Recording Industry Hopes To Hinder CD Burning

Decaffeinated Jedi writes "News.com reports that the recording industry is currently testing technology that would limit the number of times that a given CD (or copies of that CD) could be burned. The idea is to let consumers 'make a limited number of copies of their music -- enough for a car, a vacation home and a friend, for example -- without allowing for uncontrolled duplication.' Currently, Macrovision and SunnComm International are developing competing versions of such 'secure burning' technology, with BMG Music Group already testing the latter company's software."

Comments

They just don't get it....

[erick99]

From the article:

The release gained some prominence after a Princeton student demonstrated that the protections could be easily evaded simply by pushing a computer's Shift key while loading the CD.

The solution to piracy is never going to find success in copy protection. As in the example, above, there is always going to be a "workaround."

I think the RIAA has to make their case to their customers in a manner that is compelling and, yes, actually encourages voluntary compliance. You should be able to make copies of a CD that you bought. It is not right, however, to make 25 copies for friends. However, slippery a slope as it is, I think it is probably okay to make a copy for a friend or two. But, it's a slippery slope and many would take issue with me.

The solution is sociological, not hardware/software.

Happy Trails!

Erick

Re:They just don't get it....

[The_Mystic_For_Real]

Even with the best sociological solution there will be some who will do as they please without any regard. With any hardware solution, there will be many who will circumvent it. The goal is to eliminate the largest percentage of the population possible. Hardware/software solutions do this better than anything. What should the RIAA care if a small group at MIT can circumvent any copy protection? If they distribute it on a large scale, the RIAA can track them down with a group of lawyers. If they distribute it on a small scale, then the RIAA loses 100 sales, a drop in the ocean. Hardware/software solutions keep their property safe in the hands of the masses, at least until the general public becomes more tech savy.

Re:They just don't get it....

[ichimunki]

there will also be a fair number of people who will not want to put forth the effort to deal with such workarounds.

Except that with computers the workaround can either be automated to be as easily used as the existing tools (look at how easy it is for a tech-inept fool like me to watch a DVD on GNU/Linux) or one person "cracks" the software/data stream/whatever and passes an unrestricted copy along (look at how easy it was for a peek/poke wannabe like myself to play games on my Commodore 64 back in the 80s).

If it only takes one smart guy to destroy the restrictions, then those restrictions may as well not exist. We are looking at an industry where insiders are doing things like leaking Metallica albums and movies pre-release. Those copies don't have any restrictions built into the data or the software.

But I have to agree, I bet most of us would barely notice a copy restriction that explicitly allowed the making of first generation copies (presumably as many first generation copies as wanted-- one to CD for the car, cabin, whatever, one to the mp3 server, one to the iPod or other portable, one for a friend here and there, etc). This is how it works for MiniDisc, I believe, and it's what I would expect here.

Re:They just don't get it....

[Ateryx]

There may be workarounds, but there will also be a fair number of people who will not want to put forth the effort to deal with such workarounds.

This is the point that really needs to be driven home to the RIAA. I hate having to go through and make sure all tracks are in right spot through www.cdnow.com or some other online store if they aren't explicitly tagged on the files (which is usually the case). If the music industry would realize if they really dropped the price of cds down to a reasonable level, say under $10 after tax, their sales would sky rocket. As someone had mentioned in a previous article the golden sell for Americans is the $5-$10 range. This is where most fast food and other meals are priced and many of us rationalize spending around that amount because a cd seems much more of a better investment (can be used over and over) than a simple meal. Additionally we can easily avoid spending $5-$10 elsewhere by skipping some other impluse buy and therefore are still even for the week in our budget.

Re:They just don't get it....

[arkanes]

It's an interesting (but apparently little known) fact that the purpose of copyright law is not to generate money for copyright holders. Shocking but true! Therefore, there are a number of restrictions on the rights granted to copyright holders. For example, playing a CD where more than one person can hear it isn't automatically public performance. Likewise, limited copying and sharing with friends isn't copyright infringment! Gasp! It's when the copying becomes large scale (7 million anonymous friends on the internet...) or commercial that it becomes infringment.

It's interesting that you make the point of scanning and reprinting. How many people do you know will photocopy an interesting magazine article or newspaper clipping to give to a friend? I certainly have seen it plent of times.

This is the important point: The rights of the copyright holder are LESS IMPORTANT than the goal of getting the information to the public. It's a balance. The copyright holder does not need to be paid for every single copy that takes place, no matter how much record labels whine. It's about reasonable compensation as an incentive to release works to the public, NOT about guaranteeing a revenue stream.

