Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents Sony Media Music Security

Sony's New Nagging Copy Protection 404

Posted by Zonk
from the annoying-your-customers dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony's New Nagging Copy Protection

Comments Filter:
  • Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TripMaster Monkey (862126) * on Friday June 17, 2005 @10:53AM (#12841620)


    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?
    • by karnal (22275)
      Exactly.

      Here's a portion I found interesting:

      ""This technology is a speed bump. It's trying to dissuade the average consumer from making as many copies as they like," said First4Internet Chief Executive Mathew Gilliat-Smith.

      "You're not going to stop tracks getting on P2P sites," he added. "It's designed to stop casual piracy ... It's not saying you'll stop people from doing it, but it makes people stop and think.""

      Now.... how much of "piracy" is schoolyard piracy? I would bet it's a slim amount. Why w
    • Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pioneerX (830117)
      If it is simple enough that even thundering idiots can get round it, they will have easier targets to prosecute.
    • Whew...wearing that thing sure makes you paranoid...but does it make you paranoid enough?

      From a borderline paranoid schizo allow me to address this.

      Once you have started wondering if you're paranoid enough, the answer is "yes, but just barely."
    • as if your average 'schoolboy/girl' can't rip tracks to MP3

      I don't think it's really true anymore. 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." (monkey see, monkey do) It's so easy to do it now that I don't know why there is still this kind of protection.
      • Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Leomania (137289) on Friday June 17, 2005 @01:12PM (#12843400) Homepage
        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.
    • RIAA suddenly has many more viable targets

      Hey TMM, good to hear from ya. Could be a concern. If you are going to rip a song and distribute it to friends, you certainly don't want to advertize the fact even if it was easy to do.

      Personally, I don't believe in distributing -- I think copyright should be honored within the bounds of fair use. To that end, I routinely strip out any encumbrance that interferes with my fair use rights, mostly because I don't want to have to keep up with some technology for
    • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Friday June 17, 2005 @11:12AM (#12841828) Homepage Journal
      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.
      • "They're making copying their CD a matter of circumventing an encryption device which is a felony under the DMCA."

        If you use the workaround they email you, that's not circumventing copy protection. If the workaround is, as I suspect, removing the automatically-installed software then even if you figure that out on your own it's not circumventing the copy protection.
    • That's the problem with paranoia. If you find out you were too paranoid, it doesn't matter, but if you find out you weren't paranoid enough, it's too late.

    • So...they've figured out they're not going to stop dedicated music pirates.

      But if there are too many steps involved then you will stop some dedicated action. Full time pirates will just skip things that aren't economical...
    • Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by vettemph (540399) on Friday June 17, 2005 @11:17AM (#12841884)

      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?

    • The only reason to do this, is to get everyone to start using DRM technologies. Once they are prevalent, you can better believe Sony and everyone else will start tightening the screws.

  • FtA: "The whole industry is in discussions with Apple, and we hope to have a solution soon," he said.

    The "solution" he wants will lock Apple's customers into the music cartel's own brand of DRM. How is that solving anything for the consumer? Fucking prick.
  • ok... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chewbacon (797801) on Friday June 17, 2005 @10:54AM (#12841631)
    So if you complain about it, they'll tell you how to get around it? Why bother hindering at all?
  • Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by caluml (551744) <slashdot AT spam ... OT calum DOT org> on Friday June 17, 2005 @10:55AM (#12841641) Homepage
    Is it a:, so they have a nice list of people who know about the backdoor, or b:, so they can use the DMCA if someone reverses it without being told (i.e. given permission) by Sony?
  • The sad part... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CyberSnyder (8122) on Friday June 17, 2005 @10:56AM (#12841658)
    ...is that while the copy protection sucks, we're paying for it in the form of passed on costs from Sony.

    • Re:The sad part... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by nkh (750837)
      You're buying for it if you're still buying copy-protected CDs. I never bought any copy-protected thing in my life and I never will. You still have the choice as a customer.
      • Re:The sad part... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by waynelorentz (662271) on Friday June 17, 2005 @11:30AM (#12842017) Homepage
        Do you have cable? Or Dish Network/DirecTV/whatever? All of those distribution channels are encrypted and copy protected, just like the distribution channel of a copy-protected CD. Even over-the-air television networks (in the United States) are copy protected as they travel from the network to the satellite, and back to the station for transmission to you.

