| The First Rule of CSS Club... |
[Apr. 25th, 2009|01:13 am] |
In the case brought by the DVD Copy Control Association against Real over their RealDVD movie copying software, the MPAA are seeking to seal the courtroom from the public. Their argument is that the details of the Content Scrambling System at the heart of the case are super secret and their entire business model would crumble before our eyes were a single syllable of it to reach the ears of pirates!
Excuse me, I have something in my throat...
#!/usr/bin/perl -w # 531-byte qrpff-fast, Keith Winstein and Marc Horowitz <sipb-iap-dvd@mit.edu> # MPEG 2 PS VOB file on stdin -> descrambled output on stdout # arguments: title key bytes in least to most-significant order $_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;$t=255;@t=map{$_%16or$t^=$c^=($m=(11,10,116,100,11,122,20,100)[$_/16%8])&110;$t^=(72,@z=(64,72,$a^=12*($_%16-2?0:$m&17)),$b^=$_%64?12:0,@z)[$_%8]}(16..271);if((@a=unx"C*",$_)[20]&48){$h=5;$_=unxb24,join"",@b=map{xB8,unxb8,chr($_^$a[--$h+84])}@ARGV;s/...$/1$&/;$d=unxV,xb25,$_;$e=256|(ord$b[4])<<9|ord$b[3];$d=$d>>8^($f=$t&($d>>12^$d>>4^$d^$d/8))<<17,$e=$e>>8^($t&($g=($q=$e>>14&7^$e)^$q*8^$q<<6))<<9,$_=$t[$_]^(($h>>=8)+=$f+(~$g&$t))for@a[128..$#a]}print+x"C*",@a}';s/x/pack+/g;eval That's better.
I wonder, is the secret they are trying to keep the fact that everyone with even a passing interest in the field already knows everything single little thing about it? Is it a secret that this pitiful attempt to dress the shadow of obscurity as effective security was blown wide open at least ten years ago? Is it a secret that their throne is at the shore?
Would that they hang their crowns when this tide wets their robes. |
|
|
| Sony Sub-think |
[Jan. 9th, 2008|12:23 am] |
In order to get your DRM-free Sony music you will need to travel to a dealer of antique physical music formats. There you must pay approximately $13 to purchase an object (very likely a piece of a dead tree) upon which has been inscribed, in a ludicrous parody of security, an arbitrary and unencrypted code (note that it will not be necessary to provide your public key). This code, when entered into the more civilized medium of a web site, will activate the download of your music.
When planning your purchase you should account for the price of travelling to and from the antique dealer. Also adjust for being forced to download an entire album including the tracks you do not want. Take note that there are only 37 albums from the catalogue that may be purchased in this manner and that at least two of those are Britney Spears and Barry Manilow. It may also be prudent to consider the fact that, while at the antique dealer, you will be able to purchase a piece of physical media containing a higher-quality version of the music for approximately the same price. At this point it will prove enlightening to compare the cost and convenience of this venture with that of gabbing a torrent.
...
Sony, you were more trouble than you were worth yesterday. You're worth even less today. |
|
|
| The Tomb of DRM |
[Jan. 4th, 2008|05:35 pm] |
And here we have it, the epitaph that shall be inscribed on the depleted uranium sarcophagus of DRM, once all its myriad insectile limbs have ceased to twitch and are finally tucked inside:
Our download service provides files in the WMA music format or the WMV video format, which is not supported by Apple Macintosh computers. To use your music with an iPod, simply follow the steps below: - Save each downloaded song to your PC
- Burn a music CD (in CDA file format)
- Import the music from the CD into iTunes
- Update your iPod
These well known 'burn-n-rip' instructions to "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work", instructions that breach Title 17/Chapter 12/Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, are brought to us by none other than... Sony!
Delicious, isn't it.
This comes via ArsTechnica.com who also note that Sony is about to follow its competitors/RIAA cronies, EMI, Universal, and Warner, in dropping DRM, starting with "1 billion tracks via the Amazon Music Store".
So we're winning. These idiots have at least begun to realised the Luddian futility of trying to recreate the limitations of the 20th Century in the 21st. But still, these anachronistic corporate structures persist, punishing people for making obvious use of ubiquitous technology, stifling any innovation that might actually make accessing our culture easier, then restricting and filtering that culture as though it belongs to them, trailing behind them a vast mantle of industries based on physical products, products that are as doomed as the jobs they now barely support, with not even a hint of an exit strategy that could save livelihoods.
They are done with providing access, they do not control the primary means of production, they are no longer an artist's only way of reaching an audience, their only purpose now is to support themselves and defend their increasingly illogical position. So long as we are asked, or even forced, to pay for a service that we no longer need and certainly do not want, the battle will continue... |
|
|
| Glitch |
[Dec. 5th, 2007|10:49 pm] |
| [ | Tags | | | civil liberties, copyright, drm, economy, movies, mpaa, music, net neutrality, news, p2p, politics, rant, technology | ] |
Listen, Glick, the movie industry is already doing the one thing that guarantees I will never illegally download their 'products', namely they are now making such deficient, low-brow, half-assed, worthless, over-hyped, over-funded, overwritten, sub intellectual, inadequate, substandard, ridiculous, inferior, scoff-worthy, malodorous, cringe-making, mismanaged, shoddy, insufferable, incompetent and defective low-com-dom crap, that I would never ever even consider wasting one single byte of my precious bandwidth on any of it. I would be perfectly happy to see every last bit of your meritless trash forever erased from the internet were it not for the fact that you are trying to do it by introducing a radically disproportionate mechanism: ending Network Neutrality!
