Recording Industry Hopes To Hinder CD Burning 869
Decaffeinated Jedi writes "News.com reports that the recording industry is currently testing technology that would limit the number of times that a given CD (or copies of that CD) could be burned. The idea is to let consumers 'make a limited number of copies of their music -- enough for a car, a vacation home and a friend, for example -- without allowing for uncontrolled duplication.' Currently, Macrovision and SunnComm International are developing competing versions of such 'secure burning' technology, with BMG Music Group already testing the latter company's software."
They just don't get it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The release gained some prominence after a Princeton student demonstrated that the protections could be easily evaded simply by pushing a computer's Shift key while loading the CD.
The solution to piracy is never going to find success in copy protection. As in the example, above, there is always going to be a "workaround."
I think the RIAA has to make their case to their customers in a manner that is compelling and, yes, actually encourages voluntary compliance. You should be able to make copies of a CD that you bought. It is not right, however, to make 25 copies for friends. However, slippery a slope as it is, I think it is probably okay to make a copy for a friend or two. But, it's a slippery slope and many would take issue with me.
The solution is sociological, not hardware/software.
Happy Trails!
Erick
Re:They just don't get it.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The solution to piracy is never going to find success in copy protection. As in the example, above, there is always going to be a "workaround."
There may be workarounds, but there will also be a fair number of people who will not want to put forth the effort to deal with such workarounds. It is a matter of convenience.
Now, where it gets interesting is whether the duplicates will also have copy limits. If you dupe an original and the copy scheme does not transfer to the duplicate, then what has the scheme accomplished. Nothing.
As for me, I like to dupe my CDs mainly so I can use them in the car without jeopardizing the originals. A copy limit would not hinder me in that regard.
Re:Convenience factor negation... (Score:5, Insightful)
It only takes one person to create a DRM-less digital copy & post it on the latest P2P network... convenience factor negated.
Re:Convenience factor negation... (Score:5, Insightful)
The people who are most likely to be deterred by these measures are those who have the least to gain by circumventing them: the people who have already purchased the CD. The real pirates have a great deal to gain by breaking the DRM, and they won't be stopped. The worst case scenario for them is making a digital copy from the analog output.
You're pretty much guaranteed to get DRM free copies distributed by actual pirates, so the music will get out there. Except now you've inconvenienced your paying customer, who can no longer burn a CD for his car, or download to his MP3 player. Now your paying customer, who in giving you his money has already indicated his desire to be honest and do the right thing, has an incentive to seek black market sources for the music. "Damn, I can't make a copy if this CD I just bought!" "Haven't you heard of Kazaa? Just download it from there." And he'll do so guilt free because he's already paid for the music. Maybe he didn't know how to get pirated music before, but now he does.
Next time, will he go through the song and dance of fighting the DRM restrictions on the CD, or just click that little icon on his desktop?
I think today I'll go to my boss and propose spending millions of dollars developing a technology that annoys our customers, doesn't effectively protect our IP, does nothing to improve our profit margins and exposes us to legal risk. Let's see how long I keep my job.
Re:They just don't get it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that with computers the workaround can either be automated to be as easily used as the existing tools (look at how easy it is for a tech-inept fool like me to watch a DVD on GNU/Linux) or one person "cracks" the software/data stream/whatever and passes an unrestricted copy along (look at how easy it was for a peek/poke wannabe like myself to play games on my Commodore 64 back in the 80s).
If it only takes one smart guy to destroy the restrictions, then those restrictions may as well not exist. We are looking at an industry where insiders are doing things like leaking Metallica albums and movies pre-release. Those copies don't have any restrictions built into the data or the software.
But I have to agree, I bet most of us would barely notice a copy restriction that explicitly allowed the making of first generation copies (presumably as many first generation copies as wanted-- one to CD for the car, cabin, whatever, one to the mp3 server, one to the iPod or other portable, one for a friend here and there, etc). This is how it works for MiniDisc, I believe, and it's what I would expect here.
Re:They just don't get it.... (Score:5, Funny)
yep, goddamn that stupid fscking shift key. that's why i never use capital letters, too inconvenient.
Re:They just don't get it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the point that really needs to be driven home to the RIAA. I hate having to go through and make sure all tracks are in right spot through www.cdnow.com or some other online store if they aren't explicitly tagged on the files (which is usually the case). If the music industry would realize if they really dropped the price of cds down to a reasonable level, say under $10 after tax, their sales would sky rocket. As someone had mentioned in a previous article the golden sell for Americans is the $5-$10 range. This is where most fast food and other meals are priced and many of us rationalize spending around that amount because a cd seems much more of a better investment (can be used over and over) than a simple meal. Additionally we can easily avoid spending $5-$10 elsewhere by skipping some other impluse buy and therefore are still even for the week in our budget.
Re:They just don't get it.... (Score:3, Funny)
Sub-$10 range (Score:5, Insightful)
When the MPAA first released titles on DVD, they were in the $20 range. They lowered prices when releases of older movies came out on DVD, many to the $10-$12 range, and low and behold, people buy them. They buy them in droves! I know people who bought their first DVD player a year ago who are already up to eighty titles, and they don't even watch movies nightly.
As much as I hate region coding, their prosecution of Jon Johansen, CSS, and the like, I can justify buying their products because I still get my money's worth most of the time. The $5.99 bargain bins at Walmart, Target, and many of the movie/media stores only help the matter. They understood that the prices they charged for Laserdiscs ($30-$70 depending on the title and the packaging method) just was not going to work if they wanted widespread adoption.
I know that it's not entirely fair to compare DVDs and CDs, because of the size of the content of most DVDs, but they're still little flat discs that are packaged and sold similarly. While CDs take up less space, if they were cheap enough they'd have a hard time keeping them on the shelves. Everyone would have that new hot CD because they could justify spending a little more than a meal on it, versus a week's food budget.
Re:Sub-$10 range (Score:5, Insightful)
From Amazon.com: High Fidelity DVD [amazon.com] - $14.99 New, $7.99 used. High Fidelity Soundtrack CD [amazon.com] - $14.99 New, $8.99 used.
