decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

RIAA President on Sony's Rootkit: So What? Everybody Protects CDs
Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 11:31 AM EST

You know how I've been saying that we need to look beyond just Sony and focus instead on DRM? Here's why: take a look at this transcript of an online chat with Cary Sherman, President of the RIAA. He doesn't see what the fuss is about. Everyone protects CDs, he says. Sony said it was sorry for the security problem, so we should all just move on.

The entertainment industry's reaction to Sony's rootkit tells us we'd be wise to look more deeply into what they are doing with DRM. It clearly isn't just Sony.

Here's the part of the chat with Sherman about Sony and protecting copyrighted works:

Columbia University, Columbia Spectator: With fears of illegal file sharing throughout the music industry, many companies have taken measures into their own hands. Within the last two weeks, there has been a great deal of discussion about Sony BMG's rootkit program. Does the RIAA condone such actions on the part of individual companies to protect their profits?

Cary Sherman: There is nothing unusual about technology being used to protect intellectual property. You can't simply make an extra copy of a Microsoft operating system, or virtually any other commercially-released software program for that matter. Same with videogames. Movies, too, are protected. Why should CDs be any different?

The problem with the SonyBMG situation is that the technology they used contained a security vulnerability of which they were unaware. They have apologized for their mistake, ceased manufacture of CDs with that technology,and pulled CDs with that technology from store shelves. Seems very responsible to me. How many times that software applications created the same problem? Lots. I wonder whether they've taken as aggressive steps as SonyBMG has when those vulnerabilities were discovered, or did they just post a patch on the Internet?

One other thing to point out: The music industry has been more permissive about copying of its copyrighted product than virtually any other industry. How many burns are you allowed of a movie? None. How many of a videogame? None. You get the idea. Even the CDs with content protection allow consumers to burn 3 copies or so for personal use. The idea is not to inhibit personal use, but to allow personal use but discourage (not prevent, you can never prevent) copying well beyond personal use. . . .

U. of Houston: What future measures does the RIAA plan against music piracy? Is it going to be protected so no one can make a copy of cds?

Cary Sherman: You've got to distinguish between what RIAA does and what individual record companies do. RIAA will continue to protect intellectual property rights in court, etc. But only an individual record company can decide to use copy protection on a CD. Record companies have different policies on whether to use such technology, but I know of no record companies in the US that have sought to prevent the making of any copies at all. Everyone understands that consumers want to be able to listen to their music in their car, in the family room, at the beach, and that allowing them to do that is part of giving them a great music experience. So even when a CD is protected, it will almost certainly allow personal use copying.

To Sherman, the only problem with the rootkit was a "security vulnerability" that he alleges Sony didn't know about. I don't share his view that this is the only problem, since I don't appreciate being spied on nor do I find it acceptable that someone alters my computer without my agreement, but I think we can deduce from his words that such techniques, minus the "security vulnerability", are widespread.

First of all, this isn't comparable to malware that shows up from time to time affecting the Windows operating system. Here is the difference: Microsoft, one trusts, isn't writing the malware and deliberately putting it into its products. Sony did put the rootkit in its products.

Perhaps he is trying to create Sony's legal alibi, that it was First4 Internet's fault, but Sony's reaction to the rootkit's discovery belies that excuse. Remember the fatal words, that most people don't know what a rootkit is, so why should they care? Trust me, sir, we care.

Sherman says that you can't copy Microsoft's operating system, or virtually any other commercially-released software program. My answer to that is: that's what's the matter with them. It's one reason why I use the GNU/Linux operating system. You can copy Red Hat and SUSE and Mandriva to your heart's content, and they are still in business. They are commercially released software programs, so what he said isn't true. Microsoft's business model isn't the only one possible.

Sherman also thinks music companies are being very generous, by allowing three copies so you can go to the beach, have a copy in the family room, etc. But let me ask you something: How many times am I allowed to read a copyrighted book? That's right. There is no limit. I can take it with me to the beach, and I can take it into the family room, and I can read it in the bedroom, or on the bus on my way to work.

Now, you will say, yes, but that is not copying, and you'd be right. It's not, but it is all just me. I am not sharing the book or distributing it to anyone else. I just want to be able to read it anywhere.

It is the same with music. Because of technology, instead of hand-carrying that song or ebook around with you, you can make a personal copy for your iPod and leave one on the office computer and have a copy on your laptop. That's progress as far as convenience is concerned. Here's my question: What is the difference to the music industry or book publisher if I make those copies?

Financially, none.

I could just carry my song with me, the original copy, and then duplicate exactly the book experience. But even if I make endless copies just for myself, has the music industry lost a penny?

The problem, if there is one, is distribution, not copying.

If a company limits the number of times I can listen to music, or how I can read a book, is it normal copyright law as we know it that they are enforcing? Is it normal anything? Doesn't the change in what tech now allows mandate a change in the law to make it possible for normal people to act like normal people?

Is it *copying* that should be regulated -- that's all computers do -- or should it be distribution? It's only the latter, so far as I can see, that does them any commercial harm, even if you agree with their premise that file-sharing hurts them. The conversation is about the way the world used to be; but everything has changed.

We've learned that Microsoft and others are designing DRM so that the copyright holder can choose whatever rights they wish. There is no built-in limit for them. For that matter, there is no fair use. What happened to that part of copyright law? Why don't these copyright holders have to abide by that part of the law? They have structured the conversation as piracy, with all the emphasis on their alleged losses. But they are not alone in losing. We are losing too. We are losing a normal cultural life, a normal human life. And we are losing fair use.

Here's the experience of a man who bought an ebook only to discover that the author allowed you to make only one copy a year. No doubt the author thought he was being very generous, since he doesn't have to allow you to make any copies, subject only to fair use. But notice how this bargain played out in real life:

I figured I’d print out a chunk of it 4 pages to a sheet and read it walking in from the parking lot and at lunch, etc. because I was enjoying the content. I did the math and figured if I did 6 per sheet instead, I’d just get a whole copy and be done with it. So, I hit print and headed to my office to see the printout. Turned out too small for even me to be comfortable with, so I hit cancel to avoid wasting toner and paper. I went back to print it at 4 per instead and discovered one of the wonderful “features” of the DRM that the author decided to use. Apparently, he chose to “allow” printing of the book once per year. You read right. And, the 12 pages that made it out of my printer counted as my once. On every machine I ever want to use the file on.

After all of that, I figured I’d just download another copy to my workstation on the client site for reading during lunch and work with what I had. I worked the morning away and made it to lunch, when I logged into Amazon to do the whole download dance again. As I hadn’t modified my Acrobat installation on that machine, I just launched it. It started up and started trying to verify the rights and then promptly died. It couldn’t see the servers. Apparently, this “consumer friendly” DRM uses the LDAP ports to verify rather than the web port 80. Given the literally thousands of corporate firewalls that only allow ports 80 and 443 as outbound traffic, this pretty much meant that the file was useless there too.