Don't cover your ears Glickster, you need to hear this: Shrek 3 is not important enough to bring an end to our freedom. The only reason the movie industry can say it's losing money now is because they spent way too much on producing something that nobody actually needs and nobody really wants. The Western World will not crumble because they can't turn a profit, but it might if we lose the integrity and security of the single most important communications tool in history.
One way or another the IP delusional industries are one the way out. It's only a matter of time before the average consumer figures out that their 'entertainment' just isn't worth it any more, that the busker on the street outside the cinema is a hell of lot more creative, interesting and memorable than the claptrap movie they just walked out of. How long do you think they'll watch their technology subverted, their personal data ransacked, their legally purchased media disintegrating, and their communications tapped and blocked before they think: "But I didn't even like the Bourne Appendectomy!"
Anyone invested in the movie or recording industries with even an iota of common sense should be selling up now, while their stock is still worth the ferromagnetic material it's stored on. You know it can't go on like this. It just isn't reasonable in consider this a survivable scenario for anyone involved. I mean it. Get out now. This is going to end badly, and you know it.
Glicky, you are not adding to our culture in any positive way beyond uniting the rest of us against you. You are not curing any horrible diseases. You are not on a crusade of righteousness. You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You are not welcome here. |
|
|
| The Blanket License: A Modest Proposal |
[Oct. 25th, 2007|05:11 pm] |
According to a report from ArsTechnica the fabled Blanket License has once again reared its head, this time in Denmark:
Andy Oram over at O'Reilly Radar noted the recent moves in Denmark to create a system where every ISP user might pay a monthly fee in order to access unlimited P2P music legally.
The proposal has drawn positive feedback from an unlikely source—the local "Piratgruppen."
"It's good that they admit that they cannot solve the problem of falling CD sales by suing their own fans," said Sebastian Gjerding from the Piratgruppen. "It looks like they have understood that they should offer something that is competitive compared to other, free music sources. It is an entirely new admission that hasn't spread internationally yet. IFPI Denmark is on the forefront in this matter. But it is annoying that no action has been taken so far to save many teenagers million-krone fines." ArsTechnica.com
The article notes some obstacles to the proposal. For instance, will this cover just 'local' bands or include international sources? The former would simply prove unenforceable - they'd have less luck detecting where they were downloading from than they currently have detecting if they have downloaded anything at all - while the latter would be a logistical zombie movie complete with everyone dying at the end! Another question is whether this will be a voluntary payment or amount to a tax on all users regardless of whether they ever download music or not?
Despite these sorts of issues, I consider the Blanket License to be the most equitable and, more importantly, most moral alternative to the current media distribution model. Fundamentally it is a concept that makes the most of current technology and encourages further development, while at the same time protecting our right to make use of our own hardware and data.
The problems mentioned in the article are trivial. Yes, the BL should cover artists worldwide but it should be stipulated that they make the claim to receive anything. Yes, the BL should be a mandatory payment, including for businesses - they don't want to make use of it, that's up to them, but since it's there why not let their employees share media on their network without a legal care in the world?
My main problem with the Danish plan is its hopelessly narrow vision, covering only music and only one country. It is comically ineffectual.
Here's the real plan:
The Blanket License should cover all media, it should, in fact, cover anything that can be encoded, uploaded, downloaded or otherwise redistributed, music, movies, TV shows, books, newspapers, 3d printer files, essentially any media that can be rendered as data. It should be run as an opt-in for content creators alone and strictly prohibit music cartels, charities and other non-root content providers. It should also provide a means for those artists who build on the work of others to indicate and reward their contributors.
But there is one element that is by far the most important: the Blanket License must be directly democratic. By this I mean that the distribution of the revenue derived from the BL should be based on what the users are listening to, watching and using, not on some even division or some educated guess informed by random polling. We should literally be voting for our choices and the results of these votes used to calculate the creators' share.s Of course one vote a week is hardly going to be a fair measure, instead we would need at least a hundred votes a week which we could distribute as we see fit (say a maximum of five votes per voter for any one creator). This voting could allow for a mix of voluntary voting (specific choices regardless of what a user has actually downloaded) and user-controlled automated voting (a system that allows vote assignments based on the usage statistics from a media player). No one would be forced to vote, but it would be in their interests to encourage their favourite bands, actors photographers, writers and so on, and automatic voting could allow users to contribute without any real effort.
There will still be a place for record labels as marketing brokers, contracting artists for flat fees or a percentage of their earnings in return for their expertise in development and marketing their creations.
This real Blanket License would be no small undertaking, requiring the development of an international infrastructure and region-by-region legislation to remove the existing legal hurdles faced by users. But the result would be a totally egalitarian forum, the likes of which has not been seen since some mug took a handful of loose change and sang to a wax cylinder. All that would be required for an artist to make money would be to make music and find people who like it enough to vote for it, no contracts, no physical distribution, and most significantly, no risk.
It's ambitious, and naturally it glosses over some real problems. Technically, there are issues with the security involved in electronic voting, ensuring that the votes are genuine rather than the result of malicious software running on client systems, and preventing any third party from accessing usage data and putting user privacy at risk (a premise I call Regime Proofing - designing the system so that should it fall under someone else's control there will not be enough information recorded to identify individual users, though there should still be enough to identify tampering and vandalism [a paradox, I know]). And naturally the entire system would need to be totally transparent if it is to be trusted by artists and consumers.
The environment that this Blanket License could create is an exciting one. It would encourage a far greater range of cultural experience for users, exposing them to a vast library of content without restriction and without the increasingly hegemonic filtering of the incumbent distribution businesses. Since each user has already paid for all their downloading there can be none of this quibbling over the rights involved in time- and format-shifting. Download once and the data is yours to do with as you please., you will be free to invent new ways of accessing your culture that have yet to be even dreamed of, and without fear of the shadow of monetisation.
