Slashdot Mirror
Sony's New Nagging Copy Protection
bort27 writes "You can put away your Sharpies, because Sony has launched a new CD copy protection scheme that is actually designed to be easily cracked: 'The copy-protection technology is...far from ironclad. Apple Macintosh users currently face no restrictions at all. What's more, if users go to a Web site to complain about the lack of iPod compatibility, Sony BMG will send them an email with a back door measure on how to work around the copy protection.'"
So...they've figured out they're not going to stop dedicated music pirates.
So instead of making the copy protection stronger, they're making it weaker?
Ostensibly, this is to stop 'schoolyard piracy' (as if your average 'schoolboy/girl' can't rip tracks to MP3), but I'm seeing a slightly darker angle here...hold on...
<tinfoil-hat>
OK. Here we go:
</tinfoil-hat>
Whew...wearing that thing sure makes you paranoid...but does it make you paranoid enough?
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
what are the legal implications? Your still getting around a copy protection scheme, presumably Sony couldn't sue you, but what about potential criminal penelties?
I mean, are they harvesting the names of these people who request the 'hot backdoor action' and storing them for later use?
This seems a little disturbing- for the first time they're admitting they're not trying to stop big pirate-mills but slow down the consumer? Why does Sony still sell blank CDs, blank minidiscs and blank audio cassettes then? That's a hypothetical question: I mean, I know they make money off it, that's why they sell it. But they continue to distribute the tools of schoolyard piracy, why spend any more time concocting the latest protection scheme? What a waste of employees.
yes. that's all I'm going to say in all comments from now on.
Taking a DMCA case to court after pointing out the back door makes about as much sense as prosecuting Wal-Mart shoppers for trespassing. If they were going to take you to court they wouldn't be handing out the back-doors in the first place. This is an example of a company trying something new out in the copy-right arena, a scheme that might even have some room in it for "Fair Use"
only one everything
Sony makes copy-protection weaker, while making 'speed bump' obstacle to 'schoolyard piracy'.
Stop right there. This is the entire strategy.
They're making copying their CD a matter of circumventing an encryption device which is a felony under the DMCA. There's guaranteed to be some encryption in this scheme somewhere, even if it's not the actual data tracks that are encrypted. Perhaps some meta information.
No matter, they're taking illegal copying of a CD from copyright infringement to a felony for easier / more terrorizing prosecution. Pragmatically, that's the only way they're going to be able to enforce artificial scarcity in this market.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Ok, I'm going to try to reply without getting flamed, but here's my take on this.
I RTFA, but I don't know if this is the same copying protection scheme where a person would be limitted to burning all of the CDs they want from the original, but would prevent the copies from themselves being copied. It's probably not, but stick with me a moment.
While one can argue against copyright as it is now, and information wanting to be free, but considering Fair Use as it is now, such a scheme like that makes sense. The big problem with previous schemes is that it locks out Fair Use.
I purchased NIN - With Teeth. I'm an honest consumer, and I pay for products I find of a good enough quality to deserve my consumer dollars. (I actually own pay for a RHEL license, for instance, even though I can legally get linux for free.)
Now, I immediately made 3 copies of this CD. I ripped the highest quality MP3s to my harddrive (I hate when CD's get scratched, and songs are destroyed), and I burned 2 CD-R copies of the CD, one in MP3 format for my DVD/MP3 entertainment system, and 1 for my car in CDA format.
My copying isn't to give the CD to my friends, but to store my nice new CD away, and use "disposable copies" in the 3 places where I often listen to music: my computer, my entertainment system, and my car. I've only made copies that extend my fair use.
Now, if there were a DRM out there that let me make all these copies, as many times as I want, but just prevented me from 'schoolyard piracy', that's perfectly acceptable for me. Of course, that's considering that I'm free to use the content on any OS I want (linux), in any format I want (my brand of CD-R's, not some locked up high price brand), and that none of my listening preferences or other personal information is sent over the Internet to unlock the files on every play. My privacy is absolutely paramount.
If there is a DRM out there that can accomplish this, I would welcome it with open arms. Of course, I do agree with opening up those copyrights, making them opt-in, and for much shorter tersm. But, if NIN wants to not give their songs away, and use a charge only system, at least for a short term like 20 years, that's ok with me because I'm willing to pay for such excellent music. AFAIK, I can own this CD and listen to it for the rest of my life. I think my $10 (marked down at an independant retailer, not some mega-chain) was a fair trade for this content.
