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?
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?
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...
i've got a couple of 'em lately, they apparently won't work on Macs (according to the blurb on the back) but funnily enough do work without any problems whatsoever. odd!
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.
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
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.
Who modded parent up insightfull?!
The parent-post and replies to it completely miss the irony of putting copy right protection on a disc and then claiming to be 'trusting the consumer'.
This is the kind of 'trust' I give to my three year old kid!
Unfortunatly, to 'the bottle-is-half-empty' me, the sadness of the statement overshadows the funny aspect. Others may well perceive the text to be hilarious though...
Sheesh people, wake up...
Karma? What's that again?
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!
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.
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?"
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.
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.