        Have you ever been to the movies? Some theaters have infrared lights behind the screen to thward movie copying. Thus, you've bought a copy-protected product.

        Do you own a car? Go ahead and try to reverse-engineer the electronics and you'll find out what many mom-and-pop repair shops already know -- it's copy protected.

        Ever read a newspaper? Copyright protection there, which some people see as copy protection. And if you go along with that line of thinking, then look at the bottom of your screen where it says "© 1997-2005 OSTG." That's right -- Slashdot is protected by copyright, and thus, laws against copying its content. In other words --copy protection.

        There's no point in fighting the war. You've already lost.
        • Re:The sad part... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by diamondsw (685967) on Friday June 17, 2005 @12:24PM (#12842739)
          There is definitely a difference between copyright, which provides for your fair use, and copy protection, which prevents it. Copyrighted works are not part of anyone's "war" but your own - they're perfectly valid (the Congressional extensions, that's another matter).

          Furthermore, the auto electronics do prevent reverse engineering and diagnostics, but they aren't "copy protection". Your mechanic is not trying to make a copy of the engine, he's trying to figure out what's wrong to fix it.

          Infrared lights in theaters? Cable signals? Yup, that is copy protection. The others are not.
  • by vrimj (750402) on Friday June 17, 2005 @10:57AM (#12841668)
    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?
    • 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"
      • Are you so sure ?

        "Pick it up."

        "I don't wanna pick it up, Mister, you'll shoot me."

        "Pick up the gun."

        "Mister, I don't want no trouble. I just came downtown here to get some hardrock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about ten rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, Mister."

        "Pick up the gun."

        ( Bill Hicks )
    • 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?

      About as likely as getting prosecuted for trespassing when your neighbor with the "No Trespassing" sign invites you for a BBQ.

      Instructions for the copyright holder to copy the file is effectively permission.
  • by burnunit0 (630935) <burnunit@waste.org> on Friday June 17, 2005 @10:58AM (#12841684) Homepage

    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.

    • 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?

      For the moment music companies have to accept that they can not stop determined pirates. Realize that, and move that out of the issue. What can they stop? They can stop "armchair" pirates, who if they put the disk in and they can't rip the music to Kazaa or whatever will give up. Stopping some form of piracy is better than none at all.
    • But they continue to distribute the tools of schoolyard piracy, why spend any more time concocting the latest protection scheme?

      Presumably because there are many legitimate uses of those tools.

      The dilemma of copyright infringement has always been to enable the things that are legal and fair (like fair use and original compositions) while deterrming that which isn't legal and fair (like distributing copies).

      Stopping making the tools would not only cut off an important market, but it wouldn't deter copyri
    • 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.

      Keep in mind that Sony's media division is a completely different entity than their music label (Sony BMG)... and given the fact that Sony seems to have even more schizophrenia in their inte
    • for the first time they're admitting they're not trying to stop big pirate-mills but slow down the consumer?

      This would be the Sony version of "Darning someone to heck" in Dilbert. When a corporate entity thinks of its consumers as people it needs to keep in line through the use of nuisance lawsuits and general obstructionism, that mindset will come down to us in so many stupid little ways.

      The **AAs need to make a clear distinction here in their minds -- pirate reseller, consumer -- and they do almost a

  • by Himring (646324) on Friday June 17, 2005 @10:59AM (#12841697) Homepage Journal
    Let's hope they don't start making condoms....
  • Lawsuit shortlist? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by seanmcelroy (207852) on Friday June 17, 2005 @11:02AM (#12841727) Homepage Journal
    It's actually not such a bad idea, because it's more hassle than most casual music pirates are willing to tolerate. Anyone serious will just Google the workaround and be done with it.

    The scary part to me is the e-mail address... now they can start getting a shortlist of people to look at closer for copyright violation issues. I know I'll let someone else ask for the hack and Google it myself...
    • I just can't get too worked up over that. By following their rules, you're putting yourself on a list of people who make legal fair-use copies. If the RIAA police nab you in the schoolyard with a CD-R labeled "Britney Spears Greatest Hits", you have an email from Sony that says, "Yes, you can make a copy of this disc."

      You've got an alibi for the stuff you've copied legally, and they think of you as somebody who follows the rules. The "pirates" are those who aren't on the list.
      • If the RIAA police nab you in the schoolyard with a CD-R labeled "Britney Spears Greatest Hits", you have an email from Sony that says, "Yes, you can make a copy of this disc."