As always, I'm on the lookout for good Creative Commons licensed music as well. Sensable copyright and digital rights management doesn't necessarily mean that you are in league with the RIAA/MPAA, nor does it mean you can't support both it and copyleft. The **AA sense of Fair Use is warped, and they're just wanting the equivilant of a nuclear warhead for DRM.
Cleaning the net one sed at a time! s/sex/sermons/; s/hot/holy/; s/goats/thebible/; www.holysermonswiththebible.com
Scientist: We have a new CD protection scheme
Pirate: (Wink* Wink*) I'll buy you lunch if you show me how to hack it.
This is an example of why record companies should hate DRM. They have to pay the cost of its development. Then, when it's cracked or sold to organized crime in the dialog above, they lose the sales that are going to the pirates instead of music companies.
The consumers gain little because they are paying the pirates nearly the same amount of money that they used to pay to the record companies.
Record companies create their own piracy problems by persisting in the illusion that all music recordings should cost the same. They should institute an auction type of marketing structure for music sales so that people can chose what they would be willing to pay.
This doesn't work when the product is infinitely copyable and little cost. So the entertainment companies should get out of selling things that are infinitely reproducable at low cost and into some other profitable marketable entertainment product.
No, this is exactly right!
You should have to overcome some sort of speed bump, letting you know: "Hey, if you do this thing, you might be breaking the law. Think about it."
But you should still be able to overcome the hurdle. Because, "who knows?" You might actually have the right, it might actually be okay.
Besides: Some laws, you should be able to make the decision to break or not to break. Not all laws, but some laws. For the simple act of copying a file on your computer, you should be the person deciding what to do. But there should be some small barrier to transgress.
It's like the line of rocks on the side of the road at the park. "Please don't cross over this," it tells you. You can, and some do, but most don't.
It's called Soft Security, and it works great. It's all about respecting people, and respecting boundaries. Most people are pretty respectful, and things seem to work. People talk, people have ideas about what is right and wrong, and people don't violate things just willy nilly, provided that there are some cues and attention.
How does this backdoor work ?
If the backdoor has to be present (and running, perhaps) to 'enable' the ripping of the MP3 files, what is to stop Sony using it to put a unique fingerprint into the MP3.
The following scenario is not beyond bounds:
1) anon emails Sony, and gets sent the backdoor
2) anon rips the CD (using the backdoor), and puts the MP3s on a P2P site. MP3s have a Sony fingerprint in them, courtesy of the backdoor.
3) Sony spots the MP3s, and reads the Fingerprint.
4) Sony looks the Fingerprint up in its records, and retrieves the email address the it was sent to.
5) Sony sends a Nastygram to the email address and/or wakes the lawyers up.
This doesn't stop someone ripping the CD for their own use, but if the files then end up on the 'net, Sony knows who to chase.
And yes - this is aimed at casual listeners / copiers. Professional pirates seem to mostly produce CD copies, not MP3 files, so wont be majorly affected. However, if Sony can stop a large proportion of Home users from making MP3 files and sharing them on the net, they will put a crimp (hard to say if it would be large or small) in the amount of sharing.
However, as a non-music listener (except the odd bit of live music) it should have little impact on me (at least for now)
My conjecure, but maybe every person they give a key to gets a different key. And this leaves the unencrypted file with a watermark (i.e. variations in the output sound that are undetectable to the human ear) but which can be used to determine what decryption key was used to decrypt it - hence who has made their copy available publicly. They've got your email address and presumably other details, so if that file turns up on P2P sites they know exactly where to place the blame.
43 - For those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe and everything.
So the gist of this protection is that the autorun installs a piece of malware that disables CD ripping. What I want to know is, when will Sony and SunComm get sued under computer trespass laws? Disabling someone's physical property to prevent them from "infringing" on your "intellectual property" should not be legal.
Hold down the shift key.
If these CDs work in your CD player, then your computer will recognize it as an audio CD. The only thing they can do to prevent that is to install software on your computer to do otherwise. This is why it only works on windows machines.
"That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela