Copy protection: Macrovision Happens [Archive]

JoVee

July 16th 04, 02:21 AM

www.newscientist.com/news/newsŠ

The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service* *
Anti-piracy CD system raises distortion fear
16:03*16*July*01

*"It's a dreadful, dreadful thing to contaminate the sound
deliberately, says Martin Colloms, a British hi-fi expert
whose columns are syndicated around the world. "We all hate
piracy but the idea of mucking up the sound of a recording
is reprehensible. It's like slashing paintings in a gallery
to stop someone stealing them."

* Anti-piracy compact discs that cannot be copied by a
computer have gone on sale in California. The first CD title
has already sold 100,000 copies, but it is causing concern
among audio experts because they fear that the music may be
audibly distorted.

The SafeAudio system was developed by Macrovision, a
California-based company best known for its anti-piracy
video systems. The technology stops people "ripping" music
CDs to create high-quality digital copies on a computer hard
disc or for downloading to a portable player.

The system also prevents people creating digital files from
the CD to swap over the internet or copying music onto a
blank CD - although it would still be possible to make a
poor quality copy by converting the analogue output into
digital code.

SafeAudio works by degrading the digital code. The CD will
still play on an ordinary player or through a computer's
speakers or headphones. But it cannot be copied. Macrovision
says that the changes made to the music are not discernible.

Bursts of hiss

Macrovision is reluctant to discuss how SafeAudio works, but
has told New Scientist that it is based on work done by TTR
Technologies of Israel. Patents filed by TTR describe how a
"copy-protected audio compact disc" works.

The patents say the system deliberately gives some of the
digital code on the CD "grossly erroneous values", adding
bursts of hiss to the audio signal. In addition, the
error-correction codes on the CD, which would normally
correct such errors, are distorted. So error correction
fails, leaving tiny gaps in the music.

When this happens, a consumer CD player bridges the gaps. It
looks at the music on either side of the gap and
interpolates a replacement section. A computer does the same
when playing CDs for listening.

But the computer's CD drive cannot repair the digital data
going to the hard disc. So the hard disc copies nothing, or
a nasty noise. TTR says the repairs made by a music CD
player are not audible. Macrovision has improved the TTR
system, says David Simmons,

--
John I-22
(that's 'I' for Initial...)
Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key.
--

hank alrich

July 16th 04, 03:07 AM

JoVee wrote:

> The system also prevents people creating digital files from
> the CD to swap over the internet or copying music onto a
> blank CD - although it would still be possible to make a
> poor quality copy by converting the analogue output into
> digital code.

Indeed, and with people videotaping flicks in theaters and going gaga
over MP3's, who thinks a decent conversion will be massively
unacceptable for download?

The snake is out of the trouser and no digital codpiece will hide this
reality.

--
ha

hank alrich

July 16th 04, 03:07 AM

Ben Bradley

July 16th 04, 06:00 AM

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 02:07:28 GMT, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>JoVee wrote:
>
>> The system also prevents people creating digital files from
>> the CD to swap over the internet or copying music onto a
>> blank CD

Is this any different from the previous CD "copy protection"
methods that major labels have used over the last two or three years,
or is this story just a rehash of the "major labels are
copy-protecting CD's" idea that it seems they want to keep pushing?

>> - although it would still be possible to make a
>> poor quality copy by converting the analogue output into
>> digital code.
>
>Indeed, and with people videotaping flicks in theaters and going gaga
>over MP3's, who thinks a decent conversion will be massively
>unacceptable for download?

I really thought the "poor quality copy" remark was seriously
overstating the degradation of even a cheap analog transfer,
apparently in some vain effort to discredit the idea. Of course, most
people think MP3's through an SBLive is CD quailty.
And of course, there's nothing to keep a decent ripper program from
doing the same error hiding or replay-the-last-sector trick that CD
players do when they hit uncorrectable errors.
On second thought, maybe "poor quality" is what comes out of even
the best CD player when playing one of these degraded discs.

>The snake is out of the trouser and no digital codpiece will hide this
>reality.

...visions of the Terry-Gross-and-Gene-Simmons radio show...

Ben Bradley

July 16th 04, 06:00 AM

Analogeezer

July 16th 04, 02:30 PM

(hank alrich) wrote in message >...
> JoVee wrote:
>
> > The system also prevents people creating digital files from
> > the CD to swap over the internet or copying music onto a
> > blank CD - although it would still be possible to make a
> > poor quality copy by converting the analogue output into
> > digital code.
>
> Indeed, and with people videotaping flicks in theaters and going gaga
> over MP3's, who thinks a decent conversion will be massively
> unacceptable for download?
>
> The snake is out of the trouser and no digital codpiece will hide this
> reality.

Yeah the thing I find suprising is that they think you can only copy
something digitally.

Given that the people doing this (pirating) are pretty adept with
technology, what's to stop them from doing analog conversions, then
burning CD's putting them out for download?

It's kind of like trying to ban smoking by outlawing lighters, but hey
you still have matches, stoves, twigs you can rub together, etc.

Analogeezer

Richard Crowley

July 16th 04, 02:53 PM

"Analogeezer" wrote...
> Yeah the thing I find suprising is that they think you can only copy
> something digitally.
>
> Given that the people doing this (pirating) are pretty adept with
> technology, what's to stop them from doing analog conversions, then
> burning CD's putting them out for download?
>
> It's kind of like trying to ban smoking by outlawing lighters, but hey
> you still have matches, stoves, twigs you can rub together, etc.

But what happens when all the analog equipment is old and
decrepit and non-functional? I never before realized that
the migration from analog to digital is part of their plot to
control the world! :-)

Mike Rivers

July 16th 04, 02:53 PM

In article > writes:

> * Anti-piracy compact discs that cannot be copied by a
> computer have gone on sale in California. The first CD title
> has already sold 100,000 copies, but it is causing concern
> among audio experts because they fear that the music may be
> audibly distorted.

"audio experts" . . . "fear"? I would think that audio experts would
be able to hear if the music was audibly distorted or not. Back in
1986 or so Congress tasked the (then) National Bureau of Standards to
determine if the Copycode system proposed by the industry affected the
audio. Our local AES section set up a day of listening tests at NBS
and there was no question that those audio experts (even me) could
identify the presence of the Copycode substantially more accurately
than would be predicted by chance. The system was rejected.

Copycode was a pretty crude system, involving a very deep, narrow
notch in the frequency response which could be identified by the
missing chunk of spectrum and turn off the recording function.

Today's copy protection schemes are less invasive. I suspect that some
may be inaudible, but I haven't tried any listening tests (nor would I
trust my ears at this age and with contemporary music).

We all know that the issue isn't that a copy protection invades the
music, it invades our "rights."

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Arny Krueger

July 16th 04, 03:18 PM

"JoVee" > wrote in message

> The patents say the system deliberately gives some of the
> digital code on the CD "grossly erroneous values", adding
> bursts of hiss to the audio signal. In addition, the
> error-correction codes on the CD, which would normally
> correct such errors, are distorted. So error correction
> fails, leaving tiny gaps in the music.

> When this happens, a consumer CD player bridges the gaps. It
> looks at the music on either side of the gap and
> interpolates a replacement section. A computer does the same
> when playing CDs for listening.

> But the computer's CD drive cannot repair the digital data
> going to the hard disc.

Dream on! *Cannot* is an awfully big word when applied to computers and
software.

I think it is a true fact that right now ripping programs don't do error
concealment as a rule. That's today or yesterday, but not necessarily
tomorrow. It is left as an exercise for the reader to estimate how long it
will take CD ripper authors to start dealing with this situation. Hint, lots
of CDROM drives reflect C1 and or C2 errors to the host computers.

> So the hard disc copies nothing, or
> a nasty noise. TTR says the repairs made by a music CD
> player are not audible. Macrovision has improved the TTR
> system, says David Simmons.

As a rule, most modern computers have retained the analog audio connection
from the CDROM drive to an analog input of the sound card. Some sound cards
can connect to the digital audio outputs on many CD ROM drives. The analog
playback circuitry in CDROM drives and even commodity PC sound cards have
been steadily improving and is currently not all that bad.

The worst thing this procedure will do to people who rip songs with
computers, is slow them down to real time. Once a song is ripped, it can
still propagate its way through the internet at the usual speeds.

Jay Kadis

July 16th 04, 03:30 PM

If they're deliberately circumventing the CD-DA copy correction coding, the
discs should not be allowed to carry the CD logo.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

hank alrich

July 16th 04, 03:49 PM

Richard Crowley wrote:

> But what happens when all the analog equipment is old and
> decrepit and non-functional?

Then we won't be able to listen to the music stashed on the media until
we get digital ear implants. <g>

--
ha

Scott Dorsey

July 16th 04, 03:58 PM

Jay Kadis > wrote:
>If they're deliberately circumventing the CD-DA copy correction coding, the
>discs should not be allowed to carry the CD logo.

Yes, but sadly consumers never did pay any attention to the CD logo.
And they paid far too much attention to the SPARS code.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mike Rivers

July 16th 04, 04:55 PM

In article > writes:

> Given that the people doing this (pirating) are pretty adept with
> technology, what's to stop them from doing analog conversions, then
> burning CD's putting them out for download?

Time and perception.

1. Analog copying is always real time (anyone ever try it double time
like a couple of the cassette duplicators that used a digital
master?) and if it takes an hour to make a duplicatable copy of a
CD, that's too much trouble. They could download 20 other CDs in
that time. While analog copying will work every time, people simply
aren't willing to accept the fact that it takes real time.

2. Also, there's the perception that any conversion between analog and
digital is detremental to the sound. Given the hardware that most
people who are concerned about this use, and that they probably
wouldn't take time to set the record level property, they're most
likely right. But not right enough to worry about if they're
careful. But that takes time. See #1.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Edi Zubovic

July 16th 04, 08:04 PM

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:21:59 GMT, JoVee >
wrote:

>www.newscientist.com/news/news©

>
>Bursts of hiss
>
>Macrovision is reluctant to discuss how SafeAudio works, but
>has told New Scientist that it is based on work done by TTR
>Technologies of Israel. Patents filed by TTR describe how a
>"copy-protected audio compact disc" works.
>
>The patents say the system deliberately gives some of the
>digital code on the CD "grossly erroneous values", adding
>bursts of hiss to the audio signal. In addition, the
>error-correction codes on the CD, which would normally
>correct such errors, are distorted. So error correction
>fails, leaving tiny gaps in the music.
>
>When this happens, a consumer CD player bridges the gaps. It
>looks at the music on either side of the gap and
>interpolates a replacement section. A computer does the same
>when playing CDs for listening.
>
>But the computer's CD drive cannot repair the digital data
>going to the hard disc. So the hard disc copies nothing, or
>a nasty noise. TTR says the repairs made by a music CD
>player are not audible. Macrovision has improved the TTR
>system, says David Simmons,
>
BS...

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles

July 16th 04, 08:34 PM

On 16 Jul 2004 11:55:33 -0400, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
> In article >
> writes:
>
>> Given that the people doing this (pirating) are pretty adept with
>> technology, what's to stop them from doing analog conversions, then
>> burning CD's putting them out for download?
>
> Time and perception.
>
> 1. Analog copying is always real time (anyone ever try it double time
> like a couple of the cassette duplicators that used a digital
> master?) and if it takes an hour to make a duplicatable copy of a
> CD, that's too much trouble. They could download 20 other CDs in
> that time. While analog copying will work every time, people simply
> aren't willing to accept the fact that it takes real time.
>
> 2. Also, there's the perception that any conversion between analog and
> digital is detremental to the sound. Given the hardware that most
> people who are concerned about this use, and that they probably
> wouldn't take time to set the record level property, they're most
> likely right. But not right enough to worry about if they're
> careful. But that takes time. See #1.
>

1. Only true for the first copy. Set six CDs to analogue rip while you
sleep.

2. I'd bet a pint of good English Bitters (served cellar temp only
please) that more artifacts are introduced with a lossy compression
codec than they are for high quality AD conversion.

3. A second pint on how quickly LAME is updated to deal with
Macrovision's latest. I say within a week, with side bet of a bottle of
American microbrew on within two days.

Mike Rivers

July 17th 04, 02:09 AM

In article > writes:

> 1. Only true for the first copy. Set six CDs to analogue rip while you
> sleep.

Yeah, but that's for REAL pirates, the guys who bring 50 bootlegged
copies to the weekly Farmer's Market. They're easy enough to catch.
It's the one-off pirates that they don't have a good way to catch, so
it's to the advantage of the record industry to at least try to slow
them down or **** them off so maybe they'll start ripping movies or
something.