I tried a couple of different ways to see if I could easily route the traffic, etc. to no avail and wasted my entire lunch hour. When I got home, I looked for a way to break it open (never even crossed my mind until it slapped me over and over), but generally don’t like downloading cracking tools and abandoned that quickly. I tried printing to postscript, etc. as well as a last ditch resort. Thought I might save a copy of the PDF itself and transfer that, but the DRM kicks in again. I quit once I’d put about $150 worth of my billable time into it and figured I’d just read what I had and vow never to buy another one of these things again.

The net result is that I paid a dollar amount that most ebook publishers would be thrilled with: $9 for a digital copy of a book. I was OK with it. I barely even hesitated. I wanted the immediate delivery. I then tried to do EXACTLY what I do with every single print book I buy: read it while walking in from the parking lot, at lunch, etc. I never tried to give it to anyone else. I never “shared” it or distributed it in any way. Yet, the DRM so got in my way that I’ve moved from being the ideal ebook customer to never going anywhere near any ebook that uses anything similar ever again.

DRM sounds fine to the moguls because they aren't thinking of us as humans, only as criminals.

The part Sherman and his ilk can't understand is that while we are happy to pay for things we want, once we buy them, we want to own them, and like a book I buy I want to be able to do whatever is convenient with it myself, and I want to be able to loan it to my best friend if I really like the book, and I want to be able to quote a chunk of it on my blog to encourage others to buy it or just to share a thought worth sharing. Don't tell me tech can't devise a way to enable and enforce all of these things. I also might decide to try to become a writer, and just like writers have always done, I might at the beginning try to learn by copying the style of the author I admire, and I don't want to have to worry about infringing his "methods and concepts" by trying to learn that way.

That's normal. It's what normal people have always done with culture. And until the RIAA understands that, they are not going to be able to provide us with what we want, because no knowledgeable person will accept DRM as they offer it, and the result will be that their sales will continue to decline. Thanks to Sony, there are now millions of people who just got knowledgeable about DRM overnight.

There is no "great music experience" with DRM. That is the bottom line, and so their sales will keep shrinking, though they will probably never understand why. I love music. I used to buy a lot of it. I'm very happy to pay for artistic work. But I will never in my lifetime pay for DRM'd anything.


RIAA President on Sony's Rootkit: So What? Everybody Protects CDs | 357 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
RIAA President : hypocrite
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 11:37 AM EST
So installing phone home software or installing a cloaking software all without
the consent of the user is ok for this guy?

I wish he get swamped with keyloggers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic here please
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 11:44 AM EST

Post in HTML, and put in those links, if possible.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here please
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 11:46 AM EST

Should anything be wrong.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Brass Neck
Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 12:08 PM EST
In the North of England we describe this as "Brass Neck" :-o

brass neck
U.K. impudence: impudence and a lack of respect

This contempt for customers will be their downfall.

It been a long time coming, but these guys are about to reap the whirlwind :)

Sony will not be the last now people are sensitised to this malware…

"They [each] put in one hour of work,
but because they share the end results
they get nine hours... for free"

Firstmonday 98 interview with Linus Torvalds

[ Reply to This | # ]

Project Gutenberg
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 12:09 PM EST
There are 17,000 free books in the Project Gutenberg Online Book Catalog. link

[ Reply to This | # ]

RIAA President on Sony's Rootkit: So What? Everybody Protects CDs
Authored by: cc0028 on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 12:10 PM EST
Sherman says that you can't copy Microsoft's operating system, or virtually any other commercially-released software program. My answer to that is: that's what's the matter with them. It's one reason why I use the GNU/Linux operating system.

But you buy a CD, don't you. You only licence a Microsoft operating system. Your use is restricted by the terms of that licence.

IANAL, but isn't there a difference here? When you buy a CD, shouldn't you be able to do whatever you like with it within the law: your rights are not (potentially) limited by the terms of a licence you've agreed to?

As I say, IANAL, so I may be wrong. Perhaps someone can put me right.


[ Reply to This | # ]

The problem is: they break the law. Yes. They.
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 12:26 PM EST
First complaining how everybody steals work from them, but then blatantly
destroying their customers (*non-intellectual*) property is wrong.

It is so wrong, that it would be fair to say: if they don't abide to the law,
they should not profit from the protection of their values by the law.

But we, the customers, let them get away with having the cake, and eating it
to. Shame on us for letting that happen.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Too bad no-one asked him about the rootkit infringing other people's copyright
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 12:27 PM EST
A great shame no-one asked him if he had any comment on the suggestions that the DRM software itself was infringing other people's copyrights?

The bizarre thing about the Sony rootkit fiasco is that they are only making it difficult for the non tech-savvy people to have fair use of the CD's they have bought. Their protection measurs are really quite pathetic.

It is trivial to over-ride autoplay. For Sony to go messing around with people's computers introducing security holes and (potentially) infringing the GPL into the bargain is really bizarre.

Sony deserve to be hit hard in the pocket for this mess. I won't be buying any Sony products any time soon.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Suggestions for Solutions to help Entertainment business understand a Better Way is out there!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 12:28 PM EST
This post is for those who are not negative... There has been way too much
slamming of SONY with no suggestions for what they can do instead!

If you have a postitive idea for Sony and the RIAA groups!

Then Post it here:

[ Reply to This | # ]

RIAA President on Sony's Rootkit: So What? Everybody Protects CDs
Authored by: ruskie on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 12:29 PM EST
I'd like to point this out... I like their selection of
music but I don't have the resources to buy it... but for
$5 per cd I think it's like 1/3rd the cost a normal audio cd costs in slovenia...
They are a music company that doesn't enforce any DRM or
such... they allow you to download the music for free,
listen to it and do with as you please...
From the site:
We call it "try before you buy." It's the shareware model
applied to music. Listen to 418 complete MP3 albums
from musicians we work with (not 30 second snippets).
We let the music sell itself, because we think that's the
best way to get you excited by it.
We pick the best submissions from independent musicians so
you don't have to.

I'm just a nobody IRL...
But I'm sombody in the virtual world...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who framed Sony
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 12:57 PM EST

I still find it unbelievable that Sony have made this mistake. The root kit has been out in the wild since 2002, and used on various music CDs this year. So loads of machines have been affected; yet none of the companies, including Microsoft detected this until far too late. Here is the description of the Sony BMG partner to see the extent of the labels and artists that might be affected.

Sony are involved in a battle about the latest games machines; the last thing that Sony need to to alienate and upset customers.

We have from First 4 Internet Ltd the following press releases

Sony performs vasectomy on CDs 31 May 2005

Sony BMG is testing a British technology allowing the users to make only a limited number of copies of a CD, and the respective copies cannot by any means be reproduced. The technology comes from the First4Internet company, specialised in producing anti-piracy solutions and is known as "sterile copying".

