OFF: Anti-piracy encryption article

[chris bates]

Brian Halligan <bthalligan at EARTHLINK.NET> writes:

> June 29, 1999

> SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The latest round of portable digital music players will
> soon be available in stores nationwide, equipped with security features
> designed to prevent piracy, designers say.

Isn't this nicely written. At first glance it appears to
suggest that these features are there for our benefit. The
music industry always argues that *piracy* is bad for listeners
because it reduces sales and hence the amount of money that
they can put into nurturing new talent like Steps. Of course
most of their money (apart from that going up the noses
of A and R men) goes into the established acts. Isn't it
about time we had some new *product* from Phil Collins?

> Members of the Secure Digital Music Initiative announced Monday they had
> completed design specifications for the Walkman-like devices they claim will
> thwart online piracy.

They can claim whatever they like 'cause new formats can be
developed that their technology won't work against :-)

I rather suspect that the actions of the companies might be
slightly... illegal. Copyright legislation for recorded
music lets the purchaser of that music make back-up copies
for security and for use in other formats. The laws make
no comment about the format of those backups. If a CD is
encrypted so that it can be recorded onto DAT or mini disc
or cassette tape but _not_ into MP3 format then the music
companies are restricting the rights of the owner of the
CD.

Additionally even if the encryption prevents CD to MP3 it
cannot prevent CD to cassette to WAV to MP3, for instance.
And, finally, it will have absolutely no effect upon the
activities of genuine pirates and their CD pressing plants in
some Asian countries. The only people affected will be fans
who want to put a few tracks in a Rio for personal use to
share some music on the 'net.


> ``SDMI will enable the future of music and today's announcement signals to
> consumers that this future is coming quickly. This future holds the promise
> that consumers will have access to vast amounts of exciting new
> content with a new level of portability,''

Loosely translated this means: *See, if everyone buys a player for a
new format then we can re-re-release the REM back catalogue. Which
would turn a tidy profit*.

> New devices, available as early as Christmas, would initially support all

Christmas eh? Why would they release a new format then?

> implemented and the machines' software is upgraded, the only new songs that
> work on the machines will be ones that are digitally encoded with copyright
> protections.
> Even with the new protections, the players will still be able to play old music
> already illegally copied using the MP3 format

Now how does the player know it's a new song with encryption or
an old song without it?

>  all looking to capitalize on the growing
> digital music marketplace while protecting artist and label
> copyrights.

Yeah, the big labels are so concerned about artists copyright!
Why before you know it they'll be giving songwriters their
publishing rights!

> ``For the consumers the SDMI specification is a good thing because today you
> cannot buy music online from well known artists,'' Comstock said.

So if I point a Web browser at CD Now and buy a few discs then
according to this bozo I'm not buying on-line!! If anyone wants
to become an *analyst* on technology matters they should foolw
this simple 2 step procedure:
   1. stick your head up your arse
   2. talk only about subjects that you don't understand.


--
Chris Bates
Lecturer
School of Computing and Management Sciences
Sheffield Hallam University
c.d.bates at shu.ac.uk