Slashdot Log In
Labels Trying New CD Copy Prevention Systems
Posted by
michael
on Sat Dec 18, 2004 03:04 PM
from the never-say-die dept.
from the never-say-die dept.
bAdministrator writes "What if a CD copy-protection system was developed, which did not compromise sound quality nor cause compatibility problems, and still allowed for your 'rights' to make a limited amount of personal copies (*.DRM)? UK-based company First 4 Internet (F4i) claims to have pulled this off with their 'eXtended Copy Protection' (XCP) system; 'The disc will present itself as a CD-ROM to PCs, a Mac CD-ROM to Mac computers, a VCD to DVD players and CDDA disc to audio CD players. This multifunctional disc format offers full playability and therefore greater flexibility without lowering protection levels.' and 'By using a range of methodologies, including the construction of multiple protection layers, limiting the player accessibility to the provided player software, and encapsulating the red book audio content, XCP® successfully protects the content from unauthorised copying.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
And on a Linux PC (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And on a Linux PC (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:And on a Linux PC (Score:5, Informative)
Or have you forgotten this story http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/11/181625 8&mode=thread [slashdot.org]
Parent
A way around it all. (Score:5, Insightful)
What's to stop someone from playing the CD, only with a cable connecting the out to the in, and pressing record/play...?
What's to stop someone from making an audio "device" that simply writes everything it gets to disk...?
Granted, you'll have a generic "loss of quality", but as long as you're playing from the CD, in theory the loss is no more or less than an encode directly from the CD (if using the device driver method, the audio cable may/may not kill some quality).
I'm just waiting for an automated program that'll do this...it completly removes all forms of DRM, it would remove the iTunes user ID, it would remove everything BUT the audio.
What a concept, huh? A friend of mine, after I told him this (that I've been contemplating for years), said, "but..that's like cheating!"
Who cares? It works.
As long as it can be heard (or seen), it can be re-recoreded at near identical quality.
Re:A way around it all. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:A way around it all. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the point. What these idiots fail to realize is that it only takes one person with too much time on their hands to completely destroy the entire rationale for copy protection. It only takes one guy to rip this way, enter everything by hand (this is not a big deal, btw; I've done it on plenty of my own CD's not in the FreeDB), post to a Bittorrent tracker site, share an album on Edonkey, or whatever. Then it's out there, and everybody's got it. And you're back to square one again, with a DRM system that's doing nothing but inconveniencing people that want to exercise their legitimate and legally sanctioned fair use rights.
This is why DRM systems cannot work. Because in the Internet age, it only takes one single person to completely mess everything up and make all that work on the DRM scheme for nought. And we're not talking spending weeks cracking an encryption scheme, either; we're talking taking an hour to record a CD through an analog connection and then split the tracks up and type in a few track titles. This is hardly a large amount of work, nor does it require any technical skills.
Regardless, I'm sure the DRM itself will be cracked within the first day or two of its release. But even if it isn't, it will be worked around. It's just so completely pointless that it makes me angry that any company would waste any amount of money on it. I mean there are so many more useful things that could be done with that money, such as, you know, actually developing good musical acts.
Parent
Re:A way around it all. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not even counting the people who will refuse to buy it on principle (though most who will do that are already boycotting them for other reasons like because they sue young girls and purchase laws with impunity).
Parent
Re:Tell me why I should care? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, limited in the sense that I can't make a new CDDA copy to listen to in my car. Virtually all DRM systems won't allow you to make a direct copy of the Audio only portion of the CD-- if they did, it would make the DRM pointless in the first place. But that is why I personally want to copy them. I don't like keeping original CD's in my car since they are likely to get scratched or stolen. Instead, as soon as I buy a CD, I rip it to MP3 for home & portable listening (the Mp3s are not shared), burn an audio CD for my car, then I put the actual CD in a safe place where it won't get damaged or stolen. My purposes for copying are 100% within fair use, but they would be blocked by this DRM if it works, and even if it doesn't, I'd be made a criminal for bypassing it under the DMCA.
