REPORT ON RIAA LAWSUIT STRATEGY

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has put together a fascinating article summarizing the history and effect of the RIAA's five-year battle against online music sharing. The conclusion is compelling: every single move made by the recording industry has backfired. The RIAA has filed more than thirty thousand lawsuits and threatened even more people, turning public opinion overwhelmingly against the RIAA and the labels, and has accomplished nothing.

"The RIAA's lawsuit campaign against individual American music fans has failed. It has failed to curtail P2P downloading. It has not persuaded music fans that sharing is equivalent to shoplifting. It has not put a penny into the pockets of artists. It has done little to drive most filesharers into the arms of authorized music services. In fact, the RIAA lawsuits may well be driving filesharers to new technologies that will be much harder for the RIAA's investigators to infiltrate and monitor."

Public respect for copyright law has plummeted and the use of peer-to-peer file sharing programs has soared in the last five years, in large part due to the unforgivable tactics used by the recording industry. Currently the RIAA is openly engaged in protection racket shakedowns: it sends "pre-litigation settlement offers" to students, offering to take a few thousand dollars in exchange for not filing a lawsuit. It has set up a web site, http://www.P2Plawsuits.com, where the payment can be made by credit card. (When one student attempted to negotiate the proposed $3,750 settlement because she was already in debt for tuition, the RIAA representative suggested that she drop out of school in order to pay off the settlement.)

The EFF article focuses on the procedural aspects of the RIAA lawsuits, with detailed information about the various tactics used over the years by the RIAA to obtain the names and addresses of alleged offenders. When you share files with a P2P program, your IP address might be visible but only your ISP can tie that IP address to your account. The RIAA exploited a loophole in the DMCA to issue thousands of subpoenas to ISPs before any lawsuit had been filed; eventually the courts rejected the industry's interpretation of the law (referred to somewhat proudly by the industry as "driftnet fishing), but not until more than 3,000 subpoenas had been issued, followed by hundreds of lawsuits and many more settlements. The RIAA then began filing massive numbers of John Doe lawsuits, and more recently has tried to intimidate colleges into voluntarily forwarding the threatening pre-litigation letters to students.

Perhaps the RIAA are not the worst and stupidest people in the world - there's a lot of competition for that title - but I think they would make it into the finals, anyway.

Labels: audio, DRM, file_sharing, law

posted by bruceb at 10/06/2008 12:05:00 AM | permalink

AUDIO & VIDEO MYSTERIES

A few final thoughts about file formats for audio and video and how that affects a Vista Media Center Extender. This is the place where strong people are humbled and the whole project can be brought down with screams of frustration. I can only touch on a few of the myriad details.

There is a single overriding principle that you can put to use right away: make a conscious effort to avoid any file format that is locked up with any DRM (digital rights management, the schemes used with "licensed" content to prevent you from making full use of it), or that is even capable of a DRM layer. Don't buy songs from iTunes in Apple's proprietary AAC format, which can't be played in many places; instead, buy MP3 files from Amazon, which can be played absolutely everywhere. Set your audio software to rip CDs in MP3 format and throw away files in other formats from well-meaning friends. Here's a recent article that describe's one person's frustrating encounters with DRM-laden media files.

You can get a sense of how quickly this area gets ugly if you look into how many different formats there are for music, and how strongly people hold opinions about them. There are uncompressed formats that are more or less well supported (WAV, FLAC, OGG VORBIS), there are many competing formats for compressed audio (with and without DRM), and there are ways to compress MP3 files that result in terrible sound quality. I wrote some notes about music files here and I've worked hard to be sure that my library is 100% high-bitrate MP3s. If you have other formats in your music library (especially songs from the iTunes store), assume that you will have trouble playing them in Vista Media Center, much less an Extender in the living room.

Working with video is exponentially worse than audio. There is no accepted standard, no format that is a safe guarantee. Your camcorder will record files in a format that you likely didn't think about when you bought it and you have no way to be sure what will be required to play it on your own computer, much less in the living room. I'll throw out a few of the details that I ran into, but it's just a taste of what lies ahead.

There are several programs that rip DVDs to your hard drive in their native format, with all the files in the VIDEO_TS folder. Most of them will compress a dual-layer DVD into 4.7Gb, the size of a single-layer DVD. In this age of huge, cheap hard drives, it makes sense to create a library of entire DVDs on a big hard drive to have the best video quality when movies are played back, plus continued access to menus, special features, and chapters. Oddly, Vista Media Center won't display those DVDs ("folder is empty") until the registry is hacked per these instructions, at which point it displays a lovely DVD Gallery.

I put a 750Gb hard drive in my new Dell Inspiron and started ripping DVDs, using Nero Recode (and AnyDVD, which is required to unlock commercial DVDs). I brought the Vista Media Center DVD Gallery to life and looked at blank spaces where thumbnails ought to be until I manually found the cover art for each DVD online and copied the file as folder.jpg into the parent folder for each DVD. (J River Media Center will display a thumbnail for the DVDs if the folder.jpg file is in the VIDEO_TS folder, not the parent. Sigh.) I still think that's a good choice for assembling a movie collection that will be played back on a computer.

But then I got the Extender and - no DVDs! The Vista Media Center interface didn't have the DVD Gallery icon and the Extender claimed the folders were empty when I browsed to them. J River Media Center displayed the names but greyed them out as if they were inaccessible.

Much research ensued before I learned that Vista Media Center Extenders have been crippled so they cannot play DVDs in their native format under any conditions, presumably the result of a compromise to satisfy the dark lords in the movie studios. A separate DVD player is required in the living room to play a disc and there just isn't any way to stream a DVD from a computer through an Extender.

Converting movies is a science and a black art. A comparatively new format, H.264, is gaining acceptance as the "one true format," in Paul Thurrott's words, for high quality in a reasonable file size - roughly 1.5Gb for a two-hour movie. I had already found out that Nero's version of MPEG-4 (which is but isn't the same as H.264) has some funky proprietary issues, so I did more research and bought a copy of DVDFab to convert DVDs to a generic H.264 format, creating files with AVI extensions. I merrily proceeded down that path for a week or so, ripping movies right and left, before I realized that Vista Media Center Extenders can't play H.264 files either. Oh, I'm still not sure of the details of that - they don't play in the Vista Media Center interface or in the J River Media Center interface, but they sometimes play in the HP Videos section of the Extender, probably just to be malicious and mess with me. But clearly it isn't a universal format, at least not yet.

At the moment, I'm using DVDFab to rip DVDs to XVid format, which also results in files with AVI extensions because this wasn't confusing enough already. If you're trying this at home, these settings produce high-quality XVid videos that can be played on a Vista Media Center Extender: Mobile setting generic.avi.xvid.audiocopy; high quality encoding (2-pass); fixed bitrate 1200kbps; frame resolution roughly 768 x something.

