We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day Copy protection is guaranteed to fail because it’s a house of cards. No matter how sophisticated the software, it takes only one person to break it, once, and the music is free to roam and multiply on the peer-to-peer file-trading networks.
– Damian Kulash, lead singer of OK Go
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
And ultimately it must be breakable, or else people can’t listen to the product. That’s the fatal flaw in music copy-protection schemes.
Design the most complicated copy-protection system imaginable, and it can be defeated easily using nothing more elaborate than a 3-ft length of stereo wire with 1/8″ plugs at both ends.
Yep, sooner or later a wizened old monk will make it down the Silk Road to Byzantium with silkworm eggs and mulberry seeds hidden in his walking stick.
This is to miss the point.
It doesn’t matter to the record companies if the copy protection isn’t perfect, because they have laws which ban distribution of the tools to break the copy protection; accordingly, the harder you make the copy protection, and the more you enforce those laws, the fewer the actual real people who can circumvent the copy protection (or rather, access control – it’s ALL uses of the work, not just copying, they care about).
The argument “if you can play it, the protection must be breakable” has an analogue in respect of unencrypted copies of the music: if the music can be found by strangers online, it can be found by the music industry as well and shut down.
I’m not sure I think any of this is a GOOD thing, but a dose of realism always helps. If copies are circulating freely, but 99.9% of consumers aren’t getting at them, the music industry probably doesn’t care.
I agree that without access to un-encrypted files defeating copy protection means nothing.
But (1) stereo wire will never be banned; it would be like banning speakers or ears. It isn’t a question of the copy mechanism not being perfect – the idea is fundamentally flawed, and breaking whatever copy protection scheme you choose can be done by substituting a patch cable in place of your headphones; and (2) if the record companies crack down on the distribution of copied music, the distribution mechanism will change. I don’t believe for a second that people who are perfectly capable of producing unrestricted copies of music will refrain from passing those copies to their friends through a myriad of untraceable routes: hand to hand via burned CDs, via instant messaging, via email, etc. It doesn’t have to be anonymous peer-to-peer exchange.
“if the music can be found by strangers online, it can be found by the music industry as well and shut down.”
False. Trackerless bitt0rrent, dark-nets, IP spoofing … there are a million ways to be cruel to the record companies. Considering the dynamics of invotative technologies at small vs. large firms, I wouldn’t be surprised if the little theifs are always better.
The point about being able to take things is a bit mute: the owners don’t want to stop it, they want to minimize it. Making it so that you need some complicated technology at multiple stages to take the music means more people will pay for it. No free lunch and all…
By the way, OK_GO get’s a great deal of cred in my book for making this video of their dancing in a backyard to “A Million Ways”
SONY’s forthcoming Blu-Ray technology has organic encryption that can be changed when broken. I suppose the geeks will find a way to compromise the very structure of this encryption, bypassing it.
I love OKgo. Their song “Get over it” has some of the best lines in it. Catchy too 🙂
Copy protection misses the most common point that the break occurs, namely, an insider. Eg: film “screener” disks which leak onto bit-torrent before they even hit the cinema.
They’re facing a job as hard as a government trying to keep official secrets, without the help of patriotism, and with their organization already infiltrated at every level.
I’m going to sound like a broken record, but never mind:
“If copies are circulating freely, but 99.9% of consumers aren’t getting at them, the music industry probably doesn’t care.”
You’re missing something.
In the the scenario you describe (where copies have been made, but are magically not accessible) this can only be because DRM has been hardwired into the computer such that only approved software can run and when that software does not support DRM-free music. If unapproved software can run, then it can play the copies, no?
The implications for basic liberty are huge. Control over your PC is signed away to a third party, perhaps to the state. In this scenario, you don’t get to install or create software on your PC, you cannot access home brewed software and the liberty you enjoy online disappears.
Richard Stallman was on the money when he wrote this:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
SJG
“… and the music is free to roam and multiply…”
The music is free to roam only in the same way that “guns kill people.” The music doesn’t do anything, people do. Breaking DRM just lets consumers trade the music around in defiance of the owners wishes. It is interesting how people like to phrase such actions as if there was no conscious human action involved.
The 3 ft length of wire argument won’t hold much longer because they are now attempting to legislate to “close the analogue hole”. Basically, to ensure that recording equipment will recognise and refuse to record DRM music.
It’ll be broken of course, but that just increases the inconvenience.
I’ve just returned a copy of John Coltrane’s “Blue Train” that Amazon had incorrectly described as an “Audio CD”. I didn’t even take it out of its cellophane wrapping – it was quite clearly marked as not being a CD, along with warnings about the fact it probably wouldn’t play in car stereos, and listing which computer Operating Systems would be able to play it – mine not included.
Some people support the right of the big music companies to install backdoor spyware on my computer, (e.g. Sony), or to decide for me where I am allowed to play the CD, (not in my car apparently). They say that I am only buying a “license” to listen to the music. Is that so? Well in that case I should be able to take all my old LPs back to the record shop and upgrade them to CDs, paying only a nominal media charge, yes? Except of course, I can’t.
I’m a big buyer of CDs. The best way to convert me into being a small buyer of CDs, or even a non-buyer, is to stop selling them. That appears to be the approach the big music companies are taking.
Lots of wisdom on DRM in evidence here. I’d like to draw your attention to the All Party Parliamentary Internet Group DRM Public Inquiry, which is accepting public comments by email up until today. Do please let them know how futile DRM is, and why it should not be an excuse for over-broad laws that stop us creating with our computers.