Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

DataPlay - Flash Killer or Copy-Control Nightmare?

Posted by Cliff on Wed Feb 21, 2001 06:20 AM
from the the-next-salvo-across-our-bow dept.
theancient1 asks: "Coming soon to MP3 players, PDAs, and digital cameras: DataPlay: a $10 coin-sized disc that holds 500 MB of data. The catch? The discs have content control implemented as part of the file system. If a file has the 'protected' bit set, you'll need a key to access it. Keys can expire after a given interval, and although you can transfer files to your friends, they'll need their own key. This proprietary, SDMI-ready device is the RIAA's dream -- if all music were distributed this way, services like Napster wouldn't exist." And the war over digitally control content escalates. Will this system be cracked as easily as SDMI, or might this be something to worry about?

"On CNNfn, the CMO says it's great for record companies that want to re-sell their old music in a new format. In their press FAQ, they essentially claim to have invented the CD-R. (Patents pending.) All new hardware technologies seem to come with content control strings attatched. Is CD-R the last truly open storage medium? Is DataPlay the next big thing, or something to avoid?"

+ -
story
This discussion has been archived.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
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Prophet of Doom (250947) on Wednesday February 21 2001, @01:24AM (#414646)
    if all music were distributed this way, services like Napster wouldn't exist.

    I'm not sure that Napster-like p to p wouldn't exist. Regardless of the sotrage medium, at some point the sound of the music has to be released into the air so my ears can hear it. At that point I can grab it with some cheap microphone and convert it to an unencrypted .wav or something. Quality would not be as good as a direct rip but the vast majority of folks either don't notice the subtle differences or really don't care.

  • This will never work, just like all the other stuff like Divx. Why? Because mp3's already exist for a small file format and cdr's are as cheap as dirt these days. It's not like DVD where it actually brought something new to the table (tens of gigs of storage, which cdr's still can't match). This dataplay thing is just the same old same old, recycled and re-deployed.

    Besides, there ain't no way for software to be 100% un-crackable, period. Haven't we all learned that by now? Absolutely no way. This thing will waste away just like divx did.


    ---------
    Did you just fart? Or do you always smell like that?
  • Allow each song to be copied once. A song could be downloaded and copied onto a mp3 player. The song on the player cannot be copied. The song on the hard drive cannot be copied until the player is reconnected to any computer that can connect to the hard drive, through a network or even wireless through cell phones.

    This is the wireless interconnected fair digital music control that could appease the RIAA and consumers alike.

    What would mess up this beautiful equation is if RIAA doesn't allow that one copy. That's taking it too far. If they do that I can't share a song with my friend or keep a copy on my laptop and desktop.

  • by DanThe1Man (46872) on Wednesday February 21 2001, @01:40AM (#414661)
    Alright, lets get it right this time [slashdot.org]. Nobody crack the filesystem until it is released to the genral public. ;-)

    _ _ _
    I was working on a flat tax proposal and I accidentally proved there's no god.

  • Their web site [dataplay.com].

    I can't believe they actually have a picture of that man both holding his thumb up *and* pointing at you whilst holding up the crappy product. I just imagine the cartoon version:

    SuperAdvertMan: Prepare to die "dataplay", all purchasers worship me for my advertising powers...
    Dataplay: Aha! But we have (flourish) ... (fanfare) THIS! Meet thy nemisis - HideousGeekParodyMan!
    SuperAdvertMan: (bursts out laughing) But nobody will buy products associated with *that*
    Dataplay: oops...
    HideousGeekParodyMan: (grinning inanely) buy this kids! It's got like different coloured stuff on it!

    I hate the it all already...

    0.02,
    Mike.
  • Yers, I believe you are
    You're never hurting the fat cat - it's the little guy that gets the blame.
    So your solution is to buy into the fat cat's system, to go along with the Big Five, and let them flout the principles of copyright law? To buy music that you can only play on one device, that you can't lend, that you can't tape to play in your car, and that will stop working before it comes in danger of not being copyrighted any more? We are talking about nothing less than the death of the public domain - not that it isn't already nailed up in the coffin and gagged, that is.
  • by Tim C (15259) on Wednesday February 21 2001, @01:42AM (#414666)
    I think the problem (at least IMHO) is the expiring keys. (I have no problem with people profiting (fairly) from their work, or with them taking reasonable steps to protect their ability to do so.)