Of course the real irony of these systems is that they do not prevent piracy as others have pointed out. All it takes is one person to bypass the DRM & the CD is in the wild. And clearly, as DVD's demonstrate, DRM doesn't even slow down commercial piracy operations. No, the real reason for DRM on CD's is to stop people like me. The RIAA loves it when CD's get damaged or stolen. That means that there is a good chance that I'll buy a new copy of the same CD. That is the only reason that they are looking for "effective" copy protection. They know that it will never stop anybody who is dedicated, but if it can stop casual copiers like myself, regardless of the fact that I'm not doing anything wrong, that means more money in their pockets.
The young girls who are exposed to civil and criminal penalties because they supply the music you download? That is a little like saying that John should go free while his underage prostitute takes the fall. You tempt a child into crime, you should accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
Here you are making no sense at all. Who are you saying is liable? Under current law, the penalties for recieving illegally copied material are much less then those for providing it. The young girl in question ceratinly is guilty of the crime, even though you suggest that she isn't. The question is whether the "john doe" lawsuits the RIAA has been using are effective or even legal. The parent poster was presumably arguing that the means the RIAA are using are misguided and at leats bordering on illegal and I think he's correct.
Parent
Re:Tell me why I should care? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now... If an albums come out with this copy protection, I am forced to search out a copy off the internet. Since I have to go to the trouble anyway, I sure as HELL won't be buying it. Therefore, the RIAA alienates another paying customer and loses my money. Trust me, with the thousands I have spent on CD's, they SHOULD be concerned.
Parent
Re:A way around it all. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:A way around it all. (Score:3)
If they want to stop the spread over P2P, they have to kill P2P, which is (IMHO) absurd. If they want to protect CDs assuming P2P lives on, they have to use unbreakable DRM, which is (IMHO) impossible.
Really, the only solution is to put prices at a level that people feel is worth it, and provide them with a superior product than they c
Re:They will get rich, anyway (Score:3, Interesting)
While the companies producing the DRM will make big bucks in the short term, the recording labels will only shoot themselves in the foot by using DRM. When they are forced to abandon the technology
Re:A way around it all. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A way around it all. (Score:5, Insightful)
Taking away your fair-use copying rights is where the money is. Despite all the piracy, and hype being made about it, those who regularly download music are still a minority. What the hype is doing is shielding them enough to let them use petty DRM like this. Assuming 25% of the market for any given music are pirates (a high figure) and 75% are not, by forcing that 75% to have to buy a 2nd copy at full price for on the road, the corporations will be 50% ahead.
The music industry doesn't really care about the piracy as long as it stays small enough, which their various legal threats and other campaigns can ensure. What they will be doing is using the existance of such piracy to justify their own form of ripping the average consumer to get profit levels hat exceed what they could get with zero piracy and total fair-use. It's not really much different than terrorism being used as an excuse to take away lots of freedoms that wouldn't really impact terrorism.
Parent
Re:A way around it all. (Score:5, Informative)
Even better is to get at the digital audio data before it hits the digital-to-analog converter. Vsound [xenoclast.org] is a free, open source program that does this under Linux.
Parent
Secure Audio Path (Score:4, Informative)
That may be true on Linux, but not so on Windows. Under Windows, an encrypted audio stream may require that only signed audio output drivers may play the stream, and Microsoft will sign an audio driver only if it turns off cleartext digital outputs (such as the .wav redirection) at the request of the stream. Do you listen to music through a receiver connected to a sound card's S/PDIF output? If so, tough shit.
Parent
When you own the box... (Score:3, Informative)
Under Windows, an encrypted audio stream may require that only signed audio output drivers may play the stream, and Microsoft will sign an audio driver only if it turns off cleartext digital outputs (such as the .wav redirection) at the request of the stream.
Until they get Palladium in (and even then there will inevitably be mod chips) you can modify Windows to quit checking the driver signature pretty easily. I've seen it done with NT 4. Then off you go again.
The sad thing about these Windows-only co
Who cares! (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares? I've got an old 1989 Sony (!) CD player with an optical digital output, and a CMI8738 sound card with a digital input. I cannot imagine this copy protection scheme to violate existing SPDIF standards (mind you, "SPDIF" stands for "Sony/Philips Digital Interface", see also here [epanorama.net]). So - nobody able of getting an older CD player and a 50$ sound card will be too impressed by any backwards compatible CP scheme. This is ridiculous.