        Yeah, but you have the deterrent effect of having to make it public that you actually *wanted* to copy a Britney Spears silver-disc-with-music-on-it.

        -- Side Note: What are DRM'ed silver-discs-with-music-on-them called? They aren't CDs, because they violate the Phillips spec.
  • backdoor (Score:5, Funny)

    by justforaday (560408) on Friday June 17, 2005 @11:03AM (#12841733)
    Anyone know what the backdoor is? And no pictures of goatse please!
  • by izznop (884116) on Friday June 17, 2005 @11:03AM (#12841734)
    I don't get it, whether or not it is easily crackable shouldn't matter. The fact of the matter is that the Music Industry has now decided that all of their customers are criminals.
    • Do you feel the same way about security tags in shops?
      • by tuffy (10202) on Friday June 17, 2005 @11:26AM (#12841974) Homepage Journal
        Do you feel the same way about security tags in shops?

        I would if I had to keep the tag on even after I've bought the item.

        • by OglinTatas (710589) on Friday June 17, 2005 @12:19PM (#12842658)
          "Do you feel the same way about security tags in shops?"

          "I would if I had to keep the tag on even after I've bought the item."

          You, sir, are a marketing genius!
          We are going to need venture capital to lobby congress to pass legislation to make it illegal to remove those tags.
          The consumer buys a dress and wears it once. If she attempts to wear it to another social event (which, I understand, is some kind of social faux pas--don't ask me I've worn the same suit for ten years.) the ink charge will explode and force her to buy a new dress.
          We can spin it as a _benefit_ to the consumer, saving her from the embarassment of going to two friends' weddings and being caught wearing the same dress.
          Let's patent this business method, and I will split the profits with you.
  • by HerculesMO (693085) on Friday June 17, 2005 @11:03AM (#12841735)
    Logically, it makes sense. The path of least resistance is going to be the one that followed. So when games like Half Life 2 or Counterstrike: Source have 'hacks' like aimbots etc made for them, if they are easy games to hack, the hack comes out, you simply ban that individual hack. Since you are still allowing the same method, people will create the hack using the same parameters and you ban each hack because you know exactly how and where to detect it -- and ban all the players with it.

    I know it's totally irrelevant, but given the Sony 'initiative' and the fact they publish games... I'm waiting for this to happen too :)
    • Except, once I "hack" the music, I never have to contact the distributor in any way, so I can't really be "banned" from that point on, where I could be on online games which require me to contact and rely on third parties which can ban/terminate me.
    • Of course, they are fucking inexact. I've seen a friend of mine get banned twice simply by being *good*. Exact turn/shot = ban. Dodge/shoot = ban. Not to mention he's been banned manually for just being extremely lethal with the sniper rifle.

      Most of the hacks are per se legal moves in the game - they are simply "superhuman" to do on a regular basis. I've done it in CTF games. Desperate headshot attempts on the flag carrier (because he's got full health/armor and nothing else will do), you might get lucky.
      • I've been banned for being good myself -- I rank very highly in Counterstrike, as well as games like Quake3 Arena and UT2004. However, the aimbots 'click' to the body... and if you watch the execution of the code you could probably catch it. If game devs make the game easy to hack with a proper monitoring of that area of code, then it could be easy to defeat the aimbotters, wall hackers, etc of modern games. I know it's possible to do, but it seems most logic follows the 'let me make my software hack proof'
  • "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."

    Does anyone know where this web site is?

  • by linicks (704116) on Friday June 17, 2005 @11:04AM (#12841747)
    I usually buy about 50 - 70 albums per year. I listen to 75% of my music on an iPod at work, an additional 15% listening to these CDs in my car, and 10% listening to my legally ripped collection of mp3 files on my home PC.

    Sony / BMG are making CDs using SunnComm's MediaMaxx that require a software end user licence agreement (EULA) to listen to on a computer, and they can not be ripped into an MP3 or an AAC file. Hence I have no way to listen to these albums on my iPod. I don't believe in agreeing to a EULA to listen to these songs on my home PC, so I can't use these CDs on my PC. And to pay $12-$15 for a CD that I can only listen for twenty minutes on the way to work or doing errands is crazy.