> 2. I'd bet a pint of good English Bitters (served cellar temp only
> please) that more artifacts are introduced with a lossy compression
> codec than they are for high quality AD conversion.

No contest on that one, even mediocre quality A/D conversion. But any
boob who doesn't look at the level meters can screw up an analog copy
by hitting the analog input too hard.

> 3. A second pint on how quickly LAME is updated to deal with
> Macrovision's latest.

I don't know enough about this to be able to intelligently take that
bit.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Clive Backham

July 17th 04, 08:57 AM

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:34:09 GMT, "U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" <"Charles
> wrote:

>On 16 Jul 2004 11:55:33 -0400, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>>
>> In article >
>> writes:
>>
>>> Given that the people doing this (pirating) are pretty adept with
>>> technology, what's to stop them from doing analog conversions, then
>>> burning CD's putting them out for download?

No need to do an analogue copy. The SPDIF output stream from an audio
player also includes the interpolated result. Record that via the
digital input on any semi-pro soundcard upwards and you get a clone.
No need to even worry about setting levels. But of course you're still
restricted to real-time copying.

>3. A second pint on how quickly LAME is updated to deal with
>Macrovision's latest. I say within a week, with side bet of a bottle of
>American microbrew on within two days.

I can't see how this could possibly be done. The initial rip produces
an uncompressed stream with the faults included: by the time it gets
to an encoder it's too late. It could conceivably be done during DAE,
but course the obvious place to do it is in the CDROM drive firmware.
--
Clive Backham

Note: As a spam avoidance measure, the email address in the header
is just a free one and doesn't get checked very often. If you want to email
me, my real address can be found at: www [dot] delback [dot] co [dot] uk

TonyP

July 17th 04, 09:44 AM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1089986881k@trad...
> 1. Analog copying is always real time (anyone ever try it double time
> like a couple of the cassette duplicators that used a digital
> master?) and if it takes an hour to make a duplicatable copy of a
> CD, that's too much trouble. They could download 20 other CDs in
> that time. While analog copying will work every time, people simply
> aren't willing to accept the fact that it takes real time.

So you're saying people never copied records to cassette in real time?
Or just that people are much more lazy now.

> 2. Also, there's the perception that any conversion between analog and
> digital is detremental to the sound. Given the hardware that most
> people who are concerned about this use, and that they probably
> wouldn't take time to set the record level property, they're most
> likely right. But not right enough to worry about if they're
> careful. But that takes time. See #1.

Any AD conversion is probably going to be less detrimental than the MP3
conversion anyway.

However you can always get around these schemes digitally anyway, or you
couldn't play the disk on any CD player.
A few seconds touch up in the wave editor of your choice is all that's
required in most cases.

TonyP.

Jonas Eckerman

July 17th 04, 03:09 PM

"U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" <"Charles > wrote in
:

> 3. A second pint on how quickly LAME is updated to deal with
> Macrovision's latest.

Considering that LAME can't read a non copy-protected CD (it's an MP3
encoder, not a CD ripper), I'd guess it'll take a long time. :-)

> I say within a week, with side bet of a bottle of
> American microbrew on within two days.

Are they now using a new version of SafeAudio?

IIRC, the Velvet Revolver CD is copy protected, and came out on the P2P
nets very fast.

/Jonas

Mike Rivers

July 17th 04, 04:03 PM

In article > writes:

> No need to do an analogue copy. The SPDIF output stream from an audio
> player also includes the interpolated result.

SPDIF . . Piddif . . it's still a real time copy and that's the sort
of nonsense that I contend up with which the typical "one off" pirates
do not wish to put. Besides, if they did the copy protection right, (I
can see the arguments already, in fact I've already seen them the last
time this went around) it woudln't play in a computer CD drive, only
in a genuine, designed NOT to play data CDs, music CD player.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers

July 17th 04, 04:03 PM

In article > writes:

> So you're saying people never copied records to cassette in real time?
> Or just that people are much more lazy now.

The latter. People don't want to go back to the olde way when they've
become accustomed to rapid copying.

> Any AD conversion is probably going to be less detrimental than the MP3
> conversion anyway.

Tell that to the zealots. Besides, who said anything about MP3? That's
something that you do to yourself if you decide to save the audio in
compressed format, but CD blanks (and even large capacity hard drives)
are dirt cheap these days, so if you want to preserve the origianl
quality there's no need to use MP3 or other lossy data size reduction.

> However you can always get around these schemes digitally anyway, or you
> couldn't play the disk on any CD player.

Right. But I think that most of the people who are the intended target
of this (and any other) copy protection scheme would rather fuss about
why this ia a bad thing than to simply do it and have the music.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Ricky W. Hunt

July 17th 04, 05:44 PM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1090067928k@trad...
>
> In article >
writes:
>
> > So you're saying people never copied records to cassette in real time?
> > Or just that people are much more lazy now.
>
> The latter. People don't want to go back to the olde way when they've
> become accustomed to rapid copying.

They won't have to go back to the old way. Some kid will rip it at
real-time, make an MP3 and it'll be on p2p the first day just as usual. All
this has done is added at max 72 minutes to ONE PERSON'S rip. No one seems
to be trying to educate the public on the concept and economics of
intellectual property and WHY copying (music, software, etc.) is wrong. They
made a few commercials with people young, millionaires like Brittany saying
"please don't steal from me". A lot of sympathy that's going to generate.

Clive Backham

July 17th 04, 09:14 PM

On 17 Jul 2004 11:03:14 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>In article > writes:
>
>> No need to do an analogue copy. The SPDIF output stream from an audio
>> player also includes the interpolated result.
>
>SPDIF . . Piddif . . it's still a real time copy and that's the sort
>of nonsense that I contend up with which the typical "one off" pirates
>do not wish to put.

You're right: the casual person wanting to make a one-off copy for a
friend is likely to be beaten by these trivial protection schemes. But
these one-off copyists aren't really the problem, are they? They're
not going to destroy the recording industry any more than they did
when they taped LPs onto cassette.

The real problem for the industry is commercial counterfeiters and the
p2p networks. Firstly, no commercial pirate is going to be concerned
with having to make their master in realtime.

And secondly, I respectfully suggest that you've missed the philosophy
of the p2p community. They are *sharing* their music collections, in
order that thay can *all* have any music they like. It's a "you
scratch my back & I'll scratch yours" mentality, pretty much the same
as the open source software movement. The main difference being that
what the music sharers are doing is illegal. It only needs *one* of
these people to take the trouble to make a good copy and put it up on
a p2p network and the genie's out of the bottle. And provided there is
a critical mass of these "philanthropists", then most copy-protected
discs *will* be ripped and published. Meanwhile, the rest of us have
to put up with CDs stuffed full of deliberate uncorrectable errors.

Copy-protection doesn't stop commercial pirates, and it doesn't stop
music getting put up on p2p networks. All it does stop is the casual
user from making the odd copy for their friends, at the cost of
preventing people playing their legally-bought CDs in computers or any
AV device designed to play MP3s as well as audio CDs (ie. most DVD
players and lots of car players). This is frankly treating the
music-buying public like dirt, and is totally unacceptable.
--
Clive Backham

Note: As a spam avoidance measure, the email address in the header
is just a free one and doesn't get checked very often. If you want to email
me, my real address can be found at: www [dot] delback [dot] co [dot] uk

Mike Rivers

July 17th 04, 11:48 PM

In article <kHcKc.78872$WX.35551@attbi_s51> writes:

> They won't have to go back to the old way. Some kid will rip it at
> real-time

There's always one sucker. Someone will probably actually even BUY the
CD. Will it be you?

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers

July 17th 04, 11:48 PM

In article > writes:

> You're right: the casual person wanting to make a one-off copy for a
> friend is likely to be beaten by these trivial protection schemes. But
> these one-off copyists aren't really the problem, are they? They're
> not going to destroy the recording industry any more than they did
> when they taped LPs onto cassette.

I disagree. They're exactly the ones "ruining" the industry. Why do
you think the RIAA sued kids last year? They're not running a pirate
business, they have one copy of 30,000 songs on their computer. Since
most people consider that there are only one or two good songs on a
pop CD (and why would he download anything but good songs?) that one
person represnts a loss of over 10,000 CD sales. Not that I think he'd
actually buy 10,000 CDs, but that's a bunch that aren't sold.

And if you cast your mind back, the whole business started when people
taped LPs on to cassette. They just didn't have the Internet back
then, so they had more time to copy music.

> The real problem for the industry is commercial counterfeiters and the
> p2p networks.

That's two problems, and they're very different.

The counterfeiters sometimes get caught because they slip up now and
then. But many of them operate completely outside the US, so the legal
claws aren't so effective.

The P2P networks are the source for the kids with 30,000 songs on
their computer. Make it so that it's difficult for the first one to
put a song on the computer where it will multiply and that problem
will be reduced.

> Firstly, no commercial pirate is going to be concerned
> with having to make their master in realtime.

Agreed. It's just a cost of doing business. I don't know if there's a
code of quality among CD counterfieters - should you buy your stock
from the guy who has the Meridian CD player and Lavry A/D converter?

> And secondly, I respectfully suggest that you've missed the philosophy
> of the p2p community. They are *sharing* their music collections, in
> order that thay can *all* have any music they like.

Sounds like a great deal to me. However, they're not paying for the
music that they like. That's where the problem lies. I have no problem
with the method of transport, it's just the fact that the people who
put the product out there in the first place in hopes of getting paid
aren't getting paid.

> It's a "you
> scratch my back & I'll scratch yours" mentality, pretty much the same
> as the open source software movement.

OK, so how about when someone "shares" a song with you that you like,
not only do you scratch his back by offering him a song from your
collection, but you pay the artist a visit and offer to paint his
barn, or buy him a tank of gas, or even a hamburger?

> Copy-protection doesn't stop commercial pirates, and it doesn't stop
> music getting put up on p2p networks. All it does stop is the casual
> user from making the odd copy for their friends

That's something, isn't it? And if they keep working at it, maybe
they'll eventually get to be so annoying to the copiers that the ones
who are going to all that trouble will stop. But I know better than to
expect to see that in my lifetime until they start putting every one
of them in jail (nor do I expect to see that in my lifetime either -
but I didn't think they'd send Martha to jail either).

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

dt king

July 18th 04, 12:19 AM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1090094134k@trad...

> The P2P networks are the source for the kids with 30,000 songs on
> their computer. Make it so that it's difficult for the first one to
> put a song on the computer where it will multiply and that problem
> will be reduced.

If by reduced, you mean that the number of initially ripped copies might be
cut by some appreciable fraction, I agree. However, a day later when the
P2P network reaches saturation, it doesn't matter how much genetic diversity
there was in the beginning.

It's not my turn to defend music sharing, however I would like to suggest
that the number of people sharing a particular file is proportionate to the
number of people who've bought CDs of that artist. The people hurt the most
from P2P are the people who have made the most money.

Relatively few people are looking for music from the obscure starving
genious -- I'm pretty sure the most common searches are currently for the
popular hip hop bands.

--
dt king
www.thoughtdog.com
Nothing here is on Kazaa

Geoff Wood

July 18th 04, 12:36 AM

I have purchased both Nora Jones CDs that contain some sort of copy
protection. I would have bought them is they hadn't been protected.

I am ****ed off that I am prevented from excercised my FAIR USE of this
product by making digital copies of selected tracks on my own private-use
compilation CDs that I make for (primarily) in-car use.

geoff

JWV Miller

July 18th 04, 01:21 AM

This is not exactly a new approach and as noted later in the thread,
it can be defeated pretty easily. What I would really like to know is
what happened to "DarkNoise" since it would appear to be much more
audible:

http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2004/02/04/yet-another-brainless-cd-copy-protection-scheme/

There is also more information on copy protection for the Velvet
Revolver release:

http://www.drmwatch.com/drmtech/article.php/3376281

DrBoom

July 18th 04, 05:45 AM

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:<znr1089977171k@trad>...
> In article > writes:

[...]

> Today's copy protection schemes are less invasive. I suspect that some
> may be inaudible, but I haven't tried any listening tests (nor would I
> trust my ears at this age and with contemporary music).

I don't know about this latest scheme, but I have a fair bit of experience
with forensic watermarks, and they can be audible even in low quality
compressed files, like WMA @128kb/s or MP3 @160kb/s. The watermark
guys all say it doesn't affect the audio, but if I can hear it through cheap
computer speakers, it's obviously doing something nastier to the signal
than (and in addition to) the compression codec.

> We all know that the issue isn't that a copy protection invades the
> music, it invades our "rights."