    Right now, if I buy a CD, I own it forever, or at least until the disc is rendered unplayable for some reason. If I'm careful and/or I make backups, it should outlast me.

    Not so with an expiring key. Suddenly, under this scheme, if I buy a song/album, I can only use it for a limited amount of time. At the end of that period, I either pay up again, or I don't get to listen to it anymore.

    That's changing the rules - we'd no longer be buying the music (or even access to a copy of the music on a given physical medium), we'd be hiring it. Personally, when I buy something, I like the fact that it's mine "forever".

    You can be pretty sure that, in the long run, this will cost us (the music buying public) more.

    Cheers,

    Tim
  • Why is it that the industry (be it music, movie or software) simply does not understand that trying to gain this form of control over what they own only makes people more inclined to copy it?

    I buy my CDs, DVDs and software. I also have all my CDs encoded as mp3's while the discs themselves are stuffed in a shelf (and rarely used, I might add). I like paying for my CDs because I want the artists to keep making music that I like. It's very natural to me.

    So would it be a problem for me if they started trying to prevent me from encoding the songs to mp3's and do whatever I damn please with them? It would piss me off. It's my right to decide if I want to listen to the song I just bought in my RIO when I'm out walking or on the stereo with the mp3-jukebox in the livingroom.
  • Mini discs have been around for years and they are a very cool technology. Controlled by sony, they have not flourished as much as they could have although they are a better tech than CDs (read/write 80 minutes stereo, 160 (!) minutes mono) and they have copy protection for digital to digital copies.

    I don't really see anything (besides size, but hey, my MD walkman [cat-street.com] is barely 1 decimeter square by 1.5 cm thick. Tiny!) that is really new and exciting here.

    The fact is that the more free and open the media/standard is, the more prelavant it will become. It also helps bunches to have pro quality masters of the media I want (music or data) on these formats.

    Rami
    --
  • by Carik (205890) on Wednesday February 21 2001, @01:52AM (#414672)

    In a lot of ways I agree with this; I, for one, don't use Napster. I want my favourite artists to keep releasing new music, so I buy their albums, in hopes they'll be able to make money. However, there's something wrong with a system where the record company owns all rights to an artists music, and he/she/it gets only a penny or two from each 10 discs sold.

    That said, the reason I don't want copy protection is this: I want to listen to my music at work, without having to cary 80 CDs back and forth. If I compress my CD collection into MP3, it takes, what, about 10 discs? Much easier to carry on the bus, don't you think? If I'm not allowed to copy it, I don't have a choice... and if it's not convenient (If, for instance, I need to enter some sort of key, be it password or an actual physical key) to listen to my music, I'm not likely to buy anything new. After all, why spend US$17 on something I can't listen to?

    So, regardless of this being "the new thing", I'm not buying it. And, really, if no one buys, it can't be made a standard. After all, they're not gonna keep making something that no-one will pay for.

  • If there's a market for it, let it come.

    It will be cracked, we will use the media for our own purposes, even storing music previously under copy protection. We will have ways of re-recording things without content control, and no content control system will keep us from moving the data into another medium.
  • Here's what this technology can offer if implemented fairly:

    1. Music can be compressed with a new format that improves sound quality per bitrate. Who wouldn't like to carry around four hours of music instead of two or three?

    2. The consumer's knowledge that if the songs are bought directly from a band's website, actual money has gone to the artist, and not neccessarily just the labels as it will be under the Napster payment system.

    3. If RIAA can pull this off, they will get newer mp3 players to only support protected files, either through intimidation or changing the laws. I'm not in favor of this action, but I also think that with the Senate's help there will be a genuine effort to reform copyright laws that will help consumers while protecting business. If the music contains watermarks, it might be possible to limit free, unrestricted copying to a small percentage of society with the neccessary skills and attitude.