This would be very easy to defeat

[CreamOfWheat]

This technology sounds like it will be easy to defeat. You might just have to rip your CDs to Wav and burn a CD from the Wav files instead of a direct copy. They're rather limited in what they can do and have compatiability with CD players. This would work for most cd's

Re:This would be very easy to defeat

[julesh]

They have. They write all sorts of shit calling it the "analog hole" and talking about what they'd like to do to plug it. But of course it doesn't happen because everyone would have to dump all of their current kit, right down to the loudspeakers, and everything would have to be redesigned from ground up with encrypted digital links. It'd cost them millions to set up, and they would lose customers in the process.

And then some bright spark would crack the encryption and they'd be back to square 1.

Further erosion of the value propostion won't help

[SYFer]

Personally, I don't think further hobbling of the traditional product will improve their sales. The recording industry needs to wake up and make fundamental changes to their model that:

1. Embraces and promotes the downloading channel (a la iTunes, et al).

2. Finds more ways to diversify and vary the traditional physical product (CDs). Packaging, boxed sets, picture disks, collectables, etc. The music itself has to be just one component of a well-integrated marketing. Every 10th CD will include a certificate for a second free CD!

3. Uses their distribution and marketing clout to create and promote stars--revenues then come from a variety of marketing and event activities (the Grateful Dead made most of their money from touring and even allowed "bootlegging'). The product has to evolve from being bits to being the magic of the music experience (or whatever).

The cat is out of the bag and there's no putting it back in. For better or worse, the ripping and online swapping thing will simply never be defeated. Its kind of like the "bazaar" model of development that ESR speaks of and no matter what the industry does, the "community" will find a way to crack it.

They can either die a slow painful death or evolve. In the new age, the viable product is the "rock star" (or interesting composer or beautiful diva), not the bits they spew. It'll take some work.

I guess it's time...

[Microsift]

To repeal the tax on media. If the record companies develop a scheme to limit cd burning, it makes sense that people who buy blank media shouldd not pay a tax that reimburses record companies for people making copies of music. Since the labels can control how many copies of a CD are made, they can factor this into the price of a CD.

Uh-huh

[RickHunter]

Right, I'm sure this will work wonderfully. What do they plan to do, replace my CD-burning program? And how, exactly, are they going to do that? Is this just going to be another "corrupt strategic sectors of the CD" strategy? I thought they learned last time they tried that and discovered that a lot of CD players wouldn't read the CD at all. And never mind the fact that one could just rip to WAV files and then burn from there...

In short, it sounds to me like more snake oil salesmen peddling their wares to a desperate industry with a failed business model. I can't see any way to do this that's compatible with existing hardware and doesn't require control of the software. Which they most definitely don't have, no matter how much Microsoft wishes they did. To say nothing of the fact that anything implementing this "technology" would, by necessity, violate the Red Book CD Audio standard and run afoul of the same labelling laws as existing "methods".

They never learn

[CaptainZapp]

A brief analysis' of the industries feeble efforts to regain control and protect their turf (basically the distribution channells)

You guys sold corrupted and crippled disks to your customers.
Did it work? No

You tried this super duper water marking scheme.
Did it work? No, in fact Prof. Felten and his team broke it within a week

You're attacking your customers, insult them and threaten legal action..
Did it work? No, in fact you're pissing your customers off

You tried yet different approaches to "copy protect" the medium.
Did it work? No, in fact you piss people off, since the can't play their legally purchased product on their legally purchased car cd player

Is there no more new material available since you tried to force all those smart schemes on your customers?
Hell! of course! within minutes after availability on "cd"

So here's a free hint for you:

Why don't you make a product available, which is of good quality, cheap, readily available and doesn't force us to give up our privacy and suck your ducks just so that we can listen to a song? You know, sort of like Apple did it (and which rumour says you're in the process of killing by higer prices and enforced bundling).

Provide us with a convenient, realistically priced product, not being throttled by rediculous schemes (region coding anyone?). Stop insulting our intelligence and integrity and stop treating us like criminals and I'll promise:

We buy!

NB: Focusing on a good products might help sales too. There's only so much Britney and Back Street Boys you can listen to before throwing up.

Re:Cool, corporations control our freedoms now.

[MachineShedFred]

Oh please, they are unconcerned with how we feel. They are only concerned with how much money they will make

Correct. Just like any other corporation, they are concerned with the Profit and Loss statement as priority #1. If they aren't, they need to be fired. The reason why they don't care how anyone feels is because those same people that hate them continue to purchase the product; so obviously public opinion doesn't make a gnat's ass of a difference. (in their minds)

Right about now, everyone hates the oil companies, but do you think they are going to trip over themselves to lower gas prices so everyone will like them again?

These simple realities are lost on Slashdot.

