Archive for the 'copyright' Category

Page 2 of 2

How not to do copy-protection: Sony Music

Published on November 4, 2005 in copyright and music. 1 Comment

Error #1: take a really broad definition of “backwards compatible”

Smith said the goal of the XCP technology is work with record labels and help them in better controlling the amount of copies made per user. He agreed that copying CDs for fair/personal use is acceptable, however, certain users exceed that limit. Now, he said, record labels and other software developers have the capability to limit the number of burns per CD. He further stated that record labels and others could control various aspects of copying, such as the quality of music at which the data is burned onto the new CD – in addition the number of burns.
The company said its technology is backwards compatible. Sony added that it has shipped approximately two millions compact discs that are equipped with XCP.
Sony tests CD protection technology (May 2005)

Error #2: assume all your customers are evil and should be protected against themselves

Our proprietary OD-DRM (On Disc Digital Rights Management) enables Record Labels and content owners to provide copying features such as controlled copying to hard drive, protected burning to CDR and transfer of protected files to portable devices. Consumers can therefore be enabled to make limited copies on CDR for personal use at the discretion of the Record Label but further copying is denied as these CDRs themselves are copy protected with no further OD-DRM.
from XCP Press Protect

Error #3: assume all your customers are stupid and won’t discover what you’ve done

The firestorm began when Mark Russinovich, a computer security expert with Sysinternals, discovered evidence of a “rootkit” on his Windows PC. Through heroic forensic work, he traced the code to First 4 Internet, a British provider of copy-restriction technology that has a deal with Sony to put digital rights management on its CDs. It turns out Russinovich was infected with the software when he played the Sony BMG CD Get Right With the Man by the Van Zant brothers.
from The Cover-Up Is the Crime (Wired)

Error #4: provide a really streamlined uninstall process

Mr Gilliat-Smith said Mr Russinovich had problems removing XCP because he tried to do it manually something that was not a “recommended action”. Instead, said Mr Gilliat-Smith, he should have contacted Sony BMG which gives consumers advice about how to remove the software.
Getting the software removed involves filling in a form on the Sony website, visiting a unique URL and agreeing to have another program downloaded on to a user’s PC that then does the uninstallation.
from Sony slated over anti-piracy CD (BBC)

Error #5: even when it’s discovered, no one will do anything against it

And because we are increasingly technology aware, your ever-increasing assault on not only our fair use but also our common sense will virtually guarantee that we use our God-given ingenuity to find a way around whatever bizarre restrictions you see fit to impose. Why? Not because we’re dying to break the law, but because you have sold us a crappy product, and, fundamentally, because it is not our responsibility to protect your profits.
from DRM this, Sony! (CNET)

It’s a pity the CD standard was developed by a company (Philips) and not by a standard body that is independent of commercial pressure. Otherwise the record companies could have been forced to call their shiny gray discs something else, because they are not CDs/Compact Discs. But Philips (former owners of Polygram, now Universal) won’t be hurrying to counter the amateuristic copyright-control efforts of Sony, Warner, Universal and the others.

I was already complaining about this last year:

Result: my Windows Media Player keeps crashing on it – mostly taking my PC with it, because the CD-ROM becomes inaccesible. My MusicMatch won’t play it, and I haven’t even tried RealPlayer, because I don’t want to reboot more than 3 times in a day, life’s too short. So I can only look at the cover and wonder what it sounds like.
from Portable audio & copy protection

Technorati: – – – –

European Patent Law Rejected

Published on July 7, 2005 in copyright. 0 Comments


I was first made aware of the ’software patent’ issue when Tobias Oetiker changed the front page of his MRTG site to protest against it. It now seems the European Parliament did the wise thing and kept its hands of the issue.

The European Parliament on Wednesday rejected a proposed law to create a single way of patenting software across the European Union, a blow to big companies who had pushed hard for its adoption.
The so-called software patent directive, rejected by a 648-14 vote with 18 abstentions, would have given companies EU-wide patent protection for computerized inventions (…).
But lawmakers said the measure would stifle enterprise and did not promote innovation, and that human knowledge can’t be patented. The move kills the legislation since the EU head office, which had drafted it, does not plan to set forth a new version. (…)
Companies such as Nokia and Siemens fought hard for adoption of the bill, saying patent protection would give them incentives to invest in research and development. Open-source advocates campaigned against it, saying that individuals and small businesses could be bankrupted by expensive legal battles with software giants over fuzzy patent law.
from European Patent Law rejected(Wired)