Radiohead's independent venture into alternative digital distribution model was laudable, a worthy experiment, but one dependant on the duality of our current attitude to online media, both legal and illicit. What they received for their effort was charity: not a long term solution, but a round of applause for a worthy effort. In the end we cannot expect to support artists through benevolence alone. How many 'micro-patrons' can we expect to find and persuade to keep giving? Radiohead simply walked out into a new and forbidding wilderness, if anyone is going to follow, we're going to need to build them some roads.
I've previously discussed the impact of unlimited digital distribution on the existing content industry, namely the rapid and near total destruction of physical production interests. Other commentators have suggested that such a vision is unnecessarily apocalyptic, that, for instance, paper books will never disappear, and to an extent I agree. But consider a world in which you can access any book, at any time, for free; can we really expect already struggling publishers to survive that? There will always be a market for dead tree, just as there is still a market for vinyl, but there will also be a reckoning in the market that will see it reduced to little more than a niche. Now consider this situation extended to cover not only book sellers, but music stores, tv stations, cinemas and all the services that depend on them. A whole set of industries is at stake, countless jobs, and a huge chunk of the Western economy.
The Blanket License promises an almost unimaginable upheaval in the 'business of culture', a vision that the entrenched business interests will likely do anything to escape. But consider also that the openness it could bring will foster new technologies and new businesses to exploit those technologies and even new ways of doing business - the economic environment might then be changed rather than destroyed.
I am convinced that, if we are to avoid handing over control of our lives to big business, then this is the way it must be. It is the Blanket License or (without exaggeration) cultural totalitarianism. |
|
|
| Poisoned Chalace |
[May. 31st, 2007|01:34 pm] |
A pessimist gains no greater pleasure than being able to say "I told you so!"
"With great power comes great responsibility, and apparently with DRM-free music comes files embedded with identifying information. Such is the situation with Apple's new DRM-free music: songs sold without DRM still have a user's full name and account e-mail embedded in them, which means that dropping that new DRM-free song on your favorite P2P network could come back to bite you." - ArsTechnica.com
|
|
|
| iPRED2 |
[Apr. 12th, 2007|06:15 pm] |
I hope you will take a moment to go sign this petition against the Second Intellectual Property Enforcement Directive (IPRED2) which is due to go before the European Parliament on April 24th:
If IPRED2 passes in its current form, "aiding, abetting, or inciting" copyright infringement on a "commercial scale" in the EU will become a crime.
Penalties for these brand new copycrimes will include permanent bans on doing business, seizure of assets, criminal records, and fines of up to €100,000.
IPRED2's backers say these copycrimes are meant only for professional criminals selling fake merchandise. But Europe already has laws against these fraudsters. With many terms in IPRED2 left unclear or completeley undefined - including "commercial scale" and "incitement" - IPRED2 will expand police authority and make suspects out of legitimate consumers and businesses, slowing innovation and limiting your digital rights. - copycrime.eu
Besides the fact that we simply do not need any more IP law (really, we need far, far less) the wording of this directing is vague to the point of disingenuousness. Personally I would give the phrase "commercial scale" as much meaning is as "square scale" or "red scale". It leaves the door wide open for interpretation in the effort to punish this newly invented crime.
If you physically copy a CD and give it to an acquaintance, and they then use that CD to create a hundred thousand copies to sell for profit, does that mean you are guilty of 'aiding commercial scale IP infringement"? What if you happen to show up in the same P2P swarm as someone downloading a movie with the intention of making physical copies to sell?
How many copyfight oriented forums and personal blogs out there, including this one, might be considered "incitement" because of their anti-copyright, pro file-sharing stance? I hope the doom9 folks have their ID trails thoroughly obfuscated since their attempts to return our fair use rights are easily interpreted by this directive as aiding, abetting and inciting. Who knows if this law could be used to criminalise something as simple as describing the means to circumvent DRM (like burning iTunes tracks to audio CD then ripping them back into an open format).
Will hardware manufacturers now face criminal investigation for creating devices that might be used in the commission of a crime (where a weapons manufacturer would get off scot-free)? Is this nothing more than a way for the recording industry to persuade hardware developers to sell broken machines?
This directive may be aimed at large scale criminal activity but with language like this it is nothing more than a dragnet for IP-delusional companies and their equally deranged legal departments. Rather than having to pursue civil cases all they have to do is report infringement and present themselves as victims and witnesses.
So-called IP infringement is so simple today that it requires no significant knowledge, no more resources than a networked computer and no more criminal intent than two friends sharing their love of music, movies or any other expression of our culture.
If you do nothing else today, go sign that petition. Don't let bad laws come into force, and certainly not bad laws with such open and easily abused language.
Update: in their article, 'European ISPs: "Aiding and abetting" copyright violations could land our CEOs in jail', Ars Technica points out that recent amendments to the bill now suggests fair use exceptions to national laws and explicitly excludes "acts carried out by private users for personal and not for profits purposes". Good news. But that still leaves this directive with enough interpretive swing to throttle future technical innovations in information technology, to put increasing pressure on our internet service providers to limit our use of what is supposed to be a neutral network, and ultimately tighten the recording industry's grip on our culture. |
|
|
| EMI and iTunes Scrape Off some DRM |
[Apr. 2nd, 2007|05:12 pm] |
This is so worth breaking the silence for.
If you haven't already heard, EMI have agreed to allow iTunes to begin selling "much of it's catalogue" as DRM-free tracks, just as Mr Jobs promised.
