CD Copy Protection Head Speaks 464
Vonatar sent us an interview with the guy who is running the company that designed the copy protection being used in CDs that nobody really buys, and preventing people from playing CDs in their computers and DVD players. The article also mentions the first lawsuit about the record label not providing notice on the package. Anyway check it out if you're interested. There are some interesting bits.
Fair use is disappearing (Score:4, Insightful)
But what about the average Joe who want's to rip the CD for use on the computer, or a portable MP3 player? These are fair-use protected, as long as you do not distribute.
And most average Joes lack the technical know-how to circumvent the protection, and even that is illegal under the DMCA.
Copy protection is stripping away the last bits of fair use left. They're punishing all users for the actions of some.
Most people do not like to lose their rights, even something as small as fair use.
They admit it's not perfect (Score:3, Insightful)
And their big explanation is that the song title and artist don't show up, so therefore people can't copy them? Hell, I was copying CD's long before programs had internet lookup of CD's - I would rip the track - then label it...what a novel concept...
Gee... (Score:2, Insightful)
no DVD (Score:2, Insightful)
Artists' choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Hands up those who believe the artist gets a say in whether their CDs are rendered unusable or not?
Their whole "we are designing the software for the 99 percent of the people who don't want to steal the music" argument is nonsense; it doesn't benefit them.
Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
A:Ours is the only copy-protection scheme that doesn't violate fair-use rights...We allow (people) to make copies for their own personal use: for their computer, for their compilation disc and for their MP3 player, so they can have portable use of their music. The only fair use that's left--and it's not fair use at all--is the "fair use" of sending thousands of copies to file-sharing services to be copied hundreds of thousands or millions of times. That's the only use we've limited and so that's not fair use; it's certainly not fair to the artist.
I'm confused: I can play this on a PC, I can rip it, I can make MP3s. How does the protection scheme actually stop copying? Did I miss something?
The sad truth is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope he goes bankrupt, but not necessarily because he's trying to protect music. It's because he's protecting CDs.
I, of course, used a few p2p music sharers in my day, but you know what? I've filled out everything I want on my playlist, and aside from must-have stuff like the new Cake album, it doesn't change much anymore. On top of that, I bought more CDs after getting Napster than before...it's not a matter of already having the album for me, it's a matter of finding an ENTIRE ALBUM OF GOOD SONGS. If the record labels didn't rush out half-finished crap and charge almost $20 for it, I'd buy lots more CDs...
Limiting copies probably isn't the answer... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this is going to run them into the ground just as the Ebook. They just made the number higher -- by saying you can make six copies instead of two. Granted, it will take longer for people to screw up their machines to run out of their six copies, but the hard limit on the number of copies is always going to run into the same problem -- too low and the consumer is angry, too high and the consumer will give said copies away just to stick it to the industry.
The greater issue -- it's likely that technology can not solve this problem reasonably. Furthermore, the DCMA is not enforcable -- they are going to use it in select cases to scare people into abiding by it. Perhaps, the recording industry should look to create a culture where *gasp* neither the performer nor the consumer feels like they are getting screwed over.
CDs nobody really buys? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't let this lull you into a false sense of complacency. It's just being beta tested right now (except for Universal Music). When not enough people complain anymore about not being able to play CDs on their computers (and they will give up soon), some sort of copy protection will show up on every CD ever manufactured.
On the plus side, copy protection is always an arms race and the hackers have the upper hand. Remember when Copy II Plus came out for the Apple II and it could break every single media-based copyprotect scheme that existed at the time? There is still hope.
-sting3r
Worthless? (Score:5, Insightful)
"From our standpoint, we are designing the software for the 99 percent of the people who don't want to steal the music but instead (want to) use it for whatever means--for whatever personal use that's allowed by the artist and the record label. The software was designed for those people, not for the 1 percent who are going to take the lock cutters and cut the lock off and steal music in an unauthorized way."
So this software is designed to reign in the people who do not "steal" the music anyway? Does that not make this method of "cooy protection" pointless? It seems to me that this guy just admitted his company is ripping off record companies by selling them copy protection schemes that are really no good.
Re:Artists' choice (Score:2, Insightful)
Devils argument: By reducing theft, they can lower prices, leading to happier real customers.
Gr
Re:They admit it's not perfect (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, so what's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm... so let me get this straight. Those who want fair use (downloading it to their Rio, whatever) can't have it. Those are determined to pirate the music pull out their bit cutters and rip the CD. So basically, you've accomplished the exact opposite.. fair use is discouraged, but piracy is still possible. I think somebody missed the point.
Re:Quick Question... (Score:3, Insightful)
It does help. Are you really thinking that the store is trying to sell the opened copy to somebody else? No way: either they are going to eat the losses, or they send it back to the manufacturer (...who eats the loss). Bottom line: you're costing the store real money, which will act as a disincentive not to store such CD's. Eventually some manager somewhere gets the message and this new format hopefully dies a well-deserved death.
This guy needs a chastity belt with a padlock (Score:5, Insightful)
I love the quote from the article:
So this guy is selling a technology that won't stop thieves, but it will stop users from legitimately copying music from their CDs to their computer hard drives? It sounds like they're tacitly admitting that they're using the guise of "piracy protection" to do what they really want. That is to make music more like software -- eventually if you want to play it in your car and your home stereo, buy two copies of the CD!