  • by pompomtom (90200) on Wednesday February 21 2001, @01:56AM (#414678)
    To some extent, yes you have.

    Speaking as a non-earning musician.... I think it would be nice if music were a tad less commercialised. Under the current marketing regime, yes you are dead right. Fewer record/CD/micro-optical-gizmo sales will effect the little guy. The point of the issue here is that we have entered the age where scarcity (of the IP) has just about been eliminated. The system of distribution we have for music is based upon a false premise.

    The loss to the little guy is the result of a crap distribution system. Good music has the ability to make listeners' lives better. By introducing hardware controls on the distribution simply to line the wallets of particular entrenched interest makes fuck all sense.

    Wouldn't the world be a better place if the good music could propogate amongst friends and/or communities?

    NB I'm not personally proposing a replacement system here. Let it evolve like the last one. I imagine there are a bunch of well paid musicians out there who wouldn't be too happy about this, but then there are a stack more not-well paid musicians who produce music because they want to produce music and be heard. Now that we have the ability to do that, why wouldn't we?

    When some smart techy comes up with the trick to reproducing rice as easily as we can now reproduce bits, would you be calling that theft from agribusiness, and stressing out? Some people would think of it as an end to hunger.

    Read a bit of Andre Gorz, and realise that what may be the beginning of the end of scarcity is a GOOD THING.

    The issue here is the failure of capitalism in its current form to deal with this form of distribution.

    Yes, there are problems with this, but we should be looking at this as an opportunity, not a reason to be clinging to irrelevant paradigms.

    Something is wrong here, but it's not the 'celestial jukebox' concept, it's our inability to deal with it. Of course we should look after our artists, but that is not going to happen by tying the hands of the music lover and denying them the ability to appreciate the artists' work.

    Buckets,

    pompomtom
  • by mindstrm (20013) on Wednesday February 21 2001, @01:57AM (#414679)
    The problem we all have with these copy-control systems isn't the systems themselves. The average consumer doesn't *care*. They're glad to have the cool new tech.

    The problem is the DMCA that makes it illegal for us to purchase gear and then modify it to avoid a copy control system, or to share information about how to do that.
  • by jilles (20976) on Wednesday February 21 2001, @01:57AM (#414680) Homepage
    I have no use for a device with content control. In a market with competition a variant of such a device without the content control will soon emerge or the invention will simply vaporize (like most storage related inventions seem to do). I read slashdot regularly and anouncements of the next generation storage devices (holographic storage, new and improved optical storage, better harddrive) are about as frequent as discussions on Gnu license issues. So, my guess is that this will fail (provided it ever evolves into a product which I doubt). BTW. 500 Mb isn't even close to the actual size of my mp3 collection, I need something larger.
  • by PhilHibbs (4537) <snarks@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 21 2001, @02:00AM (#414685) Homepage Journal
    My response to byte.com [byte.com]'s article [eoenabled.com]:

    In your January 22 article about the DataPlay storage device, the author writes: "How long this claim, and its copyright-protection features, survive contact with the anti-intellectual-property-rights types remains to be seen". I believe this is misunderstanding the philosophy behind the opposition to SDMI. The big media corporations have consistently and repeatedly abused the rights of both the artists and their consumers, both by lobbying for new laws such as the DMCA and the "Sony Bono" Copyright Extension Act, and by twisting existing copyright law and ignoring international copyright treaties with such abuses as region coding of DVDs (which has been carried over to DVD Audio, making a mockery of their reasons for using it on DVD movies). Fair Use and the first sale principle are being eroded or bypassed entirely, with the introduction of the "You're buying a licence, not a copy" model, which, if effective, will remove the need for the recording companies to respect the consumer side of copyright law.
  • To be honest, I'd be surprised if someone as control-freak as that would be so well hung!

    Buckets,

    pompomtom
  • Why just one copy?

    The original serial copy management system that by-law must be implemented on digital home audio recording devices , and is in use on CD (and in them mp3 format, but nobody uses it) that never really gets used (I'm sure some DAT drives use it) has 2 bits.
    1 bit for 'copyright' and another bit for 'original'.