When the prices are that out of whack, the comparison is entirely fair.
Re:They just don't get it.... (Score:5, Interesting)
whether the duplicates will also have copy limits.
Well, back in the 80's the TRS-80's TRSDOS operating system supported a scheme like this. Your floppy could be "backup limited" and the system would permit only, say, 3 or 5 copies, after which the OS's disk duplication software would flag an error. In that case the OS would not copy a back-up copy.
How much this copyright protection helped Tandy realize its destiny as a world-class computer maker is left as an exercise for the reader.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:furthermore... (Score:4, Insightful)
And as for the copies, how does it know what generation it is? AFAIK it has no way of telling the copy software to decrement a counter or anything like that.
I'm really just trying to figure out how this whole scheme is supposed to work without relying on a centralized "DRM Server" to keep track of copies.
Re:furthermore... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:furthermore... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:furthermore... (Score:3, Informative)
man 1 dd [openbsd.org]
How is a raw, bitwise copy of anything going to degrade over time?
... and when this turns out to be the solution, how long will it be before some one ports dd to Win32 & adds a nice GUI to it?
CD's aren't 'secure', and I don't see how they can be made 'secure' and backwards compatible. The (industry) perfered medium for distributing music is going to have to change before they can really enforce any kind of non- or limited-copying scheme.
Re:furthermore... (Score:4, Insightful)
and you know what? If these fuckers would only do something to make people want to buy the CD, say by lowering the price, or maybe actually producing good music, then there wouldn't be an issue. But no, it's easier to spend billions of dollars on R&D than it is to actually find and develop artists, instead of just spoonfeeding us the trite crap that they are now. BAH.
<singing>But I'm just preaching to the choir...</singing>
Uh... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is Slashdot, where people think The Who is still a relevant band.
Your argument makes no sense anyway. If today's music is so crap, why do so many people pirate it? It's a copout to say, "Well, maybe if they would just produce good music." That's not even the issue. Piracy isn't right just because you aren't a member of the MTV demographic anymore. You're implying piracy will go down if they make good music, which begs the question--why are people pirating music they think is bad?
Oh, that's right, it's an irrelevant issue and you're just scapegoating the music industry in order to justify piracy and ignore artist rights. Slashdotters have yet to legally or morally justify pirating an artist's music.
Re:Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's actually a pretty accurate statement. Not so long ago, most music appealed to most of the population. Call it cheezy or corny, but entire families would listen to the stuff they now play in Branson. I'm sure there's always been "kid music" that adults hate, but that was the exception rather than the rule.
Now, however, I challenge you to find any mainstream music that is halfway palatable to anyone over the age of 30. The music industry has completely abandoned two thirds of the population with the excuse that older people don't buy music. Newsflash: I have a lot more money than 99.99% of teenagers. I think nothing of dropping cash on a nice satellite TV system, so what makes you think that I would steer a few of my entertainment dollars your way if you made music that I actually enjoyed?
I will never buy anything by Usher, 50 Cent, or Limp Bizkit. As long as the major labels market to kids, they won't receive a penny from me. Do you really think that I have a radically different opinion than the majority?
You're implying piracy will go down if they make good music, which begs the question--why are people pirating music they think is bad?
Most people aren't. A lot of kids are pirating the junk that they hear on their local ClearChannel affiliate. Trading music has almost always been a "youth thing"; older people tend to buy the things they want to hear. It's almost like saying that most people love Bud Light because they'll happily pay $5 for admission to a keg party; it completely ignores the huge portion of the populace that stays home and pays full price for the good stuff.
you got it (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as I am concerned, they are economic terrorists, using bribe money to get laws passed, and other general goonish behavior. And they have always been that way, too, as far back as I can remember, always using bribes, black mails, pay offs, etc to maintain a lucrative monopoly.
So, I just boycott paid for music in general. I just quit. I listen to it on the radio, maybe there's some advertising during the music shows that will get me to go check out a product, but as for paying for copies-I just "say no". They want to get real on what stuff really coists, get a clue on a real business model, I might reconsider, but so far, everything they do has pushed me further into the "I won't buy it anymore" camp.
I really wish they did. (Score:5, Insightful)
Voluntary compliance is the key. Make it so that we want to comply, and stop fighting the consumer drive.
It's been a while since I took Econ, but I will always remember the invisible hand theory. The market will ALWAYS force itself toward equilibrium.
Laws, unions, anything that unnaturally hinders the market breaks equilibrium. Forcing high prices on cds. Suing your customers into submission.
Why not let the market do what it does best, and go to that point of equilibrium where profit is maximized naturally? They're holding onto a cartel-type model and it's just not going to work.
Invisible hand link. (Score:3, Informative)
Adam Smith. I nearly forgot his ever-so-generic name.
Excellent scholar.
Re:I really wish they did. (Score:5, Interesting)
A good friend of mine is a music studio middle-manager and I bounced this idea off him:
Imagine if you could go to a web site, select some tracks from various artists, click on: burn and send, and the whole CD was burned on high quality disc, and custom jacket with lyrics made, and the whole thing shipped to the customer's house, including shipping, for 3.99 (yes, the whole CD).
He looked at me funny for a second and said: But we'd lose money!
To which I replied: You're losing money now.
Then it dawned on him that millions of people would love that, because for the price, it's cheaper to order it that way than to download off your favorite p2p, listen for quality, burn it, and go to kinko's to photocopy the artwork.
I asked him what it would take for the studios to implement a system like that, and he replied, half jokingly: An Act of Congress.
Supply and demand are where it's at. The market laws apply to all industries and all countries for all commodities. What makes music industry execs think they're immune to it?
They should go jump off a tall bridge and see if they're immune to the laws of gravity.
click on: burn and send (Score:5, Interesting)
One cost the RIAA complains about, that is legitimate, is the cost of distributing the recordings of CDs that turn out to be poor sellers.