I know you're being sarcastic, but there is one thing quite wrong here
as others have pointed out: the Compact Disk logo being shown on
deliberately non-complaint media. People should be able to make
an informed choice, just as we do with encrypted DVD's that will
only play on machines coded for the "correct" zone.

-DrBoom

Mike Rivers

July 18th 04, 01:06 PM

In article <OtiKc.102473$a24.92411@attbi_s03> writes:

> If by reduced, you mean that the number of initially ripped copies might be
> cut by some appreciable fraction, I agree. However, a day later when the
> P2P network reaches saturation, it doesn't matter how much genetic diversity
> there was in the beginning.

No, that's not what I mean. If the P2P networks went away, it wouldn't
be so easy for people to get music for free, so maybe a few of them
would actually buy it.

> It's not my turn to defend music sharing, however I would like to suggest
> that the number of people sharing a particular file is proportionate to the
> number of people who've bought CDs of that artist. The people hurt the most
> from P2P are the people who have made the most money.

I don't know why that would be the case. All it takes is one person to
buy the CD and put it on line. The publicity only works harder when
sales are lower. You hear about a CD, you don't go to the store and
buy it, you look for it on a P2P site, if you're into that culture.

> Relatively few people are looking for music from the obscure starving
> genious -- I'm pretty sure the most common searches are currently for the
> popular hip hop bands.

This is true. Starving geniuses will continue to starve no matter
what, and in fact, they may even benefit from P2P distribution since
there's no mass market push for one or two songs. Hear a song you like
and you might buy the CD. But that's not the case with Madonna or
Eminem.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers

July 18th 04, 01:06 PM

In article > -nospam writes:

> I am ****ed off that I am prevented from excercised my FAIR USE of this
> product by making digital copies of selected tracks on my own private-use
> compilation CDs that I make for (primarily) in-car use.

You're not prevented from doin it, you're just prevented from doing it
the easiest way. If you care enough about making your own compilation
CD, you can always make an analog copy.

Whatcha gonna do? Complain or start copying?

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

dt king

July 18th 04, 03:42 PM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1090112329k@trad...
>
> In article <OtiKc.102473$a24.92411@attbi_s03>
writes:
>
> > It's not my turn to defend music sharing, however I would like to
suggest
> > that the number of people sharing a particular file is proportionate to
the
> > number of people who've bought CDs of that artist. The people hurt the
most
> > from P2P are the people who have made the most money.
>
> I don't know why that would be the case. All it takes is one person to
> buy the CD and put it on line. The publicity only works harder when
> sales are lower. You hear about a CD, you don't go to the store and
> buy it, you look for it on a P2P site, if you're into that culture.

Some people buy CDs, some people download. They are both influenced in a
similar way by the marketing -- a frenzy of downloading is inevitably
accompanied by strong sales at the cash register. The ratio of downloaders
to buyers is of great concern to big record labels, but not so much to
individuals.

> > Relatively few people are looking for music from the obscure starving
> > genious -- I'm pretty sure the most common searches are currently for
the
> > popular hip hop bands.
>
> This is true. Starving geniuses will continue to starve no matter
> what, and in fact, they may even benefit from P2P distribution since
> there's no mass market push for one or two songs. Hear a song you like
> and you might buy the CD. But that's not the case with Madonna or
> Eminem.

That's the catch. There's no such thing as P2P for obscure artists. At
best it's mostly just P2. I can put all of my tracks on the popular
networks, but nobody will download them because nobody is looking for them.
P2P is fuelled by market demand and without it networks wouldn't exist
beyond a few academics trading old Tomita tracks and Dead boots, and they
were already set up for that with Archie.

My greatest traffic is on download.music.com --
http://music.download.com/dtking -- people download each of my tracks about
40 times a week. I benefit from the "street traffic" on the site. If I
made 50 cents on each one of those, I'd have a car payment, but I don't see
that happening, because the people who will pay to download are much more
selective than the people who download for free.

--
dt king
www.thoughtdog.com
I like eggs cooked in bacon fat

Mike Rivers

July 18th 04, 04:48 PM

In article > writes:

> there is one thing quite wrong here
> as others have pointed out: the Compact Disk logo being shown on
> deliberately non-complaint media. People should be able to make
> an informed choice,

Suppose you were browsing the bins at Tower and found a disk that looked
interesting (maybe you even heard a song from it). Would you look for
the CD logo, and not purchase it if it wasn't there?

I suspect that if the manufacturers stopped using the logo, few would
notice. And most of them wouldn't be bothered because they'd play it
in the CD player in their living room or their car and wouldn't put it
in a computer CD drive, much less try to copy it. These aren't the
people who are causing "the problem" (whatever the problem may
actually be).

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Jonas Eckerman

July 18th 04, 06:56 PM

(Mike Rivers) wrote in news:znr1090155010k@trad:

> notice. And most of them wouldn't be bothered because they'd play it
> in the CD player in their living room or their car and wouldn't put it

OTOH, the living room CD player might be a cheap DVD player made to handle
CD-Rs, based on an asian motherboard and an IDE DVD-drive, wich might have
real problems with some copy protection schemes.

> in a computer CD drive, much less try to copy it.

That's probably true, but with all those tiny USB equipped MP3 players,
more and more ordinary consumers are copying their CDs in a computer.

> These aren't the
> people who are causing "the problem"

Agreed.

/Jonas

Geoff Wood

July 18th 04, 08:40 PM

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article >
> -nospam writes:
>
>> I am ****ed off that I am prevented from excercised my FAIR USE of
>> this product by making digital copies of selected tracks on my own
>> private-use compilation CDs that I make for (primarily) in-car use.
>
> You're not prevented from doin it, you're just prevented from doing it
> the easiest way. If you care enough about making your own compilation
> CD, you can always make an analog copy.
>
> Whatcha gonna do? Complain or start copying?

Co,plain , about being prevented from doing what I want the logival and
straightforward wasy, and put alternative tracks in my compilation. I'm
lazy. I'll save the analogue transcription effort for my LP titles that are
not available on CD.

geoff

Mike Rivers

July 18th 04, 08:58 PM

In article <Y_vKc.87422$WX.6720@attbi_s51> writes:

> Some people buy CDs, some people download.

True, and some are even the same people, but not all. IMHO, not many,
but that's just a jaded opinion about people in general.

> They are both influenced in a
> similar way by the marketing -- a frenzy of downloading is inevitably
> accompanied by strong sales at the cash register.

I suspect that it works the other way around - a frenzy at the cash
register fuels downloading. After all, why bother to grab music that
hasn't already proven itself popular? [The exception being the
experimental and truly independent music that never makes it to the
record store - a segment of the market that I believe truly benefits
from a certain amount of free downloading]

> That's the catch. There's no such thing as P2P for obscure artists.

This is unfortunate, and I believe that there's been some action to
promote such a network. I don't remember the name or who's involved.

> I benefit from the "street traffic" on the site. If I
> made 50 cents on each one of those, I'd have a car payment, but I don't see
> that happening, because the people who will pay to download are much more
> selective than the people who download for free.

While I'm sure there are some mainstream commercial releases that a
number of people like the whole CD, most of of the time what they sell
is one or two songs, so it's no wonder that there's a temptation to
either pay for downloading one or two songs or get them for free.
Independent artists are more likely to produce a CD that more people
will like most, if not all of the songs. Without a big publicity
machine that pushes one or two songs, there's no "big hit" so they're
all equally good (or bad).

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers

July 18th 04, 10:08 PM

In article 4> writes:

> OTOH, the living room CD player might be a cheap DVD player made to handle
> CD-Rs, based on an asian motherboard and an IDE DVD-drive, wich might have
> real problems with some copy protection schemes.

If the copy protection scheme actually does cause problems with those
players, I'm sure it will be modified or dropped. That's what happened
(dropped) with another scheme that tended to jam up car CD players.

> That's probably true, but with all those tiny USB equipped MP3 players,
> more and more ordinary consumers are copying their CDs in a computer.

Hey! I've done that! Acutally that's probably legal under the
provisions of the Home Recording Act.

The trick here (and I have no idea how it could be accomplished) would
be to create an MP3 that would only play in that player, or wouldn't
go OUT the USB port as a file - sort of like that trick that the Sony
Minidisk players do. Unfortunately that also prevents you from
transferring an origianal recording out the USB port - small problem
for the creative people, no big deal for most users.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles

July 19th 04, 12:46 AM

On 17 Jul 2004 18:48:17 -0400, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
> In article >
> writes:
>
>> You're right: the casual person wanting to make a one-off copy for a
>> friend is likely to be beaten by these trivial protection schemes. But
>> these one-off copyists aren't really the problem, are they? They're
>> not going to destroy the recording industry any more than they did
>> when they taped LPs onto cassette.
>
> I disagree. They're exactly the ones "ruining" the industry. Why do
> you think the RIAA sued kids last year?

Because that gets parents "Concerned about the issue" and less likely to
question the legislative agenda of the "Honorable Senator from Disney."

You don't get the same bang for the buck when a shipping container
filled counterfeits is confiscated in LA--who cares if some of THOSE
people (whoever THOSE happen to be) are sent to prison.

I for one am reasonably certain that record companies will eventually
figure out a way to make money online, and that none will begrudge them
their profit. I think we're in a transitional time where they came late
to the party and are playing catchup.

OTOH, I've yet to hear anyone suggest that we should have a telethon to
benefit those poor starving record company executives.

Ryan Mitchley

July 19th 04, 02:50 PM

MR> The P2P networks are the source for the kids with 30,000 songs on
MR> their computer. Make it so that it's difficult for the first one to
MR> put a song on the computer where it will multiply and that problem
MR> will be reduced.

I think you are grossly underestimating the difficulty of implementing this
without:

1. Seriously inconveniencing computer users on a number of levels
2. (more significantly) Increasing the demand and consequently the supply of
devices or software that are not subject to any such restrictions (legal or
not)

But, fundamentally, I object to being the paying schmuck ending up with an
inferior product. Do you really feel happy that the CD's you buy are X times
more likely to fail from dust, scratches, etc....? I certainly don't. I
doubt that even well-maintained CD's without copy protection play back
totally error-free, most of the time.

Ryan

Ryan Mitchley

July 19th 04, 03:23 PM

More controversially, it could be argued that the lack of an
uncircumventable copy protection scheme (thus far, anyway) creates enough of
a "pressure release valve" to dissuade the music industry from significant
price fixing and other consumer manipulation.

Normal competitive market forces would hopefully be stronger influences,
although I'm not convinced.

I realise that that *is* a controversial take . . .

Ryan

JoVee

July 19th 04, 03:55 PM

Clive Backham at wrote on 7/17/04 4:14 PM:
>...
> Copy-protection doesn't stop commercial pirates, and it doesn't stop
> music getting put up on p2p networks. All it does stop is the casual
> user from making the odd copy for their friends, at the cost of
> preventing people playing their legally-bought CDs in computers or any
> AV device designed to play MP3s as well as audio CDs (ie. most DVD
> players and lots of car players). This is frankly treating the
> music-buying public like dirt, and is totally unacceptable.

well, rather than (for the umpletyteenth time over the last 5 years) AGAIN
just whining about how the locks the owners are forced to place on their
wares are 'annoying' to customers... when, since these clueless spoiled,
self-indulgent self-deluded children ages 10-50+ are publicly supported by
ersatz lip-service from newspapers radio net and tv 'journalists' who
steadfastly refuse to use the word 'property theft' instead of 'file
sharing' every time it comes up, does the movement start to make brain-dead
blindered self-eviscerating theft uncool?
Their fundamentalist screed never resolves to ANYTHING more profound than
"cuz I want it NOW"
"Because I can"
"cuz you can't stop me"
and these have never been in any way synonymous with "new business
paradigm", any more than squirting tears to get another piece of candy.

TANSTAAFL

--
John I-22
(that's 'I' for Initial...)
Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key.
--

JoVee

July 19th 04, 03:58 PM

Mike Rivers at wrote on 7/17/04 6:48 PM:

> There's always one sucker. Someone will probably actually even BUY the
> CD. Will it be you?

absolutely.. I regularly have to go out and buy commercial copies of records
that are given to me as 'favors.
"Here's some cool music by a good artist who I ripped off for you"

--
John I-22
(that's 'I' for Initial...)
Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key.
--

JoVee

July 19th 04, 04:09 PM

Geoff Wood at -nospam wrote on 7/17/04 7:36 PM:

> I have purchased both Nora Jones CDs that contain some sort of copy
> protection. I would have bought them is they hadn't been protected.
>
> I am ****ed off that I am prevented from excercised my FAIR USE of this
> product by making digital copies of selected tracks on my own private-use
> compilation CDs that I make for (primarily) in-car use.

