model, but I do know that trying to protect/adapt your business model makes perfect business sense.
Remember, the Internet's data distribution model isn't an "adaptation" of current practices. It smashes them to pieces. It takes everything from the current record companies, and puts it squarely in the hands of the coders, the ISPs, and the CDR/DVD+R/volatile-storage media companies.[*]
If you combine consumer desires with the Internet's distributions, then the Industry doesn't get a look in. And even though they're trying to protect a technologically obsolete business model, we'd be awfully naiive to expect them to just "roll over and play dead".
* - Remember, contrary to what the companies would have people believe, it's hardly "free" to get things over the Internet. Except for the schoolkids who use their parent's connections, 'net-users will be either paying their broadband provider, or their ISP and/or phone company.
We're already paying the new content providers. And, to be honest, the only way for the record companies (and book publishers and movie companies) to actually gain income from thigns these days is probably to buy shares in the ISPs and hosting-providers.
(Oh, and subscription services for non-DRM files.)
But record-companies as we know them are reaching the end of the line. And to expect them to go down without a fight is expecting too much.
Tiggs
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
DRM political issues aside, this will make lots of people put off media purchases. Many consumers will wait for the dust from format wars to settle before they'll buy into anything. Either players that support all formats have to come out or the marketplace has to settle on one or at most two DRM formats. In addition, any player will have to support at least MP3.
What's worse is that content encoded in Marketplace loser DRM will have a very short shelf life. Divx anyone?
When I rip to MP3, I usualy get about 12 entire albums on one MP3 CD. DRM'ed files don't work in my car MP3 player and are useless.
The truth shall set you free!
ITMS uses 128kbs AAC files. Thats only superior to a 128 kbs MP3. How do you know what rate the WMA's will be? MusicMatch uses 160 Kbs wma.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
isn't this exactly the way we would prefer the music companies to respond? i mean, we all know that there is in fact no way they can lock us out of copying current cd technology, so as opposed to spending lots of money on the problem, why not accept it and just move on? oh yeah, and give the consumer pre-ripped digital copies of the music as well. sure, it's DRM protected and we don't like that, but BIG F!@#in DEAL! they haven't actually tried to protect the CDDA tracks, so you can just rip with your encoder of choice.
so what's the problem? why is this hilarious? is it that they actually trust us for a change? is it funny because we can't be trusted not to steal their music? it seems to me like somebody at BMG finally "gets it".
Here's a project for the EEs among you. How about replacing the controller on an IDE drive with an utterly stupid device that is driven entirely through software? The load on the CPU would be somewhat ridiculous as CD-ROMs and audio drives do quite a bit of error correction and so forth. But this drive could not be fooled by anything they do to a CD. These copy protection schemes all hinge on interfering with assumptions that CD-ROM engineers have made. This is not a new idea. In the eighties, there were hardware modifications for diskette drives that basically made them software controlled devices.
The CDDA tracks are on the first session of the disc; any red-book compliant player should go for them first. Of course, the disc being red-book compliant is a whole 'nother ballgame...
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
"Using the shift-key in combination with this CD is a federal offense."
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
2 sessions on 1 CD well to me it would seem as to use and APPZ to toggle to the 2nd session and rip to wav then convert.
Some things are better the OLD FASHIONED way
Hmmmm . . . Kazaa: mp3s which can be played anywhere and cost nothing (free as in speech AND is in beer) Sony: DRM-crippled crap which only plays on Sony hardware, which you have to pay for What do you think Joe Webuser will choose?
Face this:
This was never about stealing.
Copying what you don't own is infringement.
No 11 year old girl in the projects has ever pillaged a vessel on the high seas.
It now costs the price of a band's kit, a workstation and a CDR spindle to make an album, and webhosting to market it. The rest is hype and executive cocaine to make you think that Britney et al. could ever shine the shoes of real artists, or that a CD is on loan to you by the favor of the Lord High RIAA.
You can copy a CD you own to your heart's content.
