SDMI Gets a New Name

An Anonymous Coward writes: "EETimes is reporting that a new group, the Digital Media Device Association (DMDA), is looking to pick up where SDMI left off. 'The group intends to address interoperability and content-protection issues for digital audio devices that were left unresolved when the Secure Digital Music Initiative ceased activities last year.' Some ideas just won't die."

DMDA

[LSD-OBS]

sounds a lot like a certain stimulant a few friends of mine were using this weekend.

SATAN

[oni]

Why don't they just cut to the chase and call it something like the Secure Audio Technology Applications Network

"Congress today passed legislation that will require SATAN be a part of all new PCs"

"Dude, I just got SATAN so I can listen to N'Sync"

May be in response to Hollings' directive?

[Masem]

They don't list specific groups involved, but the article states that it's mostly hardware (both computer and audio) that are working on this. Given that a few weeks ago, Sen. Hollings held the SSSCA over the industry like the Sword of Damecles, this could be activity in response to that build to hold the gov't at bay as they take steps to develop their own messures.

Re:May be in response to Hollings' directive?

[soulcuttr]

Sen. Hollings held the SSSCA over the industry like the Sword of Damecles

That's some great imagery. The only problem is that in my mind Sen. Hollings keeps toppling over from the weight of the sword.

-Sou|cuttr

Convenient name

[booch]

DMDA is close enough to DMCA that we can just take our anti-DMCA stuff and just change one letter.

Re:Convenient name

[PolyDwarf]

DMDA is also close enough to DVDA, which aptly describes what the entertainment industry wants to do to the PC.

(If you don't know what DVDA is, watch Orgazmo)

Re:Convenient name

[Tackhead]

DMDA is close enough to DMCA that we can just take our anti-DMCA stuff and just change one letter.

...until the DMEA seizes your hardware and hauls you away.

First a law - DMCA - to render fair use impotent.

Then a hardware standard - DMDA - to make fair use impossible.

Then an agency - DMEA - because fair use will no longer be illegal.

Re:Convenient name

[Tackhead]

> First a law - DMCA - to render fair use impotent.
>
>Then a hardware standard - DMDA - to make fair use impossible.
>
>Then an agency - DMEA - because fair use will no longer be illegal.

Erm, because fair use will no longer be legal. Serves me right for not previewing before I post.

Not that it matters - by the time the DMDA comes out, I'll have enough noncompliant hardware grandfathered to last me a lifetime. And if the hardware isn't grandfathered, I'll move to a saner jurisdiction.

To be followed by SADD

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

The Secure Audio Detention Device will consist of a special earplug that decrypts the audio content, and plays it back at a low volume, to ensure that only a single licensed listener can hear it.

A body-temperature sensor and an earwax-detector will both ensure that the device is not used outside of the ear canal, where illegal signal capture might take place.

The chemical signature of the user's earwax will also be monitored, to ensure that the device is not being shared by multiple users, in violation of the License Agreement.

Re:To be followed by SADD

[Crazy Ol' Coot]

"With our new secure brain implant, anyone can enjoy our content in the comfort of their own brains, with no chance they could transmit it to another. Of course, to be fully effective, we must disable the vocal component of each such entity, so as not to have any incidental transmission. The chance for piracy from a singing entity is too great."

Biggest laugh: This technology "encourages competition and allows consumers greater freedom of choice."

DMDA? Sounds alot like DVDA

[SaxMaster]

Am I the only one that thinks DMDA sounds too much like DVDA?

For the unenlightened amongst us, DVDA stands for Doube-Vaginal Double-Anal penetration. Which, fittingly enough is what the RIAA and her member companies want to do to us with DMDA. DMDA could be Double-Mouth Double-Anal :)

Confusing....

[Godwin O'Hitler]

The article talks about DMDA but links to something called the "Portable and Networked Audio Device Manufacturers Association" (though it qualifies this latter name with "as it has been temporarily dubbed").

Anyway, assuming we're talking about the same beast in both cases, this passage:

Co-organizer White said the group will take up where SDMI left off on portable devices but that it will work to avoid the mistakes that SDMI made.

The group "isn't a redo of SDMI," said White, who will be the new group's executive director.

Industry observers believe that SDMI grew too large for its structure and had too diverse a membership base to agree on anything. For instance, the group could not reach consensus on a standard framework for digital audio content protection for portable devices.

That was because the record labels held so much power in the group that their concerns about content piracy became the priority, some observers claim. SDMI became inactive shortly after executive director Leonardo Chiariglione left in January 2001.

(bold letters are mine)

This doesn't strike me as a 100% Bad Thing.

First because there is no way a computer can be described as a "portable" nor as a "networked" audio device. Sure it can be used as one, but it would be unreasonable to describe it as such since plenty of computers are neither portable nor networked.
Second, they implicitly state that piracy/sucking up to the record companies is not their priority. If you read the rest of the two articles, the accent is by far and away on interoperability.

So if there's really a need for an association to get involved with this sort of thing, this one seems to have as a good a perspective as you could hope for on the matter.

Or am I just being naive?

At least it sounds better

[Noel]

I always wondered why anyone would invite a technology to "sod me" -- I know I wouldn't. At least "Dumb, Duh" is still a useful description of the goals.