Nice, huh? Nice like Ernst Stavro Blofeld stroking a cat.
Interestingly, the high quality DRM-free AAC tracks are to cost 30c more than the 99c one normally pays for individual tracks, which has raised the odd eyebrow, mine included. Are they suggesting, perhaps, that doing less to the tracks before they are released actually costs more? Or are they thinking they'll use this to recoup their faked losses to piracy? Still, it's just thirty cents, right?
It appears that the new scheme involves marketing the higher cost, higher quality track to the more discerning customer:
"Weirdly, Apple seems to have sold this move to EMI by saying that the DRM-free version will be a "premium" offering for audiophiles who want higher-quality music. I think that audiophiles are probably the people who have the least trouble keeping up with the latest tips for efficiently ripping the DRM off of their music -- the people who really need DRM-free music are the punters who can't even spell DRM." - BoingBoing.net
I think they mean "burning the DRM off", nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
Just a word of warning before you start download pooling with all your buddies: this may yet turn out to be a poisoned chalice. While the DRM will be history I've not heard anyone mention digital watermarking. Might we start seeing litigation in the next few years based solely on the discovery of an iTunes customer ID hash embedded in a track downloaded from P2P?
One thing to note, this has, as Ars Technica points out, broken the universal pricing scheme that has reigned in iTunes since its inception. Does this mean that other labels will start looking to hike prices on new or special releases citing EMI DRMF tracks as precedent?
Okay, we can celebrate a win for the Good Guys. iTunes has become a little more open, some of us will get to buy some music from them that won't result in vendor lock-in. This change in policy may, at the very least, be a shuffle in the right direction.
But somewhere in that collective corporate medulla oblongata EMI must be aware that they have taken a step toward the yawning precipice of a world without record labels. We don't need them to make LPs, or cassettes, or CDs. They no longer control the primary means of reproducing music, nor do they hold the keys to the distribution of that music. The artists don't need them to make music, the customers don't need them to hear it. These days is seems their primary contributions (if one can call them that) is applying sneaky and harmful DRM schemes and chasing kids and corpses through the courts. So what exactly are we paying them for, other than to avoid being sued for not paying them, that is?
Together, iTunes and EMI et al form the largest and most complex dumbwaiter the world has ever seen. |
|
|
| DRM Designed to Restrict Freedom, Sky is Blue |
[Jan. 18th, 2007|03:54 pm] |
DRM is about persuading customers to part with more money, so says the movie industry:
Hollywood, I was told, still doesn't trust Steve Jobs with its crown jewels. Yes, everyone loves that ratings for shows like NBC's (GE) The Office and ABC's Lost seem to be up thanks to the promotional exposure of being available via iPod download. But while just about every TV network quickly followed Disney's 2005 decision to give its TV shows to Apple, few have yet to join the Mouse with movies. When you have a piece of content than can cost upward of $100 million to produce, you don't give it up without a lot of soul-searching and number-crunching.
What does Hollywood want from Steve Jobs? For starters, more protection for their films. "His user rules just scare the heck out of us," one studio executive told me. Indeed, under Apple's video iPod digital-rights-management scheme, folks can share their flicks with as many as three other iPod users. 'Why Hollywood Snubbed Jobs at Macworld' - Ronald Grover, BusinessWeek.com (via arstechnica.com).
They're not scared of pirates, I doubt they're even scared of file sharers, hell, they're not scared at all. No, that's not fear in their eyes, it's greed. They see customers enjoying their products in ways they had not even imagined twenty years ago and they can't stand the thought that this use does not translate into more money for them. The way they have chosen to get at these heretofore unimagined profits is through DRM; they want you to pay to see a movie on one device, then pay again to see it on another, and then want your friends to pay too.
Sure, we already knew they were thinking that, everybody knew, the whole thing about p2p and piracy was pure spin! Still, it's satisfying to hear them admit their oh-so-obvious deceit, even if it is through some unnamed "studio executive".
However, we can't expect to see this admission becoming a policy shift, not on any reasonable time-scale. It's entirely possible that this sort of "honesty" will become commonplace as customers take up new technologies and the integrated DRM payloads are unwittingly set in place. Once those users' rights have been hijacked, unaware that they had them to begin with, most won't even notice when those rights miraculously turn up on iTunes, et al, swinging a hefty new price tag. At that point they will be too busy enjoying all the wonderful "new" things they can do with their media to notice such confessions of dishonesty. |
|
|
| Pot meets Kettle: Bill Gates and the Recording Industry |
[Dec. 15th, 2006|05:28 pm] |
We've already had the Consumer Electronics Association turning on the content industry over their demands for DRM crippled hardware. Now commercial software producers are beginning to realise they've been lumbered with the same bum-deal. They don't want to have to waste time and money designing systems that prevent their customers from doing what they want, and their customers sure as hell don't want to pay for something that removes their ability to listen to their own music or watch their own movies.
And now Bill Gates himself has waded in with an unexpected observation. From an interview on micropersuasion.com we have this response:
Q) Is digital rights management (DRM) sustainable over the next 10 years? A) DRM is not where it should be. In the end of the day incentive systems (for artists) make a difference. But we don't have the right thing here in terms of simplicity or interoperability.
Obviously, "where it should be" would be with the recoding industry and out of the way of Microsoft's development path. But referring to copyright as an "incentive system" for artists is particularly telling. Perhaps he is beginning to realize that the all-consuming recording contract no longer has a place in a world where the ability to record data is ubiquitous. Perhaps he realises that the current "incentive system" has exceeded it's useful lifespan and that something else is needed in its place, something that does not throttle new technology or threaten the consumer base. Wishful thinking on my part, perhaps. But here's where it gets really interesting. From a BBC report on the interview we get this little gem:
Blogger Michael Arrington, of Techcrunch.com, said Bill Gates' short-term advice for people wanting to transfer songs from one system to another was to "buy a CD and rip it".