You can sell or give away a CD you own, with abandon.
It's illegal to sell or give away COPIES of a CD you own, unless you created the content.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled innuendo, implication, semantic differential, and other neural programming.
I bought this house and you know I'm boss
Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off
The whole DRM debate is spurious. Copy protection is a technological answer to a failed business model.
Record companies are middle men who have traditionally controlled the distribution channel. They no longer monopolize the distribution channel, and therefore are less pertinent. I think we will start to see more of the profits accrue to the artist now, rather than the record companies, and in turn, artists will need to become responsible for their own marketing and promotion, generating a potential new service industry to the music business.
People, we are seeing the creation of a new industry dynamic. Let the record companies spend their profits on last-gasp attempts to preserve their monopoly. Who cares. Let them copy protect. Someone will break it, and while they are agonising over how best to copy protect, the industry will change under their noses because they are too busy to see the reality.
Oh, and what's more, I for one, will not buy copy protected music on principle, like many others, so these efforts are further hurting sales. The whole situation reminds me of nothing so much as a bunch of proverbial lemmings emblazoned with Sony, Universal, Warner Bros. rushing headlong towards the cliff...
Well, Sony isn't testing the full formula either.
As you correctly point out, there is a problem in that current pricing has no link to the cost of production (which has dropped dramatically). Piracy happens when the product pricing motivates pirates.
Sony can either try and add value to justify the pricing, or they can fight a losing DRM battle. Unfortunately, most of the "value added" is just a workaound to the losing DRM battle. I see no need to pay them just to work around a problem they created in the first place. I can solve the technical problem without Sony's help.
At a price of $1/song or $2/disc, piracy would be a waste of time, and the product could still be profitable. At some price higher than that, piracy would be tolerable and the product would be more profitable. Then we have today's prices -- the pirates are in the driver's seat.
The move was announced in conjunction with the news of a new and improved copy protection technology being deployed on upcoming Sony music releases.
"Why else would anyone own a Sharpie except to thwart our copy protection schemes?" Asked a Sony spokesperson.
He went on to explain that Sony would be willing to consider settlement offers from Sharpie owners coming forward voluntarily.
--30--
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Is that copyright eventually expires, DRM doesn't. Under the DMCA after the copyright expires if you break the DRM you are still guilty of a felony. While this is moraly wrong, it is the current law. Get off of your rear and write you congresscritter to get this changed. NOW!
"All copy-protections can be hacked, but if (we) give people what they are asking for in terms of value, they won't go out and steal it. It's called trusting the consumer."
Other than the inappropriate use of "steal," what's wrong with this? It's exactly the kind of sentiment that I want to see from a record company. Provide better quality sound (no compression artifacts), packaging, make it easier to get than on a P2P service, convince me that the artist gets a significant portion of that money, and if it's cheap enough, I'll buy it. (For many of the CDs I buy, that's already true! Just not BMG...)
However, something tells me that the DRM files on the CD aren't going to be what people are asking for in terms of value.
The article says that there are DRM protected music files, compressed, that only work in Sony players. Ok, but who does that stop or even slow down? The first session on the disc is the uncompressed, unprotected music files. How is this disc any different from any normal disc, in terms of how the user's habits with it differ? Joe Average buys it, it works in all his equipment as expected. Joe Haxxor buys it, rips the uncompressed audio and put mp3s on kaaza. The DRM files are for what, exactly? A value-added-feature for users with a special Sony Player?
Remember when the prince (aka Sony) stuck in the tower with those two guards (aka consumers) wants to send the message out, and though he's being watched by the two smiling guards still sort of scrambles a note together, puts it on an arrow, and shoots it while sort of looking happy.
Message for you sir: this is just another diversion to try to sneak DRM onto discs slowly, before we realize that copy-protected content is all we have left. The music companies don't trust consumers at all. It's just a diversion until we find an arrow of copy protection in our respective chests.