Welsh DRM technology is a hit in the US 1 July 2005

Mathew Gilliat-Smith, F4i managing director, says: "The first few weeks following an album's release are extremely important in sales terms, and piracy at an early stage costs the label a great deal of money."

He adds: "Safeguarding a CD is a complex process, as protection must not affect the disc's ability to be played on all music systems, nor must it interfere with the sound quality. We have developed an effective solution that has earned us credibility with the major labels."

Here is statement by Mathew Gilliat-Smith, (F4i managing director) here

Gi lliat-Smith said his software does not open up any connection between the stealth driver and its host. "Ours does not do that," he said. "All we are doing is using a hook and a redirect, so when you look for a file, it is hidden. It is very widely used since way back in 1994, by many shareware companies and anti-virus companies."

Sony BMG Ramps Up CD Copy-Protection Plan 26 February 2005

Sony BMG Music Entertainment is stepping up the roll out of what it calls content-enhanced and copy-protected CDs, according to company executives. It began with the Chieftains' "Live From Dublin" album, released Feb. 22. Upcoming albums that will receive the treatment are from Kasabian (March 8) and Susie Suh (March 29).

After testing XCP on promos, Sony BMG is using it for commercial releases. Katz notes that XCP and MediaMax are constantly being improved, and that Sony BMG will test each upgrade on promos before employing it commercially.

So what went wrong with the tests, in fact, did anybody really test it? But the root kit did not just protect against copying; it had other features, like the call home stuff; who authorised this extra? And does it use open source?

Audio CDs played on DEC Alpha terminals years ago, why are they so ignorant about their market. The CDs are aimed at the Microsoft market. There are no press releases from Sony or their suppliers explaining what went wrong, and what they are doing to fix it.

Why did Sony go to First 4 Internet; just reading their web page and press releases shows that they are very inexperienced about computers and the Internet. They believe that PC means Microsoft box

[ Reply to This | # ]

While we're talking of 'calling home'
Authored by: PeteS on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 01:03 PM EST
I have to run Win2k on at least one machine at home, and it doubles as the DVD
player ( I have to get some extra use out of it :)

WinDVD attempts to access various places, including their own site (at least on
the copy I have). Fortunately, I have a nice firewall on the machine where I can
control outbound activity on a process / program basis as well as the usual port
control, so it never can 'call home'.

With the ubiquity of WinDVD though, one wonders just how much information is
being harvested. Particularly intriguing is just what information is being
harvested from the WinDVD writer software (comes bundled with some DVD writers)

I really need to set up a trace sometime (unless others have already done it)


Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Copy-protected CDs turning music fans off record buying: retailers"
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 01:22 PM EST

TORONTO (CP) - It's becoming a regular occurrence in CD shops across the country: an irate customer comes in complaining the CD they bought won't play on their computer, and worse yet, they can't transfer the tunes to their IPod.

The culprit is copy-protected or copy-controlled CDs - something many Canadian music retailers say they would like to see pulled from store shelves.

"This is just another really, really ridiculous way of telling our customers, 'We don't want your business,' " said Tim Baker of Sunrise Records, which has 31 shops in southern Ontario... Ottawa Sun

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Never again...
Authored by: Latesigner on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 01:36 PM EST
Will I buy a cd from Sony and I'm willing to add the other music companies to
that list.
What's going to kill the RIAA and it's members won't be the pirates, they don't
have these problems, but they're incredible ability to tick off their honest
paying customers.
And now we await the advent of BlueRay and HD-DVD, guaranteed not to run unless
copy protected and not on what many thought were HD -TVs.
This is going to be interesting.

The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us.

[ Reply to This | # ]

RIAA President on Sony's Rootkit: So What? Everybody Protects CDs
Authored by: RPN on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 01:37 PM EST
I have never knowingly bought a CD with any form of copyprotection and never
will. I don't buy many CD's but the difficulty of being sure post the Sony mess
makes it likely I'll buy even fewer. A pity on my part but you won't catch me
looosing any sleep over it on their part.

I will not have someone assuming I'm a criminal in determining what fair use is
appropriate to my particular circumstances by implementing copy protection/DRM.
The probability of real lockdown with Vista and beyond in the whole Palladian
senario is a very real, if far from the only, reason I am steadily migrating to
Linux and open source applications. I am not a criminal and I don't like anyone
who makes the assumption I am. Companies should care about that because don't
like translates to don't buy their products.

I like Sony hardware products and will still buy them but I have to say I've
never been to keen on the music side of the business. I suspect there are senior
people on the hardware side who are none to pleased with the software side for
this fiasco and such fights are far from uncommon in big companies let alone
giant corporations like Sony. I know I would be in their position.


[ Reply to This | # ]

RIAA President on Sony's Rootkit: So What? Everybody Protects CDs
Authored by: geoff lane on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 01:50 PM EST
There is a disturbing tendency in business and government to assume that everybody is a thief or liar. Then action is taken on that assumption. Sony assumes that every person who plays a CD on a PC is going to copy and distribute their material. In fact almost nobody does, but they do something that potentially harms every single one of their customers. Not only is this stupid, it doesn't even prevent the copying and distribution of material by the very few who delibrately set out to do so.

There isn't even a theoretical solution of the copying problem. Every copy protection scheme ever suggested punished the honest person because of the actions of others without actually preventing copying.

The media companies can see their business dying but they can't see the real cause...the prices are artificially high and the highly professional "pirates" are running an effective arbitrage operation.

Kids copying CDs on their PC are killing billion dollar businesses, I don't think so.

I'm not a Windows user, consequently I'm not
afraid of receiving email from total strangers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A fairy tale
Authored by: Tufty on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 02:21 PM EST
One day the CD fairy was toodling around looking for something to do when she
heard the Sony execs bemoaning their lost sales from piracy. A quick visit to
other boardrooms in Musexecland confirmed the problem. The fairy wondered how
she could help.

An idea formed and she waved her magic wand and, suddenly, CD burners throughout
the world refused to burn music CDs.

The music execs heard adout this and rubbed their hands in glee at the thought
of more sales. They calculated how many CDs were sold by the pirates, multiplied
this by the cost of a CD and dollar signs lit up their eyes as they realized how
much more money they would get.

Sales of executive jets went up. Their share prices soard on the forcasts and
all seemed rosy in Musexecland.

The quarterly sale figures came in. A slight rise. 'Oh well', the execs said,
'It's early yet and there may still be pirate CDs in stock.'. The next quarter
came in. Not much better. Stocks fell and the executive jet companies cried over
cancelled sales. The execs shook their heads, 'How can this be?'.

The Sony exec sent a minion out into the streets of Musexecland where a lot of
pirate CDs used to be sold with orders to bring back a typical youth who buys

The youth stood before the exec. The exec asked 'why are you not buying our CDs
as you were buying the pirate ones before?'.

'Ah' the youth replied. 'you see' it's like this. I don't have a lot of money
and I could afford the 3 buck pirate CDs but now I have to pay ten to fifteen I
just can't afford them. I now go skateboarding instead!'