That's right, according to this, Bill Gates has just said that the best thing you can do with DRM is work around it! I guess this means we're not going to see Windows Media Player's MP3 ripping functionality stripped out any time soon.
Still, we need to remember where this is coming from; Windows Vista has some of the most draconian copy-prevention methodologies yet seen and I can't imagine Microsoft is about to see the light of a new open source "incentive system" any time soon. No, what we really have here (on the heals of the Zune Tax) is an early scuffle between two major IP industries, both comprehending that the future may not include them, who have now realised that not only must they screw over their own customers to survive a few more years, but they're going to have to start screwing each other over too. |
|
|
| Dark Rites Magic |
[Oct. 30th, 2006|06:47 pm] |
"Our DRM is second to none," says Bob Jeves, CEO at uNetis, "It can be applied to any digital media," he starts counting off fingers, "It requires no alterations to the file, takes up no additional bandwidth, and requires no encryption or additional processing at the customer end. It allows files to be used on any device without technical obstruction. It does not compromise users' systems with invasive software, does not threaten their privacy with constant server traffic, and it cannot be stripped away by any known means." He sits back smiling as the waiter delivers his latte, the morning sun shining from the glass flank of uNetis new Paris headquarters across the street reflected in his spectacles, "This system is the best solution for artists and customers."
"And for uNetis," your reporter observes.
He concedes the point with a shrug, "uNetis has taken a rapidly failing business model and provided the means to make it work again. I don't see any problem in benefiting from that achievement."
But to some, uNetis' lack of shame is perhaps the most infuriating part of the online music retailer's new DRM initiative.
In a small flat in West London, Brian (as we will call him) scratches furiously at his arms, his face set in concentration as he glances from the rash that has spread across his skin in the last few minutes to the copy of the music file that has caused it, sitting conspicuously in the middle of his Vista desktop. Finally, unable to cope with the discomfort any longer he deletes the file, making sure to empty the recycling bin, then logs in to the uNetis web site where he navigates to the payments page. There he locates the options for unauthorised copies and uses his credit card to pay €5.00, more than five times the amount he had originally paid for the track a month ago.
"Deleting the copy isn't good enough," he says half an hour later, the rash on his forearms all but gone, "The only way to get rid of the hives is to pay. The curse is very specific."
Brian considers himself to be a rational person, a student of engineering, unswayed by religion, mysticism or superstition, a vociferousness opponent to intelligent design and a staunch advocate of reason. "I thought the whole thing was a joke. I watched the LAP [License Agreement Presentation], with Justin Timberlake and Bono explaing what we can and can't do with the data we just paid for, and took about as much notice as I ever do of those things. And then they had those... those girls talking gibberish and sprinkling god-knows-what on the uNetis server racks, and I just laughed my ass off! I was waiting for them to short something out and get sprayed with fire suppressant," he doesn't look amused now. "I mean, how could that not be a joke? But honestly I thought I was getting a good deal; I paid for my music and got a file I don't have to fight with to hear it."
It wasn't until two weeks after downloading the latest Coldplay single from uNetis that Brian started to take the curse seriously. He first noticed the itching in the hours after copying the file to his portable music player one morning and assumed it was an insect bite or allergic reaction. However, it became so irritating that he was forced to leave work early that day to find an anti-histamine. "It was the woman at the chemists that mentioned the uNetis LAP. Until then I hadn't put it together. She said a friend of hers had come down with the same thing and that it turned out to be these copied uNetis tracks on her computer." But Brian still wasn't ready to believe that his download had really been cursed. "I was up all night with this itching driving me crazy, wondering how I was going to manage work in the morning. And I don't really know what I was thinking, I just wanted it to stop. I got up and I watched the LAP again, and there is was. The witches-for-hire were talking about the hives and the itching and 'torment without respite'."
"I thought I was being an idiot. But I followed the instruction and paid the fine." And within minutes, just as with the demonstration he had shown, the rash faded. "Am I just making this whole ridiculous thing worse by talking to you about it? The more it's reported like this, the more people will fall for it, right? I mean, I still don't believe in this crap, but how can I deny what I just showed you? It's all psychology; I know that some people are more susceptible to this kind of suggestion, and that it has nothing to do with their intelligence or education. But that doesn't make me feel any less of a fool for falling for it."
In another experiment, your reporter purchased a track from uNetis and dutifully sat through the fifteen minute LAP video with the curse description and the spell casting by the three young witches (young women no doubt selected for their attractiveness as well as their alleged occult expertise). The unprotected file was then fearlessly duplicated onto a portable music player without paying for an additional copy.
Three days later there was still no sign of the promised affliction.
"It doesn't reach everyone, no," admits Jeves, "We estimate that ten-to-twenty percent of our customers are directly susceptible to the curse. But then that twenty percent convince another thirty that it's not worth the risk to even try. And, of course, we always have our consistent base of loyal and honest customers for whom the curse simply doesn't apply. They know that our artists need to be rewarded and are happy to help fund their creativity... Uh... you did pay for that copy in the end, didn't you?"