First what is copy-protection? It's something that keeps people from doing what they want to. They want portability in their music. DRM'd crap makes analog tapes look convenient. Worse, it has the ability to demand payment per play or vanish. The idiot is not giving people what they are asking for, does not trust people with what they have and is developing new ways to cheat you.
Do you think people who buy these new Sony CDs are going to know what they are getting? They don't and they will feel cheated when they find out.
When's the last time someone who trusted you called your fair use rights "stealing"? Would you think I was stealing if I quoted your trolly question?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
By releasing the bifurcated sessions CD format, they now have a quick way to identify bootlegged cd's that make their way into the retail chain. They play on consumer equipment without a hint of hassle.
But seriously now, why do they test more of these things outside of the US? And more importantly, how do they measure success? Isn't this scheme by Sony slipping across an anti-trust line? Or that Sony has 4, oops, check that, 3, competitors allows it to not sweat that one?
Copy Protection is stupid. It's that plain and simple. Any copy protection can and will be broken, usually before the pressed release hits the store shelves. Thus, anyone who wants to get illegal copies can do so with very little effort.
OTOH, those of us who like having a profesionally packaged product (with all the artwork, supposedly longer-lasting pressed media, etc), and who might just want to help feed the artists we enjoy... WE have to suffer with "CD"s that won't play in some players, that try to damage our equipment, and make us jump through nine hoops to transfer to other media.
This brings to mind the old story about how the president of Electronic Arts was giving a speech at the unveiling of Archon, about how their new copy protection wouldn't be hacked for at least 6 months... and pirated copies of the game were being distributed in the lobby outside the conference hall. Stupid.
I regularly make a point to download NO-CD cracks for every game I buy (usually about 1-2 a month)... not because I'm an Evil Hax0r Pirate, but because I have 160G of hard drive space and think having to swap around dozens of CD's is stupid. Likewise, I rip my audio CD's to mp3 format so I can play them at my desk, or in a portable without having the originals subject to wear-and-tear.
If the millions of R&D dollars that get sunk into copy protection development were redirected to actual product development, maybe we'd see a few less buggy products hit the market (Pool of Radiance? Temple of Elemental Evil?). Infocom did quite well without copy protection for most of their lifespan, and Bioware had the decency to remove the protection from Neverwinter Nights when customers complained that it didn't work with their cd drives (alignment issues).
I don't think it's an issue of trust at all. It's a matter of common sense. If you had a choice between selling a soft drink that millions would love and buy (even if some clones would appear to take some of your market), or adding an ingrediant that would make half the people who drink it slightly ill, but make it slightly harder for the clones to duplicate... would you rather have the few extra dollars for the first month and forego the long-term revenue of a satisifed customer base?
I guess maybe if you were planning on dumping your stock...
Why would you mock that as a hilarious quote? Isn't that exactly the attitude we want music companies to have?
If the industry would get off their butts and finally embrace one of the high-definition audio formats (SACD or DVD-A) and start *only* producing music in these formats, you'd heavily cut down piracy. Instead of a 600 MB redbook CD that can be compressed down to 60 MB with MP3, you've got a 7 GB DVD-A that requires a compression scheme that either somehow intelligently mixes the 6 channels of audio into 2 or is a multi-channel MP3... at which point you've either got drastically reduced quality, or 60 MB for a single song... at reduced quality. Plus, on the DVD, you throw in one or two music videos, band bios, etc. Charge current CD prices for them, and you've crushed piracy.
Added bonus:
If the industry wants to be not just smart, but also _really_ cool - they also create a stereo mix in AAC or MP3 at something suitable, say 128 kbps and put that on the DVD. It'll get shared, but serve the same function as radio - teasers to convince people to buy the full surround-sound mix on the DVD or SACD.
Nice part of this plan is that it's expandable, too - in a few years, go to blue-laser DVDs, with 22 GB per disc. Just try ripping that and uploading it somewhere. Instead of the comparison between stereo 44.1 kHz 16-bit audio and 128 kbps MP3s, it'll be 192 kHz, 24-bit, 6 channel surround vs. stereo 128 kbps MP3.