The moral of the story - look up references to the one about the Golden Goose.

There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!
Now I want its hide.

[ Reply to This | # ]

RIAA President on Sony's Rootkit: So What? Everybody Protects CDs
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 02:21 PM EST
That's normal. It's what normal people have always done with culture. And until the RIAA understands that, they are not going to be able to provide us with what we want, because no knowledgeable person will accept DRM as they offer it, and the result will be that their sales will continue to decline.
And of course Sherman and his ilk will never understand this, and will continue blaming it all on piracy, and continue tightening DRM until they drive most everyone to the pirates to get music the way they want it. They can't understand that law abiding citizens resent being treated as criminals.
Confucius say: He who screw customers soon have no customers to screw.

What goes around comes around, and the longer it goes the bigger it grows.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some background on F4I
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 02:32 PM EST
This is the little I have been able to gleam on them so far. Please feel free to
add to this.

Based in Oxford UK. Founded 1999. Mathew Gilliat-Smith, is the managing director

Initially worked with Scotland Yard (approximately the UK's police specilists as
well as other things) analysis of pornographic material (read 'child porn').
This was about the time of Operation Ore - part of the Wonderland porn ring and
police everywhere were swamped with work. The product - whihc I know nothing
about - is still available.

In 2001 they started working on XCP in 2 versions 1 & 2. Details are not
quite clear on the difference. Apparently XCP1 "Burn Protect" is for
CDR pre-release production and XCP2 "Press Protect". XCP is deployed
using F4I's Aurora software program. Again details would be nice here.

There apparently was a bug somewhere in the earlier versions but this was fixed
- possible date of inclusion of GPL code anyone?? I think this dates to 2002 but
I could be wrong here.

New chairman appointed in 2002 - Nicholas Bingham, who worked at Sony Pictures
and Sony Television for a total of 12 years as President-International. He was
also Chairman of VIVA TV in Germany.

XCP was launched officially at MIDEM in Cannes, France in 2003.

A new version XCP2 was released in June 2005 but Sony had been working with this
before then. This appears to be the version Sony are taling about with the 4+
million CDs. XCP is out on a LOT more than 4 million copies. This may in part
explain the widespread presence round the world of this code.

This use of XCP was the first release of its use by Sony in the US. XCP was
released by other Sony divisions earlier - this probably refers to the mention
of Japan in the Sony release. BMG apparently started using XCP in 2004. I think
this refers to retail releases in the US but Im not entirely sure on this point.

The version Sony are using is apparently referred to as 'MediaJam.'

Aside from Sony, BMG F4I has worked with Dreamworks, Bertelsmann, RCA and
Universal. Also - surprise - with our old friend MS.

One studio know to be using the Aurora software is US-Based Ezee Studios who
produced CDs for for RCA Records in LA.

Artists whose work has been combined with XCP include
The Foo Fighters, Dave Matthews, Christina Aguilera, U2, the Chieftans,
Kasabian, Susie Suh, Eminem, Madonna, Robbie Williams and Dido.

Since MaxMedia has featured in this story to date BMG has shipped more than 5.5
million with MaxMedia's software on board. Titles include Velvet Revolver's
"Contraband" and Anthony Hamilton's solo album.

One figure Sony has released is the number of CDs with the infringing code that
were shipped to Canada since June 2005: 120,000.

I leave you with a quote from one of F4I's people -George Macdonald:
"...theft of copyright is unacceptable at any level."



[ Reply to This | # ]

RIAA's and Big Corporation's Ultimate Goal -- Metered Use
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 02:58 PM EST
Present techonology has all the capability to meter each and every use of
connected products. That is, you pay for the initial product, then pay again for
each use, and pay again for each copy, and pay again for each use of each copy.
Hence the "phone home" feature -- monitoring use will ultimatly allow
sending you an e-bill at the end of each month. Pay or your music library will

This, of course, is the Big Greedy Dream of Big Greedy Corporations.

While the party line is that copy protection is not aimed at the casual user, no
DRM system has yet to make a dent in unlawful distribution. Sony, for example,
directly targets that very same casual user, even if it breaks the user's
computer as a consequence. Just one more step toward metered use. The facts are
and the RIAA boys acknowledge that they can do little to stop the pirates. The
plain truth is that they are left with somehow extracting every extra dime they
can get out of legitimate users. And DRM will ultimately be geared to just that.

But simple economics suggests that the more the consumer's use is inhibited, or
becomes more costly, or becmes downright dangerous, consumers will be more
inclined to either avoid the product altogether, find alternatives, or resort to
unlawful distribution.

Me? I'll still keep my old dusty external 24 bit 19Khz sampling A-D/D-A
converter system handy. At least until the Analog Police arrive.

[ Reply to This | # ]

And they were singin'....
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 03:04 PM EST
...The day the music died...

...D :-(

[ Reply to This | # ]

RIAA President on Sony's Rootkit: So What? Everybody Protects CDs
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 03:10 PM EST
So What? Everybody Protects CDs

Reply: "So what? Everybody downloads music."

[ Reply to This | # ]

RIAA President on Sony's Rootkit: So What? Everybody Protects CDs
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 03:19 PM EST
You stated the issue very clearly here. The issue is that
you do not own anything and as I have said before and which
apparently keeps falling on def ears. You are renting the
software and music. A EULA is economically and legally
speaking a rental agreement. It does not give you ownership

Think of it this way. If you buy a house you can bore a
hole in the wall, move the wall, paint the wall or even
eliminate the wall separating two rooms. Try that if you
rent an apartment and you will see what happens with a very
angry landlord takes you to court.

That is much the issue with software. If you buy it you
have one set of issues. If you rent it you have another.
Eliminating DMCA will not change the concept of ownership.

Another point, the GPL does not limit anyone right to
install a root kit on a your computer. Realize the GPL is a
license agreement ie a rental contract. No where in that
rental contract does it convey on the user the right to
eliminate or remove DRM software nor does it negate the
rights of any owner to install or modify the software on
your system.

The major point here is that there is a big gap in law
between what people do with computers and the law which was
written for a pre-computer era of time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did Sherman even follow this story?
Authored by: cmc on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 03:31 PM EST
Cary Sherman says that Sony took proper steps to rectify the situation -- that they stopped producing the offending titles and pulled the remaining stock from the shelves, instead of simply issuing a patch like other software vendors might do. Did he even take fifteen or twenty minutes to read the various articles on this? First, Sony *DID* try the patch method. Then it came out that their "patch" caused even more security problems than the rootkit (not to mention that the "patch" was only available through Internet Explorer). Then, after that failed, they said they would stop production of the offending titles. Then, after more public outcry, they finally agreed to pull the remaining stock from shelves.

Sony did *NOT* follow proper protocol, as Sherman implies they did. Then again, this is Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA. The same RIAA that claims music labels as members, even when they're not. Check out the NPR report for more info (here - unfortunately, it's only in streaming RealAudio and Windows Media Player formats). When the RIAA is so deceitful about something as trivial as who their members are, are we really supposed to trust anything from them?