'fair use'.. damn what a screwed-up term.
SUPPPOSED to mean that you can use excerpts as quotes and references without
being called a thief.
Now it's a blunderbuss implying we all have some real 'right' to make as
many different copies of something as we just wannagottahave.
If I want a second hammer, or need 2 3/4" wrenches for a task, I gots to buy
'em y'know...

--
John I-22
(that's 'I' for Initial...)
Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key.
--

JoVee

July 19th 04, 04:20 PM

U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles at "Charles wrote on 7/18/04 7:46
PM:

> I for one am reasonably certain that record companies will eventually
> figure out a way to make money online, and that none will begrudge them
> their profit. I think we're in a transitional time where they came late
> to the party and are playing catchup.

this has always bugged me no end, the 'industry' spent the last 10 years
working through severe contract rewriting, marketting conversions, getting
their not-insignificant catalogues converted, and trying to deal with
runaway theft simultaneously. They were on the curve and what is the REAL
issue is that the impatient children-of-all-ages decided that since there
weren't any new Miatas being foisted on them for $2k at their local 7-11
then they'd just haul on over to the Dealership at 3am and drive one off the
lot. IN this case the kiddies' perception that there's some 'catchup'
happening is merely their immersion in Veruca Salt Syndrome.

--
John I-22
(that's 'I' for Initial...)
Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key.
--

Ryan Mitchley

July 19th 04, 04:32 PM

J> well, rather than (for the umpletyteenth time over the last 5 years)
J> AGAIN just whining about how the locks the owners are forced to place on
J> their wares are 'annoying' to customers... when, since these clueless
J> spoiled, self-indulgent self-deluded children ages 10-50+ are publicly
J> supported by ersatz lip-service from newspapers radio net and tv
J> 'journalists' who steadfastly refuse to use the word 'property theft'
J> instead of 'file sharing' every time it comes up, does the movement
J> start to make brain-dead blindered self-eviscerating theft uncool?

Actually, there is a significant amount of non-trivial discussion as to
whether intellectual property should be accorded the same treatment as, for
example, land. There are credible arguments that it shouldn't.

Download and read: http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf

Besides, "file sharing" is most certainly != "property theft" in general
(the broader possibilities of accessible, efficient file sharing go way
beyond IP theft). Attempts to obfuscate and denigrate the phrase are not
helpful to anyone.

Ryan

U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles

July 19th 04, 04:42 PM

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:20:01 GMT, JoVee > wrote:
> U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles at "Charles wrote on 7/18/04 7:46
> PM:
>
>> I for one am reasonably certain that record companies will eventually
>> figure out a way to make money online, and that none will begrudge them
>> their profit. I think we're in a transitional time where they came late
>> to the party and are playing catchup.
>
> this has always bugged me no end, the 'industry' spent the last 10 years
> working through severe contract rewriting, marketting conversions, getting
> their not-insignificant catalogues converted, and trying to deal with
> runaway theft simultaneously. They were on the curve and what is the REAL
> issue is that the impatient children-of-all-ages decided that since there
> weren't any new Miatas being foisted on them for $2k at their local 7-11
> then they'd just haul on over to the Dealership at 3am and drive one off the
> lot. IN this case the kiddies' perception that there's some 'catchup'
> happening is merely their immersion in Veruca Salt Syndrome.
>

Perhaps.

Seems to me that the Majors stopped selling singles just in time to be
burned by downloads.

If they'd been there FIRST with inexpensive high-quality music--even
if the downloads were locked, Napster wouldn't have happened--why bother
with "low-quality free" when you can get "high quality cheap"?

I'm also not certain that the numbers support the notion that CD sales
ebbed and flowed in response to ANYTHING aside from the state of the
economy and the amount of disposable income in the hands of the target
markets, despite considerable spin from both ends.

Back when I was choir directing, sheet music companies were having a
similar problem. I'd call them:

"Hey, I'd like to buy 25 copies."

"I'm sorry, that's out of print."

"How much for repro rights for 25 copies?"

"I'm sorry, we don't sell reproduction rights. Perhaps if you call all
our dealers, someone will have it in stock . . ." (no one did btw)

I'm telling them, "I have $50 to spend in YOUR catalog" and they said
"No thank you???" What kind of a business plan is THAT?

Well, NOW they've FINALLY figured out that "shipping" a PDF costs them
next to nothing and that most choir directors are happy to comply with a
"30 copy license" just as we were happy to comply with 30 physical
copies.

We'll see what happens. I think at this point the majors are going to
have to add more value--better quality, guaranteed up-compatibility to
new devices, They're smart, they'll think of something--than people can
get for free.

The film companies, otoh, still seem to be married to the business plan of
shipping 100lb crates of film around that encourages bootlegging in
foreign countries. The gripping hand is that I'm not certain if digital
distribution, local printing, and simultaneous rollout is ever going to
be a substitute for "Tom Cruise at the Sydney Premier"

Ryan Mitchley

July 19th 04, 04:46 PM

J> They were on the curve and what is
J> the REAL issue is that the impatient children-of-all-ages decided that
J> since there weren't any new Miatas being foisted on them for $2k at
J> their local 7-11 then they'd just haul on over to the Dealership at 3am
J> and drive one off the lot.

Comparing sharing of music files to theft of tangible property is a tenuous,
although understandable, simplification.

It is not always so easy to prove consequential loss to the owner of the
content in the case of easily copyable media. There are numerous gray areas.

If I play one of my CD's to a friend, is that theft?
What if he travels overseas and I email him a clip?
What if I email him one complete song?
What if he decides that he hates the song and would never buy the CD,
anyway?
What if he likes the song and decides to buy the CD?
In which of these cases is the content owner deprived of income or property?

Even if you think that you have non-fuzzy answers to these questions,
realise that there are others who could probably come up with justifiably
different answers. It really isn't as black & white as theft of tangible
property.

Emotionally biased simplifications do not help the debate at all.

Ryan

Richard Crowley

July 19th 04, 05:01 PM

"Ryan Mitchley" > wrote in message
...
> J> They were on the curve and what is
> J> the REAL issue is that the impatient children-of-all-ages decided that
> J> since there weren't any new Miatas being foisted on them for $2k at
> J> their local 7-11 then they'd just haul on over to the Dealership at
3am
> J> and drive one off the lot.
>
> Comparing sharing of music files to theft of tangible property is a
tenuous,
> although understandable, simplification.
>
> It is not always so easy to prove consequential loss to the owner of the
> content in the case of easily copyable media. There are numerous gray
areas.
>
> If I play one of my CD's to a friend, is that theft?
> What if he travels overseas and I email him a clip?
> What if I email him one complete song?
> What if he decides that he hates the song and would never buy the CD,
> anyway?
> What if he likes the song and decides to buy the CD?
> In which of these cases is the content owner deprived of income or
property?
>
> Even if you think that you have non-fuzzy answers to these questions,

Some of us don't find the laws anywhere near as fuzzy as you seem to.
Have you visited your optometrist lately? :-)

> realise that there are others who could probably come up with justifiably
> different answers.

Hence the reason for published laws to which we consent as
part of the price of living in a civilized society.

> It really isn't as black & white as theft of tangible property.
>
> Emotionally biased simplifications do not help the debate at all.

Nor do fuzzy "free-love, flower-power, socialisim for the masses"
arguments. Some of us have lived through the horrors of such
anarchy and we will be suffering the aftereffects for several more
generations.

hank alrich

July 19th 04, 05:03 PM

U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote:

> If they'd been there FIRST with inexpensive high-quality music--even
> if the downloads were locked, Napster wouldn't have happened--why bother
> with "low-quality free" when you can get "high quality cheap"?

They had these things called "contracts" with the artists and until
those were reconfigured the labels hadn't the right to offer music
online.

--
ha

Ryan Mitchley

July 19th 04, 05:11 PM

RC> Some of us don't find the laws anywhere near as fuzzy as you seem to.
RC> Have you visited your optometrist lately? :-)

Why do we need judges or juries at all, for that matter . . . Let's set up
an AI expert system to rule.

The legal system is, and will always be, subject to social pressure and
change. Laws are of human origin and were not handed to us carved in stone
(in contrast to the Ten Commandments, of course :-) ). If you believe
otherwise, then we have too little common ground to continue this debate,
really . . .

Grossly simplifying my arguments does not give the impression of a well
thought out opinion, by the way.

Ryan

Ben Bradley

July 19th 04, 05:39 PM

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:32:45 +0200, "Ryan Mitchley"
> wrote:

>
> J> well, rather than (for the umpletyteenth time over the last 5 years)
> J> AGAIN just whining about how the locks the owners are forced to place on
> J> their wares are 'annoying' to customers... when, since these clueless
> J> spoiled, self-indulgent self-deluded children ages 10-50+ are publicly
> J> supported by ersatz lip-service from newspapers radio net and tv
> J> 'journalists' who steadfastly refuse to use the word 'property theft'
> J> instead of 'file sharing' every time it comes up, does the movement
> J> start to make brain-dead blindered self-eviscerating theft uncool?
>
>Actually, there is a significant amount of non-trivial discussion as to
>whether intellectual property should be accorded the same treatment as, for
>example, land. There are credible arguments that it shouldn't.

Great. Take the arguments to the public and Congress, and get the
laws changed.

>Download and read: http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf

I'll have to read that someday.

>Besides, "file sharing" is most certainly != "property theft" in general
>(the broader possibilities of accessible, efficient file sharing go way
>beyond IP theft). Attempts to obfuscate and denigrate the phrase are not
>helpful to anyone.

I certainly see your point that p2p file sharing CAN BE used for
legitimate sharing of files with the creators' permissions, but FTP
and webpages are good, longer-established ways of doing the same
thing, and these are usually the ways such files are put on the
internet by their creators. I've heard of cases where musicians put
their own mp3 recordings on p2p networks for promotion and they DO
find new fans this way, but this surely is a small minority of the p2p
traffic.
File sharing programs were specifically designed so that those
writing the programs don't have direct responsibility or knowledge of
the files that users share <wink wink nudge nudge>, unlike a website
host who might be held liable for illegal files, and thus has a strong
incentive to keep such files off the host systems. It's not that p2p
networks "just happen" to have their majority use being that of
illegal file swapping, they were DESIGNED for that purpose.
If you want a good system for bandwidth-sharing as well as file
sharing, check out BitTorrent. It has, as far as I can see, all the
advantages of distributed bandwidth that P2P has, with the single
disadvantage (for illegal files) of the first copy of the file having
to be hosted on an FTP or HTTP/website.

>Ryan

Ryan Mitchley

July 19th 04, 06:38 PM

Hi Ben

BB> Great. Take the arguments to the public and Congress, and get the
BB> laws changed.

Well, firstly, I'm in South Africa :-)

Secondly, this is just fine *as long as* the general populace are well
informed and aware of the broader implications in good time, care
sufficiently to make the effort (again, in good time) and do not have any
less motivating power than, for example, big businesses (who certainly *are*
aware of the broader implications, think ahead and are sufficiently
motivated and powerful to look after their own interests).

I wouldn't like to come across as some kind of conspiracy theorist, but the
fact is that any solution that is actually effective to curb piracy is
hugely likely to impact on fundamental rights (whatever those are) and
freedoms. There is also the danger of empowering and creating momentum for
exploitative business models (from the point of view of the
consumer/customer). I wish as much as anyone that there were well accepted
and easy solutions.

Alternative business models (especially) and consumer education, while
possibly limp-wristed, are far less likely to cause long term damage.

Ryan

Geoff Wood

July 19th 04, 09:26 PM

Geoff Wood

July 19th 04, 09:33 PM

JoVee wrote:
> Geoff Wood at -nospam wrote on 7/17/04 7:36 PM:
>
>> I have purchased both Nora Jones CDs that contain some sort of copy
>> protection. I would have bought them is they hadn't been protected.
>>
>> I am ****ed off that I am prevented from excercised my FAIR USE of
>> this product by making digital copies of selected tracks on my own
>> private-use compilation CDs that I make for (primarily) in-car use.
>
> 'fair use'.. damn what a screwed-up term.
> SUPPPOSED to mean that you can use excerpts as quotes and references
> without being called a thief.
> Now it's a blunderbuss implying we all have some real 'right' to make
> as many different copies of something as we just wannagottahave.
> If I want a second hammer, or need 2 3/4" wrenches for a task, I gots
> to buy 'em y'know...

Fair Use is a pretty well understood and legally definined.

