Copy protection with a bite?

M

MeekAndMild

New member
I thought the absolute-free-speech advocates would be interested in this. Imagine an international corporation which decides to protect its rights to copyrighted material. So they decide to add an agressive layer of copy protection to their CDs.

The trouble is that they neglect to tell their customers that the copy protection modifies the customers' computers. It inserts subroutines which redirect CD usage through their programs. If you remove their program, then you can't use your CD ROM. In plain English this is the equivalant of buying a book which you can never throw away or all your other books become unreadable.

Sure they should have the right to copy protect their own works, but not to damage computers in doing so.


http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/analysis/2147795/sony-puts-bad-drm

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004144.php

http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights.html

What does this have to do with gun control and RKBA? Good question. Any ideas?
 
Personally I think the "license to use" idea is just a scam.

If a major corporate player wanted to protect their product there's LOTS of different ways they could do it without resorting to "trickery" like spyware and one sided licensing agreements.

For instance, way back in the 70's I came up with the idea of digital music. I had no way to do anything with or about that idea so it evaporated until technology happened and some corporate wiz kid "invented" my idea. (Kudos to him BTW.)

Now, lets fast forward to today. Today the music biz is in need of a way to protect their "product" from copyright infringement. How to do that with digi-music and music downloads so easy on the 'net is the question.

For starters, why can't the music industry create a digital music "chip" that is inserted into a PROPRIETARY music player? The chip is encoded to only accept the code in the proprietary player and the player will not play chips without the correct encoding in the chip.

Guess what - no more music theft. But have the bigwigs done that? No, they just line up their mouthpieces in a long line and pass around the party favors and campaign contributions and get our legislators and judges to side with them.

I'm not saying that music theft (or any theft) is something I condone. I'm saying that locks were meant to keep honest people honest and that if you don't lock up your stuff, you can't blame anyone else if it gets stolen.

Same thing as what's going on with Sony BMG. Had they invented some sort of proprietary circuitry they'd been fine. Instead, they tried to scam their customers with hidden software. I mean how hard would it be to create a digital drive for the chip that is USB plug and play compatable but can't be copied from by the PC?
 
I mean how hard would it be to create a digital drive for the chip that is USB plug and play compatable but can't be copied from by the PC?
Click to expand...
Extremely. Maybe I'm not following the same thought for this technology but what you're referring to is already in place. Many players are hardwired to only pay music in certain formats or from certain sources. The problem is that even the most hard core protection scheme can be worked around. No computer hardware or software is 100% impenetrable; if it was invented by humans it can be subverted by humans.

Copy protection schemes, like gun control and drug laws, only hinder the activities of people that would otherwise be honest, law abiding folks. All it takes is one guy to crack the code and suddenly this software or music is available to anyone that knows where to look while the people that paid for it are left paying for the developement of copy protection technologies that inconvenience them far more than anyone else.
 
But you see that's the beauty of the idea of hardware encryption. Anyone who cracks the "code" is an easy to spot and convict crook. And no one will manufacture hardware products which violate the patented encryption so mass hardware copies won't happen. I mean, do you EVER see, read about, hear about Intel Pentium CPU processors being illegally made? And what if the chip and socket weren't "square" but were instead, octagonal or hexagonal or even trapezoidal and only 1 company in the world is authorized to make the chips/sockets. Wouldn't that make it rather difficult to make unauthorized copies?

Software, OTOH, is super easy to bypass in secret and disseminate the resulting code-cracker by 13 yr olds with a PDA.

AS to guns: In the future there'll be a smart gun that follows this scenario. A biosensor chip in a trademark specific socket.
 
Sony has every right to protect their intellectual property, but I think that the path they chose to do so was very poorly chosen. I'm not exactly sure what the program does but if it automatically installs and affects anything on the computer other than the playing of Sony CDs, I would consider it a crime along the lines of willful destruction and unauthorised alteration of the consumer's computer.

Computers are personal possessions, people use them for work, school, and play. Some people base their whole lives around their computers, and almost everyone's computer contains information that could be used against them such as credit card numbers and tax information. (why pay an accountant when you can use quicken?)

People don't like their computers messed with and for good reason. What Sony did borders on criminal behavior and at the very least they should be punished by consumers with an unofficial boycott, as I'm sure they will be. (I know I'm going to think twice before buying a CD from Sony.)