    If the copyright bit is set, and the original bit is also set, the copy software is supposed to allow a copy, but turn off the original bit.

    If the copyright bit is set, but the original bit is off, then the device/software is supposed to refuse to copy.

    If the copyright bit is unset, then you can make all the copies you want.

    See, what they were scared of with digital copies was that, a copy is as good as the original. This scheme was to prevent serial copying going on forever... it meant that sure, you yourself with the original could hand out hundreds of copies even, but those who you handed them to couldn't....

    Of course, scms specifically exempted computers...
  • With he DMCA, there is no fair use that allows one to break the copy protection.

    Even if there was, the DMCA prevents you from distributing the code that allows you to make your own copy.

    It does not matter if you are making a copy for a legal purpose!

    The RIAA will swoop down and litigate and threaten anyone who talks about breaking the copyprotection. That way, they keep everybody in line with the threat of a lawsuit.

  • by xmedh02 (100813) on Wednesday February 21 2001, @02:05AM (#414692) Homepage
    Well I haven't been watching the recent inflation figures in the USA, but do they have already $10 coins? And how big is that, then?
  • I'm sorry to say that, but home DVD player unit can be zone free.

    Samsung have most of its units zone-free by using a code on the remote controller; and usual models by other manufacturer like Toshiba, Pioneer, Sony, etc can be made zone free. I bought my Toshiba zone free just to be able to enjoy unreleased in France movies.

  • by greggman (102198) on Wednesday February 21 2001, @02:22AM (#414703) Homepage
    Just FYI but MDs now hold 5 hours and 20 minutes of music on the SAME $2 MDs. Internal Battery life is up to around 25 hours. Add an single external AA battery and get upto 100 hours.

    They are called MDLP and are available from all the major manufactures (Sony, Sharp, Panasonic, JVC). No idea when they will be available in the states.

    There a review here [danchan.com] and some other info here [greggman.com]

    These MDLPs are currently arguably better than any portable MP3 player currently out. I know at some point MP3s will pass them but as it is now I can carry basically 50 to 60 CD of music for $20 ($2 per blank MD, 10 MDs). In the portable MP3 world that would cost me, assuming $50 per 64 meg memory card and I can put what, 2 CD in that space?, that would be 25 cards or $1250.

    On top of which I don't think there's a single portable MP3 player with a battery life over 10 hours. I'm sure that will change. It seems strange to me that a music device with no moving parts (MP3 player) would use more energy than a device with moving parts (MD player)
  • You realize this is the same bunch that cost the radio industry the ears of my younger brother's generation.

    I suspect my daughters, who will be buying music of their own in 5 years, will probably get most of their music by swapping it at school and over the internet. And it won't be from members of the RIAA, but from some garage band with a PC/Apple based editing studio.

    RIAA's real fear shouldn't be Napster & P2P, but that my grandchildren will read about them in the history books, and that the Harvard Business Journal will have articles about how it all went so wrong.
  • by xtal (49134) on Wednesday February 21 2001, @02:31AM (#414709) Homepage

    gets off the medium digitally. Unencoded. See where I'm going? The only way around this would be some kind of fancy analog cryptography. Yeah, right. Quality loss deluxe, I'd say.

    This isn't really true.. right now it is, but I'm sure a fancy designer could put the decode circuitry and a DAC in the same package to have encypted digital in and unencrypted analog out. What all these groups miss is that if I have a high quality sound card and some good mastering software, I can take their noise-free analog signal and resample it, then encode that - given that the mp3 codecs are lossy, I don't think my untrained ears would hear much of a difference.

    Whadda I know anyway :)

  • by VelitesJ (318184) on Wednesday February 21 2001, @02:33AM (#414710)
    Quite a few audio cards have digital out - you could simply record it into a harddisk recorder, and then record it back to your computer without losing a single bit of audio quality. Almost the same goes for MiniDisc recorders, allthough here the sound is compressed / decompressed. In other words: your initial stand was correct (if you can hear it, you can rip it), but it doesn't have to include a quality loss.
  • by Dyolf Knip (165446) on Wednesday February 21 2001, @02:41AM (#414714) Homepage
    I think there are also programs that can 'fake' a sound card in your system. The content control player outputs audio to what it thinks is a normal sound card, but it actually gets dumped straight to a file. Neat trick, that.

