Slashdot Mirror
Sony Doing An End Run Around Its Own DRM
glassgnost writes "According to a story at CNN, Sony has an odd response to complaints from fans who have discovered they cannot import their CD content to an iPod. Individuals who complain to Sony BMG about iPod incompatibility are being directed to a Web site that provides information on how to work around the technology. In short, some labels appear to have been instructing customers how to defeat DRM -- which, IIRC, is a violation of DMCA." From the article: "For now, the copy-protected discs work only with software and devices compatible with Microsoft Windows Media technology. Apple -- the dominant player in digital music -- has resisted appeals from the labels to license its FairPlay DRM for use on the copy-protected discs. The DRM initiatives are generating complaints from fans, many of whom own iPods. The message boards of artist fan sites and online retailers are filled with complaints from angry consumers who did not realize they were buying a copy-protected title until they tried to create music files on their home computers."
If you tell someone how to circumvent the DRM to something in which you hold the copyright. The real question is, are you violating the DMCA if you are following those instructions to circumvent the DRM? And, if you are, would it be considered entrapment? None of this really matters since it would happen in the privacy of your own home, but it is an interesting legal riddle.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Personally, I'm glad Apple hasn't shared their FairPlay DRM scheme with the rest of the industry. It shows the RIAA what's like to be on the wrong side of a closed system. Now they know how we feel when we can't rip our songs to MP3s.
Electric Monkey Pants
Quoth the article: The DRM initiatives are generating complaints from fans, many of whom own iPods. The message boards of artist fan sites and online retailers are filled with complaints from angry consumers who did not realize they were buying a copy-protected title until they tried to create music files on their home computers.
Enter the DMCRA, which, in addition to guaranteeing the right to circumvent copy prevention systems for the purposes of making non-infringing use of a work, also mandates that when companies put copy prevention on a CD, they also add an adequate warning to the case indicating that the CD may not work in all players.
I didn't think that the DMCRA would actually get attention because of the warning label provision, mainly because I'm more interested on the circumvention for non-infringing use provision, but perhaps the warning label provision is the way to get music consumers interested in getting the DMCRA passed.
Let's all try to stop using the term "copy protection". It's "copy prevention".
Fairplay doesn't have the capability to expire songs once you stop paying for the subscription. WMA's Janus extension is required for this functionality, which has the player check that you are supposed to have access to those songs each time you plug it into your computer, and expires songs after a month if you don't let it verify. While this nasty little system works, it introduces requirements that some may find objectionable. Simply licensing Fairplay isn't going to get you access to subscription-based content. Basically, if you want subscription content on the iPod, you're SOL, but you should have known that when you bought it.
What's more interesting here is that Apple is turning down a potential revenue source (licensing Fairplay to CD distributors) for no other reason than what appears to be the belief that they have enough control over the digital music market to influence the direction of CD distribution as well. It seems they are making a stand to make copy-protected CDs impractical, hoping that distributors will instead keep producing standard CDs. Personally, I am very happy they are doing this, as copy-protected CDs are an incredibly stupid idea that only serves to inconvenience paying customers. I don't buy music from the big labels anymore, so I've never encountered copy protection, but you can be sure I would demand a refund if I was unable to use my purchased CDs as I see fit (within the confines of copyrights). Having Fairplay copies of the music on the CD as well wouldn't alleviate this problem, as I want to rip my CDs to MP3 format, in the bitrate of my choosing. In this case, Sony is clearly wrong, and they need to go back to making standard CDs if they want to sell to iPod users.
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
So then get a recording of a support rep stating the web site, and then post it here for all to hear. One of us is an attorney, and will start a DMCA action.
Of course, the victim is Sony, so the attorney will have a difficult time getting their client's agreement to pursue. But if the caller asked, "So, does this work for this other CD I have?" And Sony's rep answers in the positive, then the manufacturer of "this other CD" might have grounds to sue. And if the caller worked for the (other) manufacturer, it'd be even easier to turn this into a DMCA-killer event.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Fair use is not a right. Fair use is an excuse (a legally acceptable one) to do things that are outside your rights. When you invoke fair use, you automatically admit that the infringement did occur (but you can't be punished for it). If you can get around stuff and fairly use it, more power to you. But nobody's helping you with fair use.