    Why is the industry shooting itself in the foot by driving away loyal customers? I want to give bands like Velvet Revolver, Kings of Leon, and the Foo Fighters my hard earned money, but their record labels are not giving me a product that I find acceptable... A good old fashioned compact disk.
    • by futuresheep (531366) on Friday June 17, 2005 @11:18AM (#12841896) Journal
      I think someone else posted the link, but here's a step by step on getting around MediaMaxx in order to use your fair use rights:

      Source [princeton.edu]

      • Start with a Windows 2000/XP system with empty CD drives.

        1. Click the Start button and select Control Panel from the Start Menu.
        2. Double-click on the System control panel icon.
        3. Select the Hardware tab and click the Device Manager button.
        4. Configure Device Manager by clicking "Show hidden devices" and "Devices by connection," both from the View menu.
        5. Insert the Anthony Hamilton CD into the computer and allow the SunnComm software to start. If MediaMax has never been started before on the same computer, the SbcpHid driver should appear on the list for the first time. However, on some systems Windows needs to be rebooted before the driver becomes visible.

        Next, follow these additional steps to disable MediaMax:

        1. Select the SbcpHid driver from the Device Manager list and click "Properties" from the Action Menu.
        2. Click the Driver tab and click the Stop button to disable the driver.
        3. Set the Startup Type to "Disabled" using the dropdown list.

        Also, I'd suggest disabling autorun.

      • 2nd possible felony post here I've seen in the last 15 minutes.

        Good luck.

        I do support your civil disobedience and your helping the community - I just hope your good deed does go unpunished.
      • 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.
  • Dear Sony,

    Every time I try to listen to music, I find the industry is laden with idiots. They're preventing an obstacle to my listening enjoyment.

    Could you please send me an e-mail telling me how to get around them? Thank you.

  • its a trojan horse (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vingilot (218702) on Friday June 17, 2005 @11:05AM (#12841764)
    They want people to accept DRM, this time its easy to crack-- first hit is free. Next time though...

    call me paranoid

    Jonathan
    • 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.
  • Hold Shift? (Score:2, Insightful)

    If this is DRM based for music CDs then I'm guessing ... guessing mind you. That it's auto-run based. So disabling auto-run, or holding shift when the disc is inserted will fix it right up. Same reason Macs are unfettered, auo-run Windows code isn't exactly going to affect them now is it?
  • Sony is gearing up for the next big wave in DRM:

    The revolutionary "imaginary" copy protection. Prominently featured on every product, a sharp and stylish sticker heralding the state-of-the-art "Sony Super-Fantastic Copy Protection 5000," a technology so advanced, it can't even be detected! Customers thinking of trying to subvert this new DRM can call an 800 number, where a helpful, sweet-sounding old lady will gently encourage them to do the right thing, so as not to disappoint their mothers and grandm
  • Apple Macintosh users currently face no restrictions at all.

    I suppose it's official now. Using a Mac puts you in violation of the DMCA.

  • But is it still illegal to break the protection without permission?
  • by argoff (142580) on Friday June 17, 2005 @11:13AM (#12841846)
    This is Sony's way of lewering people into using DRM technologies, once you're hooked in, the noose will slowly tighten.
  • The problem with DRM, and the reason it will never be completely unbreakable, is because of the following. With any data, that you are trying to prevent someone from reading, you need An encryption algorithm, and a key. You have to keep the key secret from those who you do not want reading the data. However, in this case, you must give the person buying the CD the key, or store the key somewhere, in order for them to listen to the music. So, the person always has the key, which makes any attempt at DRM
  • by It doesn't come easy (695416) * on Friday June 17, 2005 @11:21AM (#12841929) Journal
    Sony BMG will send them an email with a "back door" measure on how to work around the copy protection

    Note: This was in the context of copying a Sony DRM protected song to your iPod...

    This is a tacit admission by Sony that copying the song from the CD to another device falls within the realm of fair use (meaning you don't need Sony's permission to copy it yourself). Obviously most informed consumers believe that but some testamony in recent lawsuits have been arguing against it. It also means that Sony may have a difficult time suing anyone for breaking the new DRM if they plan to tell you how to do so themselves. It, however, could be a problem with the DMCA, as Sony might be telling you how to circumvent Apple's DRM. Should be interesting to see if Apple responds.
  • 1. Sony puts in copy protection

    2. Sony will CONTACT YOU to tell you how to circumvent it

    3. Sony WILL get bent when this ends up on the internet etc...

    4. RIAA lawsuits ensue.

    IANAL, but the problem here is that if the content provider tells you intentionally how to break the copy protection, they're inducing you to violate their IP. It's the digital equivalent of a cop approaching you, handing you a joint and saying, "Don't worry. I'm not going to arrest you if you smoke this", then arresting th