Sony / Sonic Foundry have a reasonable and rational approach to licensing
of their media software. As legal holder of a user licence for several
items of their software, I can install it (and register i) on several
different computers, as loonmg as only one instance is being used at a time.

If I have legally purchased a CD, I cannot see where the harm is in having
access to the music in different formats an configurations, as long as I am
only listening to it one instance at a time. Can you point out how a
compilatiion CD of purchased music disadvantages an artist or record
company, and how this is different to a cassette of the same ?

geoff

Lars Farm

July 19th 04, 09:48 PM

JoVee > wrote:

> Geoff Wood at -nospam wrote on 7/17/04 7:36 PM:
>
> > I have purchased both Nora Jones CDs that contain some sort of copy
> > protection. I would have bought them is they hadn't been protected.
> >
> > I am ****ed off that I am prevented from excercised my FAIR USE of this
> > product by making digital copies of selected tracks on my own private-use
> > compilation CDs that I make for (primarily) in-car use.
>
> 'fair use'.. damn what a screwed-up term.
> SUPPPOSED to mean that you can use excerpts as quotes and references without
> being called a thief.
> Now it's a blunderbuss implying we all have some real 'right' to make as
> many different copies of something as we just wannagottahave.
> If I want a second hammer, or need 2 3/4" wrenches for a task, I gots to buy
> 'em y'know...

There's a difference. You actually buy the hammer. The thing is yours.
The seller places no restrictions on its use what so ever. You buy the
CD which is just the medium for what you pay, the music. You do not buy
the music. You only pay for the right to use it. Some one else still
owns the music (whoever holds the commercial part ot its copyright). So,
music can not be compared to a hammer or any other physical thing that
you will actually own.

That said, I feell very much like GW above. If I paid for the right to
listen to the music, then I should be able to do so through whatever
equipment I choose. Connected in whatever kind of playback chain I
prefer when listening. It could be today CD -> cheap receiver ->
speakers or tomorrow CD -> separate preamp -> power amp -> speakers or
.... or ... or perhaps next week CD -> hard disc -> sound card -> hifi ->
speakers or last week CD -> hard disc -> CDR -> car audio or ... you get
the idea. The channel is mine and I should be able to play music the CD
carries and that I paid for through any of my channels whenever I so
choose. Any restriction in this respect is something that reduces the
value of the product and that of course makes me less inclined to buy
the product.

sincerely
Lars

--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se

JoVee

July 19th 04, 11:11 PM

Geoff Wood at -nospam wrote on 7/19/04 4:26 PM:

> JoVee wrote:
>> Geoff Wood at -nospam wrote on 7/17/04 7:36 PM:
>>
>>> I have purchased both Nora Jones CDs that contain some sort of copy
>>> protection. I would have bought them is they hadn't been protected.
>>>
>>> I am ****ed off that I am prevented from excercised my FAIR USE of
>>> this product by making digital copies of selected tracks on my own
>>> private-use compilation CDs that I make for (primarily) in-car use.
>>
>> 'fair use'.. damn what a screwed-up term.
>> SUPPPOSED to mean that you can use excerpts as quotes and references
>> without being called a thief.
>> Now it's a blunderbuss implying we all have some real 'right' to make
>> as many different copies of something as we just wannagottahave.
>> If I want a second hammer, or need 2 3/4" wrenches for a task, I gots
>> to buy 'em y'know...
>
> Do you have a separate wrench for each nut ?

No geoff... just that when I buy ONE, i don;t have some free-ticket for as
many more of that same one as I feel I wanna have when I wanna have em. If I
LOSE one or BREAK one I gotta BUY one again cause what i BOUGHT was the
WRENCH. You want a block-o-steel? that's cheap. You want a fin tool? You pay
for the steel, the concept/invention of a particular DESIGN as well as some
level of quality in the reproduction. If SEARS or MAC knew you could just
pop a load of cow**** in the ol Transmogrifier and copy their precision
tools, you KNOW they'd charge a WHOLE lot more for the first one off the
line knowing that everybody'd be copyin' them givin them away... but that's
a few years down the line... we gotta solve the INVENTION and then the
massive amounts of CHEAP POWER that'd make that possible... but the CONCEPT
is exactly the same... as it is for your JOB.
We're gonna wake up or there's goung to be a REEEEEAL interesting 'economy'.

--
John I-22
(that's 'I' for Initial...)
Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key.
--

JoVee

July 19th 04, 11:16 PM

Geoff Wood at -nospam wrote on 7/19/04 4:33 PM:

> JoVee wrote:
>> Geoff Wood at -nospam wrote on 7/17/04 7:36 PM:
>>
>>> I have purchased both Nora Jones CDs that contain some sort of copy
>>> protection. I would have bought them is they hadn't been protected.
>>>
>>> I am ****ed off that I am prevented from excercised my FAIR USE of
>>> this product by making digital copies of selected tracks on my own
>>> private-use compilation CDs that I make for (primarily) in-car use.
>>
>> 'fair use'.. damn what a screwed-up term.
>> SUPPPOSED to mean that you can use excerpts as quotes and references
>> without being called a thief.
>> Now it's a blunderbuss implying we all have some real 'right' to make
>> as many different copies of something as we just wannagottahave.
>> If I want a second hammer, or need 2 3/4" wrenches for a task, I gots
>> to buy 'em y'know...
>
>
> Fair Use is a pretty well understood and legally definined.

as long as you keep STRINGLY in mind at all times where the 'legally
defined' walks completely out of the realm of sensibility due to the law
trying lamely to put toothpaste back in a tube.

>
> Sony / Sonic Foundry have a reasonable and rational approach to licensing
> of their media software. As legal holder of a user licence for several
> items of their software, I can install it (and register i) on several
> different computers, as loonmg as only one instance is being used at a time.

BINGO!!!
keep that in mind

> If I have legally purchased a CD, I cannot see where the harm is in having
> access to the music in different formats an configurations, as long as I am
> only listening to it one instance at a time.

and thereby we walk into the odd and amazing realm of TRUST...
There isn't a law on the books that shouldn't be repealed if we use that
logic. It's a wonderfull, optimistic pollyannaish approach.
If only the world were thus.

> Can you point out how a
> compilatiion CD of purchased music disadvantages an artist or record
> company, and how this is different to a cassette of the same ?

Don't follow you.. rephrase..?

We're talking the dissolution of the idea of IP here.
Not much out there for sale that isn;t IP at base...
--
John I-22
(that's 'I' for Initial...)
Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key.
--

JoVee

July 19th 04, 11:30 PM

Lars Farm at wrote on 7/19/04 4:48 PM:

> JoVee > wrote:
>> 'fair use'.. damn what a screwed-up term.
>> SUPPPOSED to mean that you can use excerpts as quotes and references without
>> being called a thief.
>> Now it's a blunderbuss implying we all have some real 'right' to make as
>> many different copies of something as we just wannagottahave.
>> If I want a second hammer, or need 2 3/4" wrenches for a task, I gots to buy
>> 'em y'know...
>
> There's a difference. You actually buy the hammer. The thing is yours.
> The seller places no restrictions on its use what so ever. You buy the
> CD which is just the medium for what you pay, the music. You do not buy
> the music. You only pay for the right to use it. Some one else still
> owns the music (whoever holds the commercial part ot its copyright). So,
> music can not be compared to a hammer or any other physical thing that
> you will actually own.

So you're saying I can take a Makita, copy it and sell it or give copies
away?

> That said, I feel very much like GW above. If I paid for the right to
> listen to the music, then I should be able to do so through whatever
> equipment I choose.

interesting.
A single copy of something is of exactly equal value to you as a dozen
different copies of something?

> ... Any restriction in this respect is something that reduces the
> value of the product and that of course makes me less inclined to buy
> the product.

Ah, now I see, you expect to recieve unrestricted-use rights when you
purchase anything. Seems to me that should cost more.

--
John I-22
(that's 'I' for Initial...)
Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key.
--

DrBoom

July 19th 04, 11:57 PM

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message
news:<znr1090182132k@trad>...
> In article 4>
> writes:

[...]

> > That's probably true, but with all those tiny USB equipped MP3
> > players, more and more ordinary consumers are copying their CDs
> > in a computer.
>
> Hey! I've done that! Acutally that's probably legal under the
> provisions of the Home Recording Act.

Format and time shifting are both fair use activities, despite the
best efforts of the RIAA and MPAA. DVD encryption brought the DMCA
into the equation, but that's another discussion.

> The trick here (and I have no idea how it could be accomplished)
> would be to create an MP3 that would only play in that player, or
> wouldn't go OUT the USB port as a file - sort of like that trick
> that the Sony Minidisk players do. Unfortunately that also
> prevents you from transferring an origianal recording out the USB
> port - small problem for the creative people, no big deal for
> most users.

Any such effort is doomed to failure. Analog transfers will always
be there as a last resort: others in this newsgroup have quite
correctly pointed out that it only takes one or two people to
record, encode, and post to the p2p networks for the cat to be out
of the bag.

The solution doesn't lie in crippling the hardware (like with the
new MiniDisc) or in draconian legislation. All they have to do is
make a product that _people_with_money_to_spend_ want to buy.

Also, to answer your question a little further up this thread: if I
wasn't boycotting members of the RIAA, I would absolutely care if
there was copy protection on a CD that would prevent me from
putting the music on my iPod or my jukebox. Millions of other MP3
player owners (like yourself, presumably) care, too.

Cheers,
-DrBoom

Jonas Eckerman

July 20th 04, 12:12 AM

(Mike Rivers) wrote in news:znr1090182132k@trad:

>> That's probably true, but with all those tiny USB equipped MP3
>> players, more and more ordinary consumers are copying their CDs in a
>> computer.

> Hey! I've done that! Acutally that's probably legal under the
> provisions of the Home Recording Act.

It's certainly legal here in Sweden, but what your oddball DMCA would say
about it is something I'm happily unaware about. :-)

> The trick here (and I have no idea how it could be accomplished) would
> be to create an MP3 that would only play in that player, or wouldn't
> go OUT the USB port as a file

That's what a lot of DRM schemes are trying to do. Make it so you can copy
music to the device, but not from teh device to someone else or to the
computer.

A brittish company recently publicised plans to manufacture and sell an MP3
player with a fingerprint reader that would encode the fingerprint in the
audio files so that they can only be played when the person with the right
finger is present. (Noone else really believes anyone will buy this
though.)

Of course, this kind of stuff is 100% dependant on manufacturers of both
hard- and software to actually implement the schemes. Wich in turn is
dependant on economics. With a multitude of MP3 players that allow copying
any way you want, how many units of a much more limited device do you think
you could sell?

> Unfortunately that also prevents you from
> transferring an origianal recording out the USB port - small problem
> for the creative people, no big deal for most users.

Yeah, that can be a problem. What about legally downloadable music files
that the artists themselves put on the web for example?

I've encountered a similar problem, but in another area.

I created a bunch of fonts (for two fantasy worlds). These fonts are
freeware (created by me, one set for my own original world, and one set
with the permission of the owners of the commercial roleplaying setting
they are for). Anyone can download them legally.

I also wanted to let anyone use them as embedded fonts in web-pages. I
downloaded Microsoft's package for creating embedded fonts of this type,
and found that I hade to specify all the web sites that they should be
usuable in. There was no way I could just make these fonts free to use for
any site.

I wrote to Microsoft and explained that I was trying to make a freely
usuable package of fonts that were my own original creations, but they just
said that the technology simply didn't support that.

Kind of ****ed me off for a while. It's my work so I should decide wether
it's freely distributable or not, and Microsoft shouldn't have anything to
say about that.

No real biggie though. I can still distribute the standard TrueType fonts,
and if someone want's to embed them they'll have to find Microsofts package
themselves and learn how to use it. (I was trying to spare people from
having to do that.)

/Jonas

Mike Rivers

July 20th 04, 01:11 AM

In article > writes:

> It is not always so easy to prove consequential loss to the owner of the
> content in the case of easily copyable media. There are numerous gray areas.

The first thing we need to do is stop using the word "theft" and start
saying "violate the copyright law." Because it IS a law. But then
"theft" is so much easier to type and gets people more excited.

> If I play one of my CD's to a friend, is that theft?

No. It's what CDs are meant for.

> What if he travels overseas and I email him a clip?

Probably (assuming you're talking about a portion of a song). You'd be
violating the law in your country, but it may not be against the law
where he is to possess that clip.

> What if I email him one complete song?

Same

> What if he decides that he hates the song and would never buy the CD,
> anyway?

