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.
Quick Question... (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting....how does it work? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I'd like more detail on this. The only way I can imagine them accomplishing what they desribe is having some proprietary app "unlock" the CD. That, of course, would limit the fair use of playing the CD on your favorite non-standard OS. But I'm only guessing.
Does anybody know what their technology actually does? How does is copy protect if you can download (presumably unprotected) MP3s to your portable player?
Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
"From our standpoint, we are designing the software for the 99 percent of the people who don't want to steal the music... 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."
If I'm hearing this right, he's basically saying, "Our product doesn't keep people from stealing the music, it just causes hassles for folks who buy music and want to listen to it on their computers."
Where's the reason in that? Who exactly is getting protected here?
~chris
CD-DA disk logo compliance? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Quick Question... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why are we upset with this guy? (Score:2, Interesting)
We rub our greedy little hands and scheme how we can get around this new tool when what we should be doing is pressuring record companies who are demanding this type of protection. We should be economically sanctioning the companies that participate in creating rules that shackle fair-use. Don't buy the Michael Jackson album that has the protection (as if we would)...
Might this have happened anyway? (Score:2, Interesting)
That's the effect of most criminal laws these days, unfortunately. Speed limits, gun registration, age limits on alcohol, etc.
Does anyone think this was inevitable? Let's assume (in some mythical different dimension) that illegally-distributed music isn't a problem for the industry. Digital piracy, in this hypothetical world, is minimal enough to not alarm the record companies.
Do you think they would go ahead and slip in these copy protection technologies for the hell of it...as a preventive measure? Meaning, do you think that regardless of the current climate, would the major labels have implemented these measures as time went along?
Re:CD-DA disk logo compliance? (Score:2, Interesting)
Pahoo? (Score:1, Interesting)
He also says that his technology won't work against people who want to circumvent it...
So he hinders the law abiding citizen and ignores the thief.
The value of this is...?
Go figure.
Easy way to oppose this technology (Score:1, Interesting)
The stores will just LOVE flooding their inventory with opened CD's.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Oops.
The article talks about "circumvention" being ilegal under the DMCA. Well, that means it is now ilegal to run a cable from your cd player to your audio-in on your soundcard. Because once you're to that point, you only need to hit record!
I raised this point in an earlier artcle, and there was some speculation that the copy-protection is actually in the music; that even if I held I mic to a speaker and recorded it the copy-protection would still be there and mp3 encoders would still choke on it.
This (from the article) clears all that up:
SunnComm embeds a technology, called MediaCloq, into a CD to make the CD's directory structure invisible so it cannot be read by a personal computer. For instance, the names of the tracks do not appear on a computer's screen, and as a result, the music cannot be ripped and transferred to a desktop. The CD, however, will still play in an ordinary CD player, according to SunnComm. Jacobs said what sets his company apart from competitors is that SunnComm does not alter the music itself because the company's technology leaves the tunes untouched.
So while some copy protection technology (from other companies) modifies the music, the technology is question does not. This makes circumvention trivial.
I think it would be very difficult to embed copy-protection signals in the actual music, without causing the music to sound noticably different. But even if that was achived, I'm 100% certain that some sort of filter software to remove the protection will be written. Sure, the software will be ilegal, but if the author can make it high-profile enough maybe it will get spread around like DeCSS.
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
OK how are they designing it for those people? Will those people get some new enjoyment from listening to a cd that's copy protected? Or will they only be frusturated that they can't record tracks of their new cd onto the mix cd they're making with their new PC?
More and more consumers are embracing mp3's and cd-r's. It's not just 'hackers' (someone needs to have the hacker vs. cracker talk with Mr. Jacobs because he's a little confused) anymore. If copy protection becomes widespread, these companies will alienaite a much larger portion of their customer base than they realize. Think how many people own portable mp3 players! Consumers like options, and this technology only gives you less options.
I do believe that's what the lawsuit's about... (Score:3, Interesting)
Show him he's wrong! (Score:3, Interesting)
Yup. And most people want the music they copy to be either a direct CD copy of the music, or rip it in a standard MP3 format. So... if his technology allows that then how exactly is it protecting anything?
For their MP3 player? Hmm... now I notice he didn't say in standard MP3 format. Maybe he means "for their MP3 player as long as it uses the special no-copy technology XXX and plays WMA format music". I would bet that his technology would prevent it from working on my MP3 player. Since I'm just doing what I want in a way I think is reasonable he wouldn't want to stop me right?