Most music stores have a means to sample their catalog today, from small gizmos. That implies some form of readily accessable electronic storage. Now imagine that the record store of the future stocks only high-demand CDs, and the rest of the stock is stored, perhaps even on a cache basis. The store also has a (more expensive than consumer) machine that can burn CDs, apply high-quality artwork, print labels, and the like.
Want a high-demand CD? Pick it up, pay, and walk out with it.
Want a more garden-variety CD? Find it in the catalog, listen to a sample if you wish, and order it. (deposit optional part of the business model) Browse for 5 or 10 minutes, or go to another store. Come back, pay, and take it home.
Want something obscure, like the namesake of "It's a Beautiful Day"? Just like the garden-variety CD, except it may take a little longer to get the full contents into the cache from a remote server.
Oops, I should have patented this Business Method.
Wonder if a
IMHO something this simply thought-up should NOT be patentable. Iff there's some devil in the details that's not easily worked out, THAT may be patentable.
Re:click on: burn and send (Score:5, Interesting)
One should be able to do this kiosk-like, in a store. Or at a drive-through, or at a Starbux, a Border's, or while waiting in line at the bank.
Just like a photo booth.
Put in 3 dollars, select 12 tracks, wait 30 seconds, and voila! Your CD.
Re:click on: burn and send (Score:4, Insightful)
No one can know for sure whether a new artist is going to sell. But their job is to try to predict it the best they can by doing market research and having informed opinions on what a profitable artist is. Television studios, movie studios and book publishers all have to decide what to produce and what not to, and these industries aren't complaining about the "cost" of being wrong. Why should the music industry be any different?
Re:I really wish they did. (Score:3, Interesting)
He looked at me funny for a second and said: But we'd lose money!
To which I replied: You're losing money now.
Where is he losing money? The music industry is extremely profitable.
Sure, there are sales to individua
Re:I really wish they did. (Score:4, Informative)
If you have 2 options: Net $10M doing A and net $8M doing B, and you chose option B, even though you are $8M richer than before, you still lost $2M.
It's the difference between accounting and economic profit.
Music is a tradeable good. Tradeable goods follow the laws of the market.
Competitive pressure exists: I have 5 gigs of music. They are competing for my time. I want to listen to something new more than I want to listen to something I already have? I have 50+ hours of music already (plus a 5 foot high stack of CDs I haven't ripped yet). When I want to listen to something, I don't rush to the store to buy the latest and greatest. I launch winamp and scroll. If nothing catches my fancy, then I look in my CDs. If nothing there either, then I figure I'm depressed and I go get a book and sit down to read, or call a friend. I rarely if ever get the urge to go buy music at $16 bux a CD (or 9).
This is their competition: existing, already sold music.
Just like microsoft and office: people don't want to pay $399 to get new software since the old software is already bought (sunk cost) and does mostly the same.
Music is the same.
If people build their 2000 track music collection off p2p, then the music industry has a hard time enticing them to buy anything new at the store.
For me, the price has to be $4 or less or I won't even consider buying.
And it's not because I can't afford it, it's just that new music is not that valuable to me anymore, since I have so much music already.
(I plan to spend 30 on LOTR's ROTK, like I did the other two, since there's nothing like it out there. I'll even buy the original star wars trilogy DVD)
I haven't bought a music CD since Sting's "Desert Rose", and even then I was not extremely impressed.
Re:I really wish they did. (Score:5, Interesting)
o buy a package deal (license+1medium) in the store and just use it;
o buy a license and make my own copy legally, from someone else's copy or a download;
o buy additional licenses and make more copies when I want 'em;
o make licensed copies on any medium which suits me.
All with the blessing of the copyright owners.
Yes, I would buy licenses if they were sensibly priced.
Re:I really wish they did. (Score:4, Informative)
You know, none of the stuff that you have listed needs any license since the right to do so is already granted by the current copyright laws (or at least in most countries - the UK may be an exception)
The "content industry" is trying to brainwash us into thinking that we do not have any right to copy. But we have.
Re:I really wish they did. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps because the record companies have a better grasp of economics than you: what the market does best is _minimise_ profit. Free markets benefit the consumer, not the producer. If someone is making a profit on something, then in a free market someone else can sell the same thing for less (but still making a profit), and gain market share. The result is that in a perfect market, prices will stabilise at a level at which nobody makes any profit.
Of course companies know this and that's why they do everything they do to distort or escape the market. Fundamentally there's only three ways out: either gain a monopoly or join a cartel (microsoft, OPEC), get the government to bankroll you through subsidies (most western agriculture), or stay ahead of the game through innovation and/or strong branding (Apple, BMW).
Once your business gets stuck in the commodity rut, then your margins are so low you can only hope to make money out of massive volumes. That's why you don't find any small companies manufacturing non-specialist consumer electronics (eg TVs,DVDs): margins are too low. The RIAA is scared shitless that if they lose control of the music business, music will head down the commodity path and prices will collapse. Since they're acting to protect the interests of their shareholders, you can't really blame them for doing everything they can to prevent this. You CAN blame your legislators for failing to stand up to them, though.
Re:I really wish they did. (Score:5, Insightful)
2) This means you can also make money as the lowest cost producer at a desirable quality level instead of being a monoplist/unethical company.
3) Your interpretatino of commoditty businesses is ass-backwards. You do NOT need mass quantites. Instead what happens is the company that is the lowest cost producer at a given quality level drives everyone out of business, because only they can profit at that price. So they quickly GROW to be huge. Later on they take advantage of some scaling advantages, but that is secondary, not primary. Only companies in small markets (i.e. specialist markets that you excluded.in your example) can not grow that big because their pond is so small. If you personally come up with a better, cheaper business model then Dell, then you could start up a lower cost producer that will within 5 years be bigger then Dell. That is after all what Dell did against the big boys that had all the "economies of scale" advantage.
4) Music is ALREADY a commodity market. The RIAA wishes it isn't, but their wishes are meaningless. They have tried to use laws to block the free market from treating it that way but their efforst are doomed to failure. Songs are worth less than $1 / song, and the market will eventually force the RIAA to realize this.