What kind of laws would give a fictional HugeCorp Inc even more ‘incentives to invest in research and development’:

  1. every thought an employee has at HugeCorp Inc, belongs to the company. Practically this means that, if ever an employee wants to claim an idea as his, he has to be able to prove it was conceived of in his free time.
  2. if an employee, certainly someone from the R&D department, leaves the company, he should sign a non-disclosure/non-competition contract. If HugeCorp Inc has doubts about the person’s willingness to shut up and do absolutely nothing with the knowledge that was gathered while working at their premises, the former employee’s memory can be erased, either chemically or with a hammer.
  3. whenever a new product or technology is developed at HugeCorp Inc, consumers can be forced to buy it. The normal process of customer adoption allows for inventions to be unprofitable because of such silly reasons as: too expensive, too user-unfriendly, no demand, better substitute available. This makes R&D riskful and should be eliminated.
  4. it is forbidden to reverse engineer anything that was developed at HugeCorp Inc. This includes decompiling software code, performing input/output analysis or disassembling electronic or mechanical devices. Replacing batteries in a watch, changing a tire on a car and decoding an imperfect DVD-encryption are therefor forbidden, except by persons explicitly accredited by the manufacturer.
  5. whatever inventions are developed at universities or other academic institutions may never be commercialised or released on a free basis to the outside world. They should be handed over to HugeCorp Inc for a symbolical sum (let’s say, a 19″ flat screen for the supervising professor, and free drinks for anyone involved in the development), where it will be prepared for commercial purposes (i.e. DRM and licensing mechanisms will be built in). If the product sells really well, a new wing will be donated for the department that inspired the development, and it will get a name like “HugeCorp Research Institute“.
  6. the “open source” movement is too large to be killed silently, but it should be possible for HugeCorp Inc to have some of its employees interfere incognito in the development process and introduce bugs, annoyance and controversy. Traditional practices like defamation, bribery, blackmail … can also be used to discredit open source personalities.
  7. any invention that has, could have, could be thought to have or eventually maybe might slightly have, a negative effect on the balance sheet of HugeCorp Inc, and that was not developed by HugeCorp itself, cannot be commercialized or released publicly. The person(s) responsible for its conception can be sued for that act, or under some other pretence, can be rendered life very difficult. Unless, of course, they work for EvenHugerComp Inc, in which case HugeCorp just keeps quiet in the hope not being sued themselves.
  8. The company cannot be held responsible for any personal damage its employees would suffer while researching and developing. If the employee does not like that, he can always resign and go work somewhere else. (In which case rule #2 is still valid)
  9. The company cannot be held responsible for the detrimental effects of its inventions on the environment, the market or its customers. If any damage is done, some other company can step in and sell the service of fixing it.
  10. The company cannot be held responsible for the actions of its employees, except if these actions would have a positive impact on the balance sheet.

Chinese music business model: copyrightless

Published on May 8, 2005 in copyright and music. 0 Comments


China seems be showing that in a world where no one wants to pay more than $4 for a CD and most CDs are pirated, the artists can still survive.

In the USA, free downloads of copyrighted music are driving the recording industry to sue teenagers and holler about the morality of obtaining songs for free. But if China is the future, that’s all in vain. The genie is out of the bottle. Eventually, recorded music will no longer make money.
(…)
Yu Quan and most other Chinese pop artists similarly find ways to make money other than through selling CDs. A lot of it comes from sponsorship. Clothing, shampoo and computer brands pay to advertise at a concert. A bottled-water company put singer Wang Lee Hom on its products.
USA Today

The danger with this scenario happening in the US or Europe is that, while the RIAA/IFPI might lose some of their power over artists, that power might be turned over to the (artist management department of) ClearChannels of this world. And however talented you may be, you would better look good or at least ‘interesting’ too, or you might not be able to get a contract.

Just ask Kim Cleysters where Anna Kournikova’s money comes from.

via Standaard In-De-Hoek

Gentleman that’s going around, turning the joint upside-down

Published on March 2, 2005 in Belgium and copyright. 1 Comment Tags: , , , .


What started as a testcase for ‘quoting’ music without breaking the law (making use of Belgium’s citing right) and made for some amusing exchanges of condescending legalese, has become awkward since the author has voluntarily turned into a stool pigeon.