    --
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2001, @02:51AM (#414716)
    If you follow the content control [dataplay.com] link and then the ContentKey(TM) [dataplay.com] link, you're presented with series of suggested scenarios "...in which a <foo> offers a ContentKeyTM promotion to attract customers and to gain more information about them."

    In other words, children, we have yet another customer tracking tool.

  • My point is that copyright is a bargain, a bit of give and take on both sides, and they are just taking. The law prohibits me from freely copying and distributing the material, but also guarantees me certain freedoms in what I can do with the material. The recording companies are claiming the protection of copyright law, while denying the fair use of the mateiral. It's wrong, and I'm not going to just ignore it.
  • by Technician (215283) on Wednesday February 21 2001, @02:56AM (#414720)
    Just another way to screw with users...

    Actualy, I think users will soon find that only Napster type files are tradable. Files will be traded and downloaded into SDMI RIO type devices and becomming SDMI encoded for playback because the players will be cheap. However the original MP3 will be kept on the HD and CDR. Lets face it, how many Liquid Audio protected files do you have? I don't even have a capible player for it, so the files are useless to me. The industry will have a hard sell selling Pay for Play content as it can't be played on your in dash MP3 player or on your RIO. The only way the RIAA can get this to market is to subsidize the SDMI players like the Radio Shack Cue Cat thing was given away and payed for by Digital Convergence. That way the SDMI stuff will be lots cheaper than the other stuff. (Where can you get a 500 Meg compact flash card for less than 100.00?) 500 Meg for less than a dollar is proof it's got bucks poured into pushing it from somewhere. Try to buy an unencripted one for your camera and it will have Compact Flash prices on it! It it really could be made this cheaply, it would be put into compact flash and PCMCIA memory cards. MS is working to import MP3's and place a "Security wrapper" on them so they later can't be copied off and played elsewhere. That way you will have to buy the music from MS in a MS Media Player format as blessed by the RIAA. It will only play in HI FI if you have USB Speakers and all hardware handles the encrypted music. It'll be encrypted all the way out your speaker wires to the speakers. (it's an easy sell. Everyone will have a player with their new computer pre loaded with the latest MS Pay Per View TV Box software. You don't have to download a Liquid Audio or Real player. I won't buy that OS even for free! They know it'll sell. They tested it on DVD's.

  • The RIAA will lobby the US Treasury to start stamping $10 coins, and you'll have to pay for the new discs with only the new coins. To try to use paper money, checks, or even credit cards will qualify as an attempt to reverse-engineer their proprietary and highly researched 'you-give-us-money-and-we-loan-you-music trading scheme' (US Patent #5,560,893).

    I would explain further, but their lawyers and the police (in that order) are already knocking down my door...

    --

  • > The fact that you dislike of their advertising methods does not mean they are doomed to fail!

    Indeed, it is the fact that their advertising is cr4p that dooms them to failure. The fact that *I* don't like it only reduces their potential sales by 1.

    Of course, they have far larger problems than "Mr Cheezy" on the web page...

    Mike.

  • The DMCA has totally no effect outside the US's borders, so this is a null issue.

  • Information should be free.

    If people would just stop locking their doors at night, their valuables would be free as well- and I could get back to what I do best.

    Cat burglaring just hasn't been the same since that deadbolt lock salesman came to town. How can they do this? Is this even Constitutional?

    Join me in my struggle. stand up for your fundamental right to pilfer! [ridiculopathy.com]

  • I don't want to play disc jockey, that's the whole point of large storage devices. I currently store 650 Mb on a 1$ device (a cdrom). I don't see how my situation is improved significantly by this new invention.
  • The DMCA has totally no effect outside the US's borders, so this is a null issue.

    Maybe you should Jon Johansen [slashdot.org], or the people who raided his house, about that.

  • Mod this guy up!