Prof. Kenneth Dique, who remains at large despite the outstanding warrant for his arrest over the CrackBaby.net distributed quantum computing affair, has also taken an interest in the cursing of media downloads. In an interview last month [Stop Breathing, 'Quantum Communist', August 2012], Prof. Dique considered the curse a logical, if repulsive, development, "This is really no different from any of those anti-piracy PSAs. They are trying to convince their customers that something bad will happen to them if they do anything other than exactly what they are told. 'You will be arrested', 'You will be fined fifty-thousand dollars', 'You will go to prison'. As with all of these things it is only a minority, and usually a tiny one, whose lives are actually and directly impacted by such actions, but the misfortune of that minority is enough to convince a whole lot of other people to act just as these pigopolists want them to. And that's the most dangerous aspect: these companies are deliberately and maliciously re-engineering our common psyche for their own benefit, and without our consent. The uNetis curse is just the most recent, the most outlandishly arrogant and the most irresponsible example of this.
"And here's a question I want them to answer: What happens when uNetis eventually goes out of business? I didn't hear any caveat in the spell about that. What happens when there is no online payment system in place to lift the curse? Do those afflicted customers have to put up with the symptoms for the rest of their lives?"
"I find it hard to take the good professor seriously," Jeves responds when Prof. Dique's observations were put to him, "He's basically just put a negative spin on all advertising: 'you will be ugly if you don't use this moisturiser', 'you will be unpopular if you don't wear these sneakers'. Everything in the world of advertising is about 'engineering the common psyche', as he put it, that's how we create mind share. All we are dong is using the exact same process to convince our customers to do the right thing and help support our service and our artists." On Prof. Dique's last point he is rather more evasive, "We have no intention of going out of business. And I can assure you we are putting in place a series of measures to ensure that our customers can always access the curse-lifting mechanism, through alternate channels if necessary." He declined to discuss the details of these "alternative channels".
And the future of uNetis magic based DRM system (provided they don't go out of business and leave their customers with a lifetime of suffering)? "We are currently in talks with several of the larger labels about modifying the terms of the curse to make file sharing, through peer-to-peer and public posting, a distinct infringement with a much larger fine. We've also had several other online retailers seeking permission to make use of the curse system to protect their own products. And there has even been some investigation into the potential use of curses with physical media and domestic media technology such as preventing the misuse of HDMI signals. That's one of the many beauties of the curse system: it doesn't require customers to upgrade their hardware - it will work all the way down to old analogue devices!"
Finally Mr Jeves was asked if he personally felt any shame over causing so many people physical harm with the uNetis curse, "No. No I don't. It's those people who are copying music without authorisation who should be ashamed, ashamed for trying to take something without paying for it, ashamed for putting future music production at risk because of their selfishness, and for bringing us to the point where this sort of measure has become necessary. In the last two months we've received over twenty-thousand payments for unauthorised copies and recovered a considerable percentage of our estimated lost revenue for that period, enough to give hope to the music industry of a real future. What do I have to be ashamed of?" He adds: "And besides, it's hives, it's not going to kill them!"
- 'You'll Wish They'd Stuck with Rootkits' by Jennifer South Stop Breathing, October 2012.
|
|
|
| Bad Guy Sticker |
[Sep. 15th, 2006|01:52 am] |
There's been quite a bit of interesting copyfight news over on BoingBoing recently. Last week I was reading about Clayton Counts who released a mash-up of the classic Beatles' album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club band. And now this week, not only are EMI, the license holders of the album, trying to sue Clayton despite the fact that he has no money and made none from the mash-up, but they're also trying to sue everybody who heard his work too.
This displeases me.
I've cobbled together a new Greasemonkey script called 'Bad Guy Sticker' for use with the Amazon web site (and hopefully others with a bit of work).
When visiting a product page at Amazon this script will detect the 'label', 'studio' or 'publisher' field from the product's data and test it against a list of MPAA, RIAA, BPI and FACT members. If it finds a match, even a partial one, it will display a warning 'sticker' to let you know that money spent on this item will be used by the Bad Guys to harm your rights.
When you give these idiots money they use it sue people based on nothing but a screen-cap of a p2p IP list, to sue artists who are simply and naturally building on existing culture, to lobby for the extension of copyrights so they can tighten their hold on your culture, to take away your right to control your own property by persuading hardware manufacturers to sell you broken machines, to limit the development of new technologies because it threatens their outmoded business models, to force other countries to submit to their so-called Intellectual Property laws regardless of their own positions, and to find new ways to prevent you from participating in your own culture.
You may think it unlikely that something as simple as not buying certain products could have any impact on this lamentable situation. But regardless of the outcome the question you really need to ask yourself is, can you, in good conscience, continue to fund these activities? Even for those who will continue to buy these products it is important to understand the consequences of doing so.
While using the Bad Guy Sticker you may begin to wonder if there is anything left to buy without losing sleep. Trust me, this sensation passes swiftly. The fact is that the vast majority of the stuff sold by these companies is utter shite and you really won't miss it when it's gone. There is plenty of entertainment available out there from independent and totally benign companies, and there is a whole world of free culture available online. You really don't need to be encouraging content slavery to enjoy yourself.
[ The script can be re-installed from the link above to update the member lists. Any suggestions on additions for the lists to improve matching are welcome, as are any suggestions on optimising and increasing the functionality of the script. I am releasing Bad Guy Sticker to the Public Domain - this is to make it clear that anyone who wishes may produce their own version using this code, for instance you might want to build lists tailored for your region and other online stores. ] |
|
|
| A Brief History of DRM Hacking |
[Jul. 19th, 2006|04:12 pm] |
"Like a creeping fog, DRM smothers more and more media in its clammy embrace, but the sun still shines down on isolated patches of the landscape. This isn't always due to the decisions of corporate executives; often it's the work of hackers who devote considerable skill to cracking the digital locks that guard everything from DVDs to e-books. Their reasons are complicated and range from the philosophical to the criminal, but their goals are the same: no more DRM."