The CP vendor's web site [xcp-aurora.com] says "It is a robust solution providing the highest levels of protection against casual piracy while ensuring full playability." which says all. This is not (and cannot be) targeted against the professional pirates in Asia who make and sell millions of copies, but against you and me and Joe User.
Parent
Re:A way around it all. (Score:3, Informative)
From CD insertion to listening to the digital music takes me about ten minutes on a bad day, and there simple
Okay.... (Score:4, Funny)
How long before it's cracked? (Score:3, Insightful)
Err...bollocks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Err...bollocks (Score:3, Interesting)
Acyually I would go step further and say that this isn't possible with ANY adio media EVER. The simple fact is that whatever your medium, and no matter how much copy protection you like to add, eventually the data is sent to a speaker. By the nature of what you're trying to accomplish (play some sounds) all your fancy DRM/copy protection MUST be discard
Re:Err...bollocks (Score:5, Insightful)
Contrary to popular belief, "PHBs" aren't completely stupid. They know full well that it's impossible to prevent copying completely, and that all you can do is make it harder.
All they're trying to do is make it hard enough that most people don't bother, while going after those that do. Why do you think they're investing in DRM and yet still going after P2P networks, apps and users? It's because they know that even with DRM, with P2P, their stuff will still be distributed. Discourage casual copying and shut down P2P and they're in a much better position, control-wise.
Parent
Re:Err...bollocks (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Anyone with a soldering iron can get the analogue output of the DAC and wire it into the audio input of a sound card.
2. Anyone with a bit of electronics knowledge and aforementioned soldering iron can tap into the digital input of the DAC and get a perfect copy.
Re:Err...bollocks (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Err...bollocks (Score:3, Informative)
And that prevents me from placing a microphone in front of the speakers and recording it that way how?
If it can be seen or heard by a human, it can be recorded.
Re:Err...bollocks (Score:5, Informative)
Because some companies with more lawyers than sense have proposed that recording equipment should fail to function if it detects a 'watermarked' signal being recorded.
Naturally, this would stop you making phone calls from somewhere where music is playing, and you could disable the recording equipment of everyone in the room (for example, during some political speech) by playing a soundtrack in the background. The only question is whether it can be used to defeat CIA bugs, or telephone wiretaps.
"Sorry sir, the suspect's daughter was whistling christmas carols in the background, and our recording kit failed to capture the evidence"
Parent
Re:Err...bollocks (Score:5, Interesting)
Regards,
--
*Art
Parent
Must use their software? (Score:5, Insightful)
That seems like a *big* showstopper to me. So, they're saying it works on Windows and Mac, but you can't use iTunes on *either*? I don't see how that would be possible if it's following the standard, as they claim, but if it does, I can't imagine many people going for it.
Re:Must use their software? (Score:3, Insightful)
Big labels would do well to make it easier to get what I want, because if they don't someone [magnatune.com] else [allofmp3.com]* surely will.
* Anyone else? These are the only two places I'm aware of where I can buy FLAC's for download.
they always claim that (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what they* always claim, and they have not delivered yet.
I still should be able to do what I want with a product I purchased, for personal use. That includes encoding it into the format of my choice, not thiers.
* they being CD copy protection creators
Re:they always claim that (Score:5, Informative)
Try learning the law. The copyright holder only has rights over infringing copying. He has no rights over non-infringing copying.
These technologies simply try to ABANDON copyright law and replace it with "technological" restrictions that the copyright holder HAS ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL RIGHT TO ENFORCE.
The copyright holder has NO RIGHTS if I make a backup copy. The copyright holder has NO RIGHTS if I want to copy it to a different media/format. The copyright holder has NO RIGHTS if I am copying to parody it. The copyright holder has NO RIGHTS if I am copying it for educational usage, either as a student or as a teacher, or for research purposes. The copyright holder has NO RIGHTS if I copy to modify it in any way I like for personal use. And on an on and on.
Not only is that copying not restricted by copyright, it *CANNOT* be restricted by copyright. This was established in the earliest Supreme Court decisions. Copyright does not grant or define fair use, it is fair use which restricts and defines the limits of copyright. The Supreme Court ruled that copyright would be unconstitutional and struck down as invalid if it tried to restrict fair use.