  • The record companies have put themselves into a difficult position with the absolutist stance on music copying. This stance is basically a physical metaphor imposed on a political position. In the 20th century, music sold in individual units of physical media with a specific amount of music available on each piece of media. This model of x minutes of music on 1 disk/tape selling for x dollars is a symetric and efficent business model that created a global music recording sales industry valued in tens of
  • From TFA:
    "You're not going to stop tracks getting on P2P sites," he added. "It's designed to stop casual piracy ... It's not saying you'll stop people from doing it, but it makes people stop and think."

    I really, really do hope people stop and think about statements like this, and what it means to equate fair use with piracy.

  • by RealProgrammer (723725) on Friday June 17, 2005 @11:25AM (#12841970) Homepage Journal
    1. Unsanctioned copies help sell your product by exposing it to a wider audience.
    2. You can't stop people from making copies, law or no law.
    3. Copy protection makes your product more difficult to use and so discourages its use. If people are discouraged from using your product they've bought, they tend not to buy anything else from you.
    4. Trying to use lawywers to stop copying wastes everyone's time and money.
    5. Trying to stop copying through technical obstacles wastes your time and money, but it also hinders technical development that could add real value to your product.

    I've got over 1,500 vinyl albums of music of all types, over 1,000 of which I've never played. I've bought them at garage sales and auctions for maybe $100 total. I'm going through and listening, digitizing the ones I like.

    So to the Inferno with you, Sony, and may your cash registers melt in the flames of your corporate soul.

  • What you will about this but at least they make a distinction between dedicated pirates and Joe Average user who wants to make a copy or two. Unfortunately, their DRM targets the latter. Seems a bit reverse but at least they're no longer in denial that Joe Average user isn't some "communist, anti-American, terrorist-loving" pirate.
  • 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.
  • by m85476585 (884822)
    Once I bought a CD with really bad copy protection. It wouldn't even play in a regular CD player... Until I burned a copy of it!
  • - First, I don't like protcted disks, no matter that they can be easily circumvented.
    - Secondly, I don't like protected disks which don't say what you are allowed or not, just say they have protection. Very many of these are around. You just take the disk, it says it's protected. I have no choice about it. If I knew I can only rip it into wma, I'd never buy it to start with. If the protection itself is annoyance enough, they also force a fragin' format on you.
    - Why wma ? Of course I know the answer to tha
  • So, you know people are going to pirate your music. You also know people are going to run into problems with DRM.

    So why go to the expense of developing a DRM that is going to block no-one, and furthermore then paying people salaries to explain to people how to work around the DRM you developed?

    The only explanation is what others have said, that it's some kind of trick. No way is Sony the business so dumb as to throw bad money after worse without an ulterior motive.
  • From the article:

    "This technology is a speed bump. It's trying to dissuade the average consumer from making as many copies as they like," said First4Internet Chief Executive Mathew Gilliat-Smith.

    and now to quote Cory Doctorow [haughey.com]:

    This is a fallacy for two reasons: one technical, and one social. They're both bad for society, though.

    Here's the technical reason: I don't need to be a cracker to break your DRM. I only need to know how to search Google, or Kazaa, or any of the other general-purpose searc

  • by LionKimbro (200000) on Friday June 17, 2005 @11:48AM (#12842278) Homepage
    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. [usemod.com] "Please don't cross over this," it tells you. You can, and some do, but most don't.

    It's called Soft Security, [usemod.com] 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.
    • You're wrong because your analogy assumes you have no right to cross the line. In the US, at least, the Home Recording Act and fair use allows us to make copies of our music and share them with friends and family. Any hindrance to that should not be allowed. Simply put, ripping a CD you legally bought is perfectly legal.

      Under your analogy, it'd be perfectly reasonable for someone to put a barrier keeping you from entering your own property. Under property law that'd be a nuisance and would clearly be i
      • Anita, I disagree - I think parent post is exactly correct - and notes exactly what you say, that is, that in some cases you do have the right to cross the line. I believe that was exactly the parent posts' point: it's a speed bump to tell you to think about it - but if you've thought about it, and still decide that you have the right to proceed, you actually can Makes total sense to me

If a thing's worth having, it's worth cheating for. -- W.C. Fields

Working...