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.'"

Comments

Interesting...

[TripMaster Monkey]

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:

1. Sony makes copy-protection weaker, while making 'speed bump' obstacle to 'schoolyard piracy'.
   
2. Correspondingly, more people turn from 'schoolyard piracy' to 'actual piracy'.
   
3. RIAA suddenly has many more viable targets
   
4. ???
   
5. Profit!

</tinfoil-hat>

Whew...wearing that thing sure makes you paranoid...but does it make you paranoid enough?

Re:Interesting...

[vettemph]

I've used tinfoil to gain reception on a TV (a very long time ago). Something tells me we've been tricked into wearing the tinfoil to block signals when in-fact the tinfoil aids reception. ...the ultimate reverse psychology from the propaganda machine. We've been tricked. Do you provide a special resistor/inductor filter to ground in order to attenuate incoming programming?
Perhaps the grounded tinfoil shielding reduces your emmissions in order to avoid a tempest attack?
I'm confused, what shall we do?

Re:Interesting...

[Leomania]

I've seen a 10 years old kid who knew how to rip/burn protected CDs because "he wanted it" and "his friends shown him how to do it."

I sure remember how much more interesting/fun something seemed as a kid if it was something I was told I shouldn't do. Back then it was something like swinging on the rope swing that swung out over the sheer 150 foot cliff behind my house; take intrinsic danger and add a large helping of "I'd not better catch you on that rope swing EVER AGAIN!" and boy, it was irresistable.

Later is was figuring out the copy protection used by the "Space Quest" video game (inserting debug break commands [cc, which was "int 3" IIRC] to make using debug harder); I still bought the game, but I couldn't help but go figure out how to break the copy protection. No harm, no foul; never shared what I figured out.

With music piracy, kids now perceive little if any danger. Adding weak copy protection may just make them feel like they have to break it just to get away with something. For the little geeks out there, at any rate. I don't see how it could possibly curb casual copying, nor why three copies is considered "okay". It's just weird.

If you use the back door you are given...

[vrimj]

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?

what do they do with those emails?

[burnunit0]

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.

Wouldn't stand up in court.

[Rowan_u]

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"

Sing it with me - D. M. C. A.

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Re:and in comes the internet

[Simonetta]

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.

Soft Security, Guide Posts: right on!

[LionKimbro]

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.

Actually I think it's worse than this

[DFJA]

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.