It is YOU and all of the DRM scemes that are out of sync with copyright law. DRM restrictions/enforcment do not equal copyright restrictions/enfocement. If they were equal then copyright law would simply be null and void, struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
These uses are simply outside of the range of exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder.
Your intent with DRM may certainly be to prevent people from infringing, but that does NOT grant you any rights over innocent people making perfectly legitimate and non-infringing copies.
-
Parent
I am missing something here? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I am missing something here? (Score:3, Informative)
CD-ROMs are a little smarter. They have a look at a couple places on the disc and see what zones
copy protection that works (Score:5, Funny)
Re:copy protection that works (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
an excellent hack... (Score:3, Funny)
Think of them as an elegant method of separating the record labels from millions and millions of dollars of their money, in return for...nothing.
Hm. I'm in the wrong line of work.
Sound still leaves your hifi (Score:3, Interesting)
I like to archive my music (I buy a lot of CDs every month, sometimes I can't find something a friend recommends I re-listen to) on my PC, and will not buy any CD that tries to prevent me.
They admit it can be hacked (Score:5, Informative)
The Corporate IP War Against Fair Use... (Score:5, Insightful)
The minute DRM starts to chafe for the average user the technology will fail because users want access to the material they licensed at the checkout stand - and make no mistake, they did license the fair use of whatever the hell is on the disk.
The lie IP hogs want us to believe is that they have rights over and above our right to hear/view/access what we have already paid for.
The real world says no.
But like a drunken man in search of more drink the IP hogs go for more DRM, they always do - like a blow upon a bruise.
"Doctor, it hurts us every time we try to implement DRM."
"Then stop trying to DRM everything."
Once again, this only hurts legit owners. (Score:3, Insightful)
Because there is nothing you can do to stop the copying of bits if you don't control the hardware. Nothing. And it just so happens that pirates are always more sophisticated than the average consumer. Absolutely pointless.
Just what we need (Score:3, Insightful)
Illegitimate copying is not the tartget (Score:5, Interesting)
Logically, then, the market for selling the same product multiple times (ie, using DRM to force you to buy two or more CDs if you want to have one in work/car/etc. and one at home) is vastly more valuable than the illegal recording market, which has been in existance for a long time anyway.
The people behind DRM are not idiots; they know as well as anyone (or better) that sales figures show downloaders buy more music than any other group whether their downloads are iTunes or BitTorrent. They couldn't care less about stopping that - they just want to have the same bonanza that they did with the vinyl->CD repeat buying period, but now they want it every year.
TWW
Using a custom player? (Score:3, Insightful)
My guess is that some MBA looked at the market, and included OS's and playback programs until he got 98% market coverage, and said "that's good enough. The 3% [sic] represented by the remaining folks won't matter - we'll more than make up for that with the increased sales that result from the reduction in bootleg copies." The unfortunate truth is that it won't make a damned difference. They fail to realize that the Internet is what the military folks call a "force multiplier." You only need one determined individual to crack the coding, or to make a decent D-A-D copy (thus stripping off the DRM), and post it on the 'net. Once that happens, you've got a gazillion traders who are more than willing to propagate the copies.
As an independent musician...I love this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Independent musicians (the kind that make a living off their music) are slowly but surely rejecting the myth that you need a record deal to be successful. (In fact, if you're good you can almost always be more successful without a record deal these days). These groups see the listener as a potential supporter, not a potential pirate.
When labels keep up this DRM crap, it just makes these indie musicians look more and more listener oriented. People aren't stupid, they pick up on this.
So keep it up DRM content producers! It's just one more selling point for your slowly growing competition. By the time you realize how bad you screwed up it will be too late.
Re:Clear Channel will screw you over (Score:3, Insightful)
First, live performance is still king. If you have a good live show...you will be booked. People will know who you are. It takes time but people do it all the time.
Initia
Copy Protection, not Copy Proofing. (Score:3, Informative)
--
If it can be made, it can be broken. No reason for me to bother with locks on my door, anyone that really wants to come in will come in anyway, I'll just put pictures of locks on the door to deter those who aren't serious.
Re:Windows Autorun, yet another dumb-by-design (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Windows Autorun, yet another dumb-by-design (Score:3, Interesting)