Sony certainly has a right to protect their copyrights, but this is not the way to go about it. It's like instead of just locking their doors they decided it would be safer to just go around locking everyone in the neighborhood in their basements.

Just my two cents.
 
But you see that's the beauty of the idea of hardware encryption. Anyone who cracks the "code" is an easy to spot and convict crook. And no one will manufacture hardware products which violate the patented encryption so mass hardware copies won't happen. I mean, do you EVER see, read about, hear about Intel Pentium CPU processors being illegally made? And what if the chip and socket weren't "square" but were instead, octagonal or hexagonal or even trapezoidal and only 1 company in the world is authorized to make the chips/sockets. Wouldn't that make it rather difficult to make unauthorized copies?

Software, OTOH, is super easy to bypass in secret and disseminate the resulting code-cracker by 13 yr olds with a PDA.

AS to guns: In the future there'll be a smart gun that follows this scenario. A biosensor chip in a trademark specific socket.
Click to expand...

Hardware copy protection is not the answer because it grossly limits user capabilities. Proprietary hardware is part of the reason that Apple has a grasp on such a small piece of the industry and why iPods work with all computers. Had Apple hard wired the iPods to only play music purchased from iTunes the little mp3 player would've been a complete flop.

Why should I not be able to grab a dozen of my favorite CDs, take the songs I like best, and make my own mix? Why shouldn't I be able to make multiple copies of each CD so I can store the original in a safe place while having one in each vehicle and in other places? I haven't made copies to sell or give away to friends but the simple fact that I'm capable of commiting these acts of piracy has the industry up in arms.

Why would that guy that cracked the code be easy to convict? Why would he be a crook if he simply wanted to take the electronic devices that he purchased and use them in a way which best fit his needs and lifestyle? Why wouldn't companies manufacter products that violate the encryption? Should all these companies be forced to apply the same dubious technologies so there's an industry standard copy protection scheme?

I'm not following you....the reason that CPUs are not illegally made is because it's ridiculously expensive and difficult to make processors. It has nothing to do with patents; in fact AMD sued Intel for patent infringement since it came up with most of the innovations that Intel was profiting from for years. AMD was then able to launch its' own line of CPUs to compete. Why would the shape of the processor core affect....anything? :confused:

Only one company in the world should be "authorized" to produce certain pieces of hardware? All in the name of copy protection? Please tell me I misunderstood you.
 
Sony has every right to protect their intellectual property, but I think that the path they chose to do so was very poorly chosen. I'm not exactly sure what the program does but if it automatically installs and affects anything on the computer other than the playing of Sony CDs, I would consider it a crime along the lines of willful destruction and unauthorised alteration of the consumer's computer.
Click to expand...

While you have a point, just about everyone that has these problems fully agreed to them. No one ever reads the EULA, do they?

Sony certainly has a right to protect their copyrights, but this is not the way to go about it. It's like instead of just locking their doors they decided it would be safer to just go around locking everyone in the neighborhood in their basements.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the industry is failing to see that people have figured something out. It's now possible for an artist to create something, get it to an audience, and get paid for it without having to go through so many middlemen.

http://www.mindjack.com/feature/piracy051305.html
An example showing how one form of piracy may actually be a good thing.

Better delivery methods need to be created that encourage legal ownership as opposed to piracy. That's the only way the problem is going to be fixed...telling a hacker than he can't crack a certain code is nothing more than an invitation to do just that.
 
Redworm, apparently I didn't make myself clear enough.

If someone were to start manufacturing proprietary hardware without permission they'd be trying to sell it now wouldn't they? If so, they'd be subject to all sorts of anti-piracy laws and hardware is easy to confiscate, the plant is easy to locate, and the people involved are easily found at the plant. There are international treaties that cover that sort of thing and the whole world participates in their enforcement because it's in their best interest to do so.

The shape of the chip is important because then you couldn't just stick in a regular ol' eprom or memory stick and get around the enconding.

And if you come up with a way to defeat anti-theft hardware and neutralize it so YOU can do what you want, fine. That's OK. What you can't do is make purpose-built stuff and sell that stuff so other's can buy it and do it too. That's conspiracy to commit piracy and copyright theft. Again, trace the hardware and you find the guilty party.