It doesn't matter. If you steal a car and decide you don't like it and
bring it back, if you're caught, you're still guilty of breaking a
law.

> What if he likes the song and decides to buy the CD?

You should get a sales commission from the record company. Send 'em a
bill.

> In which of these cases is the content owner deprived of income or property?

In any instance where there would be payment to the owner. If the only
way to hear the music if it wasn't given in violation of the law was
to buy the CD, then that's a loss to the owner. Unless the listener
decides that he won't bother listening to that CD, not even once, not
even one song, not even a fragment.

> Even if you think that you have non-fuzzy answers to these questions,
> realise that there are others who could probably come up with justifiably
> different answers.

There are those who can justify their answers to themselves. But that
isn't what makes the law.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Lars Farm

July 20th 04, 09:07 AM

JoVee > wrote:

> So you're saying I can take a Makita, copy it and sell it or give copies
> away?

I said no such thing. I said that once bought *I* can use it as I please
without restrictions. This is not the same with music. I don't buy
music. I buy the right to use it and the more restricted this licence is
the less its value. English is a forreign language, so if you find my
use of English language insufficient then perhaps you'd prefer to
continue in Swedish?

> interesting. A single copy of something is of exactly equal value to you
> as a dozen different copies of something?

It's still just one copy. It's not the CD, its' the music. The music is
there when played. There is only one of me so there can at any given
playback only be one copy.

Lars

--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se

Ryan Mitchley

July 20th 04, 09:55 AM

MR> I'm not estimating the difficulty at all. Some very difficult things
MR> have been accomplished in my lifetime, and if those who claim they are
MR> losing money can see a benefit to preventing that by making
MR> "unofficial" exchange of music difficult, they'll do it. If they
MR> don't, that means they've decided that it will cost them less to let
MR> it go than to fix it.

Firstly, anything that actually is capable of producing audio at some point
is *going* to be defeatable, and easily at that. Technical means are a waste
of time and money, and the sooner we all wake up to that, the better. They
really will only pass down a cost to the consumer without giving anything in
return (because they *will* be defetable, I guarantee).

Secondly, anything that would really able to guarantee proper "Digital
Rights Management" is going to introduce a whole lot of other nasties to the
consumer, on a variety of levels and in yet undreamed of ways. If you want
examples, I'll be happy to provide, but I really don't have time right now.

??>> But, fundamentally, I object to being the paying schmuck ending up
??>> with an inferior product.

MR> If my intent is to put it in a CD player and listen to the music, the
MR> only way it could be "inferior" (excepting the crappy music or
MR> engineering of course) is if a protection scheme somehow changed the
MR> audio I was hearing.

??>> Do you really feel happy that the CD's you buy are X times
??>> more likely to fail from dust, scratches, etc....?

MR> X-times more than what (or when)? Has manufacturing gone down scale?

Are you just playing at idiocy or what? The Macrovision scheme, amongst
others, deliberately inserts errors into the data stream, and relies on the
player to correct them. There is a limited amount of redundancy built into
the digital audio data on the CD, and these schemes unquestionably reduce
it. In a strict mathematical sense, these particular copy protection schemes
make a CD with the protection X (where X is a real value greater than one)
times more likely to play back with errors than one without.

Ryan

Mike Rivers

July 20th 04, 11:51 AM

In article <1gh6zyx.12yg52318pg0quN%mail.addr.can.be.found@www .farm.se> writes:

> That said, I feell very much like GW above. If I paid for the right to
> listen to the music, then I should be able to do so through whatever
> equipment I choose. Connected in whatever kind of playback chain I
> prefer when listening.

You have the right to play it on a hair dryer, too, but it would
probalby never occur to you to do that. Unfortunately, you may have to
be inconvenienced slightly because some rotten apples spoiled the
whole bushel. Your life won't come to an end if you can't listen ot a
CD on your computer, will it?

Sometimes in solving one problem, another one is caused. Every get a
software upgrade that didn't do that to you?

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Lorin David Schultz

July 20th 04, 12:27 PM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1090093257k@trad...
>
> Someone will probably actually even BUY the CD. Will it be you?

Probably me. I don't download or otherwise illegally acquire the music
I want. I buy CDs. Thing is, it's impractical for me to carry around
dozens of CDs when I'm on the go (more than dozens if you apply the
"only one or two 'hits' per disc" rule). To overcome that I rip them to
my laptop, which I have to carry anyway.

The courts have said it's okay for me to do that. I can still dub copy
protected discs rather than rip them, but it bugs me that I'd have to.
Setting levels and splitting files and editing in and out points and
such -- I have to do that **** all day at work, I sure as hell don't
want to spend my off time doing it! <g>

After having to deal with a totally seized, locked-up Mac at work caused
by trying to perform legitimate operations with insidiously "protected"
discs, I've adopted a "just say no" policy on copy protected discs.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

Mike Rivers

July 20th 04, 01:51 PM

In article > writes:

> Firstly, anything that actually is capable of producing audio at some point
> is *going* to be defeatable, and easily at that. Technical means are a waste
> of time and money, and the sooner we all wake up to that, the better.

You're imagining an iron-clad absoulutely undefeatable system. I'm
thinking about something that will deter some people and swing them
toward paying for what they should pay for. I don't have my free
ProTools system yet, but I'll bet if I wanted it badly enough, I could
have it.

> Secondly, anything that would really able to guarantee proper "Digital
> Rights Management" is going to introduce a whole lot of other nasties to the
> consumer, on a variety of levels and in yet undreamed of ways.

Those can be fixed if it's important enough to fix them in order for
the system to be acceptable, or at least non-intrusive for the
majority. While EVERYONE has the RIGHT to listen to music, that's the
only right they have. If it's possible to listen to it in a proscribed
way that's reasonable to most, that should be the only obligation of
the provider. I don't believe that most people _only_ play CDs on
their computers, and that if it was too inconvenient to transfer them
to something they could play in the car or while jogging, they'd
listen to the radio instead.

If you had only two choices, which would you prefer - paying $1 more
for every CD you bought (emphasis on YOU BOUGHT) or buying a $29 boom
box to put in your computer room for playing CDs?

> If you want
> examples, I'll be happy to provide, but I really don't have time right now.

Not necessary. You'd only provide examples that support your point
anyway.

> Are you just playing at idiocy or what? The Macrovision scheme, amongst
> others, deliberately inserts errors into the data stream, and relies on the
> player to correct them.

I'm not playing the idiot. I don't know enough about eithe rthe
Macrovision system or how error correction/concealment works to
predict its effect on the robustness of the playback under normal
conditions. Educate me with facts, not your conjectures.

When proper listening tests are conducted, then and only then will you
have evidence to support your claim.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers

July 20th 04, 01:51 PM

In article > writes:

> MR> Probably (assuming you're talking about a portion of a song). You'd be
> MR> violating the law in your country, but it may not be against the law
> MR> where he is to possess that clip.
>
> Actually, I believe you could be wrong if one could argue fair use (in terms
> of quotation and reference). It makes for a non-trivial case, anyway - which
> was exactly my point. It's NOT as defined as it is for tangible property.

Fair use is pretty well defined. But individual cases are individual
cases. If a clip is used in a lecture (even an on-line lecture) I
suspect that it would fall under "fair use." If it was for marketing
purposes, while it may not fall under fair use, it would proably be
allowed by the owner. If it was for entertainment, that's not fair
use.

> It's easy to come up a boatload of corner cases that demonstrate very easily
> that it's NOT as easy to resolve as for concrete objects.

Of course not, but only blatent violations are prosecuted, and when
those go to court, they're usually resolved peacefully, though someone
ends up paying. But the courts don't want 500,000 cases a month where
someone owes someone else a dollar.

> This is a legal nightmare to prove. Why not give the benefit of the doubt to
> the potential customer instead of instituting a barage of expensive
> protection schemes and unenforcable laws that, if actually effective (the
> key phrase), are more than likely to infringe severely on personal rights
> and freedoms.

That's what we have always had, and the "potential customer" has
abused it. Perhaps he doesn't really have all of those "personal
rights and freedoms" when it comes to intellectual property after all.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles

July 20th 04, 01:58 PM

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:11:25 GMT, JoVee > wrote:
> Geoff Wood at -nospam wrote on 7/19/04 4:26 PM:
>
> level of quality in the reproduction. If SEARS or MAC knew you could just
> pop a load of cow**** in the ol Transmogrifier and copy their precision
> tools, you KNOW they'd charge a WHOLE lot more for the first one off the

Since when does Sears sell "Precision Tools?"

Lars Farm

July 20th 04, 03:51 PM

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> Sometimes in solving one problem, another one is caused. Every get a
> software upgrade that didn't do that to you?

Yes, and sometimes the cure is worse than what it is supposed to cure.
Every license restriction is also something that lessens the value of
the license. Possibly so that it isn't worth paying for.

There could be other reasons for the music industry crisis. It could
have to do with content rather than package. If it becomes more industry
than art then buyers might not find it worth buying. It becomes a
comodity, worth little, rather than something important, worth much. And
that line of thought has nothing to do with mpeg 1 layer 3 or music
download...

sincerely
Lars

--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se

Mike Rivers

July 20th 04, 04:45 PM

In article <zk7Lc.79813$Rf.33599@edtnps84> writes:

> I buy CDs. Thing is, it's impractical for me to carry around
> dozens of CDs when I'm on the go (more than dozens if you apply the
> "only one or two 'hits' per disc" rule). To overcome that I rip them to
> my laptop, which I have to carry anyway.

What's the compelling reason to carry your own music wherever you go?
I'll admit to carrying my Jukebox 3 on airplanes, but usually what I
record (yes, in real time) is radio programs, and listen to them while
I fly. In the hotel rooms, I listen to the radio.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Ryan Mitchley

July 20th 04, 05:10 PM

MR> You're imagining an iron-clad absoulutely undefeatable system. I'm
MR> thinking about something that will deter some people and swing them
MR> toward paying for what they should pay for.

Again, I repeat, this is not feasible. The moment *one* person has cracked
the scheme, the knowledge, tools and software will become available all over
the world in a very short space of time. There will be no deterrent power.
This deterrent argument is way past its usefulness . . . such systems are
only going to provide (temporary) irritation and raise prices. The DVD
region encoding scheme has only been a nuisance to me, since I *do* order
DVD's from around the world, yet I have never struggled particularly to
defeat it (living in a region 2 country). It usually raises its ugly head
when changing or re-installing software . . . certainly no deterrent, but
definitely an irritation. I would imagine that producing identical
region-free discs all around the world could certainly have saved on costs.

??>> Secondly, anything that would really able to guarantee proper "Digital
??>> Rights Management" is going to introduce a whole lot of other nasties
??>> to the consumer, on a variety of levels and in yet undreamed of ways.

MR> Those can be fixed if it's important enough to fix them in order for
MR> the system to be acceptable, or at least non-intrusive for the
MR> majority. While EVERYONE has the RIGHT to listen to music, that's the
MR> only right they have. If it's possible to listen to it in a proscribed
MR> way that's reasonable to most, that should be the only obligation of
MR> the provider. I don't believe that most people _only_ play CDs on
MR> their computers, and that if it was too inconvenient to transfer them
MR> to something they could play in the car or while jogging, they'd
MR> listen to the radio instead.

You are missing the point that a combination of legislation (especially) and
technical refinements (if feasible) are going to impact people's lives in
way more areas than the music that they listen to. I will give a couple of
examples that could be relevant to the media industry, but the applications
across the board are staggering:

Welcome to the DRM age, an age where:
1) Those pictures you took on your Nikon camera can't be uploaded to your
MSN website, at least without paying a (small, of course) licensing fee to
Microsoft. Sony cameras are not subject to the same limitation, since they
have several agreements and "mutual understandings" in place with Microsoft.
2) The Cubase sessions you've just mixed can't be mastered by your favourite
engineer using ProTools, since the mixes are encrypted and Steinberg have
not yet provided the conversion software. You could, of course, import the
mixes into Wavelab and master.
3) Every time you transfer data from your Panasonic camcorder to your Mac
Adobe video editing suite, an automatic "codec licensing fee" is deducted
electronically from your bank account.
4) The key mappings and program setup data from that patch you created on
your sampler a year ago are encrypted, and you have no way of importing them
into the (competitor's) sampler that you just bought. [This is actually what
is *already* happening with one company's product - it could be Halion, but
don't quote me on that]

The combination of legislation and DRM technology will empower the dominant
industry players to further their domination, notwithstanding minor
considerations such as product quality and ethical business practices. You
could hope that market forces would correct the situation, but there have
been several instances in which the market forces have operated over hugely
long time periods, and have basically been ineffective from the consumer's
point of view.