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be able to load software onto your computer:
* I have a FireWire hard drive that I use to store all my music, and it's available to all my computers (including across my AirPort wireless network)
* Even within my house, having a hard drive with random access to my entire collection is better than some slow CD jukebox with a crappy UI
* I've had CDs go bad that can't be read (older ones with a lot of paint on them) or have gotten scratched. A copy of the songs on a hard drive provide protection against that degradation
* When I'm travelling, I don't want to bring audio CDs with me. It's easier just have songs on the hard drive
Simply put, I will not buy any CDs that can't be read on my computer -- normally. Some silly copy protection scheme that calls up Microsoft to confirm my credit card receipt every time I want listen to a song doesn't count.
Speed bumps (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Might this have happened anyway? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting....how does it work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Our technology is not thief proof. What it's meant to do is provide a speed bump to people who don't steal things
So it won't stop the pirates, and will inconvenience the honest folks. Sounds like a real winner!
Re:Might this have happened anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't we take that as a point in fact? The deluge of digital music available on the internet has not been followed by the collapse of the record industry. We do not see top 40 artists hanging out on the street pushing shopping carts full of pop cans. What we're seeing is a previously invisible economy of traded and shared music. Fifteen years ago, I did this with cassette tapes. Now it's done with mp3's. But the phenomenon remains the same. "Hey, check this tape out." If I like the tape, I go and make a conscious decision to buy into what the artist is selling. If not, I don't.
Now that the economy of music-sharing is no longer invisible, record companies want a cut of the game. They don't yet understand that without the game of music sharing, there is likely no game of music buying. I get introduced to most of my music, most of my die-hard, must-buy-all-imports-and-special-prints artists because someone gave me a tape or (these days) an Mp3 of the music. I would not have even known most of these artists existed, or were worth checking out, if I hadn't had the "pirated" copy of their one of their seminal recordings given to me.
They can't cut open the goose that lays the golden eggs without killing her. Culture exists as a free exchange of ideas. Putting gates at every point of exchange with the idea of collecting tolls is simply a guarantee that people will find other roads to travel. I don't understand why a multibillion dollar industry can't get enough, but I don't have any sympathy for them. They will soon find out how lucky they are to get any. I will not buy copy-protected CD's. I will take them back to the store and I will take my money elsewhere.
How'd they ever sell this idea? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, they're designing it to annoy the 99% of people who want to legitimately purchase the music and make a legal fair-use backup copy or who want to copy it to their computer for use while storing the CD as the backup archive?
So, they admit that the people who will make an active effort to steal the music will hardly be hampered by this at all.
What a sales pitch! We'll stop the people who don't steal, and we won't stop the people who do. Now, could someone explain just why anyone is paying them for this technology?
Re:Worthless? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's right! They are, in essence, criminalizing fair use. Here's the world that exists today:
1. Consumer buys non-copy-controlled CD.
2. Consumer rips said CD.
3. Consumer uses CD and MP3s in legal, non-infringing ways.
4. Pirate buys same CD.
5. Pirate rips said CD.
6. Pirate shares MP3s on %p2p_network%.
Notice how Consumer and Pirate never have contact, nor do they need to. Now watch what happens when the CD becomes copy-controlled:
1. Consumer buys copy-controlled CD.
2. Consumer tries to rip said CD, and fails.
3. Consumer gets mad.
4. Pirate buys same CD.
5. Pirate rips said CD using DMCA-banned circumvention device.
6. Pirate shares MP3s on %p2p_network%.
Now, the Consumer has some options:
1. Capitulate to the CD's given digital media scheme, if any.
2. Do without.
3. Stop buying CDs.
4. Logon to %p2p_network%, and download Pirate's MP3s.
Two acts of defeat, one act of sacrificial defiance, or a Federal offense. Wow, this is a brilliant business plan. No wonder CDs cost so much. RIAA's members need those profits to pay guys like Peter Jacobs the Big Bux.
That store's not operating legally... (Score:3, Insightful)
Run this one past them- do they willingly sell defective products? If they don't make the above point to them and see how fast they give your money back to you. They NEVER want the impression of knowingly selling fraudulent or defective products to the consumers. Bad for business and could bring on lawsuits like the one against these people on them.
Best protection will never work (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of us never rip our own tracks. We get them over the net and share them over the net. It only takes one person to rip a song to get the song beyond the copy-protected barrier for everyone.
99 Percent? (Score:2, Insightful)
99% of the general populion don't want to make mp3s of their cds?
From CNET [cnet.com]'s stats, it seems like about 13 million people have downloaded Kazaa, and about another 20 million have downloaded Morpheus (not to mention various other file sharing programs talked about on
Re:Might this have happened anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)
Right here, in this very real dimention, illegally distributed music isn't a problem for the music industry.
At least that's what their bottom line says... they're making more money than ever. CD prices have remained high, despite the recently anti-trust investigations. Their one bogus study during the Napster hearings showed that sales were down, but only near colleges where internet-based ordering was significantly up. Other more indepentent studies, at least so far, have generally found that CD sales are increasing.
Perhaps the "problem" is fear that future sales might be impacted, or some other non-profit definition of problem (like pride, control over the market, having new musicians by-the-balls, etc)
Perhaps the "problem" is all those "lost sales" from people who heard the music without paying, but the truth is that this is nothing new... they had this "problem" when radio began, they had this "problem" when recordable cassette tapes appeared, etc.
99% of people dont want to steal?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Um...right. What were the numbers on Napster at one point, were they not in upwards of 10's of millions? Granted the 1% using the so-called 'lock-cutters' seems a fairly correct figure; there are really only a small number (overall) who make the circumvention tools. But I gather the other figure would be much lower. Despite hearing people say "uh, I did not realize I was 'stealing' music.", I venture that most people have been, are and always will be cognizant of the supposed illegal nature of their music file trading. A lot want to 'stick it to the man'; a lot just want a free lunch.
- AC