Yeah, that's great. Thanks for treating customers with such respect.
So he's saying you know that the technological solution you've created is weak, and you intend to use the DMCA to enforce it? If the gov't were't owned by big coprorations like the record companies, I'd expect they'd complain. If I protected my house with a flimsy screen-door lock then expected the police to do everything they could whenever someone broke in, I think they'd get pissed at me pretty soon.
No Britney Spears, no *NSync, only people who are into music for the sake of music. Man, would that ever be a great world!
Ok buddy. So you think you're going to be in a lucrative business. You think you're gonna make loads of money when your goal is: "Make it easier for the record companies to squeeze me and prevent me from doing what I want with the CD[*] I bought". Guess what. I (and a few other people) want to convince you that it's *not* lucrative.
Any takers?
[*] Note, the product bought, whie a shiny disk in a silver case is not actually a CD, sorry for any inconvenience.
The Copyright laws (even now) grant us some... (Score:3, Interesting)
Under Fair Use, I may make as many copies of a covered work for my own personal use after I have purchased the rights to use this work. Personal is defined as for your and only your use- as in you can make backup copies of just about anything in question, just in case the original gets destroyed.
Under Fair Use, I may sell any primary copies I have to another individual, so long as I destroy all copies I have that were not licensed to be copied by myself. In other words, if you have a license to make copies (such as the GPL) you may give the primaries or the backups to another individual, but if you do not, you must destroy all backups you have upon the giving of the primary copy to another individual.
Under Fair Use, I may copy non-substantial portions (and in some cases, even substantial ones...) of a covered work for the purposes of the discussion of the covered work, parody, etc.
This is NOT a classic geek view, but rather what the laws have been worded- DMCA and SSSCA seem to be conflicting laws that don't remove the "rights" (as that would draw an outcry real quick) but make them effectively withdrawn.
Right now, there's some substantial discussion that the laws that extend the durations of the Copyright and Patent grants violate the bounds Congress has with respects to this that has been laid out by the Constitution (This is not the Bill of Rights- this is what the Constitution has to say about what Congress can and can't do, and that hasn't been ammended either.). Also of note is that there is substantial discussion as to whether or not the DMCA or the SSSCA, as they currently are written, are legit within the Constitutional boundaries set up by either the Constitution itself or the Bill of Rights.
Re:Go Vinyl! (Score:3, Interesting)
The scary thing is... you're probably right! Thank god for vinyl. Classic rock always sounds better on vinyl than on CD anyways, if you ask me!
i don't understand, help me. (Score:3, Interesting)
but six is the standard right now. So they can make six copies; as long as their disc is in the tray of their computer, they can make those copies...
ok, so they can make 6 copies, i would assume to a proprietary format so you can't make a copy from a copy (surely not mp3 format), but then he goes on to say,
We allow (people) to make copies for their own personal use: for their computer, for their compilation disc and for their MP3 player.
huh? you can make a copy for use in your mp3 player? then what's to stop you from copying the song as many times as you want?!?
here's the other part i don't get:
I hope to see a file-sharing service in the near future that will allow people the same effortless ability to download music even if it's of lesser quality, like MP3 quality, for a very small amount of money a month.
huh?? lesser quality? i think our boy Peter Jacobs is jumping on the MS bandwagen trying to make the mp3 format sound like it sucks (no pun intended).
Did everybody miss this? (Score:3, Interesting)
The MP3 players will need special software to read the new CD's... in which case, someone will write a program to read those CD's... and convert them into MP3's on your HD.
Someone transfers a track from thier CD to their MP3 player... then, they transfer the MP3 from their MP3 player to their HD... now whats stopping them from connected to a peer to peer network and sharing this?
And what about DJ's who mix their own songs? Is swiping part of the song now going to mean breaking the DMCA?
"I think that the art ... goes away" (Score:2, Interesting)
Someone better come up with a way to get better and better at protecting the rights of the artists, because without doing that, I think that the art and the ability to distribute the art goes away.
Now as far as I can remember, art was around long before there were recording companies to distribute it, and long before even copyright legislation was around. IMHO it's not something we're going to be losing because it becomes more widely distributed, electronically.I think it's pretty obvious that it's the RIAA and the recording industry as a whole that's pushing for this. It's not in the interest of any performer that wants people to enjoy their work, nor the consumer who only wants to appreciate it.
Just my $0.02.Matt Ryall <gholam@start.com.au>