Some background: on Feb 13 the Skynetblogger Librarian had put a link on his blog that pointed to a RealAudio recording of “One-Trick Pony” by Nelly Furtado. When the IFPI, represented by its lawyer Olivier Maeterlinck, asked him on Feb 21 to remove this link (a classic ‘cease and desist’, that Mr Maeterlinck probably sends dozens of every week), the blogger reacted by putting up a link to a excerpt of the song (1:29 of the total 4:47) that he hosted on his own website. He then put forward that because of the right to cite (”citaatrecht” in Dutch) he should be allowed to do this. The right to cite an original work without explicit permission of the author is regularly used in written communication, but is restricted to the following purposes: critic, polemic, education or scientific efforts (“kritiek, polemiek of onderwijs, of in het kader van wetenschappelijke werkzaamheden”). It made for an interesting test case, which was noticed by other bloggers like LVB. IFPI did not seem to object to the excerpt (but started questioning the right to link to the song’s lyrics). The conversation took the form of an exchange of legal statements with long slightly abusive sentences, lots of unnecessary adjectives and the occasional disclaimer. The stuff they teach lawyers at university, in other words.

But then on Feb 26, Librarian published a post with a completely different story: he had removed all links to other bloggers from his site because they might contain ‘illegal’ (i.e. copyrighted) images or other content. Had he stopped at that, it would be nothing but overly cautious. But he also asked bloggers who wanted their link restored, to contact him and ensure him that all content on their blog was OK. Moreover, he said that whoever did not reply within 7 days was automatically suspect of providing illegal content, and if the blog was hosted by skynetblogs.be (probably the largest Belgian blog provider) he would report it to Skynet as an inadmissible blog (ongeoorloofde blog). This is not only pretentious (as if every blogger would read Librarian’s blog and react), but also equivalent with a social suicide.

I have no idea what his motivation is. It could be fear (for getting sued as a testcase) or irony (’see, this is what this legislation would lead to’). It is really rather silly. If you want to know what the limits are of what you can do on a blog with copyrighted material, check with SABAM. It is responsible for protecting the rights of the authors and has published its prices: the price for putting music on-line: 13,07 euro per month for 15 minutes of audio, to be paid by the party responsible for hosting the actual files. SABAM has no prices for “linking to other people’s audio”.

I wonder, in the days of pirate radio stations, was it illegal to refer to their names and frequencies?

CD-to-MP3 ripping speed estimation

Published on February 12, 2005 in bandwidth, copyright, music and tool. 0 Comments

As every sensible car-owner in Brussels, I rip my CDs to MP3 so I can put copies of them in my car. As every self-respecting geek, I have multiple PCs at home. Which brings me to following observation: not all PCs rip alike. On one PC the CPU maxes out at 100% for the whole ripping procedure, and on the other, I never get above 75%. So I started wondering: what are the elements to define the maximum ripping speed you can get on a PC?
My hunch:

the CD-ROM drive speed:

the original CD audio specification required a constant data rate. This was implemented by running the CD at 500 rpm for the first/inner tracks on the CD (ø 48mm) and at 200 rpm for the outer tracks (ø 118mm). If the CD would have been played at a constant 500 rpm, the data rate at the end would have been 500/200 = 2,5X. (cf Devnulled: Ripping speed)
With CD-ROM the data should be delivered as fast as possible. So the rotation speed is turned up as much as possible. The physical boundaries are the vibrations and the centrifugal forces that occur at high speeds. Maxwell claims the maximum safe speed is 48X. Since the “48X” is marketing speak, this speed is only obtained at the outer border of the CD: this means that the rotation speed would be 48 x 200 = 9200 rpm. Some CDs seem to explode above 10.000 rpm.
To convert this speed into a data rate: at 9200 rpm, the outer tracks would deliver 48x the data rate of an audio CD: 67,74 Mbps or 8.47 MB/s. The first tracks, at ø 48mm, deliver data 2,5 times slower: 27,52 Mbps or 3,44 MB/s.
Real-life tests of a whole bunch of drives on DAE speed results.
For the exact sizes: CD-R/CD-RW technical specifications

the bus speeds:

the CD-ROM drive is connected to the PC by a ATAPI, SCSI, FireWire or USB connection. In theory there could also be a network in between (e.g. when using a Ethernet connected CD Jukebox).
The slowest ATA-33 has a theoretical max throughput of 33MB/s. Most modern SCSIs go above 20MB/s and FireWire gives 50 MB/s. So they would not be the bottleneck in the ripping process.
USB1.1 is limited to 1,5 MB/s (in practice even lower). Most common networks would be a bottleneck too (even Fast Ethernet at a theoretical 12,5 MB/s since 7MB/s would be more of a realistic top rate in practice, certainly if the network is used for other stuff too. Same thing with WiFi standards: 802.11g’s advertised “54Mbps” will in real life never translate in an actual 6,75MB/s throughput.