Thanks for coming along with me into the living room! I'll return to your office now, where I belong. Good luck with your home theater!

Labels: audio, computers, DRM, video

posted by bruceb at 9/23/2008 12:11:00 AM | permalink

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2008!

In 2007, we started to work with Windows Vista, bought lots of handheld devices, and started to move things online - our mail, our photos, our movies.

What will 2008 bring? It will start with lots more of the same. Many of you will get your first Windows Vista computer and discover that it's quite a nice operating system. There's a flood of new handheld devices on the way inspired by the iPhone, although my guess is that Apple will stay a step ahead by releasing the iPhone version 2 with better data speeds and support for corporate e-mail systems - making it look very tempting for almost anyone who can stomach an account with AT&T. And the online sites for photos and videos will continually improve their ease of use and security; this should be on your mind every time you hear a story about someone who didn't have a backup of the family photos when the computer crashed.

2008 will bring an update to Microsoft Small Business Server - too early to know what the impact of that will be. I sense virtualization in my future - software that allows multiple computers to run on the same piece of hardware, each one convinced that it has exclusive control of the machine. That allows changes to be tested without risk and might even allow a business to run multiple servers in a more secure, less expensive way. We'll talk about that just as soon as I understand it even a little tiny bit.

With luck we'll talk less in 2008 about the recording industry and confusing DRM restrictions on music and video files. Slowly but surely the entertainment industry is being forced to consider new business models based on trusting consumers instead of suing them. Warner Music just began offering part of its music catalog in MP3 format through Amazon.com, joining EMI and Universal, and leaving Sony as the lonely holdout. My second favorite news item at the end of 2007 is the latest over-the-top assertion by the recording industry, this time in a brief filed by the RIAA last month in one of its acts of litigation terrorism against consumers. The RIAA now asserts that it is illegal for you to rip a CD to your computer, even if you purchased the CD and the computer files are only for your personal use. This is what it looks like when an entire industry dies a horrible self-inflicted death.

But my favorite end-of-year news story should warm all of our hearts. Wal-Mart announced that it has closed its online service for downloading movies. The service was opened in February with the endorsement of all major movie studios and TV networks, offering movies with intense DRM restrictions.

But that's not the good part.

The good part is that when Wal-Mart posted the announcement that the site was closed, no one noticed. In this world where everything is observed and commented on, it took a week for the closure to be mentioned in any blog or news article. It was such a cruddy, overpriced, difficult, restrictive service that literally no one ever looked at it. I love that!

Let's take it to be a good sign for 2008. My wish for you all is that in 2008, cruddy services and software will be ignored and valuable services and software will rise to the top, making you richer and more productive and happier. We can hope, right?

All my best wishes for a happy new year!

Labels: audio, business, DRM, Internet, mobile, phone, photos, SBS, video, web_services

posted by bruceb at 1/02/2008 12:05:00 AM | permalink

PLAYSFORSAYWHAT?

Microsoft has a name problem.

I used to think that Microsoft had learned a lesson from the years of confusion and frustration caused by the similar names for "Outlook" and "Outlook Express," two programs that were not even remotely related.

The same people must have been on the committee that decided "Windows Mail" (the free program included with Vista) would be on the market at the same time as "Windows Live Mail," the similar but not identical free program for Vista and Windows XP. Not to be confused with "Windows Live Hotmail," the final name for Microsoft's webmail service. Which can sync with Windows Live Mail but not Windows Mail.

"Windows Photo Gallery," the free photo browser included with Vista, can wind up installed side-by-side with the virtually identical "Windows Live Photo Gallery," the free photo browser for Vista and Windows XP.

Now Microsoft has renamed another product in such an aggressively baffling way that the only reasonable explanation is that Microsoft is just screwing around with us for fun. Follow along!

Microsoft introduced an audio format built on DRM restrictions, marketed as "PlaysForSure." Partners were invited to build online stores and hardware devices based on the format. Sony, Creative and Sandisk built handheld devices, MTV partnered with Microsoft to build an online store, and lots of big players committed to the format. The marketing pitch: "PlaysForSure" was a comparatively open format and consumers would have lots of choices compared to Apple's closed world.

After a couple of years, Apple still dominated the market for online music and handhelds and Microsoft had decided that its partners were stupid, so with no notice it ditched the PlaysForSure format and put the Zune on the market - its own handheld device, supported by its own online store, that can't play "PlaysForSure" files. Microsoft stopped putting any energy into its "PlaysForSure" format and started competing with its own partners, essentially abandoning them and trashing the environment that Microsoft itself had created.

That was weird. It just got weirder.

Microsoft should have killed the "PlaysForSure" format but perhaps some of the partners felt they could still find a way to make money despite Microsoft's slap in the face. Last week Microsoft decided instead to change the name of the "PlaysForSure" format. The new name for Microsoft's audio format and DRM scheme is (drumroll):

"CERTIFIED FOR WINDOWS VISTA"

"Certified for Windows Vista" files play on Windows XP, but they do not play on Microsoft's Zune, which sells music from its online marketplace that is also classified as "Certified for Windows Vista" and marketed with the identical logo - but those files won't play on the "Certified for Windows Vista" devices that used to be "PlaysForSure" devices.

Even the kindest articles find this to be bizarrely confusing.

Microsoft's partners in the "PlaysForSure" world might not make public statements about their hatred, but they have to be seething. They counted on being part of a coherent marketing strategy, got shafted when the Zune was introduced, and now Microsoft is removing any possibility that any consumer will give them a second thought.

The story has one more twist.

Microsoft just announced this week that it has developed an audio format built on DRM restrictions specifically designed for mobile phones. Its first partner, Nokia, is going to build online stores and hardware devices based on the format. Chirpy press spokespeople promise that oodles of companies will sign up for the new format next year.

And what name did Microsoft choose for its new format? What name does Nokia believe holds the promise of a bright future as a committed Microsoft partner? What name was announced a week after the tattered remnants of "PlaysForSure" morphed into "Certified for Windows Vista"?

Are all these people nuts?

Labels: audio, DRM, hardware, mobile, phone, software

posted by bruceb at 12/20/2007 12:05:00 AM | permalink

MP3s AND THE FUTURE OF MUSIC

The music industry is in complete disarray; the shift away from CDs is irreversible and most consumers simply expect music to be free. The recording industry's hostility, arrogance, and litigation tactics have alienated everyone, making it harder for the industry to imagine a business plan that works - especially while it's controlled by executives who freely admit they don't understand these new-fangled Internet tubes.