---
Oh, and incidentally, this would require producers to start intelligently thinking about surround - rather than just putting reverb in the surround speakers. Several of the SACD and DVD-A recordings are starting to play more with that, putting instruments solely in the surrounds. It's a nice technique, and as more people build home theaters, it'll start to have a reasonable market.
-T
800 MB CD: Hour long album - ~650 MB. Hour long album as 128 kbps WMA files - ~60 MB. Two music videos - 90 MB, etc. They're pushing the limits of the CD here - and older players that can't read the extended CDs (which are CD-ROMs, not Redbook CDs) will lose the outside, and possibly not be able to read the TOC.
-T
"All copy-protections can be hacked, but if (we) give people what they are asking for in terms of value, they won't go out and steal it. It's called trusting the consumer."
:-)
-----------
Trusting the consumer and copy-protection in the same sentence. Does anyone else see a problem here? It's like saying Military Intelligence
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
...is the most insight and complacency i've seen from the recording industry in a long time. Remember, this article focuses on Sony Music's war on audio-terrorism, not BMG. One by one, the labels are beginning to face the facts, that this is a war of attrition which they can never win, and furthermore they are seeing their consumers as their enemies, which would only work against them. Universal took a "bold" move by drastically lowering the retail price of their CD's (although not enough), and now Sony and BMG are trying to do the same thing- approach their consumers, the music lover/broadband downloader with a skimpy olive branch. I see this as somewhat of a victory for us anti RIAA lobbyers, even though it doesnt appear so at first glance. I (as well as all true music lovers) was never against paying for my music, and i strongly beleive that every artist deserves fair compensation for their work. Music piracy is an issue NOT because we "internet hooligans" lack morals, but because there is still a huge imbalance between content and price, aka value.
:))
The BMG spokesperson said what i was waiting for them to say for a long time..to recognize that to win this war, "attacking" us with newer more sophisticated forms of DRM and copy protection isn't going to work, because "All copy-protections can be hacked" and he knows it. The way to win the war is to win us over by providing the proper bang for a righteous buck. The way to win is to appease us, instead of anger us. (If only US foreign policy would work that way
We don't trust them, they don't trust us. Let's take this as a step in the right direction.
I have nothing wrong about the guy's quote. If the CD genuinely has no copy protection -- if I can copy Red Book audio off the disc -- then I'll consider buying the disc from a store, if I was already planning on buying the album and if I like the extras. The DRM'd files are a tad superfluous since they're probably in WMA (evil) and encoded at low quality. But, hey, I genuinely like their laissez-faire approach to copy protection.
On the other hand, I've recently started using iTunes Music Store. I'll pay a small premium in order to have a physical CD in-hand, and also for the right to rip the tracks and encode in whatever format/bit rate I want. But if the difference between the iTunes album and the physical album is greater than about $2, then forget about it!
In conclusion: surprise, surprise! If the record labels want to act like reasonable human beings, I'm willing to do business with them. But they're not guaranteed my business in a world where they've lost their monopoly.
Record labels are like mildly retarded children -- sweet and earnest (when it comes to money at least), but a little slow. Sooner or later it will occur to them to capitalize on new high-quality audio formats such as Super Audio CD or DVD Audio, into which they can design copy protection from the start. We'll see how long their "trust the consumer" mentality will stand in the face of THAT power trip!
THOSE people who are ripping CDs to post to file sharing networks -will-not- be stopped by DRM or copy protection schemes.
at best you will slow them down on your initial CD release. but in easily under a month, your scheme will be cracked and every CD you produce will be just as available. the difference is that they are still doing it for free (just time investment) whereas the labels spend big money on such schemes, that ultimately -has- to either result in lost jobs, lost profits, or higher prices.
rest assured they won't be posting the DRM'd copies.