5) The RIAA is not a producer of consumer goods. They USED to be a producer of retail consumer goods (stored music), and as such they abused their serfs (musicians). They are now a producer of commercial services for their freed serfs(advertising, legal rights, etc. etc.) . They are scrambling to try to provide more and better services for their workers, but have a history of abusing them, so are having a tough time making the transistion. Worse their profits as a producer of retail consumer goods was huge and they are being babies about accepting the much lower profit margins they deserve as commerical services companies.
Re:I really wish they did. (Score:3, Insightful)
Laws, unions, anything that unnaturally hinders the market breaks equilibrium. Forcing high prices on cds. Suing your customers into submission.
I took econ too, and that's not what I got out of it. The market does indeed find an equilibrium, but sometimes that equilibrium is a monopoly.
Scale effects and natural monopolies make it so that in almost every produc
Re:They just don't get it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They just don't get it.... (Score:5, Interesting)
It already has.
Right now, it is easy to pirate a CD because there were no anti-piracy measures implemented when the format was developed. The installed base has become too large to ignore so CDs are still distributed today. But then Apple came through with iTunes and all-of-a-sudden, we've got a new format that is gaining ground while the old stand-by is losing ground. When the old format has lost enough ground, the industry will drop it as a supported format and we'll be stuck with the new.
Everyone on
Other than my DVD player and my PC, I no longer own any native CD player device. It isn't necessary anymore. This is what the industry has been waiting for.
Re:They just don't get it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think they even need to do that. Lemme quote something else you said here:
" It is not right, however, to make 25 copies for friends."
Despite how fast CD burners are, they're still not fast enough to make 25 copies without wanting to tell your friends go buy it you cheapskate. CDs are cheap enough that this really isn't worthwhile. It's one thing to make that occasional copy for a friend, but 25? Ugh. I couldn't even stand burning 25 discs to backup my precious porn.
"The solution is sociological, not hardware/software."
I respectfully disagree. The solution is economical. A good deal of what the industry calls piracy is really an expression of demand. People want individual songs, people want lower prices, and they want an easy way to try out new tunes. If they want people to be 'legit', then a.) they need to market iTunes, Rhapsody, etc a good deal more and b.) If those aren't enough, then look into what else people want, maybe CD kiosks where you can make a custom CD.
People are not, by nature, dishonest. People are happy to pay for something as long as they enjoy what they're getting. If they stop treating them like thieves and start treating them like a new market to cater to, they'll enjoy higher profits and fewer dishonest trades.
Re:They just don't get it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's interesting that you make the point of scanning and reprinting. How many people do you know will photocopy an interesting magazine article or newspaper clipping to give to a friend? I certainly have seen it plent of times.
This is the important point: The rights of the copyright holder are LESS IMPORTANT than the goal of getting the information to the public. It's a balance. The copyright holder does not need to be paid for every single copy that takes place, no matter how much record labels whine. It's about reasonable compensation as an incentive to release works to the public, NOT about guaranteeing a revenue stream.
Re:They just don't get it.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well really it is. The purpose of copyright law is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts" but the WAY that this progress is promoted is by.. (wait for it)... generating money for copyright holders(!)
You are right though that making money for the copyright holder is the MEANS to the end and not the end itself. Copyright law needs to be extensively reformed. The current time limit (70 years after the death of the artist) is FAR too long, so long that it is becoming a BARRIER to the "progress of useful arts"
The copyright holder does not need to be paid for every single copy that takes place,
No, they DO. I make my living as a "copyright holder" - I am an illustrator and a designer. I sell copyrights on my work to my clients, I have often had people "steal" my work, using it commercially without compensating me... my clients competitor is getting my work for free. Art for it's own sake may be a labor of love (product illustrations on the other hand never are) but I still need to eat (thus the product illustrations). When my clients competitors just use my work without compensating me, I'm sorry but that IS and SHOULD BE a crime.
There is a certain amount of hypocrisy here. If Microsoft just lifted GNU code wholesale and turned around and sold it without honoring the terms of the license there would be outrage. But why? doesn't information want to be free? Why can't they just do what they want with it freely (making their own alterations and selling the binary result for a profit)? Free software is only possible with Intellectual property law backing it up. You can give it away under CONDITIONS because you OWN it (at least for a time).
Re:They just don't get it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
CD burning technology has been widespread for years now, as has file sharing. And it is a fact that CD sales continued to climb, despite illegal price fixing on the part of the record labels, until the demise of Napster. Let's face it, most people aren't making enough copies to warrant this sort of action by the labels.
Do you realize that for all the moaning and complaining the labels do, they are still making profits that would make any small business jealous? Never ever forget, that this stopped being about money a long time ago. Money is a secondary issue now. What these companies are really after now is control.
The most interesting bit is that in the grand scheme of things, speaking from an economic theory standpoint, it doesn't matter if consumers share music with 1 or 10 or 100 people. Most consumers will share less than 2% of their CDs with less than 5 people, and a portion of that sharing will generate new sales. So it all becomes a wash in the end.
The time, money, and energy the labels are spending trying to shut down music sharing is a utter waste, and won't even pay for itself in the end.
Cool, corporations control our freedoms now. (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh please, they are unconcerned with how we feel. They are only concerned with how much money they will make. I don't see how not releasing a copy-protected CD because people will balk is being concerned w/our feelings.
I wasn't aware that free-use included allowing a limit to be placed on something you have purchased. Making a few copies for home use sounds good but it's all bullshit. They are trying to limit one of the few "freedoms" we still have.
"I think the labels have been relaxing a little in terms of usage rules," said Liz Brooks, vice president of business development at Buy.com's music division.
I realize that this quote comes from a VP at Buy.com but I wasn't aware that the labels got to decide what rules we had to follow regarding fair use. Wow.
Just remember all this when you are supporting the cartels. Your money goes to developing methods and laws to limit your freedoms and to supporting suits against your fellow man.