It's no surprise that many different plans for distributing music are under way, and it shouldn't be a surprise that the reporting is frequently confusing or wrong. Let me give you the shortest of refresher courses so you can follow the headlines.

You'll see the term "MP3" used freely and not always accurately. MP3 is a file format, one of the original formats for storing music that's been compressed to make smaller computer files while still preserving much of the original sound quality. It's not completely free - there's a patent and license fees change hands - but it's neutral because an MP3 file does not have any bits devoted to restricting use of the file. In other words, MP3 files are essentially not capable of being locked down by DRM restrictions.

When music first began to be played on computers and Napster was flourishing, almost all music files were in MP3 format.

The recording industry doesn't like MP3 files. If you buy one, you can copy it, you can transfer it, you can use it in multiple ways (on a CD, on a handheld device), all without paying any more money. That interfered with the entertainment industry's plan to reinvent copyrights to deliver unlimited streams of revenue by requiring new payments every time your use of a copyrighted item changes in any way.

The industry demanded files that could be controlled and the explosion of file formats began - Microsoft's WMA, Apple's AAC, and others - all devoted to playing music only if certain conditions were met.

• Pay for the file and it plays for a week, or a month, or a year, then stops unless you pay more money.
• Pay for the file and you can play it on your computer but not burn it on a CD or play it on your friend's computer.
• Pay for the file and you can play it forever on this computer but not on the computer you get to replace it unless you engage in a complicated wrestling match with licenses.
• Pay for the file and you can play it on an iPod but not on any other handheld device.
• And a thousand more variations that have been infuriating consumers for years.

The press typically refers to all of these files as "MP3 files," in the belief that the term is synonymous with "music file." It's not.

There's some momentum now towards delivering files that do not have any DRM restrictions, since consumers have become well-informed enough not to want them. Much attention was given to Apple's announcement that it would begin selling DRM-free music in its iTunes store. Although the files do not have any DRM restrictions, they are still in Apple's proprietary AAC format, which some software will not play and which cannot be used with any handheld device other than an iPod.

EMI and Universal were the first to open their libraries (reluctantly) for sale in MP3 format. Amazon took advantage of that as a marketing wedge for its music store selling genuine MP3 files - universal acceptance in all software and all devices and no DRM (and a clever bit of software that automatically adds purchases to your library if you're using iTunes, making it almost as convenient as purchases from the iTunes store).

During next February's Super Bowl, Pepsi and Amazon will advertise a massive year-long promotion where codes under bottlecaps can be exchanged for music downloads. The twist is that the downloads will be MP3 files from Amazon - and Pepsi will be distributing enough codes for 1 billion free downloads. That's a lot of music, and a lot of consumers being introduced to Amazon's music store!

Some analysts wonder if we are approaching a tipping point that will force the other labels to agree to distribute their music in MP3 format and leave ineffective DRM restrictions behind. WalMart is pressuring the labels to sell their catalogs in MP3 format, and Warner Music Group and Sony are considering MP3 tests, previously unthinkable.

All of this is good for consumers but not the whole story. The labels are getting enthusiastic again about subscription services, where a fixed monthly fee opens up access to all the music you want. Most recently it turned up in a breathless announcement from Universal about "Total Music," a service to be bundled with cell phones and priced so low that carriers won't even bill for it separately, giving the impression that the music is free.

"With the Total Music service, Morris and his allies are trying to hit reset on how digital music is consumed. In essence, Morris & Co. are telling consumers that music is a utility to which they are entitled, like water or gas. Buy one of the Total Music devices, and you've got it all. Ironically, the plan takes Jobs' basic strategy-- getting people to pay a few hundred bucks for a music player but a measly 99 cents for the music that gives it value--and pushes it to its extreme. After all, the Total Music subscriber pays only for the device--and never shells out a penny for the music. "You know that it's there, and it costs something," says one tech company executive who has seen Morris' presentation. "But you never write a check for it.""

Swell! Except for the teensiest bit of ambiguity about DRM restrictions - but there was room for optimism. After all, Universal is already experimenting with MP3s, right? Why not generate some goodwill by giving consumers the format they want in this situation where a flow of income is guaranteed?

The optimism lasted about a month until the details became available. Universal's "free music" will arrive in Microsoft's WMA format, meaning the files can't be played on iPods or Zunes. (That's right - Microsoft's "PlaysForSure" WMA is a format that Microsoft designed and promoted before abandoning it - its own handheld, the Zune, can't play the files.)

Universal's first partner is Nokia, and other labels may get involved. You'd be able to download music to your cell phone, which presumably will have the specs to be a good music player. The music won't turn off when your cell contract runs out, which is good. But there will be DRM restrictions - you won't be able to burn the music to a CD, for example, and it's still unclear whether the tracks are transferable and playable by anyone else.

There may be a "tipping point" ahead but there's still a long way to go before the recording industry stops trying to build its business around crippled products and concedes that informed consumers want unrestricted files in generic formats.

Labels: Apple, audio, business, DRM, Microsoft, mobile, phone, web_services

posted by bruceb at 12/07/2007 01:13:00 AM | permalink

RIAA SUES USENET.COM
The first rule of Usenet is, you don't talk about Usenet.

Careful observation of that rule has allowed Internet newsgroups to avoid getting involved in the entertainment industry's freakish litigation war on its customers. Now a new lawsuit suggests that the RIAA can't stand it any more.

It's time to talk about Usenet.

Internet newsgroups predate virtually everything on the Internet. Using specialized software, you can display messages posted in "newsgroups," with each newsgroup devoted to a particular subject matter that is more or less observed by the people posting messages. Anyone can read and post messages in any newsgroup; most are unmoderated.

Some newsgroups are very active, with hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of messages posted daily. Some were created years ago and remain on the list even though they are completely dormant. There is a rough organization to the groups - the "sci" (science) category contains newsgroups named "sci.math" and "sci.physics," for example. There are newsgroups for every interest, hobby, profession, religion, sport, everything you can think of and oh so many things that would never occur to you.

There are currently over 107,000 newsgroups.

The newsgroups contain text messages, and only text messages. But years ago some clever technology arrived that permits any kind of file to be converted to a text message and posted to the newsgroups; the software at your end then converts it back to a picture or a PDF or a music file or a program.

The architecture of Usenet is unlike anything else. It is global and decentralized. Servers run all over the world; basically, each one holds all the contents of Usenet and forwards new items and changes to all the other servers, in a constant flow of data in all directions.