[ Reply to This | # ]

More than just security vulnerabilities
Authored by: cmc on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 03:39 PM EST
This guy obviously has no clue. He thinks that if the rootkit didn't have any
security vulnerabilities that it would be OK? Sorry, wrong answer. Whether or
not it has a security vulnerability is irrelevant. It's still against the law
(at least in California and in Italy, where lawsuits have been filed). The
security vulnerabilities may have been what convinced the parties to file the
lawsuits, but they are not what broke the law in the first place.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Is there a cassette fee in the US?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 03:52 PM EST
In Sweden we have to pay a cassette fee for every recordable CD/DVD/Cassette we
buy. This is to cover the loss of income, due to copying, for the music

Isn't it obvious that this fee can be removed, since the music companies are
enforcing the laws themselves?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Welcome to Rivendall, Mr Anderson
Authored by: Nick_UK on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 04:35 PM EST
This is how to do it:
This is a band that have mp3's up on the web. Hybrid is awesome (a must get).

This is the way to make money AND music.


[ Reply to This | # ]

RIAA President on Sony's Rootkit: So What? Everybody Protects CDs
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 04:46 PM EST
The root problem is copyright has been preverted from a tool to "promote
the art&sciences thus enriching the public domain" to a tool that
creates artifical scarity thus enriching the profits of corporations.

People in general have come to believe it is more important to protect profits
than protecting their rights. And so when people discuss copyright and DRM a
corporation's profits is usually the first talking point and fair use is the
second talking point. Both completely the real reason for copyright law to
enrich the public domain(aka general human knowledge).

The first talking point when it comes to copyright should be how does a
law/drm/etc affect the public domain and the ability of humans to build
on&from it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What is DRM?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 05:44 PM EST

This may be a quote from a movie:

Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

But it rings so true when it comes to DRM. Just because they are afraid, we should all be suffering? And they think a simple apology is enough?

It is my sincere belief that most mutli-national corporations see themselves as the sole purpose for the existence of the human race. We are nothing but consumers and should be happy they are willing to grant us privileges like listening to music (a few times only, please) from time to time. We, the people, exist to serve interest of multi-national companies - everything else is irrelevant.

Talking about moral decay...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 05:53 PM EST
While I agree with article, in it's entirety, it's important to remember that
there are other artists who just make CDs, vanity CDs, for their small audience,
public performances. I've bought many CDs from local artists and their
production value can rival anything from the major labels.

With the small time artist, there is no DRM. They can't afford it. Only the
biggest titles are infected with DRM as we know it. But the litle guys, I guess
they know that as more people hear their music, the more people will attend
their concerts and pass the word on.

So support your local artists and check out the great sounds.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 06:03 PM EST
> Don't tell me tech can't devise a way to enable and enforce all of these

Well, there may be technical ways of doing this, but that is hardly the point.
The point is that there should be none of that at all. Publishers of all kind
should just trust the public to do the right thing and go after the ones that
are breaking the law, like they always did. But because Hollywood and record
companies are running governments these days, the laws were written to allow
them to do what no other industry was ever allowed to do.

In the end, it is not like record companies are going broke. Ditto Hollywood. It
is pure greed that drove them to create things like DRM in the first place.
Essentially, with the advances of techology, "consumers" (I hate that
word, but that's how they see us) are given less for the same amount of money.
And they think this is progress.

Unfortunately, there are too many people in this world that don't give a stuff
about their freedom. All they want is greasy fast food and escape from harsh
reality, which was created by the same mega-corporations that are serving them
the very junk food and movies that will eventually give the the heart attack.

[ Reply to This | # ]

RIAA President on Sony's Rootkit: So What? Everybody Protects CDs
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 06:15 PM EST
How many times that software applications created the same problem? Lots. I wonder whether they've taken as aggressive steps as SonyBMG has when those vulnerabilities were discovered, or did they just post a patch on the Internet?

Darn Microsoft, giving other companies excuses to release dodgy software...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Re: RIAA President on Sony's Rootkit: So What? Everybody Protects CDs
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 06:19 PM EST

I figured it'd be a short-lived thing when I noticed, back in the mid-80s, the text printed around the edge of a CD I'd just purchased that informed me that I wasn't allowed to lend my CD to anyone without the permission of the record label. Guess I was wrong. They've been planning this for twenty years.

[ Reply to This | # ]

RIAA President on Sony's Rootkit: So What? Everybody Protects CDs
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 06:34 PM EST
In the immortal words of Ms. Rice-Davies: "Well, he would, wouldn't

[ Reply to This | # ]

pretty sad, dontya think?
Authored by: pyrite on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 06:34 PM EST
It's horrible. But then again, what is really going on?

Providing a product to "consumers" (probably better called
ex-consumers) that they don't want, at what are apparently
not-optimally-competitive prices (I mean competitive as in perfect competition).
Creating not only social losses in terms of lost value to consumers but quite
likely also losses to artists and probably losses to the record companies

The consumers are affected - they will probably tend to have less music in their
collection than they might if the price were lower. Musicians are less likely to
break even. Record companies are more likely to take losses, which means there
will be more losses to spread around.

As a consumer, should I be paying for all of the failed projects of the A&R
people? Did I go ask the A&R department to try to find new acts? Does any
A&R person actually consider the consumer when they find new talent, or are
they mainly worried about their own career? As a consumer, I have never insisted
that A&R people be more agressive in finding new acts, even if the quality
of those acts goes down as their number goes up. Should I be paying for that? I
don't think so.

However... I do feel that we have a moral obligation to give something back of
value (like money) to the artists for their hard work. And I am sure that the
artists feel that it is the ethical thing to do to give something back of value
to everyone who helped them make it happen. So the idea of just downloading
music for free is not "where it's at". We've got to find a better way.

Meanwhile, the competition (p2p) is handing out product that consumers want and
are curious about. They are handing this product out at a loss; less than
wholesale (even less than value-added). It takes time to "rip" a CD,
and it takes hardware (such as a PC) to make that CD available to others. It
also incurs risk, because there is an infringement of copyright that occurs in
the process.

Despite all of that, the competition continues to make product available in such
a way that it makes up for much of what society might have lost from the
inefficiencies and high prices (and obselescence) that have resulted from the
way the music industry has chosen to do business.

Is it about MUSIC, or is it about laws and IP, politics, threats, lobbying,
crime and punishment, etc...?

MUSIC has freed itself from the clutches of a poorly-organized
"what-seems-to-be-a-cartel" type of situation. Isn't that a good
thing? I think it creates opportunities. More people are listening to music,
more people are downloading music, more people are realizing that there are as
many artists out there as there are stars in the sky... the world is a better
place because of file sharing. Perhaps the main problem with this arrangement is
the lack of any type of structure (out there in the real world) WRT file-sharing
that allows artists and others involved in the process of creating the artwork
to be rewarded with something of value. And that is a problem. The idea of
downloading music for free needs to be modified. Moving beyond covering social
losses caused by monopolies or cartels is probably not a good idea; it might
have cultural side-effects and discourage potential artists from being or
becoming artists. That's not a good thing.