And CPU's are very expensive to build, have one purpose, and are easily available on the mass market. Having special digital music chips made that cost a fortune to duplicate, have only one purpose and are easily available would create the exact same conditions. Namely that no one would bother trying to duplicate them without the encoding. Hence, no piracy issue.

Pirates operate because they can profit by not paying the royalties. If it's too expensive to do something illegally, pirates won't do it because they can't profit on it.
 
If someone were to start manufacturing proprietary hardware without permission they'd be trying to sell it now wouldn't they? If so, they'd be subject to all sorts of anti-piracy laws and hardware is easy to confiscate, the plant is easy to locate, and the people involved are easily found at the plant. There are international treaties that cover that sort of thing and the whole world participates in their enforcement because it's in their best interest to do so.
Click to expand...

Many companies around the world already sell knockoffs of proprietary hardware, many of them free of prosecution. Not only is it not that hard to copy proprietary hardware but it's just as easy to modify it, Microsoft's Xbox being a prime example.

And if you come up with a way to defeat anti-theft hardware and neutralize it so YOU can do what you want, fine. That's OK. What you can't do is make purpose-built stuff and sell that stuff so other's can buy it and do it too. That's conspiracy to commit piracy and copyright theft. Again, trace the hardware and you find the guilty party
Click to expand...
Can you give me some examples of what you're talking about?

And CPU's are very expensive to build, have one purpose, and are easily available on the mass market. Having special digital music chips made that cost a fortune to duplicate, have only one purpose and are easily available would create the exact same conditions. Namely that no one would bother trying to duplicate them without the encoding. Hence, no piracy issue.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by one purpose..

Why would someone spend extra money in making hardware like this in the first place? Who are you suggesting should be selling this kind of technology? Who should be regulating it? Who should be enforcing it?

Why should I be forced to use a certain piece of hardware to enjoy content that I paid for?
 
Sure they should have the right to copy protect their own works, but not to damage computers in doing so.
Click to expand...


Agreed.

They have no more right to do this to MY computer just because I use their CD in MY computer than Jiffy Lube has the right to modify my car engine to accept oil changes only from Jiffy Lube just because I had them do it one time.


-azurefly
 
redworm said:
While you have a point, just about everyone that has these problems fully agreed to them. No one ever reads the EULA, do they?
Click to expand...


Oh, yeah, they write a bunch of legalese that they INTEND to be too dense for just about anyone to read, much less understand, and then they tell us that "we agreed to it." :rolleyes:

That's b.s.


-azurefly
 
Maybe I'm being cranky today but this:

Why should I be forced to use a certain piece of hardware to enjoy content that I paid for?
Click to expand...

just chaps my butt.

It's OK to disagree with me, but to be this dense?

One example: A record. You paid for it but can't play it unless you have a record player. So you're "forced" to use a certain piece of hardware to enjoy content you paid for.

Thus your argument falls to dust....

My point is why can't the music industry just make record players that play "music-chips" that can ONLY be played in proprietary music industry approved record players?

Yeah, someone could make a different player that uses a slightly modified encoding, but unless the music industry allows them to record copyrighted music onto their slightly modified chips, there's no music that can be played in their player.

And tooling up to counterfeit the music industry chips would be horribly expensive and not worth the cost. This eliminates pirates.
 
Rob, if you had to buy HARDWARE (i.e. a separate drive for your computer) to play discs by SONY, and also for discs by Atlantic, and also for discs by Geffen... you wouldn't be pissed off? You wouldn't think you were being taken for a ride?


-azurefly
 
But you see, the beauty of the idea is that the recording industry (as a whole) creates a unified system which only "official" recording industry types use. You wouldn't need a separate player for each because each label would record on the "official" chips only. Thus, Sony, Atlantic, et al would use the same system.

It's only the BG's who wouldn't be allowed to use the chips because they wouldn't be able to get them except on the black market which wouldn't produce them because it'd be too expensive with little or no profit for the risk.

Your average teenager wouldn't have access to pirate the music even if he cracked the dual code because the medium wouldn't exist whereby he could distribute his illegally hijacked music.
 
One example: A record. You paid for it but can't play it unless you have a record player. So you're "forced" to use a certain piece of hardware to enjoy content you paid for.