At one time, virtually every ISP maintained its own Usenet servers and offered free access to Usenet to its subscribers. As the volume of traffic on Usenet grew, many ISPs did not want the burden of maintaining the huge servers, so they began leasing Usenet access from several large global companies - primarily UsenetServer.com, Supernews, Giganews and Usenet.com. From Wikipedia:

"A news server is one of the most difficult Internet services to administer well because of the large amount of data involved, small customer base (compared to mainstream Internet services such as email and web access), and a disproportionately high volume of customer support incidents (frequently complaining of missing news articles that are not the ISP's fault). Some ISPs outsource news operation to specialist sites, which will usually appear to a user as though the ISP ran the server itself. Many sites carry a restricted newsfeed, with a limited number of newsgroups."

Windows has built-in software for Usenet. You've heard of it; it's Outlook Express (and Windows Mail on Vista). It's terrible, but it works for text messages.

But that's not what Usenet is about.

A flood of music, movies, and pornography is posted to Internet newsgroups every day. The volume is staggering - terabytes of data arrives daily. So, for example, a subscription to Giganews, a license to use Newsleecher and its "Supersearch" service, and a fairly steep learning curve opens up access to a constantly-changing vault bursting with music and movies.

Late last week the RIAA sued Usenet.com, one of the larger Usenet services. Here's another article about the lawsuit.

Usenet.com has some intemperate language on its web site, boasting that its service "gives you access to millions of MP3 files and also enables you to post your own files the same way and share them with the whole world."

The fear is that a victory over a company making overbroad statements will lay the groundwork for pursuing the hundreds of universities, ISPs and global companies offering Usenet access. Newsgroup traffic would be difficult to control and has obvious non-infringing uses, but that doesn't mean the RIAA can't disrupt the established patterns and shut off access through some of the current providers. At this point we hardly need more evidence to realize the RIAA is clinically insane and capable of anything.

The RIAA deeply believes that the battle to protect copyrights is the most important issue facing Western civilization. Make sure you take a moment to watch this anti-piracy video, which dramatizes the depth of their commitment.

Labels: audio, DRM, file_sharing, law, video

posted by bruceb at 10/17/2007 12:05:00 AM | permalink

APPLE BACKLASH
Apple's rollout of the iPhone and updated iPod line generated impressive buzz, giving the impression that Apple is an unstoppable force. At the same time, though, Apple's efforts to lock down its control over its users created uneasiness.

Two things happened today that are worth watching in case Apple's base turns out to be more fragile than we suspect.

The first involves the possibility that Apple may kill a bunch of iPhones soon.

The iPhone arrived locked to AT&T, which frustrated early purchasers more than they were willing to admit. Tempers were frayed when Apple dropped the price on the iPhone by $200 within sixty days after its launch, leaving the early adopters feeling used; the hundred dollar credit in the Apple store did not completely erase those feelings. Bill Maher made fun of Apple; Steve Wozniak lambasted the company. As noted earlier, some people reacted by finding ways to unlock the iPhone so it could be used with a different cell phone carrier.

Apple has now made a formal announcement that a firmware update for the iPhone next week "will likely result" in unlocked phones turning into useless paperweights with voided warranties. There's some possibility that this would be illegal, so it may not happen that way. But Apple might decide to turn expensive phones into bricks - phones that are in the hands of a very vocal community that currently supports Apple but who could turn vicious in a heartbeat.

The second involves unhappiness with iTunes.

Apple is increasingly insistent on locking its devices to iTunes software. The iPhone and iTouch cannot be used with any other software. Apple attempted to lock the iPods to iTunes, although for the moment that protection has been broken. And iTunes is not aging well; the insistent advertising is drowning out everything else in the program. As people become more familiar with media files, it becomes more irritating that iTunes only supports a small number of formats for music and video, and the DRM restrictions in Apple's native formats are making people nuts.

Enter Amazon, which has today opened its store for downloadable music. It's all in MP3 format, completely free of DRM restrictions! It's recorded at a high bit rate for premium sound quality. Prices are slightly cheaper than iTunes. Since there are so many iTunes users, Amazon supplies software to ensure that downloaded music is added to the iTunes library. This is pretty appealing stuff! Here's a New York Times article about the Amazon store, and here's a longer comparison of the technical features.

Apple is not likely to be brought down in a hurry, but there might be a backlash coming. (Update 09/26 2:50pm: here's an example of the kind of critical coverage that Apple doesn't normally receive.) New competitors are finally showing off devices that are worthy alternatives to the iPod/iTouch, especially for handheld video - Archos and Cowon in particular. Perhaps Apple can be slowed down after all.

Labels: Apple, audio, DRM, mobile, phone

posted by bruceb at 9/26/2007 12:05:00 AM | permalink

APPLE LOCKDOWN
It's hard to make the stereotypes fit.

Microsoft is reviled as the big monopoly. I don't want to suggest that Microsoft is a huggable teddy bear, but it's worth noting that much of its success comes from the work of thousands and thousands of hardware and software partners invited to build products on Microsoft technology. When Microsoft puts on an event to roll out a new product, there are hundreds of partners invited to speak at the event and set up their tables outside the auditorium and send their products into stores.

Apple is praised for being independent and open and encouraging creativity. It's an odd reputation, because Apple works tirelessly to create locked-down environments that no one is allowed to change or contribute to. When Apple announces its new products, no one stands onstage with Steve Jobs.

There are three current examples, each disturbing in its own way.

(1) The iPhone is locked to AT&T, the least appealing cell phone provider in the world. When the first iPhones shipped, a few people went to work attempting to find a way to reprogram the SIM card in the phone and unlock it so it could be used with a different carrier. Within a couple of months, methods were appearing to unlock an iPhone using a bit of software - no screwdriver necessary.

This is intolerable to Apple, for reasons that aren't clear. "This is a constant cat-and-mouse game," Steve Jobs said today. "[P]eople are going to try and break in and it's our job to try and stop them."

Imagine! A cell phone that can be used with a carrier of your choice! The horror, the horror! Except, it's not really very horrible, is it? If you pay hundreds of dollars for a cell phone, shouldn't you be able to decide what carrier to sign up with?

(2) When Apple introduced its updated iPod line recently, it announced that ring tones would be available from iTunes for the iPhone. The prices were shocking, but the whole ringtone industry baffles me so I'm not in a good position to judge.

A few people quickly discovered an easy way to create their own ringtones and upload them to their iPhones, without paying iTunes for the privilege.

Two days later, Apple forced an update of iTunes to version 7.4.1, killing that method of creating a ringtone from your own music.

The next day, another method was circulated that still worked despite the new restrictions.

Yesterday, ten days later, Apple forced down iTunes 7.4.2, which again disrupted the known ways of getting ringtones onto an iPhone. Only this time the workaround was discovered literally within an hour or two. Presumably Apple is frantically working on iTunes version 7.4.3.