We may have talent (or not) when it comes to musicians, but what we desperately
need is talent in the area of getting money from the listeners to the artists.
That's something we desperately need. Something that respects the rights of
consumers. The business is there to provide for consumer need. It is not in
business just for the sake of being in business. A business that doesn't give
consumers what they want has no purpose for existing. Consumers also need to
realize that music doesn't just go "poof" and magically appear. It
takes money and time to make. People have to quit their day jobs to make music.
Getting both the consumer and the producer and the artist to co-exist in
relative satisfaction is an incredibly challenging task. They should get some
talent scouts together and go looking for people who have talents in this area.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's DRM seems fair enough...
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 06:47 PM EST

As much as I hate DRM, so far I have never been limited by Apple's FairPlay DRM they use with iTunes/iPod: I listen to my music wherever I want - on my powerbook, on my home windows PC, on my ipod, in my car. I think certain sanity in how you implement the DRM is what most of these guys lack. And, frankly, if there's something else I'd like to do with my music - it's fairly easy to just strip the whole DRM from it ;)

[ Reply to This | # ]

How often does this backfire on them?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 07:24 PM EST
As an example, I wanted to copy a CD so my wife could play it in her car (yes,
that's right, we don't like leaving $30 CDs in a hot car for some reason).
Turns out there was copy protection on the CD which prevented you from copying
it for any purpose.

All it did was inspire me to research how to bypass such copy protection. Took
me 15 minutes online to do it.

A similar thing happened when I bought a Region 1 DVD and tried to play it on my
Region 4 PC. Took me, oh, about 10 minutes to figure out how to bypass the
region coding. Very educational.

Somehow I don't think that was the aim of the copy protection schemes...

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ hit a nerve
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 07:30 PM EST
It looks like PJ hit a nerve. There are a lot of comments on this article
today. There are some people just wanting to vent. It is good to see all
these comments, I will not be able to read them all.

Though few will read these words many will be affected by them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bumper sticker ??
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 08:12 PM EST
Does anyone know where I can get a bumper sticker that says, simply
"Boycott Sony!" in big letters, any color, on a contrasting

I'll buy a bunch of 'em and hand 'em out to my colleagues and friends.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Bumper sticker ?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 21 2005 @ 07:34 AM EST
I actually like Sony's DRM
Authored by: Prototrm on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 08:28 PM EST
Now wait a sec, and hear me out on this one.

I always have the auto-run thingie turned off on my computer's CDROM, so nothing
ever gets run without my doing something to run it.

I happen to like Sony's DRM because it is so very easy for me to completely
bypass. The first thing I do with all my audio CD's is to make an MP3 copy of
the songs, then put the original in a safe place. As long as it continues to be
easy for me to completely ignore their DRM efforts, then they are welcome to
continue putting this non-protection in place. I don't do any sharing these days
-- I just want to exercise my Fair Use rights.

The one thing I do *not* want to see is effective DRM, which is why I will never
buy one of those enhanced audio DVD's. Since I only have two ears, and listen to
music with headphones, the audio DVD's with 5.1 surround sound is useless to me
anyway. I only support ineffective DRM!

Now if Sony would only publish music worth listening to!

[ Reply to This | # ]

RIAA President on Sony's Rootkit: So What? Everybody Protects CDs
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 08:37 PM EST
"Here is the difference: Microsoft, one trusts, isn't writing the malware
and deliberately putting it into its products. Sony did put the rootkit in its

Uhm. I hate to break it to you but many microsoft programs, including WMP and
Office *are* spying on you. And many "legit" programs are using
Windows services to spy on you, in the name of DRM.

I have personally seen many programs for Windows get by the ZoneAlarm firewall I
have on my one Windows PC (my other machines are all linux based). ZoneAlarm
isn't even aware of a lot of traffic going in and out of my computer whenever I
start certain programs. I can see the traffic on the blinking link lights on my
Ethernet switch. It's quite repeatable and ZoneAlarm is quite unaware of it.
I've been using ZA for 6 years and I can tell you there was a time when I did
not see traffic that wasn't recognized by ZoneAlarm. And ZA is supposed to
block UDP, ICMP, and TCP/IP. What gives?

I've been thinking about using a packet sniffer with my Linux boxen to see what
this traffic is all about.

Which makes one wonder, how is it that all these rootkits get on 500,000
computers and phone home ( and yet they weren't noticed by all the
software firewalls, including and especially ZA? I'm not acquainted with any
technical details but I suggest all a program has to do is use Windows' own
services (Generic Host Process perhaps?) to get past software firewalls. Sure
ZoneAlarm will tell you about and stop the *some* programs that phone home when
starting, but not all, because Windows isn't even telling ZA about some of the
traffic. I suspect it has something to do with all the DRM-adding Windows
updates that you are forced to install because of all these "critical"
security bugs. Clearly, windows' own joke of a firewall isn't going to help in
these cases either.

A third party firewall can't prevent internet traffic on a host OS if the host
OS doesn't allow it to block that traffic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

RIAA President on Sony's Rootkit: So What? Everybody Protects CDs
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 08:50 PM EST

This is priceless:

Cary Sherman: There is nothing unusual about technology being used to protect intellectual property. You can't simply make an extra copy of a Microsoft operating system, or virtually any other commercially-released software program for that matter.

Quite stunning. So all the *original* instances of my vendor supplied software are safely locked away whilst the copies made are used.

Moreso for the CDs that I travel with - no fun losing $AU500+ due to theft from vehicle. Every music CD I now purchase is immeadiately copied for use in the car's CD changer. Originals are keep in the home. Heaven forbid if my house get's broken into - several thousand dollars worth of music on CD, some no longer available from stores, therefore taken to high quality MP3.

Oh well, looks like I'll just keep looking for music that comes stamped according to the appropriate standard for music on compact disk: (Red/Orange/Yellow)book, can't remember which one.

[ Reply to This | # ]

We should all just move on
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 09:01 PM EST
You know how I've been saying that we need to look beyond just Sony and focus instead on DRM? Here's why: take a look at this transcript of an online chat with Cary Sherman, President of the RIAA. He doesn't see what the fuss is about. Everyone protects CDs, he says. Sony said it was sorry for the security problem, so we should all just move on.

- by PJ opening paragraph

This is almost too funny to comment.

In the first place the RIAA has set themselves as the blackhat. They almost wrote the book on unforgiveness and making people pay, pay and pay for their past.

The pure hypocrisy of this. Suppose all the file sharing people tell him, "We said we are sorry, you should just move on."