Re:Cool, corporations control our freedoms now. (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct. Just like any other corporation, they are concerned with the Profit and Loss statement as priority #1. If they aren't, they need to be fired. The reason why they don't care how anyone feels is because those same people that hate them continue to purchase the product; so obviously public opinion doesn't make a gnat's ass of a difference. (in their minds)
Right about now, everyone hates the oil companies, but do you think they are going to trip over themselves to lower gas prices so everyone will like them again?
These simple realities are lost on Slashdot.
By the way, it's "fair use" not "free use." The copyright holder still owns the work, not the public. There is a subtle difference, but an important one.
Um... (Score:3, Informative)
Um, no... the copyright holder does NOT necessarily own the work (e.g. if they decide to sell it to me), they own the sole right to copy (that what copyright means) said work. They do NOT have a right to tell me how/when I can use their work, except in the case of me trying to distributing that work (or work derived from it) -- they do NOT have any rights beyond that.
Re:Cool, corporations control our freedoms now. (Score:3, Insightful)
Good feelings = good customers = many purchases.
Bad feelings = bad customers = no purchases.
This would be very easy to defeat (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This would be very easy to defeat (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This would be very easy to defeat (Score:5, Insightful)
And then some bright spark would crack the encryption and they'd be back to square 1.
Further erosion of the value propostion won't help (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Embraces and promotes the downloading channel (a la iTunes, et al).
2. Finds more ways to diversify and vary the traditional physical product (CDs). Packaging, boxed sets, picture disks, collectables, etc. The music itself has to be just one component of a well-integrated marketing. Every 10th CD will include a certificate for a second free CD!
3. Uses their distribution and marketing clout to create and promote stars--revenues then come from a variety of marketing and event activities (the Grateful Dead made most of their money from touring and even allowed "bootlegging'). The product has to evolve from being bits to being the magic of the music experience (or whatever).
The cat is out of the bag and there's no putting it back in. For better or worse, the ripping and online swapping thing will simply never be defeated. Its kind of like the "bazaar" model of development that ESR speaks of and no matter what the industry does, the "community" will find a way to crack it.
They can either die a slow painful death or evolve. In the new age, the viable product is the "rock star" (or interesting composer or beautiful diva), not the bits they spew. It'll take some work.
Re:Further erosion of the value propostion won't h (Score:5, Insightful)
I can name four fundamental changes to their model which will stop most piracy overnight.
Of course, none of the above will ever happen. It stopped being about the money a long time ago. Now its about control - control over culture. Any of the above changes would reduce their control, and effectively eliminate their ability to dictate who becomes a "phenomenon" and who is relegated to back-shelf status.
Re:Further erosion of the value propostion won't h (Score:3, Interesting)
Coffee Cart Man: Hey buddy. You forgot your change.
Joe Moore: [Takes the change] Makes the world go round.
Bobby Blane: What's that?
Joe Moore: Gold.
Bobby Blane: Some people say love.
Joe Moore: Well, they're right, too. It is love. Love of gold.
They want control so they can squeeze every last penny out of you that they can. The more control they have the more gold they get! This is why you plan won't work, almost a
Re:Further erosion of the value propostion won't h (Score:3, Insightful)
It didn't work for DVDs. It certainly won't work for music.
Give a greater percentage of the money to the artist, and take the costs for the things the label supposedly provides (marketing, production, distribution) out of the label's share instead of the artist's.
I don't see how this has anything to do w/anything. *MOST* people could give two flying shits about the artist and how much money they make. I am one of them. I support free music.
Re:Further erosion of the value propostion won't h (Score:3, Insightful)
*MOST* people could give two flying shits about the artist and how much money they make. I am one of them. I support free music.
Wow.
Most people *I* talk to have the exact opposite opinion. They feel ripped off not because the artist is getting rich off of CD sales, but because the middle-men are taking the majority of the cash. In fact, most people *I* talk to would rather download a complete album from $P2P_APP and send the artist $5 directly via mail.
But hey, if you feel that the artists don't dese
What you say? (Score:5, Insightful)
It didn't work for DVDs. It certainly won't work for music.
What the hell are you talking about. You can get most DVD's now for between $10 to $20, and people are buying a HUGE number of DVD's, with copying issues being only a footnote. Consider how much work goes in to producing a DVD (never mind the movie) vs. producing a CD, and that the prices are generally worse for CD's than movies!
DVD's are showing EXACTLY why reducing prices would work for music!
Re:What you say? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Further erosion of the value propostion won't h (Score:4, Interesting)
This is an excellent point. DVDs loaded with extra features are now, often, cheaper than the soundtrack CD for the same movie. And compared to the DVD content, the CD content's trivial to track down on any P2P service.
So you're charging more for something with less value which the black market can provide more easily. And you expect anyone to buy your product WHY?
Re:Further erosion of the value propostion won't h (Score:3, Insightful)
Some might say that this is their way of trying to kill this distribution channel.
Re:Further erosion of the value propostion won't h (Score:3, Insightful)
But that's what the RIAA would hve you believe IS bootlegging - particularly the "trading".
Analog Hole, but nice try (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Analog Hole, but nice try (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Analog Hole, but nice try (Score:3, Funny)
>will listen to, but that makes geeks and
>audiophiles sick.
Too late, they've already done it. This would explain why music sales dropped through the floor when all the good bands stopped getting radio time, replaced with this garbage we have now.
Re:Analog Hole, but nice try (Score:3, Insightful)
You raise an interesting point, in that I recently shopped for a high-end audio system.
At the store, I was taken to a listening room with various speaker configurations, to get a feel of the different quality levels of each system.
The salesperson played various music CDs, and I thought I could hear some strange background noise, and the salesperson agreed. We checked with a more knowledgeable guy at the store, and it came down to the actual recording quality of the CD.
The
Great. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Great. (Score:3, Funny)
-N
I have a better idea... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I have a better idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
Survey Says... (Score:4, Informative)
2002 Lawsuit againts SunnComm [com.com]
Good discussion on DRM [matthew.ath.cx]
The problem with trying to protect information with technology is that it has been shown repeatedly not to work. It only takes one person to crack the protection, and a million people can get a digital copy of the cracked work in days. During DEFCON, a digital security conference held in America last year, a Russian programmer called Dmitry Sklyarov illustrated this by showing how easy it was to circumvent the protection on Adobe's "E-Books". For this service to the public and to Adobe he was arrested and tried by the FBI, under the provision of the DMCA, the American version of the EUCD already part of US law since 1998.