It's fair for Apple to make some money from the hot ringtone business. But why should you be prevented from making a ringtone of your choice from music you own, using software you choose, and loading it onto your phone?

(3) Most iPod owners use iTunes to manage their music libraries. It's adequate but not getting any better; at one time iTunes was designed to make it easy to manage your media, but now it's increasingly being used only as a vehicle to expose you to advertising.

Although Apple never cooperated, it was possible for third parties to build software that would work with an iPod. Some people built programs to run on their Linux computers that would sync their iPods, or wanted to use WinAmp or other Windows software instead of iTunes. My favorite music software, J River Media Center, works beautifully with iPods, so I was able to buy an iPod and continue using a single program for all things related to my music library.

When Apple updated the iPod product line and the first units shipped, frustrated purchasers learned that Apple had changed the iPod database in an attempt to prevent any software from communicating with an iPod other than iTunes. There was no technical reason or benefit from the change; it was solely aimed at blocking access by other software. Here's where influential blogger Cory Doctorow weighed in on Apple's unfair tactics.

It was a completely unnecessary move. Most people will use iTunes anyway and Apple will have a crack at their purchasing power. What is the point of slapping the handful of people who run Linux, or prefer a different bit of software?

As of a couple of days ago, the database changes had been cracked. J River Media Center has already delivered a new build of their software that will work with the new iPods.

Apple's lust for control may lead it to push out iTunes version 7.4.4 and try to lock down the iPod database again. Or perhaps have its lawyers write threatening DMCA letters to intimidate the software developers who have the gall to want to satisfy their users and help Apple market its devices.

It's very odd. Although I like the iPod line a lot, I have some cranky opinions about software and iTunes is not going on my computer. My next player may not be an iPod after all.

Labels: Apple, audio, DRM, Microsoft, phone

posted by bruceb at 9/19/2007 12:05:00 AM | permalink

SONY ATRAC, R.I.P.
Sony is killing ATRAC, its proprietary format for music files. Here's a brief news article about today's death notice.

This isn't important - no one every downloaded any files from Sony's store in the ATRAC format. (The store is being shuttered, too.) I find it amusing for two reasons.

One, because I get a kick out of Sony's extraordinary list of failed formats: ATRAC, Betamax, MiniDisc, Sony Dynamic Digital Sound, HiFD, Multi-Media Compact Disc, UMF disc for PSPs, Memory Stick and Super Audio CD.

Two, because grown men in suits who are paid a lot of money thought it would be a good idea to give a proprietary music format a name that rhymes with "eight-track." Honestly, it just slays me.

Here's some background information about Sony's failed ATRAC format, and the terrible SonicStage software and Sony Connect store that went with it.

Labels: audio, business, DRM

posted by bruceb at 8/31/2007 12:05:00 AM | permalink

MORE COPYRIGHT CRAZINESS
The world of copyright protection is a mess, and each day brings new craziness.

• A Federal District Court judge granted a ruling for summary judgment against a family that had run Kazaa on a computer with copyrighted material in a shared folder - with no evidence that anyone had ever downloaded those files. “It is no defense that a Kazaa user did not directly oversee the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material,” the judge wrote, citing a case concluding that “the mere presence of copyrighted works in a shared folder is enough to trigger liability.” Here's a news item with more details. This is truly breathtaking - a family is potentially going to have a huge judgment entered against them for things they might have done, without any proof that improper acts ever happened. (If you saw Steven Spielberg's movie Minority Report, you'll recognize the reference in the headline to the Department of Pre-Crime.)
• Another federal judge just issued a bizarre discovery order in a motion picture industry lawsuit against TorrentSpy, a Netherlands BitTorrent tracker. (Like all torrent trackers, TorrentSpy does not host any copyrighted material; it helps people search for torrents running on other computers.) TorrentSpy had not been logging any information about computers connecting to it, so recording industry attempts to obtain logs had been unsuccessful. TorrentSpy argued that any information about the IP address of a computer connecting thru the site was transient information in the server's RAM, not subject to a discovery request. The judge ordered TorrentSpy to log all information passing through the server RAM, on the basis that the storage of data in RAM — even if not permanently archived — makes it electronically stored information governed by federal discovery rules. Can you imagine the ramifications if that meant what it said? When you type a letter, change your mind and backspace, then type something different - those first keystrokes were in RAM for a moment and would have to be produced by that definition. That's absurd, of course - but so is this ruling. (TorrentSpy in the meantime turned off access to its site by US residents, so the order is moot for now.) Here's more information about the ruling.
• Russian web site allofmp3.com, which sold high-quality audio files for pennies, was finally forced to close a few months ago after years of heavy US pressure on Russian authorities, courtesy of the well-heeled lobbying arm of the recording and movie industries. Recently, though, a Russian court ruled that the site was not guilty of copyright violations under Russian law and the site will reportedly reappear soon.

The news media tends to report that the recording industry "wins" some of these cases, but that's not true in anything but a technical sense. The recording industry has not won anything but hollow victories for many years. It is despised by almost everyone, its music in increasingly ignored, and its business is caught in a spiraling decline that is entirely its own fault.

My favorite item doesn't involve copyrights but it does concern the difficulty of locking down information. The Australian government proudly unveiled its $84 million porn filter - software to be downloaded and installed by nervous parents. Oops! A 16-year-old defeated the filter in about thirty minutes. In a nice touch, the student was able to leave the icon by the clock as if the filter was still running. The embarrassed government added a second filter to its web site; it took the student almost forty minutes to bypass that one. Here's an article about that debacle.

Labels: audio, DRM, file_sharing, law, video

posted by bruceb at 8/29/2007 12:05:00 AM | permalink

GOOGLE NEWS
An interesting collection of news about Google projects today.

• As the new owner of YouTube, Google will introduce scrolling advertisements to YouTube videos today. They promise the ads will be unobtrusive, nearly-transparent banners that will appear at the bottom of videos for only 10 seconds.
• Google went into the online video business last year, selling DRM-laden TV shows. The business wasn't profitable so Google announced a few days ago that the web site would be shuttered and all downloaded Google videos would stop playing. (When the licensing server is turned off, DRM-infected files can no longer be played - a rude introduction to DRM for people who thought that purchasing a video actually gave them something that would last. It's kind of like what happens to people whose computers crash without backups of their iTunes libraries.) Google initially offered refunds to video purchasers through its Google Checkout service, which made people unhappy who wanted real money instead. Google quickly announced that it is going to credit back the purchases onto people's credit cards - and the Google Checkout credits will be a lovely gift, the licensing servers will stay plugged in for six months, and gosh darn, it's all just a silly misunderstanding.
• Google Maps is making code freely available to add a fully functional Google map to any website - clickable, draggable, zoomable. Expect the maps on business websites to improve considerably.
• Google Earth has added a service for scanning the sky and zooming around in images of 100 million stars and 200 million galaxies.