As moral opinion leader, the RIAA loves to make examples of people who don't play by the rules. An organization like this one, without heart or compassion, is out of line appealing anyone's forgiving heart

I don't think people will be moving on 'cause someone says, someone said, "Sorry."

Not many people think Sony BGM is sorry for anything other than the probably the PR mess they created.

[ Reply to This | # ]

RIAA President on Sony's Rootkit: So What? Everybody Protects CDs
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 09:18 PM EST
According to the following article the members of the RIAA may already be paying the price of this kind of treatment of their customers?

Copy-protected CDs turning music fans off record buying: retailers

[ Reply to This | # ]

RIAA President on Sony's Rootkit: So What? Everybody Protects CDs
Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 09:29 PM EST
I suspect that the real story of the Sony rootkit fiasco is that the commercial
security product companies such as Microsoft, Symantec and MacAfee simply cannot
be trusted to do their job, which is to wipe out all rootkits no matter what
their provenance. The fact that a number of the victimized computers belong to
DOD (Department of Defense), and that virus writers are using the Sony rootkit
as a carrier and distribution channel for their malware - this fact simply
underscores the lack of reliability of these commercial security products
companies when their financial interests are a factor.

We simply need to have Open Source anti-malware solutions so that we don't have
to depend on the commercial security products companies. On the other hand, I
would be hard pressed to care enough about Windows users to want to contribute
to Open Source projects whose goal is to protect Windows.

Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

RIAA President on Sony's Rootkit: So What? Everybody Protects CDs
Authored by: azzivar on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 11:05 PM EST
There are so many posts here, and the only thing that I'd like to say, if it
hasn't been said already - and I think PJ already did - is simply to stop buying
any CDs (or any media for that matter) with any sort of DRM implementation. If
no one buys, they'll get the message - both the distributors and the artists!

I also agree that there's such a wide variety of music and other entertainment
options out there non-mainstream artists to scratch any itch. From my
perpsective, investing some time to discover new or relatively unknown stuff is
well rewarded when you're actually encouraged to download samples without
strings attached.

Taking this approach accomplishes both goals - so surf on and open your eyes and
ears while expanding your horizons by checking out the wealth of media that's
out there without the DRM crap!


[ Reply to This | # ]

The reasons are smoke screens - the SOny actions appear to break the law.
Authored by: cheros on Sunday, November 20 2005 @ 11:33 PM EST
I think diving into excuses is a waste of time, the "reasons why" of
the Sony rootkit are really immaterial.

If you install software without permission you are breaking computer access laws
in quite a few countries, even if your aim was to rid the world of drugs
peddling pedophiles who mugged old ladies in their spare time.

As far as I can tell (IANAL etc) they broke the law and caused damage, and they
will thus have to face the, er, music.

= Ch =

[ Reply to This | # ]

You are not seeing the justifiable parts of the side of the music industry
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 21 2005 @ 07:53 AM EST
But even if I make endless copies just for myself, has the music industry lost a penny?
When you think about it, yes, they have.

You say that you could carry your sole copy of your book around with you in order to "duplicate the book experience". But, that is exactly the problem, from the viewpoint of the music industry.

You want the magnitudes easier ability to copy your music ad infinitum as long as you don't distribute it, since you want the convenience of not having to deinstall it from one machine and install it anew on another machine, or having to carry around a CD.

What the music industry is saying is that if you want the convenience of multiple copies, even only for yourself, you should buy multiple copies. I don't see how they are telling anybody what to do with each of the copies aside from prohibiting copying.

That is the same thing as having multiple copies of a book in different rooms instead of having to go to the inconvenience of carrying the book from room to room. Is it legal for you to make multiple copies of the book even if you don't distribute it? Does this constitute "fair use"? Leave aside the physical inconveniences of making multiple copies of a paper book. IANAL, so hopefully someone else can answer this question.

Yes, it is incredibly difficult, not to mention a waste of paper, to make multiple copies of the same book. It is easier to just pick it up and carry it to another room. Musical bits, on the other hand, can be copied in the blink of an eye with very little waste aside from a few disturbed electrons (and, perhaps, the cost of the energy needed to perform the operation).

What I see scaring the music industry is the ease of copying. They already have ample justification, in their eyes, for being as draconian as they are due to the small baby step needed to go from so-called "fair-use" private copying, to global distribution on eMule.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The entertainment world should be very cautious
Authored by: Bas Burger on Monday, November 21 2005 @ 08:16 AM EST

Because in the end we do not need their products to survive, they keep forgetting that what they try to sell rent to us is a luxury article that when needed will be the first to be done away with.
This means that we the consumers always have a longer breath than the people that try to sell rent us their work.

In the long run they will always loose as they need to eat, when they can't sell rent us their work they have to get a normal job just like the rest of us and thus have no more time to get their things done.

So if you are an artist connected to one of the RIAA members, then you'd better think very carefully about your attitude and the attitude of the label you are connected to.



[ Reply to This | # ]

It's distribution, stupid
Authored by: LPrecure on Monday, November 21 2005 @ 09:09 AM EST

I'm with you: The problem that "the industry" ought to be working on is distribution, not copying.

The way I think of it, the problem isn't when someone converts a CD to an MP3 and puts is on their hard drive (or iPod). It's when someone uses the infamous Napster (or some similar technology) and, in effect, puts a sign in front of their house: "Free Garth Brooks songs here!!!".

When you purchase a CD (or a book, or a DVD, or whatever) you have the right to make copies. You don't have the right to become a distributor.

Me, what I'd like to see would be a world in which there is no copy protection, but the RIAA (or someone) is at least somewhat successfull in prosecuting people who "serve" pirated materials, and who "consume" such materials. (I'd argue that, in order to win against a "consumer", the prosecution should have to prove that the consumer should reasonably have known that he was "receiving stolen property".

That's why I'd suspect that I'm in the minority in places like this one, where I support the rights of the RIAA to demand that ISPs allow them to turn IP addresses into physical ones. (If they have probable cause that someone is serving pirated material. That means: Find a computer that's serving the material, download it, and take the evidence to a judge, then take the warrant to the ISP.)

One way I look at it is: I don't support making guns that can only be fired once per year. I support prosecuting people who rob liquer stores.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Absolutely - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 21 2005 @ 09:57 AM EST
scenarios when a copy is needed
Authored by: shshjun on Monday, November 21 2005 @ 10:15 AM EST
when compare to software, there is a recovery on damage or loss in place.

whoever need to copy if my damaged audio CD can be replaced, or recovered? when
this is not in place, a managed copy is needed. this is merely for backup.

sometimes i can make a copy as gift to friend (as trial version in software, if
you may).

i don't see other need for copy except for distribution, now that's illegal.


>The music industry has been more permissive about copying of its copyrighted
product than virtually any other industry. How many burns are you allowed of a
movie? None. How many of a videogame? None. You get the idea. Even the CDs with
content protection allow consumers to burn 3 copies or so for personal use. The
idea is not to inhibit personal use, but to allow personal use but discourage
(not prevent, you can never prevent) copying well beyond personal use. . . .