This fascinating article from Ars Technica is a necessary read for everyone. Not only does it describing why DRM has always failed to prevent piracy but also why, despite their shortcomings, these tools of questionable intent and limited effectiveness will continue to be developed and used to protect music and movie industry profit margins. |
|
|
| Movielink: Outsourcing DVD Production to Customers |
[Jul. 18th, 2006|11:27 pm] |
Movielink.com, that paragon of modern media distribution, has introduced a new feature to their movie download service: burn your own DVDs.
[ I need to point out, from the start, that the Movielink site only accepts visitors in the US and is heavily dependant on IE. The required JScript does not seem to function through the proxies I've tried. As a result all the information I have on their service is second hand. I'm not trying to mislead anyone but if Movielink don't want to offer me accurate information about their products and services then I'm not going to lose sleep over any misinformation repeated here. ]
Their embarrassingly ill-conceived business model is based on having punters pay something close to the price of a new DVD just so they can spend X hours downloading a heavily DRMed, purportedly low quality movie or TV show. What they end up with are files that will only play in Windows Media or RealMedia Players running under later editions of Windows. Since the DRM prevents the material being transported to other devices or translated into a more useful format, this means that customers will also need a PC with TV Out, preferably within reach of a decent TV, to make real use of it. Is it any wonder that the service's backers are trying to ditch this dead weight already?
BusinessWeek has reported that five of the studios that bankrolled Movielink, including Paramount Pictures, Sony and Universal Studios, have begun looking for a buyer of the video-on-demand service.
"The studios aren't going to abandon (Movielink and CinemaNow) completely," said Josh Martin, a digital-media analyst. "But they realize those sites have limited appeal to say the least."
"Limited appeal", I suppose that's a diplomatic way of putting it. Well, now they think they can take the edge off this foul-tasting meal they've served up by giving customers the chance to create their own DVDs that can be used in a 'regular' DVD player. This is not signalling the end of their DRM, far from it. Movielink has cut a deal with the makers of the Roxio burning software to produce a system for creating DVDs that will carry the standard copy-protection and (one assumes) region-coding measures found on commercial discs. So, you pay the price of a new DVD, spend hours downloading content of questionable quality, and then have to set about turning it into a rapidly depreciating physical product yourself? And then you wonder if the local DVD retailer is really all that far away.
When you by a DVD (and god knows why you'd want to these days) there is a vast and complex industry behind that purchase, factories and machines and people and suppliers, the budget for which offers at least some excuse for the price. But downloading from a website is one of the least industrial method of distribution imaginable (second only to p2p), requiring minimal personal and resources, and probably costing more for bandwidth than anything else. By all rights this should be the cheapest way to get movies legally, especially considering the poor quality of the end result. Are we really surprised that movie studios see these savings in production and distribution as a potential increase profit margin rather than a potentially cheaper product?
If you 'steal' a copyrighted movie through p2p you actually get a better product than if you had purchased it legally, a movie that you can translate into any format, play on any platform and make further use of in any number of imaginative ways using a whole range of tools. This is only true of copy-protected products - a car doesn't become faster and more fuel efficient if you steal it, nor does a TV develop higher resolution and a clearer picture. The bottom line remains the same: the only thing that is going to tempt p2p users away from their free movies is legal movies of at least the same quality.
Right now, being 'stolen' is probably the last thing on Earth that can save the awful shit that passes for movies these days.
I think I'd be more impressed if Movielink offered a free movie script and sock puppets. |
|
|
| ABC vs. Fast Forward |
[Jul. 8th, 2006|09:08 pm] |
ABC has held discussions on the use of technology that would disable the fast-forward button on DVRs, according to ABC President of Advertising Sales Mike Shaw, with the primary goal to allow TV commercials to run as intended.
"I would love it if the MSOs, during the deployment of the new DVRs they're putting out there, would disable the fast-forward [button]," Shaw said.
While MSOs risk losing some of their DVR customers if fast-forwarding were blocked, Shaw said the cable operators--who are beefing up their own local ad sales operations--"are in the same business we're in." "They've got to sell ads too," he said. "So if everybody's skipping everybody's ads, that's not a long-term business model for them either."
Shaw also threw cold water on the idea that neutering the fast-forward option would result in a consumer backlash. He suggested that consumers prefer DVRs for their ability to facilitate on-demand viewing and not ad-zapping--and consumers might warm to the idea that anytime viewing brings with it a tradeoff in the form of unavoidable commercial viewing. - from mediapost.com (via BoingBoing)
I can hear the demented squeals of DVR vendor tech-support even now, their cries of utter despair echoing backward through time itself. "My DVR isn't working properly!" "That's how it's supposed to be!"
This is the perfect example of zombiware: systems designed to limit a technological capability in an effort to revive a rapidly failing industry, hoping to make the dead walk. Unlike machine-breakers of the 1800s, these Luddites are backed up by power and money and could well get their way and even have their demands enforced by changes in law. The next thing you know AT&T will be talking about filtering VoIP traffic on their networks. Perhaps ABC would like remote control door locks installed along with these new DVRs to prevent people leaving the room while the adverts are on.
With views like Shaw's being expressed so openly and with no apparent shame it is clear that these industries have lost touch with any sense of reality or ethical conduct. In their current configurations they are approaching the end of their useful lifespans. Allowing them to continue in this fashion will only prove toxic to progress, to new technologies and to the opportunities these technologies bring.
If you want a business model that will succeed in the future find one that thrives on enabling people, that encourages openness, expansion and development. Customers don't want technology that will herd them into pens and force them into predicable behaviours, they want technology that breaks down these barriers, that creates new and fascinating opportunities, they want technology to help them not hinder them.