Labels: DRM, Google, video

posted by bruceb at 8/22/2007 12:05:00 AM | permalink

VISTA & CONTENT PROTECTION FOLLOWUP
Vista's implementation of copyright protection for video does its job quietly and effectively. Early claims to the contrary are being debunked.

Let's be clear. Copyright-protection schemes - "DRM" - are intrusive and unforgivable. You'll be forced to jump through complicated, frustrating hoops to play high-definition movies on a computer or set up a high-definition TV or DVD player, dealing with acronyms like HDCP and HDMI - and trust me, you'd rather not know about the blur of hardware and cables and incompatible equipment that those acronyms represent. None of this would be necessary in a sane world. Every manufacturer of TVs and DVD players, every OS and software programmer, is struggling with the absurd requirements imposed by the movie and recording industries (and in some cases by the laws they purchased).

There have been claims that Vista implemented those DRM requirements in a particularly evil way, causing Vista to be slow and unstable. Peter Gutmann, a New Zealand professor, wrote a long rant about the problems that might be caused by Vista's content protection mechanisms. I wrote about his comments here.

Lately the same professor has been touring around, giving speeches and seeking publicity, making even more dramatic claims that Vista's implementation of DRM will cause 100% CPU utilization and contribute to global warming. (No kidding - global warming!) He's cited as an "expert" on Vista DRM.

It appears likely that his work is wrong in almost every respect. It's becoming obvious that he drew his conclusions without ever owning a copy of Vista, based on math that was simply incorrect. None of his claims are being observed in the real world. Two Ziff Davis technical writers have been testing Gutmann's claims in detail and finding that Vista performs beautifully, with none of the adverse effects that Gutmann predicted. Here's one of the blog entries that goes into detail about Gutmann's claims and the real world results; here's another one that goes further.

At the moment Gutmann has dropped out of sight, claiming he's "too busy" to respond.

There's plenty of reasons to hate the paranoid world of DRM-protected media, but Vista has apparently approached it as intelligently as possible.

Labels: DRM, video, Vista

posted by bruceb at 8/20/2007 12:05:00 AM | permalink

FILE SHARING CAUSES CANCER
If you are downloading music with file sharing programs, the RIAA believes you are a thief and a pirate and you should go to a federal prison.

That's been true for a long time. Many people - roughly, the entire population of the world - have decided to live with that guilt and download music anyway.

But how about if you knew that you were encouraging behavior that harms children? I'll bet you didn't realize that you were threatening national security! You swine.

Those are the key points in an 80-page report from the US Patent and Trademark Office released today. Here's an article about the USPTO report and here's the text of the report.

It makes perfect sense. Children might be induced to run file sharing programs to download music, and - unknowingly and unintentionally - the programs will be allowing other people to upload music from the child's computer. The RIAA might sue the children for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and children might somehow interpret that to mean the RIAA was antagonistic instead of their best friend. Therefore - file sharing harms children. Ta da!

Government workers install file sharing software on their home or office computers and are tricked into sharing folders jam packed with classified information, which is promptly downloaded by terrorists who stumble on it during a search for Celine Dion. Therefore - file sharing jeopardizes national security!

I hope it's obvious that the programs don't work that way, the underlying data is misrepresented, the arguments are specious, and the conclusions are just plain bizarre. If you're looking for a good cause, support the work of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which continues to struggle against this madness.

Labels: DRM, file_sharing

posted by bruceb at 3/15/2007 12:05:00 AM | permalink

BLU-RAY & HD-DVD SECURITY BROKEN
High definition DVDs have always had two, and only two, purposes: to impose significant new barriers to your free use of the content on them by adding new layers of DRM; and to try to create an incentive for you to replace your DVDs.

The entertainment industry absolutely adored selling us the same content a second time as we converted our collections from LPs to CDs, and from videotapes to DVDs. We're not likely to do that again: Blu-Ray and HD-DVDs offer relatively trivial improvements in video quality, and most people think conventional DVDs look pretty darned good, even on HD TVs. Almost no one will replace a conventional DVD with a high-def DVD of the same content, just as no one was interested in upgrading their audio CDs to SACD or DVD-Audio discs. (You never heard of those formats? Well, that's my point, really.)

That leaves the entertainment industry in a tough position, because the only other reason for Blu-Ray and HD-DVDs to exist is for their increased security. The industry squabble between the two formats has nothing to do with consumer satisfaction; it's about which format will be more effective at locking down the content. (And money. It's always about money.) When you set up your new Blu-Ray or HD-DVD equipment, technical barriers will be in place to prevent you from recording the content on a computer, or using any portion of it in a creative project, or playing it on unapproved equipment, or a host of other restrictions.

That's why it's significant that the security on Blu-Ray and HD-DVD movies has apparently been completely broken. Here's Cory Doctorow's description from Boing-Boing:

"Arnezami, a hacker on the Doom9 forum, has published a crack for extracting the "processing key" from a high-def DVD player. This key can be used to gain access to every single Blu-Ray and HD-DVD disc.

"Previously, another Doom9 user called Muslix64 had broken both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD by extracting the "volume keys" for each disc, a cumbersome process. This break builds on Muslix64's work but extends it -- now you can break all AACS-locked discs.

"AACS took years to develop, and it has been broken in weeks. The developers spent billions, the hackers spent pennies.

"For DRM to work, it has to be airtight. There can't be a single mistake. It's like a balloon that pops with the first prick. That means that every single product from every single vendor has to perfectly hide their keys, perfectly implement their code. There can't be a single way to get into the guts of the code to retrieve the cleartext or the keys while it's playing back. All attackers need is a single mistake that they can use to compromise the system.

"There is no future in which bits will get harder to copy. Instead of spending billions on technologies that attack paying customers, the studios should be confronting that reality and figuring out how to make a living in a world where copying will get easier and easier. They're like blacksmiths meeting to figure out how to protect the horseshoe racket by sabotaging railroads.

"The railroad is coming. The tracks have been laid right through the studio gates. It's time to get out of the horseshoe business."

Labels: DRM, video

posted by bruceb at 2/15/2007 12:05:00 AM | permalink

WALMART, APPLE & DRM
WalMart announced a movie download service with the obligatory noncritical media coverage, focused on how darned exciting it is that all of the major studios have signed up to supply a few titles. The details were glossed over - namely that the downloads are DRM-laden Windows Media files that won't play on iPods, PSPs, Zunes, or computers running Mac or Linux. Not to mention that twenty bucks buys a movie at 240x320 resolution, which will look like crap on a small screen and will be unwatchable on a large screen.