Obviously, the same problem exists with the technology Macrovision & SunnComm are currently proposing. It just takes one person to create a DRM-less digital copy & post it on the latest P2P network...
I guess it's time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:this is for canada (Score:4, Funny)
Don't mind if... (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple's already done the work (Score:3, Insightful)
One copy is all you need (Score:3, Informative)
And all it takes is one pirate to rip the CD and put it on Kazaa.
Bizarro-World (Score:4, Funny)
Uh-huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, I'm sure this will work wonderfully. What do they plan to do, replace my CD-burning program? And how, exactly, are they going to do that? Is this just going to be another "corrupt strategic sectors of the CD" strategy? I thought they learned last time they tried that and discovered that a lot of CD players wouldn't read the CD at all. And never mind the fact that one could just rip to WAV files and then burn from there...
In short, it sounds to me like more snake oil salesmen peddling their wares to a desperate industry with a failed business model. I can't see any way to do this that's compatible with existing hardware and doesn't require control of the software. Which they most definitely don't have, no matter how much Microsoft wishes they did. To say nothing of the fact that anything implementing this "technology" would, by necessity, violate the Red Book CD Audio standard and run afoul of the same labelling laws as existing "methods".
What is the threat they are trying to defend (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about limitting piracy, but boosting sales. May seem the same thing, but in this case I don't think it is.
Who remembers the Copy-II-PC cards?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Back in the day, when ISA slots were all the rage, there was this neat little add-on board that you could install in your 286 called a Copy-II-PC card. Now this lil card didn't just pop up for no reason... this was THE way to do bit-for-bit copies of floppy disks. Now some software manufacturers tried their hardest to munge up a floppy in just the right way so that the ol' DOS "diskcopy" would fail, but the Copy-II-PC card didn't miss a beat. You had to tell it which bits to copy (even bits that seemed t
They never learn (Score:5, Insightful)
You guys sold corrupted and crippled disks to your customers.
Did it work? No
You tried this super duper water marking scheme.
Did it work? No, in fact Prof. Felten and his team broke it within a week
You're attacking your customers, insult them and threaten legal action..
Did it work? No, in fact you're pissing your customers off
You tried yet different approaches to "copy protect" the medium.
Did it work? No, in fact you piss people off, since the can't play their legally purchased product on their legally purchased car cd player
Is there no more new material available since you tried to force all those smart schemes on your customers?
Hell! of course! within minutes after availability on "cd"
So here's a free hint for you:
Why don't you make a product available, which is of good quality, cheap, readily available and doesn't force us to give up our privacy and suck your ducks just so that we can listen to a song? You know, sort of like Apple did it (and which rumour says you're in the process of killing by higer prices and enforced bundling).
Provide us with a convenient, realistically priced product, not being throttled by rediculous schemes (region coding anyone?). Stop insulting our intelligence and integrity and stop treating us like criminals and I'll promise:
We buy!
NB: Focusing on a good products might help sales too. There's only so much Britney and Back Street Boys you can listen to before throwing up.
Re:They never learn (Score:4, Insightful)
Provide us with a convenient, realistically priced product, not being throttled by rediculous schemes (region coding anyone?). Stop insulting our intelligence and integrity and stop treating us like criminals and I'll promise:
We buy!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I would love to be in the business where I had a monopoly on a product that everyone from 12 to 25 is willing to go out of their way to get, and my only problem was to figure out how to get people to pay for the product.
It is quite clear that the market wants more music than they can afford to obtain legally from a store. I hate to break it to the RIAA, but we all know that recording a CD and distributing it costs practically nothing. How many CDs would you buy if they were $2 a piece? How many new artists would you try if they were $2 a piece? How many CDs would you pirate if they were $2 a piece?
We are in a time where aquiring entertainment is relatively easy, and we have a decreasing attention span. Most Americans have at least 40 channels of TV to watch, upwards to 200 channels. We have the internet, where there is practically an infinite amount of entertainment that is instantly available. But I would guess that most Americans have less than 200 CDs. 200 CDs is only about 150 hours of entertainment, assuming that each CD is about 45 minutes in length, and that every track is worth listening to. I'm guestimating that people spend at least 5 to 7 hours a day on electronic entertainment in some form or another.
So, keep doing what your doing RIAA.
Rapid spreading (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, how receptive will people be to a CD that can only be copied 3 times over its lifetime? Let's say that you're 16 and buy the new Britney Spears CD to listen to. You make one copy for home and one for your new car. Years down the road you make 2 more copies for various reasons and then want to make a 4th dupe of the CD. Wait, you can't, because you're limited to 3 burns over the CD's lifetime. Or, more likely, the company that makes the burning software that keeps track of your burns goes out of business and suddently their servers and backend stuff to keep track of all of this breaks down. Or you run Linux and they don't make software for linux because there's not enough of a market for it. Or you have a Mac and they just don't support Macs. Or your original CD gets scratched, can you then make a copy of the copy w/out the DRM getting involved?
It's just too much for people to keep thinking about over the span of years owning music. This will fail.
OK, you changed my mind. (Score:4, Funny)
Very Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the problem(?) with DRM. You need to implement it in hardware AND software at the same time for it to be able to "work" (see: DVD Region Codes) and even then it's not really going to work (ibid).
Now TO BE FAIR, this idea has its heart in the right place. I don't think anyone but the most extreme zealots would argue that a person should be able to make 10,000 copies of a CD by another artist. But where is that number? It's higher than "just a couple" but probably around "several".
Or, this could be a way to make DRM seem friendly and logical, have everyone implement it, then change it so it's what we all know it's going to turn out to be: crippling and crippled.