the CPU speed:

encoding raw audio data to MP3 is CPU intensive. Main parameter will be the clock speed – which I would expect to scale linearly: a 2GHz processor does it twice as fast as a 1GHz. Extra influences: brand of processor (Intel/AMD), model (Celeron/Pentium4/Athlon/Athlon64), number of processors (or HyperThreading). Also, the software you use to encode (LAME/GOGO/RealPlayer/Windows Media Player/…) will have an impact.
Some data can be found on GamePC.com: an Intel P4 3.06 GHz encodes 200MB of raw data info 160 kbps MP3 in 57 seconds: 3,5 MB/s or 20X. The AMD AthlonXP 2700+: 3,28 MB/s or 18.6. More info on GamePC.com confirms our hunch that performance scales linearly with clock speed. For the Pentium4: (1,15 MB/s) per GHz or 6,5X per GHz.

the MP3 bitrate:

the above numbers are for 160 kbps, but what with 192 kbps and 64 kbps? Is encoding faster or slower? I found no data on the net, and I haven’t tested it myself. So no hunch here. Also, the output of the encoding process, even at a very high quality 320kbps is largely within the capacity of any output, even Bluetooth, god forbid. So I don’t take that parameter into account.


So in the following situation:

  • a 24X CD-ROM drive
  • a Pentium 4 2,8GHz processor
  • ripping with the LAME encoder to 160 kbps

Your ripping will start at about 9,8X and speed up until your CPU is saturated at 18,2X. Which gives the graphic at the right. Now there’s a rule of fist.

Remark: looking at the benchmarks, adding a second processor (or HyperThreading) does not enhance the ripping speed (probably since the MP3 encoding code does not do parallelisation). But if you have 2 CPU’s, only one CPU will go to 100% and you keep some breathing room while your PC is creating the MP3s.

Sue your customers

Published on February 11, 2005 in Belgium, NL, copyright and music. 0 Comments

(Post in Dutch)

Het Franse equivalent van anti-piraterijstichting Brein (”Sacem“) stond onlangs in zijn hemd. Muzikanten als Yann Tiersen, Ez3kiel, Le Peuple de l’Herbe en Manu Chao ondertekenden in opinietijdschrift Le Nouvel Observateur een manifest waarin ze strijden voor een eind aan de hetze tegen de downloader. ‘Net als minstens acht miljoen andere Fransen hebben wij ooit online muziek gedownload en zijn we dus potentiele misdadigers.’
(from 3voor12.vpro.nl)

Marcel, ge gaat het nooit geloven: nu vinden de artiesten ook al dat we moeten stoppen met iedereen een proces aan te doen die MP3s downloadt.

Geen paniek, Suzanne! Ik had dit voorzien in mijn businessplan.

Hoe bedoelt ge?

Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. Machiavelli, Suzanneke!

En dat betekent concreet …

We doen een paar artiesten een proces aan wegens contractbreuk, we zetten er een tiental andere op straat, en het gaat rap gedaan zijn.

Amai, Marcel, gij zijt ne straffe tiep… Zeg, het is vrijdag vandaag, he? Wie sturen we vandaag een sies en die sist?

‘Cease and desist’, Suzanne. Even in mijn agenda kijken … Dominiek of Fuckhedz? Inne miene mutte …

Ik nodig u uit om te beleven op welk gesofisticeerd niveau dit gevecht beslecht wordt. Hyperlinks voor dummies:

Although it is possible to make links without the ISP (who hosts the site on which these links appear) knowing it and although those links constitute a technical means enabling users to go directly or indirectly from one site to another, they can be considered as information which is to be found on a web site. Therefore, the fact that such links are to be found on a web site hosted by Belgacom Skynet has to be viewed as a storage of information on its server. What is more, these links automatically refer to another site, they are a kind of key which, when you click on it, makes it possible to download, copy and spread reproductions of music records without the authorisation of the right owners. Linking to such illegal files while knowing (or being supposed to know) that these links are illegal constitutes an unlawful act.
(via IFPI vs Belgacom Skynet – PDF)

Technorati: – – –

Doctorow: DRM is evil

Published on June 25, 2004 in copyright. 0 Comments

Some stuff you just know without being able to express it adequately. I hate badly designed copy-protection schemes, but I couldn’t find the right arguments to make my case without being ‘against’ artist. And then someone better informed comes along and sums it all up in a well-thought and clear presentation. That’s what happened with this speech on DRM (Digital Rights Management) by Cory Doctorow at Microsoft Research.