By the way, it's "fair use" not "free use." The copyright holder still owns the work, not the public. There is a subtle difference, but an important one.

I really wish they did.

[numbski]

There's a poster below here that makes the comment that "if it ain't on the net, I ain't interested".

Voluntary compliance is the key. Make it so that we want to comply, and stop fighting the consumer drive.

It's been a while since I took Econ, but I will always remember the invisible hand theory. The market will ALWAYS force itself toward equilibrium.

Laws, unions, anything that unnaturally hinders the market breaks equilibrium. Forcing high prices on cds. Suing your customers into submission.

Why not let the market do what it does best, and go to that point of equilibrium where profit is maximized naturally? They're holding onto a cartel-type model and it's just not going to work.

Re:I really wish they did.

[gurps_npc]

1) You are incorrect about "The result is that in a perfect market, prices will stabilise at a level at which nobody makes any profit." You ignore the fact that even in a perfect market different producers have different costs. As such in a perfect market prices stabilise at a level where only the lowest cost producer, at each desirable quality level, makes any profit.

2) This means you can also make money as the lowest cost producer at a desirable quality level instead of being a monoplist/unethical company.

3) Your interpretatino of commoditty businesses is ass-backwards. You do NOT need mass quantites. Instead what happens is the company that is the lowest cost producer at a given quality level drives everyone out of business, because only they can profit at that price. So they quickly GROW to be huge. Later on they take advantage of some scaling advantages, but that is secondary, not primary. Only companies in small markets (i.e. specialist markets that you excluded.in your example) can not grow that big because their pond is so small. If you personally come up with a better, cheaper business model then Dell, then you could start up a lower cost producer that will within 5 years be bigger then Dell. That is after all what Dell did against the big boys that had all the "economies of scale" advantage.

4) Music is ALREADY a commodity market. The RIAA wishes it isn't, but their wishes are meaningless. They have tried to use laws to block the free market from treating it that way but their efforst are doomed to failure. Songs are worth less than $1 / song, and the market will eventually force the RIAA to realize this.

5) The RIAA is not a producer of consumer goods. They USED to be a producer of retail consumer goods (stored music), and as such they abused their serfs (musicians). They are now a producer of commercial services for their freed serfs(advertising, legal rights, etc. etc.) . They are scrambling to try to provide more and better services for their workers, but have a history of abusing them, so are having a tough time making the transistion. Worse their profits as a producer of retail consumer goods was huge and they are being babies about accepting the much lower profit margins they deserve as commerical services companies.

Re:Convenience factor negation...

[calebb]

>> There may be workarounds, but there will also be a fair number of people who will not want to put forth the effort to deal with such workarounds. It is a matter of convenience.

It only takes one person to create a DRM-less digital copy & post it on the latest P2P network... convenience factor negated.

What you say?

[SuperKendall]

Drop the price of a CD to $10 US or even close to $5 US.

It didn't work for DVDs. It certainly won't work for music.

What the hell are you talking about. You can get most DVD's now for between $10 to $20, and people are buying a HUGE number of DVD's, with copying issues being only a footnote. Consider how much work goes in to producing a DVD (never mind the movie) vs. producing a CD, and that the prices are generally worse for CD's than movies!

DVD's are showing EXACTLY why reducing prices would work for music!

Is it just me...

[jdunlevy]

or does it sound like the "recording industry" spends an inordinate amount of time and money on unworkable copy protection schemes as compared to the effort they put in on actually releasing desirable recordings?

Re:Convenience factor negation...

[SpecBear]

And what the recording industry doesn't seem to realize is that by using these two-bit copy protection schemes, they're making the piracy problem worse.

The people who are most likely to be deterred by these measures are those who have the least to gain by circumventing them: the people who have already purchased the CD. The real pirates have a great deal to gain by breaking the DRM, and they won't be stopped. The worst case scenario for them is making a digital copy from the analog output.

You're pretty much guaranteed to get DRM free copies distributed by actual pirates, so the music will get out there. Except now you've inconvenienced your paying customer, who can no longer burn a CD for his car, or download to his MP3 player. Now your paying customer, who in giving you his money has already indicated his desire to be honest and do the right thing, has an incentive to seek black market sources for the music. "Damn, I can't make a copy if this CD I just bought!" "Haven't you heard of Kazaa? Just download it from there." And he'll do so guilt free because he's already paid for the music. Maybe he didn't know how to get pirated music before, but now he does.

Next time, will he go through the song and dance of fighting the DRM restrictions on the CD, or just click that little icon on his desktop?

I think today I'll go to my boss and propose spending millions of dollars developing a technology that annoys our customers, doesn't effectively protect our IP, does nothing to improve our profit margins and exposes us to legal risk. Let's see how long I keep my job.