So... how does this work? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean really, think about it. The only storage mechanism they have available is the local hard drive or the CD itself. Well, the CD itself would only work as a method IF the CD is actually in the burner. I sure don't use my burner READ the CD I am making a copy of, it goes into a DVD-ROM, hense no write laser. That leaves the hard drive, and unless they lockdown the CD to only be used on that 1 computer (which would actually mean it is no longer a CD), you could just:
a) delete the storage file with the current data causing it to believe the CD was never copied before
b) use a different computer
c) wipe your hard drive
d) use linux
e) use BSD
f) make an iso image of the CD and transfer that across the net...
This does nothing at all to stop actuall pirates (as can be proven by letter "f" in the above options). How long do you think it will take our current firmware hackers to do a diff on the updates and remove any "protection" from a fireware, especially in this day when people already have dual layer DVD burner firmware for DVD burners which the companies are not releasing the firmware for 6 months in order to get people to buy their $200 dual layer burner instead of their $80 single layer burner which has the same hardware...
Hard Problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Given that they haven't yet managed to create a CD that is uncopyable, what makes them think they're going to be able to make one that is copyable for a while and then becomes uncopyable? That's a much harder problem.
It'll be interesting to see what the technological approach is. An autoplayed Windows app on the CD would be the simplest route, but even that would be very difficult. It would have to somehow interfere with your CD burning application to store an updated "burn count" on the new CD -- or to prevent burning if the count had reached some threshold. I suppose rather than putting the burn count on the CD they could store the data on the net somewhere... that way they could keep track of how many copies of any particular purchased CD were made. This approach would obviously be trivial to defeat (shift key, for example).
A slightly better way might be to combine an "uncopyable" audio CD (assuming they can find a way to do that that works well) with an extra, compressed and encrypted copy of the audio and an autoplayed Windows app that can burn from this encrypted source. The big challenge here would be to use a standard CD burner to create a playable but not copyable audio CD to prevent next-generation copies, except via the same tool. Managing the burn count would be easy, this way, since it would be their burning software doing the work.
Outside of some sort of software on the CD that attempts to control burning, or a future MS OS that has the DRM built in, I don't see what they can possibly try to do.
Well, I suppose they could create a completely new audio format that is incompatible with CDs but has DRM features built in. Perhaps they could even do a decent job on the "security" (unlike the DVD standard), but then they'd have to figure out how to get consumers to buy it, and all of the equipment needed to play it. Not likely.
This is how they justify CD costs! (Score:3, Funny)
I haven't purchased a music CD in years and years and I don't plan to while this is going on. I am increasingly firm on this position since I was reminded of the problems of copy (playback) protection used on the latest generation of defective CDs when a friend in Japan bought a Janet Jackson CD and couldn't play it in her car without excessive skipping. I explained to her what the problem is and that she should return the CD for refund and wrote to the CD publisher.
CD Copy Software Support? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:CD Copy Software Support? (Score:3, Interesting)
Short answer: litigation.
Long answer: CD burning software companies will HAVE to support the new copyright schemes, lest they get blown out of the water by RIAA et al
stupid, out-of-touch motherfuckers... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have a vacation home. I do, however, have a job.
Reminds me of this quote from Jack Valenti: (Discussing the plausibility of anti-piracy advertisements featuring wealthy Hollywood figures) "I found the most convincing part to be the working stiffs, the guys who have a modest home and kids who go to public schools. They make $75,000 to $100,000 a year. That's not much to live on. I don't have to tell you that." (Entertainment Weekly, 18/04/2003) http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Jack_Valenti
As for limited copying, it sounds more and more like we're buying licenses to listen to music, not a shiny 5" disc. Tell you what: if I can buy a CD once and get free replacements for the rest of my life if the disc gets lost, stolen, or damaged in any way, and update it to new formats as they come out (I know a guy who has bought "Dark Side of the Moon" on 8-track, LP, cassette, and twice on CD) then maybe I'll start accepting the idea that you can dictate how I can listen to it. (PS: assuming the hardware is heavily DRM'd and otherwise useless, I'll expect free updates for my car and home systems to handle each new DRM scheme.) Until then, kiss my ass. As long as I'm buying the hardware and the discs, I do with them as I please.
Interesting quote (Score:3, Insightful)
"What labels have told us is that their agreements (with the download services) are relatively short term, a year or under, and so they believe that they have the capability to require (the burning tools to be added) next time around," Macrovision Chief Executive Officer Bill Krepick said.
To all those who were bitching about PlayFair [hymn-project.org], keep this in mind: if you do not strip away the DRM from the music that you bought for your use, some day the music studios will just yank the ability to play your tunes anywhere. This is why projects like PlayFair are so important: they let you control how you use your own media. All this talk about PlayFair leading to piracy is pure bullshit.
Why do this? (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as I have at least one legacy, DRM free machine lying about, I will be able to capture that tune digitally. How can you stop me? DRM all soundcards? Outlaw legacy hardware? Legislate mandatory Cochlear implants that only recognized digitally signed and authorized music?
Really, I think this is just another thing the RIAA can point at when they tell Congress to legislate them back into the black. "See, see what those hacking music sharing terrorists did now? They BROKE our encryption! They CIRCUMVENTED our protection mechanisms! Clearly these sophisticated sabateurs can only be stopped if we have laws that can incarcerate them and an enforcement policy that generates enough publicity top scare potential terrorists. Here's a draft to get you started. Yeah, we know the first ammendment is going to be tough to excise, but we thought we'd ask in case Bush got re-elected. Besides, 'better to shoot for the stars' right?"
They're positioning themselves. Ultimately, they hope they can make legally downloaded music more restricted than music from a CD, and they probably can.
Buy Used CD's (Score:3, Insightful)
RIAA and it's thugs don't get a cut,
there's incredible variety of music,
and you can do what you will with the bits on the disk.
So many complain about the lack of diversity
in RIAA's current crop of "entertainers,"
while there's about a quarter-century of
digital music waiting to be rediscovered.