    As a non-earning musician, and a buyer of / listener to music, I cannot believe the approach the RIAA (et al) are taking to the "protection" of "their" intellectual "property".

    There's lots of call for technology to protect information, because anything in digital format now has to be treated as extremely volatile - once it gets "out", there's no getting it back in. Here's a few examples of places where copy protection could be (but isn't) used:

    * Governments & the military would dearly love to be able to keep their secrets from falling into the wrong hands. How do they do this? They try their hardest to hire responsible people they can TRUST and implement a strict heirarchy of control. Most countries have laws forbidding the betrayal of military secrets. They use encryption techniques. But they couldn't do their jobs efficiently if any sensitive material was copy-protected.

    * Medical Records and other personal information - you don't want this falling into the wrong hands, but so long as you TRUST people (doctors) to keep it in the right hands, there's no problem and everyone can get on with their work.

    * Examination Papers - if you're a lecturer/teacher and you prepare your examination digitally, you'll be wanting to ensure they're protected from the prying eyes of your students. In order to be used, you have to duplicate them.

    So where do the record companies come in? Their product, I would argue, needs to be duplicated in order to be used (under the current concept of fair use); but they treat their customers as if each and every one of them is a criminal!

    I don't object to paying for music - if I don't, I won't be provided with any more :). I further don't object paying for the distribution of the music to me (e.g. to my ISP). But it costs me about 17ukp for a CD (for those not in England, that's about the cost of 20 2L bottles of soft drink :-))! Something has to change.

    I want free music, as in free speech. The technology exists to give it to me. The artists are happy to be heard, I'm happy to hear. But not everyone feels the same way. Most people are too used to the media selectively supplying them with whatever information they deem appropriate. They think they have choice, because they have 20 TV channels to watch! They don't see their freedom being undermined, and they won't buck the trend because they actually believe the big record producers' propoganda!

    I need to calm down.
  • by Shotgun (30919) on Wednesday February 21 2001, @03:43AM (#414754)
    Fuck that.

    Sounds good at first, but wait 'till you drop one in the car while headed down the interstate. I have enough trouble with pulling spare change from between the bucket seats now. My big fat fingers just can't handle such small items reliably when the other hand is occupied (no off color /. comments here, please).

    No thank you. I'd much rather have a media that is easier to handle.

  • The new discs will be $10 legal currency. This is one way they'll be able to get away with reaming you at the record store.

    "$35 for Frampton Comes Alive?!"

    "Well, you know, there's royalties, shipping costs, media costs, etc. etc.

  • The original serial copy management system that by-law must be implemented on digital home audio recording devices , and is in use on CD (and in them mp3 format, but nobody uses it) that never really gets used (I'm sure some DAT drives use it) has 2 bits. 1 bit for 'copyright' and another bit for 'original'.

    Does anyone have a utility to change these bits on MP3s? I found one, but it was unreliable and screwed up some of the files, causing them to play at double speed. Are there any "MP3 Repair Kits" out there?

  • by lobbying for new laws such as the DMCA and the "Sony Bono" Copyright Extension Act

    The senator and entertainer spelled his name Sonny Bono. If it was a typo, it's not a big one. But what an APPROPRIATE nickname for this bill! Next let's see the Philip Morris Omnibus Appropriations Bill, and the Novell Netscape Lott Antitrust Act.

  • Allow each song to be copied once.

    How? By forcing the original copy to self-destruct?

    A song could be downloaded and copied onto a mp3 player. The song on the player cannot be copied.

    It can be played, though! And if it can be played, it can be copied.

    The song on the hard drive cannot be copied until [...]

    A song on a hard drive is a sequence of 0s and 1s. It's just a data file! Any data file can be copied, as long as there's some available room on the destination medium.

    What would mess up this beautiful equation [...]

    ... is a good dose of ugly facts. Welcome to the real world, hope you enjoyed your stay in RIAA Fantasy Land.

  • by uradu (10768) on Wednesday February 21 2001, @04:58AM (#414781)
    > divx failed because the technology came out before the connectivity was present (in most
    > homes it still isn't present). People are not enthusiastic about having to plug a phone line
    > into the box on top of their TV set.

