|
Posted by timothy (41% noise) View
Decaffeinated Jedi writes “News.com reports that the recording industry is currently testing technology that would limit the number of times that a given CD (or copies of that CD) could be burned. The idea is to let consumers ‘make a limited number of copies of their music — enough for a car, a vacation home and a friend, for example — without allowing for uncontrolled duplication.’ Currently, Macrovision and SunnComm International are developing competing versions of such ‘secure burning’ technology, with BMG Music Group already testing the latter company’s software.”
|
|
So… how does this work? - by Fallen Kell (Score: 5, Insightful) Thread
Seriously, unless they lockdown ALL current burning software/hardware there is no way to apply this for current generation CD burning technology. This is why macrovision can be defeated simply by using an old VCR. Unless they force firmware/software upgrades to everyone (in which case most people will never do the upgrade given how well they already deal with patches), there is nothing that would truely work.
I mean really, think about it. The only storage mechanism they have available is the local hard drive or the CD itself. Well, the CD itself would only work as a method IF the CD is actually in the burner. I sure don’t use my burner READ the CD I am making a copy of, it goes into a DVD-ROM, hense no write laser. That leaves the hard drive, and unless they lockdown the CD to only be used on that 1 computer (which would actually mean it is no longer a CD), you could just:
a) delete the storage file with the current data causing it to believe the CD was never copied before
b) use a different computer
c) wipe your hard drive
d) use linux
e) use BSD
f) make an iso image of the CD and transfer that across the net…
This does nothing at all to stop actuall pirates (as can be proven by letter “f” in the above options). How long do you think it will take our current firmware hackers to do a diff on the updates and remove any “protection” from a fireware, especially in this day when people already have dual layer DVD burner firmware for DVD burners which the companies are not releasing the firmware for 6 months in order to get people to buy their $200 dual layer burner instead of their $80 single layer burner which has the same hardware…
|
|
Very Interesting - by The-Bus (Score: 5, Insightful) Thread
Well, frankly, it can’t be done… At least not within the CD. My only guess is that the CD has software that auto-loads, tells a server that the CD has been burned n times and that it now can no longer be burned. If I change my hosts file, EAC is not going to care what the CD is doing. In fact, all “copy protected” CDs I’ve been able to rip or make copies of for myself using EAC (including this very excellent one:Soulive’s Turn It Out Remixed ). Once you rip the WAV files and copy that, the little auto-run software is gone.
That’s the problem(?) with DRM. You need to implement it in hardware AND software at the same time for it to be able to “work” (see: DVD Region Codes) and even then it’s not really going to work (ibid).
Now TO BE FAIR, this idea has its heart in the right place. I don’t think anyone but the most extreme zealots would argue that a person should be able to make 10,000 copies of a CD by another artist. But where is that number? It’s higher than “just a couple” but probably around “several”.
Or, this could be a way to make DRM seem friendly and logical, have everyone implement it, then change it so it’s what we all know it’s going to turn out to be: crippling and crippled.
|
|
They never learn - by CaptainZapp (Score: 5, Insightful) Thread
A brief analysis’ of the industries feeble efforts to regain control and protect their turf (basically the distribution channells)
You guys sold corrupted and crippled disks to your customers.
Did it work? No
You tried this super duper water marking scheme.
Did it work? No, in fact Prof. Felten and his team broke it within a week
You’re attacking your customers, insult them and threaten legal action..
Did it work? No, in fact you’re pissing your customers off
You tried yet different approaches to “copy protect” the medium.
Did it work? No, in fact you piss people off, since the can’t play their legally purchased product on their legally purchased car cd player
Is there no more new material available since you tried to force all those smart schemes on your customers?
Hell! of course! within minutes after availability on “cd”
So here’s a free hint for you:
Why don’t you make a product available, which is of good quality, cheap, readily available and doesn’t force us to give up our privacy and suck your ducks just so that we can listen to a song? You know, sort of like Apple did it (and which rumour says you’re in the process of killing by higer prices and enforced bundling).
Provide us with a convenient, realistically priced product, not being throttled by rediculous schemes (region coding anyone?). Stop insulting our intelligence and integrity and stop treating us like criminals and I’ll promise:
We buy!
NB: Focusing on a good products might help sales too. There’s only so much Britney and Back Street Boys you can listen to before throwing up.
|
|
What is the threat they are trying to defend - by color of static (Score: 5, Insightful) Thread
Let’s face it, any self respecting pirate will make a binary copy (bit for bit) of any digital media. Once you have the bits, no technology will limit the numbers of copies you make. They are targetting the little guy who makes a few copies, etiher under fair use or slightly beyond. Someone who just casually wants to make a copy, but isn’t going to try really hard before shelling out for another CD.
This isn’t about limitting piracy, but boosting sales. May seem the same thing, but in this case I don’t think it is.
|
|
Bizarro-World - by Anonymous Coward (Score: 5, Funny) Thread
We am RIAA. We am hyping new protection scheme which also don’t work, just like old protection scheme. We am again forgetting protection system depends on software to co-operate. Since software not co-operate last time, we am trying again.
|
[