At the absolute best the studios could ever hope for, the current CD rippers will resort to the analog loophole, and plug the lineout from a discman into their sound card and rip that way.
CD quality sound, slightly less convenient.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
I had heard of such a thing, but the guy from Red Hat told me to switch to Windows.
sulli
RTFJ.
My wife bought a "copy-protected" disc. It wouldn't play in the Discman, and wouldn't play in the Sony mini hi-fi either.
So I dropped it in the Linux MP3 server, and it ripped straight away, no problems.
So the "copy-protection" actually forced us to copy the disc in order to listen to it.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
It seems, from a cursory examination, that this "copy protection" scheme relies on a behavior of Wintel PCs -- specifically, when there are multiple sessions on an audio CD, the data session gets mounted instead of the Red Book audio session.
It seems that any computer running Linux would be able to bypass this scheme easily enough, simply by force-mounting the appropriate (music) session and ripping from it. And on a Mac, multi-session CDs mount all sessions as separate disk images, so the user should be able to rip to MP3 or AAC from within iTunes. So unless the record label does something to break these CDs on Mac OS X and/or Linux, they should rip and play just fine on those platforms.
So, the copy-protection scheme causes problems for the people who are using CD's lawfully, and will not stop the hackers.
In that case, why bother to use the copy protection? Is it to piss off the general public, so they stop buying these broken products?
Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
This is a big issue for me. How do I know I am not buying a copy-protected CD? These copy protected CD's work in most CD players now; but a copy protected CD might play in every CD player you currently own and still fail to play on the next player you buy. Will you be able to get your money back when you can no longer play your CD 5 years later? That is the problem with buying non-standard disks that are "compatible" with CDs.
:-)
I hope all copy-protected CD's are marked; but it may not be safe to assume any CD is standard any more. Maybe the only protection is to make a copy of any CD you buy, then at least you know you have at least one standard-compliant copy of the CD
-- Pot is safer than Beer
So, how is this going to stop the East Asian factories that 'accidentally' produce a few million extra discs of a popular title and sell them on the black market?
Oh well, what the hell...
So the guy from Red Hat says that most home users are better off with Windows XP than with Fedora Linux or RHEL Workstation. But there's another GNU/Linux OS for workstations with inexperienced admins, and it's called Mandrake Linux. What did the Mandrake people say?
Will I retire or break 10K?
All copy-protections can be hacked, but if (we) give people what they are asking for in terms of value, they won't go out and steal it. It's called trusting the consumer.
Do my eyes decieve me? Is a music industry executive *GASP* (dare I say it?) GETTING A CLUE?
This changes everything! Up is down, east is west! Stop the world, I want to get off!
Technoli
Or is it a computer-driven player?
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
I don't know what's so hilarious about that quote. That is basically the cornerstone of the efforts to prevent inane copy-protection schemes from being implemented and forced upon consumers.
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
The quote: "...but if (we) give people what they are asking for in terms of value, they won't go out and steal it. It's called trusting the consumer."
I am in the music and video biz. I know there is piracy and that will never stop. The cat is out of the bag and it is useless to keep trying to retrofit secutrity on a format not designed for it (CD Audio).
The record companies need to give more value by making albums that have 10 good songs and better packaging and bonus material. Take it from the movie industry... people can copy DVDs very easily now. But people will still buy a disc that is in special packaging and priced right. Value of ownership- that is what has been lost on the music consumer.
I like this folk artist named Peter Mayer. My wife and i saw him perform live and wanted to buy his CDs but didn't have any cash on us so we went home and resolved to buy them on-line. One thing leads to another and we're busy and we forget.
A few months later i'm goofing around and i search for him on Amazon. I am surprised to find such a "small" artist on a mainstream site, but happy to see that he has some free downloads! (Don't ask me why there are two separate pages for "all free song downloads by Peter Mayer.")