    Bull. Since when is finding a phone outlet a major issue? DirecTV (for PPV) and TiVo both require it, and that hasn't curbed their success. What killed Divx was:

    - disks were too expensive by PPV or rental standards
    - you couldn't play the disc on a friend's machine, even after buying it. This was a major downer, since people like to congregate at friends' houses to watch movies.
    - even purchased movies required a Divx player and phone connection to play
    - Divx movies had less features (no 16:9, worse sound, etc)
    - little choice in players, especially name brands

    > You people can claim all you want about how 'we defeated divx.'

    People voted with their wallets and Circuit City lost, so I don't know what you're talking about.

  • From the site:

    ContentKeyTM is an e-commerce and promotional tool that allows consumers to activate additional pre-recorded content on DataPlay digital media over the Internet without the need for time-consuming downloads.

    So basically, ContentKey is designed for pre-recorded media, so that companies can use it like Divx. But, it does not affect the blank media that consumers can buy. Unless they implement some crazy scheme where you have to pay for the blank media AND pay for the keys, there's nobody that can stop you from putting anything and everything on those disks.
  • - it's write-once, which I don't find acceptable anymore. I only buy CD-RW and want the same capability in any other medium.
    - it's hideously expensive, especially for a non-reusable medium.
    - since it's mechanical, the reading mechanism will always be larger, more fragile, more expensive, and require more power than solid state devices
  • An example of that is taxpayer funding of Free Software.
    I presume you mean the GPL issue recently discussed. IMO, that's better than taxpayer funding of closed-source software. Technically, neither should be possible, because the federal government can't hold copyright, so they can't enforce the GPL on code that federal employees create. However, they get around it by contracting the work to a private company, then buying the IP rights, which is a huge loop-hole. The other problem is when a federal employee makes modifications to GPL'd code, but the public domain modifications are then difficult to separate from the original work.
  • This "end of scarcity" thing is as false as popular.
    Partly, it is true - we can make practically any number of copies of a work with practically no cost.
    But.
    It does not mean that the original work does not have to be created. There IS still scarcity. There are NO infinite number of works, just (virtually) infinite number of copies.
    Get the difference?
    So, the scarcity is STILL there, it's only the distribution cost that went down remarkably.
    --
  • by PhilHibbs (4537) <snarks@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 21 2001, @05:20AM (#414790) Homepage Journal
    Dunno how big they are, but here [heritagecoin.com]'s a picture of one. And the other side [heritagecoin.com].
  • Does anyone have a utility to change these bits on MP3s?

    MPEG-Layer 3 Bitstream Syntax and Decoding [mp3-tech.org]. (It's a zipped MS Word document, so break out unzip and catdoc.

    If that's too heavy, here's a simpler explanation: the MP3 header is 32 bits (bit 0 through bit 31). Bit 28 is the copyright bit, and bit 29 is the original bit. You can view them with mp3info -f '%O %o' foo.mp3. You can change them with a hex editor (set the second nybble of the fourth byte to 4, assuming the emphasis bits are 00).

    If you needed to read this message to learn how to do this, I strongly suggest making a backup of the file before you edit it.

  • by WNight (23683) on Wednesday February 21 2001, @06:23AM (#414812) Homepage
    I don't think buying direct would work, because the artist would still have to buy the CD from their label. At least they'd make the retail markup instead of a store, but that's nowhere near all the cost.

    Instead, simply pirate the music and tip the artist with Fairtunes or a similar site. It's not legal, but it supports the people you want to support while not supporting the profiteering jerks who want to restrict your freedom.

    Even if I wanted CDs, I wouldn't buy them. The RIAA (and MPAA, this also applies to DVDs) have pissed me off with their cavalier attitude towards law (judge Kaplan on the payroll, etc.). When there's an artist I want to support, I'll do it directly, but they'll never get a penny from me via the studios, because out of $15 a penny is about all they would get. The rest helps the enemy, which isn't a good trade IMHO.

  • by Hiro Antagonist (310179) on Wednesday February 21 2001, @07:42AM (#414849) Journal
    Ummm...there's a difference?

    --