Thus your argument falls to dust....
Click to expand...

I have to buy a record player but I have my choice in record players. I'm not limited to one that's approved by the recording company that may or may not lack features I want or simply be a crappy piece of equipment.
My point is why can't the music industry just make record players that play "music-chips" that can ONLY be played in proprietary music industry approved record players?
Click to expand...
Music chips?

Yeah, someone could make a different player that uses a slightly modified encoding, but unless the music industry allows them to record copyrighted music onto their slightly modified chips, there's no music that can be played in their player.
Click to expand...
And thus there's no music that will be bought by consumers. If people are forced to give up their current equipment and upgrade just to keep buying music, they'll stop buying it en mass.

You can't simply force consumers to migrate to new technologies in the name of copyright protection. Once I buy a CD, the data encoded on it belongs to me. Period.
And tooling up to counterfeit the music industry chips would be horribly expensive and not worth the cost. This eliminates pirates.
Click to expand...
Do you know any music, software, or movie pirates. I'm not talking about your neighbor's 14 year old kid that downloads the movies and music, I'm talking about the guys that make them avaiable in the first place.

How do you figure it would be horribly expensive? If it's too expensive to counterfeit then it will be too expensive to produce and purchase.
 
But you see, the beauty of the idea is that the recording industry (as a whole) creates a unified system which only "official" recording industry types use. You wouldn't need a separate player for each because each label would record on the "official" chips only. Thus, Sony, Atlantic, et al would use the same system.

It's only the BG's who wouldn't be allowed to use the chips because they wouldn't be able to get them except on the black market which wouldn't produce them because it'd be too expensive with little or no profit for the risk.

Your average teenager wouldn't have access to pirate the music even if he cracked the dual code because the medium wouldn't exist whereby he could distribute his illegally hijacked music.
Click to expand...

So in other words, prohibit musicians from actually getting their music out unless they sign with one of the RIAA companies. Prohibit people from listening to music on the devices of their choosing, forcing them to buy equipment that may be of crappy quality.

I'm still not following your "chips" thing. You mean memory cards? What about compilations? I have a dozen albums from half a dozen record companies, each with one song that I want to have on a mix. Instead of being able to make that mix with a 35 cent CDR I have to keep swapping out each time I want my next song.

So I'm a BG because I want to use the music I bought as I see fit? If I buy a book should someone be able to tell me that I can't loan it out or that I can only read it under a certain light?

Again, who would control this? Who would regulate it? Should the government control how I listen to music? Or maybe the recording industry should realize that people realize they can get their music while the artist still gets paid but without all the profits going to the execs.
 
While you have a point, just about everyone that has these problems fully agreed to them. No one ever reads the EULA, do they?
Click to expand...

Well, these rootkits were not in the EULA. They installed the second you put the CD in your computer, with no notice at all. You did not get a choice, and got no and did not even know it was going on your computer. They were completely hidden.

These cds did not have an eula. You were not trying to install any software. It just installed itself without your knowledge when you tried to play it.
 
Well, these rootkits were not in the EULA. They installed the second you put the CD in your computer, with no notice at all. You did not get a choice, and got no and did not even know it was going on your computer. They were completely hidden.

These cds did not have an eula. You were not trying to install any software. It just installed itself without your knowledge when you tried to play it.
Click to expand...
Good point. Regardless of the copy protection that the industries chose to implement, they should not be allowed to use ones that cause damage to the system without informing the user.
 
Rob P wrote:
For instance, way back in the 70's I came up with the idea of digital music. I had no way to do anything with or about that idea so it evaporated until technology happened and some corporate wiz kid "invented" my idea.
Click to expand...
For the record, CDs with digital music began at least in the early 70s. The concept may have been much older. I was in radio in the mid-70s and distinctly recall reading about this technology which was commercially available then (at a very high price).

There's a bit of history at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_disc#History though, as I mentioned before, I recall CDs being available on a limited commercial basis in the mid-70s.
 
These cds did not have an eula. You were not trying to install any software. It just installed itself without your knowledge when you tried to play it.
Click to expand...


With that, anyone who is defending the recording industry loses. There is no surmounting the FACT that doing this was/is WRONG. They have no right.

I think they ought to be sued into oblivion by victims of this crap.



-azurefly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top