[ Reply to This | # ]

The answer is so simple.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 21 2005 @ 11:52 AM EST
All you have to do is trust your customers.

I think we have seen so many examples of companies that do not trust their
customers lately that it really makes me sick (SCO among them).

Of course, the other side of the coin is, do the customers deserve to be
trusted? I think for the vast majority the answer is yes. However, it is that
very few that burn the rest of us.

I think the music industry has it all wrong. This about where we would be right
now if publishers had thought along the same lines. There would be no
libraries!! "What?!? You mean you are going to buy ONE copy of the book,
and let hundreds of people share that ONE book? We will go out of business, we
won't make any money, no one will EVER buy a book again!!"

Obviously that never happened, I still buy books all the time, but I do borrow
them from libraries and my mom and sisters too. Why can't music be the same?

I think the answer to that is pretty simple. Copying a book (an illegal act) is
very difficult to do, you would have to stand at a copy machine and flip through
each of the pages, etc. And worse, the end result would not at all look like
what you had in the beginning. However, copying a CD is a completely different
story. You can create an exact duplicate of what they sell in the stores (minus
the fancy graphics) -- all at the touch of a button. So I can see the
industries point here, but as technology advances, I think they will find that
this is more and more difficult to protect from this kind of abuse, it will just
have to be a cost of doing business, and in the end, they will have to...


[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: grayhawk on Monday, November 21 2005 @ 01:00 PM EST
I am sick to death with these companies that are out to rip off the consumer and
try to make more money then they are entitled to.

Copyright was originally implemented as were Patents to protect the inventor
from someone else copying their material and profitting from their labours. In
other words, it protects the author of a book from me making copies and SELLING
the copies. It protects the composer from me duplicating his record (now CD)
from copying it and SELLING the copies.

It was not intended to prevent me from any personal use of the material or
product including making copies. There is nothing in this world that should
prevent me from sharing what I have. If there was then libraries are illegal,
my inviting friends over to listen to my music collection would be illegal, my
compiling a CD/tape of a selection of music my parents like in my collection
would be illegal. When I buy a product I buy the rights to use the product as I
desire that includes destroying that product if I so wish just as long as I
don't PROFIT from the product by duplicating and SELLING the copies.

The industries are out to squeeze every cent they can out of the consumer. Soon
you will be charged for borrowing a book and reading it since one normally reads
a book only once and by God there goes a lost sale. Soon you won't be allowed
to have music at a party since those people didn't have to buy the CD that they
heard and there goes a lost sale. It is time that industry in general be put
back in its place and money grubbing companies be put out of business by
consumers refusing to purchase their products.

All ships are safe in a harbour but that is not where they were meant to be.

[ Reply to This | # ]

RIAA President on Sony's Rootkit: So What? Everybody Protects CDs
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 21 2005 @ 02:44 PM EST
It'd be interesting to see if the "sorry" approach would work with
regard to their lawsuits for infringing copyright? "I'm sorry, I didn't
realize that I was in the wrong when I downloaded those songs off the
internet." Would that satisfy the RIAA? No? Then why should it satisfy
those whose REAL WORLD property got damaged because of Sony's

I for one will be writing to the US Attorney Generals office, calling for a
criminal investigation into Sony's actions. Not doing at least that much is
basically setting up a seperate rule of law for large companies and private
individuals. I realize that this country is already mostly owned by large
corporations (how easy would it be for me to get special legislation signed into
law to which I'm the sole beneficiary?) but to not say anything at all is to
help the corporations in question gain one more foot of American soil.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Questions for Cary Sherman:
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 21 2005 @ 04:48 PM EST
1) Do you agree with the 1976 Berne Copyright Convention?

2) Is this the cornerstone of protecting you and your artists property?

3) Do you disagree that the Copyright Convention allows you to go after and
prosecute person(s) who illegally *distribute* you and your artists property?

4) Why do you believe it is necessary to take away rights granted by the
copyright convention in order to sell music CDs given that the Copyright
convention allows you to prosecute those who illegally *distribute* you and your
artists property?

5) Why would you comment on the Sony issue when you clearly do not understand
what a rootkit is, nor understand that it is illegal in most places to install
software without permission on a users computer?

Just the facts sir, just the facts.....

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's not DRM, it's DCM.
Authored by: darkonc on Monday, November 21 2005 @ 06:31 PM EST
The purpose of DRM isn't to prevent illegal copying -- It's about Digital Consumer Management. DCM like what they're talking about would mean that a company can watch everything that a consumer (and their children) do with a piece of art.

Once the framework is in place, they would, in theory, be able to keep track of how often your 5-year-old rewinds Peter Pan to watch the part where he learns to fly. (you have to, or people would 'cheat the system' by just watching up to just before the end, and then rewinding back to just before the beginning if they wanted to watch twice 'for free'.

Then, of course, we'd get into arguments like 'how many rewinds counds as a play'.... or not. You see, with DRM, it's the distributor who gets to decide how much to charge you to view a certain part of 'their' CD (that you paid for).

They could even do things like raise the cost of playing Your 20 year old copy of original "Maltese Falcon" when the Johnny Depp Jr. remake comes out.

It also means that, as the technology changes, you won't be able to copy your old media to new medai -- like you might have copied your vinyl albums or casette tapes to CD.
It won't be a matter of choice -- they'll make the old form obsolete (by simply refusing to 'authorize you' to play your copy in it's current form.

Of course, they'll also have to control the consumer's ability to create their own content -- because those same tools could be used to 'pirate' images and sounds being played off of your DCM source. Don't laugh too hard. There are already a couple of cases of companies making it hard to read consumer generated content with 'foreign' players.

If, for example, you accept an EULA claim that Microsoft 'owns' the media (hard disk) that you received your copy of Microsoft Windows on while you only get the 'right to use' it. Then, under Canadian copyright legislation, they would own your webcam images if they are first written to your hard disk. (the owner of the recording medium at time of creation owns the copyright). At that point, they would have the 'right' to control your use of 'their' images.

It only goes downhill from there.

Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life..

[ Reply to This | # ]

RIAA President on Sony's Rootkit: So What? Everybody Protects CDs
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 12:20 PM EST
"most people don't know what a rootkit is, so why should they care?"

cool, I like this reasoning, most people dont know what bacillus anthracis is,
so I can give it to you without your permission, right?

or perhaps sin nombre virus? you don't know what it is, so I can walk up to you
and inject it into your arm and you shouldn't care, right?

how about ursinus pestis?
(all of the above have a high fatality rate, but you don't care, because you
don't know what it is, right?)

bacillus anthracis = anthrax
sin nombre virus = spanish Hantavirus (similar to ebola)
ursinus pestis = bubonic plague

can I send these to the CEO of Sony? I'm sure he doesn't know what they are, so
why should he care?

-jj :) an ounce of sarcasm is worth a pound of explanation

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )