Slashdot Log In
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.
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?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
DataPlay-Flash-Killer or Copy-Control Nightmare?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 298 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
But... (Score:3)
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.
SDMI again huh? (Score:5)
_ _ _
I was working on a flat tax proposal and I accidentally proved there's no god.
Re:Sigh... (Score:5)
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
Re:Have I missed the point? (Score:3)
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.
Re:Have I missed the point? - ummm yes (Score:5)
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
Let's keep in mind. (Score:4)
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.
sigh (Score:4)
My letter to Byte (Score:5)
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.
Re:Here's what would be a great expansion for cont (Score:3)
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...
$10 Coin? (Score:3)
Re:Copy protection (Score:4)
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)
Not true.. (Score:3)
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 :)
About ripping music (Score:4)
Re:About ripping music (Score:4)
--
Amazing Free Offers (TM) (Score:3)
In other words, children, we have yet another customer tracking tool.
Re:Oh great... (Score:5)
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.
Coin sized media (Score:3)
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
No thank you. I'd much rather have a media that is easier to handle.
Re:Ahh yes.....That would be divx right? (Score:4)
> 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.
Re:$10 Coin? (Score:3)
Re:Here's what would be a great expansion for cont (Score:5)
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.
Re:Piracy (Score:3)
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.
Re:This Will Never Work (Score:3)
--