As an amusing aside, due to programming errors, as of today this page on the WalMart site displays this way in Firefox.

Meanwhile, Apple is being squeezed by European regulators and US class action suits about the iPod's proprietary technology and DRM-protected files sold by the iTunes store. Steve Jobs has written a rather extraordinary open letter pointing the finger squarely at the record companies and asking for pressure on them to permit sale of DRM-free music.

"Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.

"Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That’s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player.

"In 2006, under 2 billion DRM-protected songs were sold worldwide by online stores, while over 20 billion songs were sold completely DRM-free and unprotected on CDs by the music companies themselves. The music companies sell the vast majority of their music DRM-free, and show no signs of changing this behavior, since the overwhelming majority of their revenues depend on selling CDs which must play in CD players that support no DRM system."

Labels: Apple, audio, DRM, video

posted by bruceb at 2/07/2007 12:05:00 AM | permalink

APPLE AND PROPRIETARY FILE FORMATS
Microsoft will take some well-deserved heat for letting copy protection drive it to make bad decisions for technology and consumers, but Apple has also played an unappealing role in the world of copy protection. An antitrust suit against Apple has just been given the green light by a US District Court. It's about the iPod and Apple's attempts to control the digital music market, and the arguments are pretty compelling.

The complaint lays it out pretty clearly: "Apple deliberately makes digital music purchased at [the iTunes Store] inoperable with its competitors' digital music players. . . . In order to play music from [the iTunes Store] on a digital music player, then, a consumer's only option is the iPod. Apple sells the iPod at prices far exceeding those that would prevail in a competitive marketplace. Apple also makes the iPod unable to play music sold at its competitors' online music stores. In order to purchase Online Music to play on an iPod, then, a consumer's only option is [the iTunes Store]."

The results have been very good for Apple. Currently, Apple controls about 83 percent of the online music market, 75 percent of the online video market, more than 90 percent of the hard drive-based MP3 player market, and more than 70 percent of the flash memory-based MP3 player market.

The underlying issue is the proprietary file format sold by the iTunes store and used by the iTunes software by default. Most people think their music files are "mp3 files," but they're probably not. The mp3 format doesn't support any copy protection; iTunes sells and creates files in a proprietary format that can't be played in anything but an iPod. Here's essential information for anyone listening to music on a computer or a handheld device.

And that draws attention to a secret about the iPod. The hardware in the iPod, manufactured by PortalPlayer, has built-in support for Microsoft's Windows Media Audio (WMA) format. Apple shuts off this compatibility with an ugly hack to cripple the iPod, which prevents iPods from playing those files or using any competing online music store. I'm not a big fan of antitrust lawsuits - the competition in these markets is too fierce and fast-moving. But that does add an interesting spin to things, doesn't it?

Labels: Apple, audio, DRM

posted by bruceb at 1/04/2007 11:24:00 AM | permalink

WINDOWS VISTA & CONTENT PROTECTION
The entertainment industry is obsessed with copy protection and has been browbeating legislators, courts, hardware manufacturers and content creators with demands for more control over our ability to enjoy its products. Unfortunately, it's now becoming clear that Microsoft bowed to movie industry demands and built video copy protection deeply into Windows Vista, to our detriment.

Years ago, the recording industry decided that verbally abusing its entire customer base was a good business plan, and then escalated the war by suing thousands of people - not sophisticated pirates, just folks that wanted to listen to music. The result has been an steadily increasing flow of music that bypasses the big companies - their sales are down, the brick and mortar stores are closing, and the acts pushed by the big companies are irrelevant, at a time when more people are interested in music than ever.

The movie industry is desperately afraid that movies will be downloaded as freely as songs were when Napster was thriving. That's nothing new; the movie industry delayed the sale of movies on VHS tapes as long as possible out of fear that people might enjoy a movie without paying enough for the privilege.

The movie industry learned nothing from observing the recording industry's protracted suicide, so it has been relentlessly searching for new ways to make sure our choices are limited to things that will generate revenue. They have settled on high-definition video as the mechanism to introduce draconian new DRM restrictions on what we can watch.

Unfortunately, Microsoft signed on to the studio demands and built high-definition video copy protection very, very deeply into Windows Vista. A New Zealand researcher has written a lengthy description of the various mechanisms built into Vista to enforce DRM restrictions and the problems they might cause. It's a long, sad list.

It's not easy to summarize the damage inflicted by the copy protection schemes. The short of it is that it is almost impossible to play an HD-DVD or Blu-ray DVD unless a very precise set of equipment is installed; there are many pitfalls that might leave you cursing on Christmas afternoon in a year or two when you try to set up the new equipment you bought in good faith at Best Buy.

It's worse than that, though. This will affect all of us adversely in obvious and non-obvious ways, regardless of whether you ever plan to watch a high-definition movie:

"Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to provide content protection for so-called "premium content", typically HD data from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical support overhead, and hardware and software cost. These issues affect not only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista."

". . . Windows content protection will make your hardware more expensive, less reliable, more difficult to program for, more difficult to support, more vulnerable to hostile code, and with more compatibility problems. Because Windows dominates the market and device vendors are unlikely to design and manufacture two different versions of their products, non-Windows users will be paying for Windows Vista content-protection measures in products even if they never run Windows on them."

These are not reasons to avoid Vista; choosing an operating system involves weighing many things. On balance, Vista looks like the best operating system ever offered for individuals and businesses. But they are reasons to avoid high-definition video like the plague; it is a cynical calculation intended to restrict our choices and the rewards are paltry.

Labels: DRM, Vista

posted by bruceb at 1/03/2007 12:30:00 AM | permalink

RIAA DECLARES INSANITY
The RIAA is resorting to even more bizarre behavior in its quest to be institutionalized for its own protection.

AllOfMP3.com is a Russian site that has been thumbing its nose at the recording industry for years, selling high quality mp3 files of whatever you want for next to nothing and claiming that its operation is legal because it pays trivial amounts to a Russian copyright authority that has no authority and keeps the money. The RIAA has been going nuts trying to get someone in Russia to pay attention to the injustice of it all.

Last month the RIAA decided it was time to take off the gloves and hit AllOfMP3.com where it hurts, by filing a huge lawsuit.

In New York.

You might be thinking, what does New York have to do with anything? Why would a pirate Russian company care about a lawsuit in New York?

This puts you one step ahead of the RIAA, which got uncritical coverage in the media for this completely irrelevant stunt.

But the RIAA couldn't just stop with a media stunt - it had to make it so ridiculously over the top that the effect is just laughable. The lawsuit demands statutory damages of $150,000 for each of the eleven million songs downloaded between June and October 2006. That's 1.65 trillion dollars, baby - more than twice the entire Gross Domestic Product for the entire country! I'll bet AllOfMp3 is shaking now! Because, hey, if you're going to file a completely frivolous lawsuit, you might as well ask for an incredibly stupid amount of money, right?