We want the future. Stop trying to sell us the past! |
|
|
| Zombie Authors and Glass Coffins |
[Jun. 9th, 2006|02:35 am] |
From Freedom fighter with a guilty conscience - The Guardian Unlimited:
Lessig would like to see copyright reduced to 14 years, renewable to 28, as laid down by the 1710 Statute of Anne, the basis of all subsequent legislation in the UK and many countries. He also wants the emphasis on copying as the trigger for copyright to be removed. "In a digital age, copying is as natural as breathing" - every web page you view is technically a copy - "and the idea that the law should be invoked every time there's a trigger of copying is totally inefficient." He suggests a different approach: "[If] you're distributing something publicly for commercial purposes then that's the appropriate thing to be taxing with the copyright act."
More realistically, Lessig is trying to limit the damage that copyright extensions cause to culture by requiring people to register for them, rather than receiving them automatically. "The vast majority would never request the extension, and so most stuff would pass into the public domain and the cost of perpetually extending copyrights would disappear."
You see, this is the Lawrence Lessig we know and love, rather than that Lawrence "If they have to pump poison gas into our homes while we sleep at least lets make it fragrant" Lessig cruising about a while back.
The issue of copyright extensions is becoming less funny every year. We cannot afford to continue offseting the development of our culture indefinitely. The last century proved to be a cornucopia of creativity, spawning countless new ideas, new movements, new ways of experiencing the world. It is disturbing to think that much of this material, the foundations upon which we are now trying to build the future of human society will remain unreachable, bound by "commercial interests", until long after our deaths. How, exactly, does this benefit the long-dead artists who created the material, how does this encourage learning or the continued development of the arts and sciences, how does this support anything other than the corporations?
A copyright reset, one that requires deliberate registration and means only the creator of a work can request a single limited renewal, is the only viable option. Lessig's suggested 14-28 year copyright would give the world immediate access to much of the material created in the 80s and early 90s, and complete access to everything created before that.
There is a desperate need to rid ourselves of the legal brainwashing of copyright law, something that has everyone second-guessing every trivial use of creations and concepts so horribly mislabled as "intellectual property", that even now is driving big business to unbelievable levels of interference in our lives. We need to reach a situation in which the uses an individual makes of a work is protected, where the tools and data controlled by private citizens are untouchable, regardless of copyright. This is the way to foster creativity and advance the sciences - by giving us access to them rather than locking them away in the glass coffins of Intellectual Property.
Time to change. |
|
|
| The Pledge: eMusic |
[May. 23rd, 2006|05:56 pm] |
Ars Technica is running an article on the eMusic subscription service that offers downloads of non-DRM VBR mp3s. Their catalogue is primarily indie bands and music from "beyond the commercial mainstream", though AT point out that "bands found on the site account for almost 30 percent of sales in the US music market."
The majors are terrified of piracy and so insist on strict DRM controls to safeguard their music. The indie labels that eMusic works with generally don't have that fear. "The indies have always viewed the world differently," says Pakman [eMusic CEO]. "You know, the indies struggle for attention, for customers, so the notion of someone actually digging a track and e-mailing it to 10 of their best friends - doing self-promotion - that's music to the ears of the indie record labels. Whereas an RIAA member says, 'We've got to sue that guy.'"
It should be noted that for $9.99 per month the services allows up to 40 track downloads at 25c each (after the free trail period) which brings the minimum service price to about $20 (€16) a month if you make full use of it.
Personally I don't buy music like that, I tend to go through a period of a month or two when I'll buy a lot: a few new things (less each year), fill holes in the back-cats, chase down some imports. But then I'd stop and not buy anything else for most of a year. So, I think this service is most likely not for me, but if their selling pattern happens to match your buying pattern and you enjoy the thrill of discovering new bands, then there may be something in this for you.
I have to wonder, though, what do we think happens to these bands when a big label gets around to waving a massive wad of stinking sue-money in their faces? In most cases DRM-ahoy, I suspect - or is this too broad a stroke?Technorati Profile |
|
|
| The Pledge: Safe List - 4AD |
[May. 10th, 2006|11:54 pm] |
4AD.com - These guys are the UK label for the Pixies, Dead Can Dance, Throwing Muses and many others. They offer direct sales of both physicals and downloads through their web site. From their FAQ:
Do you sell mp3 files? - No, we sell AAC files (technically they are mp4's) which sound better for a smaller file size and quicker download, they are the same files that iTunes sells, but with no DRM, we trust you to respect the music our artists create.
"We trust you" - honestly, how many companies in the music industry today can use that phrase around their customers?
I was doing a quick audit of my physicals to see what effect The Pledge might have had on my past CD and DVD buying habits. It looks like my DVD collection would have been decimated, but my CDs came out relatively sound with only about a third released by RIAA members and their associates. 4AD were a standout in the good guys pile. One thing to note is that 4AD don't own the rights to all their artists in all countries, Dead Can Dance, for instance, cannot be downloaded to the US from the site... I'm going to steer away from the implications of that for now.
After some investigation it seems that a general No Buy List or Safe List for The Pledge may be impractical for several reasons. Amongst the obstacles is the amount of work involved in tracing studio and label affiliations combined with sheer number of releases and re-releases in the DVD and CD markets, and also the problem of relevance in international sales.
As satisfying as it may be to spotlight the bad guys of the content industry, in the end it must be the responsibility of the conscientious consumer to ensure that they are not funding pigopolists and Machine Breakers (just as it is their responsibility not to fund criminal organisations through buying cheap knockoffs). |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|