I download the songs and spend a few days enjoying them. I copy them for my wife and for a few friends, then decide i really do want to support this guy. So i go to his label's site, Peppermint Records order his stuff (No money for Amazon today!) and check out some other artists while i'm there. Some sound good, but Anne Heaton really impresses me. Amazon has some downloads for her too. Turns out i'm crazy for one song and not so hot on the others so i don't order but i enjoy (and share) the mp3 and vow to check her out live if i get the chance and to look out for any new CDs she makes.
At the same time, my friends are doing the same thing because of the stuff i shared with them. They've bought several of Peter's CDs and some of them thought Anne's was worth the investment too. We were all being responsible and trading publicly available stuff, but when my CDs arrive i'll be ripping them to listen via WinAmp and if the occasion arises, i won't hesitate to give a few out.
I didn't have to buy anything, nor did my friends. I've got what amounts to a nearly complete album of Peter Mayer's Greatest Hits on my hard drive, but i know that if i don't send some cash his way, he'll have to go get a real job and i won't be hearing any more of his thoughtful, beautiful songs.
So is this post for or against file sharing? On the one hand, i didn't engage in any Napster-scale swapping. On the other hand, if Peppermint put some DRM crap on their CDs that made it a hassle for me to rip them i probably wouldn't buy them as a protest.
I think the RIAA doesn't take people like me into account. Most of what made me buy Peter's CDs was the music, but a part of it was my desire to support an independant label and artist. The only major-label CD i've bought lately was the Dixie Chicks. I like their music, but i was content to hear it on the radio on those infrequent occasions when i turn off NPR. I bought their CD to counteract some of the crap they were getting for exercising their first amendment rights.
I'm using my cash to reward those whose products and policies i like and withholding it from those i don't like. Maybe the RIAA doesn't have to take people like me into account. Maybe i'm just an insignificant statistical blip to them, but i'm talking to my friends and family about this stuff and some of them are doing the same thing, so maybe that blip will become significant if they don't change their ways.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Ok. So we get a CD filled with already ripped music, filled with extras that we can't get anywhere else (theoretically speaking). But here's a wacky idea i'd like to throw out there. How about taking a 74min CD and FILLING IT WITH 74 MINUTES OF MUSIC! These album times are getting sadder and sadder. Not only are they under the 40min mark now, 95% of it is filler. If I have this fetish to help the RIAA wipe their ass with 100 dollar bills so bad, i'll buy the single. It's ok artists if you don't have a CD every 2 months. Just wait a few months then put it all on one CD that will actually make the consumer happy.
Everything You Wanted to Know About iTunes Music Store DRM
DRMed, proprietary files on the second session?
Trust? You keep using that word...I don't think it means what you think it means...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Whatever you think about this argument, this is a very different thing than saying that they think people are stealing the music. It puts a very different (and more accurate) spin on the issue.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Tell me any album that has more than 30 minutes of music on it that is worth listening to from the last ten years.
Here's eleven from this year. The Wrens: The Meadowlands, The White Stripes: Elephant, Yeah Yeah Yeahs: Fever to Tell, The Postal Service: Give Up, Radiohead: Hail to the Thief, Death Cab for Cutie: Transatlanticism, My Morning Jacket: It Still Moves, Notwist: Neon Golden, The Dandy Warhols: Welcome to the Monkey House, New Pornographers: Electric Version, & The Long Winters: When I Pretend to Fall.
". . . as well added 'extras'. . ."
Am I the only one that noticed the market droid speak for "We are going to install spyware and malware on your computer when you stick this in so we can increase our profits even more!"
You know, "wonderful extras," "great opertunities," "an enhanced experience," and the other BS they like to use when they want to cram something down your throat?
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
This has been actually already tried by Capitol/EMI (e.g. the latest Kraftwerk single in May -- "Tour de France 2003"). The CD is doublesession, and the second part has the same songs in a proprietary compressed form, and a proprietary player that you need to install on the PC. I'm not sure Nero will copy the CD in any form.
This is obviously some strange usage of the word trust I was previously unaware of.
Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
My name is Jon not Joe. And you forgot the porn. Real men(as in those that don't have sex) give download priority to porn.