His five main points are:

  • DRM systems don’t work

    “all DRM systems share a common vulnerability: they provide their attackers with ciphertext, the cipher and the key.” Public Key cryptography is not entirely done justice here, but brings with it a whole other truckload of problems: revocation, trust hierarchy, …

  • DRM systems are bad for society

    Great quote: “Remember Schneier’s Law? Anyone can come up with a security system so clever that he can’t see its flaws.” and on DVD regions: “There’s no copyright here or in anywhere I know of that says that an author should be able to control where you enjoy her creative works, once you’ve paid for them. “

  • DRM systems are bad for business

    “DRM is the software equivalent of (…) closed hardware interfaces”

  • DRM systems are bad for artists

    “Tech gives us bigger pies that more artists can get a bite out of. “

  • DRM is a bad business-move for MSFT

    “Like millions of other Microsoft customers, I want a player that plays anything I throw at it, and I think that you are just the company to give it to me. “

    [Listening to: "Wiggle waggle" - Herbie Hancock - Sampled Vol 4 (CD 2/2)]

    • Portable audio & copy protection

    Published on April 28, 2004 in copyright and music. 0 Comments

    Dear Record Company,

    I just received my latest shipment from Amazon.co.uk. Previewing songs, referral to related artists, only 2 days between ordering and delivery, I love shopping the Amazon way. Which is probably why I buy around 50 CDs a year.

    Amongst the CDs I ordered(BuzzinFly, Kinobe, Deep Dish) was the new Zero 7 CD: “When it falls”. I saw the group live in Brussels, they were great!

    Now the issue is the following: their CD has an invention from hell called “copy-protection”. I don’t know what you use, Macrovision or something, but it stinks!
    The backcover mentions “can also be played on most CD-ROM drives, by means of the included compressed file”. So I tried it on my PC.

    Result: my Windows Media Player keeps crashing on it – mostly taking my PC with it, because the CD-ROM becomes inaccesible. My MusicMatch won’t play it, and I haven’t even tried RealPlayer, because I don’t want to reboot more than 3 times in a day, life’s too short. So I can only look at the cover and wonder what it sounds like. Oh, it will probably play in my DVD player back home (it’s an old Sony, it doesn’t support MP3). But not here, now, in the 4 devices I have at my disposal that I use for ‘normal’ CDs.

    Not only do you ‘make it hard’ to copy the CD, you also ‘make it hard’ to listen to it. All that to prevent me from copying my CD. Why in heaven’s name would I want to copy/rip the CD?

    • Recently my car got vandalized, all my CDs were gone. Luckily they were copies. I keep the originals back home.
    • There is no CD insurance that gives me a new CD when the old one is scratched.
    • I make MP3 compilations for listening in my car. 10 CDs give me 60 albums.
    • My Nokia 5510 does not accept CDs

    But I know, you guys are very anal about your content. And every young kid is copying and exchanging hundreds of albums1, right?

    I can only say, you’re now using a flaky ‘copy protection’ system that prohibits me from listening to a CD I just purchased. It will not play on over 80% of the audio equipment I’ve got.
    What’s next, CDs only playable on your own ‘certified’ CD players?

    My request to record companies:
    Inform the on-line record stores on what CDs are using ‘copy procection’.
    Make sure I can see on Amazon if you’ve messed with a CD I want to buy.
    Just like DVD zones 1, 2 and 3: I don’t want to buy Zone 1 DVDs, because I can’t play ‘em.
    I don’t want to buy ‘Copy protected’ CDs, because I can’t play ‘em!

    Oh wait, here’s a thought: offer your music on iTunes, tell ‘em to speed up their Europe operation and I’ll happily download it at 1$/song and enjoy it whenever and wherever I choose. Stop swimming against the stream, use it.

    1Just out of curiosity: did the average kid buy 100 albums/year 20 years ago? Are you sure it’s all ‘missed business’? I know I couldn’t afford that.

    [Listening to: "Home" - Zero 7 - When It Falls] — (sigh) I wish …