MR> Not necessary. You'd only provide examples that support your point
MR> anyway.

Yes, I usually provide examples that support my point. Other examples would
be meaningless . . . no?

MR> I'm not playing the idiot. I don't know enough about eithe rthe
MR> Macrovision system or how error correction/concealment works to
MR> predict its effect on the robustness of the playback under normal
MR> conditions. Educate me with facts, not your conjectures.

Parity and data redundancy have been around for decades, and the principles
are not particularly hard. I would suggest that a professional engineer of
any kind should really be quite familiar with the concepts. It doesn't take
much thought, though, to realise that the data recoverability must be quite
significantly compromised in this particular case to thwart the low level
correction abilities of a typical PC CD-ROM.

MR> When proper listening tests are conducted, then and only then will you
MR> have evidence to support your claim.

"Mr Rivers, we have put an el-cheapo Korean replacement part into your BMW.
But don't worry - just take it for a drive, and I'm sure you won't notice
the difference."

Ryan

Ryan Mitchley

July 20th 04, 05:12 PM

MR> That's what we have always had, and the "potential customer" has
MR> abused it. Perhaps he doesn't really have all of those "personal
MR> rights and freedoms" when it comes to intellectual property after all.

Again, download and read: http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf

And see my other reply, below.

Ryan

Andrea

July 20th 04, 05:46 PM

"Ryan Mitchley" > wrote in message >...
> J> well, rather than (for the umpletyteenth time over the last 5 years)
> J> AGAIN just whining about how the locks the owners are forced to place on
> J> their wares are 'annoying' to customers... when, since these clueless
> J> spoiled, self-indulgent self-deluded children ages 10-50+ are publicly
> J> supported by ersatz lip-service from newspapers radio net and tv
> J> 'journalists' who steadfastly refuse to use the word 'property theft'
> J> instead of 'file sharing' every time it comes up, does the movement
> J> start to make brain-dead blindered self-eviscerating theft uncool?
>
> Actually, there is a significant amount of non-trivial discussion as to
> whether intellectual property should be accorded the same treatment as, for
> example, land. There are credible arguments that it shouldn't.
>
> Download and read: http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf
>
> Besides, "file sharing" is most certainly != "property theft" in general
> (the broader possibilities of accessible, efficient file sharing go way
> beyond IP theft). Attempts to obfuscate and denigrate the phrase are not
> helpful to anyone.
>
> Ryan

I wouldn't worry too much about if DRM works or it makes people mad,
what everyone should really worry about are Submarine Claims to
intellectual property by DRM companies.

At what stage in the process is the DRM added to the recording? Is it
on the delivered master? Is it on the materials sent and broadcast on
radio,and TV,cleared to resample by other artists as a derrivative?

In the future DRM companies could make claims to 50% of the royalties
from the song recording and broadcast,even if it is just digital bits
or white noise in the recording, even if they do not intend to act
now, they can wait until a large number of companies have adopted
thier DRM to the sound recording then pounce with a huge demand for
royalties.
Andrea

Mike Rivers

July 20th 04, 08:44 PM

In article <1gh8ek7.1mzog4j1npfviuN%mail.addr.can.be.found@www .farm.se> writes:

> There could be other reasons for the music industry crisis. It could
> have to do with content rather than package.

This seems to be the general perception.

Unfortunately, record companies, publishers, songwriters, and artists
can't make a decent wage selling singles. Just because they can sell
100,000 CDs doesn't mean the'll sell 1,500,000 copies of the one good
song on the CD. On a good release, maybe they'd sell 300,000 singles,
for 1/5 the gross income. They could increase the profit margin by
only recording 2 or 3 songs instead of 15, but there still isn't
enough money in there to pay for the sushi.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Lorin David Schultz

July 20th 04, 11:24 PM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1090328863k@trad...
>
> What's the compelling reason to carry your own music wherever you go?

Um, enjoyment/entertainment. The same reasons I am compelled to
*purchase* said music in the first place. Is the concept peculiar
somehow?

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

Mike Rivers

July 20th 04, 11:49 PM

In article > writes:

> Again, I repeat, this is not feasible. The moment *one* person has cracked
> the scheme, the knowledge, tools and software will become available all over
> the world in a very short space of time.

Not necessarily. Suppose you told me the eight steps that I had to
take on my PC to defeat the copy protection, and I have a Mac. I'm not
going to buy a PC to copy CDs.

And if you told me that a ripped copy was available from a certain
download location, I might just not be into doing that. While I
recognize that there are some people who will jump through many hoops
to get something for nothing (or even offer something so that others
can get it for nothing) and some will actually enjoy doing it, the
more complicated it is, the more people will drop out of that club.

> You are missing the point that a combination of legislation (especially) and
> technical refinements (if feasible) are going to impact people's lives in
> way more areas than the music that they listen to.

I'm not missing that you're stating that, I just don't believe it's
going to be a big problem for the majority. For a small group, yes,
but we don't make laws to please everybody. If the CDs I buy get
cheaper because a few more people who decide it's too much trouble to
get them for free start paying for them, that's good for me, and for
everyone else who buys CDs.

If my CDs are unsatisfactory, this is something that I can take up
with the makers once I determine that this is the case.

> I will give a couple of examples

You just couldn't resist, could you? <g>

> Welcome to the DRM age, an age where:
> 1) Those pictures you took on your Nikon camera can't be uploaded to your
> MSN website, at least without paying a (small, of course) licensing fee to
> Microsoft. Sony cameras are not subject to the same limitation, since they
> have several agreements and "mutual understandings" in place with Microsoft.

However, the Sony camera costs more than the Nikon because they had to
pay Microsoft for the privilige of letting their customers upload to
the web site. (OK, so most Sony cameras don't cost more than Nikons,
but let's say we're comparing them feature for feature).

> 2) The Cubase sessions you've just mixed can't be mastered by your favourite
> engineer using ProTools, since the mixes are encrypted and Steinberg have
> not yet provided the conversion software. You could, of course, import the
> mixes into Wavelab and master.

It wasn't until Mackie came up with a $400 software upgrade that I
could export my Mackie HDR24/96 recordings to ProTools. And until
fairly recently you couldn't control ProTools with third party
controllers. And if I want to use a high class A/D converter to get
into ProTools, I have to buy at least a Digidesign digital I/O box. I
can't run the ProTools software without at least some of their
hardware, even if I'm not going to actually use it.

But all it takes is money changing hands and the system opens up.

> 3) Every time you transfer data from your Panasonic camcorder to your Mac
> Adobe video editing suite, an automatic "codec licensing fee" is deducted
> electronically from your bank account.

Every time you buy a cassette (or an audio CD, if anyone buys those
any more, or a Minidisk), an "artist royalty fee" is deducted frmo
your wallet. ****es you off in concept, but it doesn't break the bank.
It's a cost of doing business (or having fun).

> 4) The key mappings and program setup data from that patch you created on
> your sampler a year ago are encrypted, and you have no way of importing them
> into the (competitor's) sampler that you just bought.

There's lots of proprietary hardware that doesn't talk to hardware
that functions similarly. Rubber Chicken Software had a good business
going for a while selling reverse-engineered "bridges" between
samplers.

> The combination of legislation and DRM technology will empower the dominant
> industry players to further their domination, notwithstanding minor
> considerations such as product quality and ethical business practices. You
> could hope that market forces would correct the situation, but there have
> been several instances in which the market forces have operated over hugely
> long time periods, and have basically been ineffective from the consumer's
> point of view.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Intellectual
property law changes very slowly, as does the average person's
understanding of it. Technology changes much faster. If the laws kept
up with technology, they'd be changing too fast for the courts to keep
up.

> Parity and data redundancy have been around for decades, and the principles
> are not particularly hard. I would suggest that a professional engineer of
> any kind should really be quite familiar with the concepts. It doesn't take
> much thought, though, to realise that the data recoverability must be quite
> significantly compromised in this particular case to thwart the low level
> correction abilities of a typical PC CD-ROM.

Perhaps a typical CD-ROM, but a pressed CD is quite robust. Probalby
fewer errors, so correction isn't as much of a problem. I would
presume that the designers of such a copy deterrent system would
understand how much 'error headroom' a typical CD has and would stay
within that budget. They don't want 50% of the CDs they sell to come
back. I think you're making assumptions and accusations without
actually looking very deeply into the work that these people have
done, or are planning to do. I don't know the company or their
reputation, but I know the CD industry and I know that they wouldn't
do something totally stupid.

> "Mr Rivers, we have put an el-cheapo Korean replacement part into your BMW.
> But don't worry - just take it for a drive, and I'm sure you won't notice
> the difference."

With certain parts, I'm sure I wouldn't notice the difference.
Besides, I have a Lexus.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Bob Cain

July 20th 04, 11:52 PM

Mike Rivers wrote:

> In article <1gh8ek7.1mzog4j1npfviuN%mail.addr.can.be.found@www .farm.se> writes:
>
>
>>There could be other reasons for the music industry crisis. It could
>>have to do with content rather than package.
>
>
> This seems to be the general perception.

Something that I've not heard suggested is the possibility
that people are just less interested in music right now,
independant of content or production. Pendula do swing.

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Scott Dorsey

July 21st 04, 01:28 AM

Lorin David Schultz > wrote:
>"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
>news:znr1090328863k@trad...
>>
>> What's the compelling reason to carry your own music wherever you go?
>
>Um, enjoyment/entertainment. The same reasons I am compelled to
>*purchase* said music in the first place. Is the concept peculiar
>somehow?

See, I find it distracting. I want to _listen_ to music, and having
music around that I can't listen to (because I have to do something
else) is annoying.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mike Rivers

July 21st 04, 01:59 AM

In article <jYgLc.80154$Rf.30828@edtnps84> writes:

> > What's the compelling reason to carry your own music wherever you go?
>
> Um, enjoyment/entertainment. The same reasons I am compelled to
> *purchase* said music in the first place. Is the concept peculiar
> somehow?

Well, no, but if it's inconvenient, then find some other form of
entertainment. Go out and listen to a band. Turn on the radio and see
what's there besides top 40. Eat a nice dinner. Read the newspaper.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

DrBoom

July 21st 04, 06:00 AM

Not picking on you, Mike -- we just happen to disagree. :-)

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message
news:<znr1090354449k@trad>...

[...]

> There's lots of proprietary hardware that doesn't talk to
> hardware that functions similarly. Rubber Chicken Software had a
> good business going for a while selling reverse-engineered
> "bridges" between samplers.

One problem: the DMCA makes this kind of reverse engineering
illegal if it circumvents "security measures".

[...]

> The more things change, the more they stay the same. Intellectual
> property law changes very slowly, as does the average person's
> understanding of it. Technology changes much faster. If the laws
> kept up with technology, they'd be changing too fast for the
> courts to keep up.

Sorry, I don't buy this.

So-called intellectual property legislation has changed more in the
past twenty or tweny-five years than in the previous hundred fifty.
If anything, is it ahead of the curve and should slow the hell down.

We've had two extensions to the copyright term, codification of the
Berne Convention into U.S. law, introduction of software and
business process patents, the DMCA ... the list goes on, and is
likely to get longer soon.

The disgusting thing is that it's all driven by greedy *******s who
want to *take* from the public domain, but never put anything back.

Go read MacAulay's speeches on the subject if you haven't already.
Talk to some intellectual property lawyers. Most will tell you that
our current system is ****ty for everything but their billable hours.

-DrBoom

hank alrich

July 21st 04, 06:48 AM

Mike Rivers wrote:

> On a good release, maybe they'd sell 300,000 singles,
> for 1/5 the gross income. They could increase the profit margin by
> only recording 2 or 3 songs instead of 15, but there still isn't
> enough money in there to pay for the sushi.

Or to pay for the advertising/marketing effort it takes to sell 'em.

--
ha

Mike Rivers

July 21st 04, 12:01 PM

In article > writes:

> See, I find it distracting. I want to _listen_ to music, and having
> music around that I can't listen to (because I have to do something
> else) is annoying.

I do both. When I listen to music, if it's not live it's in the living
room and I'm playing a CD in a real CD player. If I'm typing at the
computer, I often have some music playing, but it's whatever's on the
radio, usually classical during the day, jazz in the evening. I
haven't a clue as to what's playing and I never stop and say "I need
to buy that recording." It's just something to hide the key clicks and
make me feel like I'm not totally alone.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers

July 21st 04, 01:35 PM

In article > writes:

> So-called intellectual property legislation has changed more in the
> past twenty or tweny-five years than in the previous hundred fifty.
> If anything, is it ahead of the curve and should slow the hell down.