You know, the latest Moonspell (Century Media) CD came with a full length novela with its own sound track on it that was written in conjunction with the CD. That is what I call added value. Hopefully more bands and distributers will learn that there are many things worth as much or more to the consumer that can be on a CD along with music, especially since most CDs these days only have 50 or so minutes of music on them in the first place. That is the only way I see to drastically reduce casual copying.
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahah
well...if it was indeed trust...then there would be no need for copy-protection, effective or not.
A better incentives for consumers instead of copyable digital extras would be like collectibles....cards, artwork, etc. Or unique (or semi/pseudo unique) extras so extras become like a collectible.
The licensed Compact Disk logo owned by Philips indicates the disk is formatted to a defined standard guranteeing compatibility. DRM does not meet the Compact Disk standard and does not have the licensed Compact Disk logo. I imediatly RIP all CD's. I don't put multiple hundreds of dollars of originals parked by the curb for someone to whisk away elsewhere. I would certanly know right away if I got a "Defective" CD as they are designed to either autorun a program (disabled) and / or not rip properly. Defective disks are promply exchanged. So far I haven't found any DRM disks displaying the Compact Disk tm. logo.
The truth shall set you free!
I've determined that its pointless to collect all the musics of the world, I enjoy less what I've downloaded because its not a complete album, it doesn't look as appealing as a new cd, the tangible evidence the the purchase and ability to hear the sound in un-mp3 encoded
quality sound, and ability to re-encode at any compression quality, knowing I can always listen to the original cd's.. Also considering I have a 200+ CD collection I've neglected.. I've determined that I only get music online when I'm discovering new music.. What the old method was really bad for was this.. Buy 10 cds to get a handful of stuff I really wanted.. With the advent of Internet radio, it is making it easier to make purchasing decisions.. Especially if I can reference by precise year and genre..
What I really hate is not being able to purchase DVD's full of music videos from a particular era.. I don't know why the BMG's and music companies are so dunced about the possibility of say bringing back about and hour of "Night Flight" videos.. Or allowing people my age to revisite a portion of the past, that makes them feel young again.. For some reason they think its easy to just sell songs.. These guys need eletrodes applied to their noodle and a good crank of the telephone shaft because the ideas that are coming about sound like third rate marketing/sales/business dude mind blurt.. In any shape of form someway to compromise the quality of the experience in the interest of selfish greedy gain..
Consumers have every right to be selfish, they
have the money.. The Businesses don't.. That's the politics.. And now with the Internet,
it brings about, the idea that consumers are smarter than the recent ad campaigns, and no MBA from Harvard will get you through this one..
Just say no to license servers!!
I dunno why the studios believe that proprietary DRM-infected files playable only on nasty spyware (on your PC) somehow constitute an equivalent and attractive subsistute to MP3s. I cart about 1200 songs @160kbps around on my 10 gig iPod whereever I go, most of them encoded from my own extensive collection of 900+ music CDs, I'd like to point out that all of those were purchased before the era of copy protection, I have bought not a single CD since. I have a few friends with iPods, and we all use Ephpod to manage our files since it allows taking files out of someone elses' iPod. We use that feature to trade songs, often hundreds in one go. In which ways would a DRM format allow for this social aspect? :)
I've been saying from day one that if they find ways to improve the value of the product people will be more likely to buy it. People steal things because they feel that they're overpriced or not worth paying for. If you provide incentives to buy instead of punishment for stealing, you'll make a bigger impact. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. I, for one, will be very interested to see how this all turns out.
Organized piracy isn't a threat to their monopoly.
The ability to transfer music tracks in a format comparable to FM broadcast quality via Internet makes mass promo theoretically available to "just anybody". That is a threat to their monopoly.
The eventual goal with DRM seems to be to make it impossible to pull multimedia content off the Net that isn't "blessed" by a major content provider.
Locking everybody else out of the mass market.
Tech Public Policy stuff