Example of WHY copying should never be limited (Score:4, Insightful)
So here's my point....I have a large colletion of CDs, and I like to do a lot of outdoor sports. So, I carry my CDs around in one of those large BINDERS. This comes with me in the car, camping, etc...
One summer, I brought my CDs to the beach, and sand got in the binder. As anyone can imagine, 3/4's of my collection in the binder got scratched beyond use.
Since then, I've learned my lesson, and I copy my CDs and use the backup CDs to carry around. When they get scratched, I re-copy them, and put them back in the binder. Heck, for $30 for 50 blank CDs, it's a lucrative way to guarantee the usability of my collection.
But now, with this article, they're saying that I should only be able to make X number of copies...meaning that after I've screwed up my CDs say, 15-20 times, I have to buy it again, or take the original with me. How is that fair? Seriously folks, this is a real life example of how this could hinder someone. I REALLY do this. What is their answer going to be, "be more careful with your CDs?"
The only way this is going to ever get fixed is to have the artists have a LARGE revolution and stop using these companies to markey their materials. As simple of a solution as that is, there are so many facets involved to make it a reailty that....it probably will never happen. Especially since the artists that proliferate these schemes are multi-BILLION-dollar (Dr. Evil pinky to the lip) contract holders.
Anyway, thought everyone would like to see a real example of how copying works for me, and what it helps me be able to do. These limitations serve nobody. There will always be software that can RIP tracks, and once ripped, they will always be able to be burned again and again, so they really should just give up.
One word of advice: Don't get rid of your old programs that perform RIPPING. They don't have DMCA/copyright protection/DRM built into them yet, and will continue to work into the future. They might be slower, they might not be as pretty, and they might not have burning capabilities built RIGHT INTO THEM, but they will continue to work. KEEP YOUR OLD PROGRAMS ON ARCHIVE. My
ATTENTION BANK ROBBERS: (Score:3, Funny)
Thank you for your cooperation.
where is the real piracy? (Score:3, Informative)
I am currently in a country right in a center of South America. It's been impossible to find a real DVD. CDs are hard to find but it's possible.
You can find a reseller of pirate material every 10 meters in the street. Students in schools sell copies of duplicated material to pay for their studies, or to make parties.
E.g. Troya sells for under a $.
Here nobody buy original content. So I maybe am a pirate because at home I have some copies of CDs I didn't buy. But it's not many and I don't even use use them that often. The CDs I like, I have original versions of them. I have my share of paid CDs (over 200). Does that make me the bad guy? Not sure when you see what's happening in 90% of the world.
Yes I see the argument of those saying: but you have the money to buy the CDs. People there don't have it. I will answer to that that they have sufficient money to get as drunk as us, to buy themselves a CD player, a DVD player or a VCD player.
I don't even have a real DVD/VCD player at home, appart from my computer's drive.
I think all the piracy talk is bullsh!tt.
They cannot change the mentality there, but can send us to jail or pay heavy fines if we break the law once.
OK, and how is this supposed to work? (Score:3, Interesting)
they're still livin in 2000 (Score:4, Insightful)
i mean, yeah, the buzzwords have changed, but it sounds exactly the same as all this revolution rubbish some years ago.
but what these morons don't get: as long as a cd player actually plays a cd, it can be copied. every soundcard is able to record it's own output stream. the only way this would work is via new devices. oh wait, it won't. i forgot, every stereo has analog output. and every soundcard is also a D/A.
nay, morons everywhere. they're way of thinking reminds me of something...ah yes, they think like machines.
What About International Piracy? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you stop a bunch of high-school kids in the US and Europe, big fugging deal. Put up enough obstacles to fair use, and the Britney-obsessed drones will politely shut up and pay their money.
But there were monstrous cartels of professional pirates in SE Asia before Napster was even an embryonic thought in Shawn Fanning's mind. There are still monstrous cartels of professional pirates there, and there will continue to be monstrous cartels of professional pirates there, no matter what sort of fair-use restrictions the RIAA tries to throw at the problem.
The solution is not a greater impediment to copying. The solution lies in driving the professional pirates out of business. Of course, the RIAA (or the BSA, or the MPAA) doesn't pWn the governments of Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and China, so I don't expect they'll ever actually admit this is where the real problem lies, because they can't do anything about it.
p
Workaround (Score:4, Insightful)
Step two, rip to lossless format.
step three, burn to CD.
Wow, some copy protection.
Wait I got anotherone. Step one, run the out of my soundcard to the line in. Or use audiograbber to just grab soundcard output digitally.
Step two, record.
I may get some quality loss, but not even as much as a mp3.
Or wait, couldn't I even make a ISO of the disk and burn it that way instead of track by track?
What happens if I use linux, or a mac?
What happens when I just download the mp3's of someone who already did this and burn them to CD?
The RIAA needs to stop with the nonsense and focus on a digital distrubtion network. I think ITunes has already shown people are willing to pay for quality digital music. Take that model, make more quality music, and make it more profitable.
Acceptable DRM Scheme? (Score:4, Interesting)
Joe Schmo can make copies for his car/boat/pc/mp3 player, but none of those can be distributed any further. And the large pirate groups can't just crank out unlimited copies from the master, not without investing huge amounts of time, limiting their profits.
(the really professional groups use presses, stamping their own CDs, not burning them. As far as I know, there's no protection against that tactic, once you have the physical media)
You can use your purchased CD or d/l tracks as many times as you want. But you're prevented from widespread distribution to others. And hopefully, it's a transparent-to-the-user scheme.
I could go for something like that
Is it just me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"If it's digital, it can be copied" (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, you'd have to be a moron to rip your CDs as WMA files.
Re:The blank CD taxes should be doubled (Score:4, Insightful)
What if I'm using blank CDs to transfer content THAT I AUTHORED, to a mastering plant? Besides, they already get their money from Music CD-Rs, leave my Data CD-Rs alone plz.
Re:The blank CD taxes should be doubled (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as I am within the law, I will continue to buy data CD-Rs, and if I hear plans of them actually adding a 'music tax' to data CD-Rs, then I'll stock up on a few spindles before they can sink their claws in.