It might be moving faster than it used to, but the rate of change of
technology is still winning that race hands down.

> The disgusting thing is that it's all driven by greedy *******s who
> want to *take* from the public domain, but never put anything back.

You mean the greedy songwriters who want a nickel from everyone who
has a copy of their song in some tangible form where they can hear it
more than once?

> Talk to some intellectual property lawyers. Most will tell you that
> our current system is ****ty for everything but their billable hours.

I'll go along with that.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Lorin David Schultz

July 21st 04, 04:35 PM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1090364363k@trad...
>
> Well, no, but if it's inconvenient, then find some other form of
> entertainment.

It's only inconvenient when copy protected discs are involved. As a
result, I won't buy them. If people won't buy them, they don't satisfy
their stated purpose of protecting revenue streams.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

Ryan Mitchley

July 21st 04, 05:21 PM

??>> Again, I repeat, this is not feasible. The moment *one* person has
??>> cracked the scheme, the knowledge, tools and software will become
??>> available all over the world in a very short space of time.

MR> Not necessarily. Suppose you told me the eight steps that I had to
MR> take on my PC to defeat the copy protection, and I have a Mac. I'm not
MR> going to buy a PC to copy CDs.

It only takes one person to defeat the copy protection, and then spread
unprotected files.

MR> And if you told me that a ripped copy was available from a certain
MR> download location, I might just not be into doing that. While I
MR> recognize that there are some people who will jump through many hoops
MR> to get something for nothing (or even offer something so that others
MR> can get it for nothing) and some will actually enjoy doing it, the
MR> more complicated it is, the more people will drop out of that club.

It only takes one person to make it easy for the rest.

??>> Welcome to the DRM age, an age where:
??>> 1) Those pictures you took on your Nikon camera can't be uploaded to
??>> your MSN website, at least without paying a (small, of course)
??>> licensing fee to Microsoft. Sony cameras are not subject to the same
??>> limitation, since they have several agreements and "mutual
??>> understandings" in place with Microsoft.

MR> However, the Sony camera costs more than the Nikon because they had to
MR> pay Microsoft for the privilige of letting their customers upload to
MR> the web site. (OK, so most Sony cameras don't cost more than Nikons,
MR> but let's say we're comparing them feature for feature).

There are many, many more alternatives that do not increase the market price
of two hypothetically feature-identical products. Some could be
disadvantageous to the customer in rather insiduous, long-term ways (that
the customer is not even aware of). Sony could provide free or cheaper
licensing of some of its own technologies (totally unrelated to cameras) to
Microsoft. Sony could have made an agreement not to share IP with HP, or
vote against IBM's suggestions on some standards body, or . . .

MR> It wasn't until Mackie came up with a $400 software upgrade that I
MR> could export my Mackie HDR24/96 recordings to ProTools. And until
MR> fairly recently you couldn't control ProTools with third party
MR> controllers. And if I want to use a high class A/D converter to get
MR> into ProTools, I have to buy at least a Digidesign digital I/O box. I
MR> can't run the ProTools software without at least some of their
MR> hardware, even if I'm not going to actually use it.

I'm glad you've come up with a few examples of your own, but we really have
only imagined the tip of the iceberg so far. I suggest that the addition of
legislation (e.g. DMCA) will make this far easier for companies, and way
more pervasive, if not invasive, on a scale not yet dreamed of.

The scope for leveraging and unethical (to me, anyway) customer manipulation
will open up dramatically. People will make significant investments in
certain technologies, only to find that their data becomes hugely expensive
to use (or worse, useless) down the line when the vendor changes strategies
or starts working on its share price. We already only "license" most of our
software - no-one owns it, anymore. It's not a long time until we are having
to renew licenses on a yearly basis (since the DMCA will basically prevent
us from switching products). The next logical step is that no-one will
really own the data that they create in any given program, but they will be
"licensed" to use it as the software vendor sees fit. It's no secret that at
one stage Microsoft was practically falling over itself to get customers to
keep their data on Microsoft's servers (the re-emergence of client-server
applications, .NET etc).

MR> There's lots of proprietary hardware that doesn't talk to hardware
MR> that functions similarly. Rubber Chicken Software had a good business
MR> going for a while selling reverse-engineered "bridges" between
MR> samplers.

Yeah, and it's not long until ChickenSys stuff is illegal . . . hope you've
never had reason to use it . . .

MR> Perhaps a typical CD-ROM, but a pressed CD is quite robust. Probalby
MR> fewer errors, so correction isn't as much of a problem. I would
MR> presume that the designers of such a copy deterrent system would
MR> understand how much 'error headroom' a typical CD has and would stay
MR> within that budget. They don't want 50% of the CDs they sell to come
MR> back. I think you're making assumptions and accusations without
MR> actually looking very deeply into the work that these people have
MR> done, or are planning to do. I don't know the company or their
MR> reputation, but I know the CD industry and I know that they wouldn't
MR> do something totally stupid.

I've already encountered playback errors on several pressed CD's (some in
better shape than others, obviously - although I am pretty careful overall),
and I do not consider that decreasing the quality of error-correction is an
option *at all*. And they probably wouldn't get returns on 50% of the CD's
produced, but you can bet that the minority with good equipment will care.

??>> "Mr Rivers, we have put an el-cheapo Korean replacement part into your
??>> BMW. But don't worry - just take it for a drive, and I'm sure you
??>> won't notice the difference."

MR> With certain parts, I'm sure I wouldn't notice the difference.
MR> Besides, I have a Lexus.

Okay, so not an enthusiast, then . . .

Ryan

DrBoom

July 21st 04, 08:02 PM

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:<znr1090410026k@trad>...
> In article > writes:
>
> > So-called intellectual property legislation has changed more in the
> > past twenty or tweny-five years than in the previous hundred fifty.
> > If anything, is it ahead of the curve and should slow the hell down.
>
> It might be moving faster than it used to, but the rate of change of
> technology is still winning that race hands down.

I totally disagree. Recent legislation has stifled a lot of innovation.
Ask a thoughtful software developer how big a risk they think writing
& releasing a new program is and whether they are concerned about
being sued for violating some stealth patent.

The chill being put on innovation is directly attributable to the law
getting ahead of the theory of intellectual "property", and foreclosing
on a lot of innovation before it even happens.

> > The disgusting thing is that it's all driven by greedy *******s who
> > want to *take* from the public domain, but never put anything back.
>
> You mean the greedy songwriters who want a nickel from everyone who
> has a copy of their song in some tangible form where they can hear it
> more than once?

If they, and more importantly their corporate assignees, weren't being
granted 95 year -- permanent, for all intents -- monopolies, I'd be cool
with it.

The sole purpose of copyright (and patents) is to encourage the contribution
of intellectual works to the public domain. You, like most people, seem to
have it backward. Don't take my word for it: read some history.

> > Talk to some intellectual property lawyers. Most will tell you that
> > our current system is ****ty for everything but their billable hours.
>
> I'll go along with that.

OK, so what's better? No pie in the sky, no assumptions about people
behaving well, no self-interested thinking, no Brave New World: what's
the "right" thing for society to tell its legislators to do?

-DrBoom

Mike Rivers

July 21st 04, 11:11 PM

In article > writes:

> It only takes one person to make it easy for the rest.

But it takes the tree a lot longer to grow when you start with one
seed than with a few hundred.

> Yeah, and it's not long until ChickenSys stuff is illegal . . . hope you've
> never had reason to use it . . .

I remember that some company that made an SCMS stripper got sued and
took their product off the market. The basis for the lawsuit was that
it had no other purpose other than to assist you in breaking the law.
On the other hand, I have one from Digital Domains that's sold as a
"format converter" and M-audio sells one, too.

In Virgina where I live, it's illegal to have a radar detector in your
car for the same reason as the above - it serves no useful function
other than to assist you in breaking the law. If they catch you with
one, they confiscate it (though they're nice and let you keep your
car). They ought to start confiscating hard drives.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers

July 22nd 04, 02:03 AM

In article > writes:

> I totally disagree. Recent legislation has stifled a lot of innovation.
> Ask a thoughtful software developer how big a risk they think writing
> & releasing a new program is and whether they are concerned about
> being sued for violating some stealth patent.

Not that argument again! I'm out.

We live in a litigious society. If there's a chance for a lawsuit,
someone will sue.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers

July 22nd 04, 11:33 AM

In article > writes:

> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 00:11:42 +0200, Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> > I remember that some company that made an SCMS stripper got sued and
> > took their product off the market.

> I've been told the SCMS does not work if you copy to harddisk and back.

Most DAW software and hardware doesn't apply or read SCMS codes, but
seems like I've heard of some that does. But SCMS is pretty much
outmoded these days now that just about everyone who would want to
make a "perfect clone" of a digital recording is already screwing
themselves by converting to a compressed MP3 format.

> I think as long as you can hear the audio, copy protection is almost
> impossible. At least enforcement of it is impossible.

The old (and rejected) Copycode claimed to work through analog copying
because it actually took a slice out of the spectrum. There were some
watermarking systems that never made it to market which also made the
same claim. But you're right - enforcement is nearly impossible. The
best you can do is make it difficult enough to make a good copy that a
significant number of people won't bother doing it.

> The problem is that the musicindustry is based on a bussiness model that
> assumes copying of audio is difficult. It isn't.

They know that, and that's why they're trying to figure out how to
make money, or at least not lose money, from copying.

> The musicindustry should switch to a new model, from selling millions of
> copies of a single recording to selling from a huge catalogue with lots
> of diversity. With current technology this now is feaseble.

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be enough saleable material
on a unit basis. That's why they have to sell one or two songs, charge
you for 15, and throw in 13 or 14 songs for free. That's the model.

Maybe they should just stop selling CDs entirely and the real
musicians can just go out busking on the streets.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Ryan Mitchley

July 22nd 04, 05:33 PM

??>> It only takes one person to make it easy for the rest.

MR> But it takes the tree a lot longer to grow when you start with one
MR> seed than with a few hundred.

This is patently false, both in nature, and in the world of well connected
networks, such as the Internet.

MR> I remember that some company that made an SCMS stripper got sued and
MR> took their product off the market. The basis for the lawsuit was that
MR> it had no other purpose other than to assist you in breaking the law.
MR> On the other hand, I have one from Digital Domains that's sold as a
MR> "format converter" and M-audio sells one, too.

Well, GUESS WHAT . . .?

NEWSFLASH!!!

<BLINKING NEON LIGHTS>

Any kind of format converter that involves some kind of alleged "reverse
engineering" could soon be
illegal. Doesn't matter whether you created the data stream or not. Doesn't
matter whether your intentions were legal or not. If the manufacturer tells
you not to convert, you shall be legally obliged to obey. You had better
hope that there are enough "nice" companies around or that market forces
prevail, 'cause the law certainly won't be on your side . . .

</BLINKING NEON LIGHTS>

Ryan

Scott Dorsey

July 22nd 04, 06:19 PM

Ryan Mitchley > wrote:
>
> MR> I remember that some company that made an SCMS stripper got sued and
> MR> took their product off the market. The basis for the lawsuit was that
> MR> it had no other purpose other than to assist you in breaking the law.
> MR> On the other hand, I have one from Digital Domains that's sold as a
> MR> "format converter" and M-audio sells one, too.
>
>Well, GUESS WHAT . . .?
>
>NEWSFLASH!!!
>
><BLINKING NEON LIGHTS>
>
>Any kind of format converter that involves some kind of alleged "reverse
>engineering" could soon be
>illegal. Doesn't matter whether you created the data stream or not. Doesn't
>matter whether your intentions were legal or not. If the manufacturer tells
>you not to convert, you shall be legally obliged to obey. You had better
>hope that there are enough "nice" companies around or that market forces
>prevail, 'cause the law certainly won't be on your side . . .
>
></BLINKING NEON LIGHTS>

This has nothing to do with reverse-engineering. The S-PDIF subcode is
available in the published standard. It's a universal standard that
everyone in the industry more or less followed.

The notion is that the SCMS subcode exists to prevent people from making
direct DAT dubs from CDs or original DAT tapes, and that any box that
prohibits this can be used for making illegal copies. In truth this turns
out to be a non-issue since DAT never made it as a consumer format and
CD-Rs have since totally blown everything up. But at the time many of
the major record companies were up in arms about direct digital copies
being possible, which is why we got saddled with SCMS in the first place
(which was a major pain back in the early digital days when tweaking bits
on the fly was less trivial a task). At least we didn't get the goddamn
1KC notch filter that Columbia was pushing.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."