Lots of RIAA lawyers will make lots of money flailing around on this pointless exercise. It's just for show - the real battle has already been won, and it has nothing to do with media-driven lawsuits. The RIAA has been pressuring the US government to lean on Russia and got results a few weeks ago when the Russian government agreed to change its copyright laws as a condition of entry into the World Trade Organization. AllOfMP3.com will likely be shut down, but not as a result of inane lawsuits for trillions of dollars.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Well, at least the RIAA doesn't do anything foolish in its lawsuits against US defendants - like dismiss the piracy lawsuit it wrongfully brought against a mother of five with an infuriating comment about how its preference was to "pursue defendant's children."

Ha ha! Just kidding. They did that too.

Labels: audio, DRM, web_services

posted by bruceb at 1/02/2007 08:05:00 AM | permalink

MICROSOFT WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER 11
Microsoft released the final version of Windows Media Player 11, a free download for Windows XP. It features deep integration with the URGE online music store (similar to iTunes integration with Apple's online store), and a very attractive interface.

I don't plan to go near it. I don't like it one little bit.

WMP11 features far more draconian DRM restrictions on music purchased from the online store than any other program or service to date. If the wrong checkbox is checked, then even CDs ripped from your personal collection will be infected with DRM restrictions and you may be unable to play those ripped files on a different computer. Recorded TV shows may disappear in three days, whether that's what you intended or not. You may not back up your licenses and move them to a different computer - the license agreement states plainly that you just can't. Here's a summary of some of the new DRM restrictions in this release.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a nice summary of what DRM means to consumers. Using iTunes and WMP is dangerous to your pocketbook and your blood pressure. I have nothing to offer people who discover that they have lost their investment in music purchased online when their hard drive crashes, or who find they are lost in technical mumbo-jumbo about moving licenses when they buy a new computer and want to listen to their tunes.

As for Windows Media Player, Microsoft has released this new version exactly two weeks before the introduction of its new music player, Zune. Since Zune will only work with its own proprietary software and online music store, no one knows what the future holds for Windows Media Player. Microsoft is shafting the partners who bought into WMP and "Plays For Sure" technology and has been tight-lipped on how it plans to support two incompatible DRM-laden media programs.

Labels: audio, DRM, software

posted by bruceb at 10/30/2006 10:02:00 PM | permalink

CREATIVE REMOVES FM RECORDING FROM DEVICES
The RIAA shows no sign of slowing down in its campaign to be the most wrongheaded and evil organization of our time. The latest sign of "copyright"-driven madness will hit owners of Creative Zen MicroPhoto and Zen Vision:M devices who install a firmware "update" pushed out to them. The "update" disables the devices' built-in ability to record FM broadcasts.

It's another step in a continuing campaign by the RIAA to prevent us from recording radio broadcasts. Satellite radios for the Sirius and XM services have had to be redesigned to ensure they could not record over-the-air broadcasts. Here's an article about the move by Creative.

Labels: audio, DRM, hardware

posted by bruceb at 10/17/2006 09:59:00 AM | permalink

ZUNE SHARING - POSTSCRIPT
One more nail in the Microsoft Zune coffin emerges from a close reading of an interview with a Microsoft exec.

The only feature that distinguishes a Zune from an iPod is the built-in 802.11 wi-fi that enables sharing songs with another Zune owner. It was made clear that a song purchased from the accompanying online store can only be played on the friend's Zune three times, followed by advertising on the friend's computer.

That left an open question about sharing your own unprotected content - mp3 files with no DRM or license restrictions. If they arrived at the friend's Zune without restrictions, that would be a powerful way to share music and other media files.

According to this report, that process "probably involves the introduction of a DRM layer." In other words, the mp3 file will be converted to a DRM-restricted format, or the Zune will have some built-in mechanism to restrict the number of times the mp3 file can be played (and presumably prevent the mp3 file from being downloaded from the Zune later). (Confirmed in this blog post from a member of the Zune team.)

If so, Zune file-sharing is dead on arrival, another victim of DRM restrictions blocking consumers from useful, desirable technology.

Labels: audio, DRM, file_sharing

posted by bruceb at 9/16/2006 01:02:00 PM | permalink

COPYRIGHT POLICE AND AMAZON MOVIE DOWNLOADS
Cory Doctorow has closely read the license agreement that accompanies Amazon's movie download service and he doesn't like it.

"I buy a lot of stuff from Amazon. A lot. I won't ever be buying one of these movies. Amazon has a great and well-deserved reputation for amazing customer service. The rare occasions where I've gotten a lemon or ordered the wrong product from Amazon, I've been treated like royalty, with Amazon making every possible accommodation to help me out. Their Look Inside feature and the used goods marketplaces are a tremendous boon to me.

"The difference between Amazon and Amazon Unbox is like night and day. When you sign onto Unbox, you sign away all the amazing customer rights that Amazon itself is so careful to protect. Amazon Unbox takes away your privacy and every conceivable consumer right you have, and then tells you that the goods you buy from them don't belong to you, and they can take them away from you at any time, or change the deal you get from them without any appeal by you.

"Amazon Unbox's user agreement isn't just galling for its evilness -- it's also commercially suicidal. No sane person will agree to this. Amazon Unbox user agreement is only a couple femtometers more dignified than being traded to another inmate for a couple packs of cigarettes."

There's a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of the legalese, and an interesting "feature" of the service - all movie purchases use Amazon's "1-Click" feature, so an errant click of the mouse results in a final purchase and a charge to your credit card - no shopping cart, no cancel button.

Labels: DRM, video, web_services

posted by bruceb at 9/15/2006 01:30:00 PM | permalink

MICROSOFT ZUNE WON'T PLAY PROTECTED WINDOWS MEDIA
The Electronic Frontier Foundation was the first to report on a remarkable example of how copyright abuse can harm consumers.

Microsoft's Zune will not play protected Windows Media Audio and Video purchased or "rented" from Napster 2.0, Rhapsody, Yahoo! Unlimited, Movielink, Cinemanow, or any other online media service. As the EFF points out, "That's right -- the media that Microsoft promised would Play For Sure doesn't even play on Microsoft's own device." Of course it also will not play music or video purchased from Apple's iTunes.

Everyone buying media with DRM restrictions is locking him or herself into a limited number of devices. When the iPod is no longer cool and you want the latest and greatest incompatible device, you'll kiss your library of iTunes music goodbye.

The MP3 format does not have any DRM restrictions. Insist on it! Spend your money at iTunes if you must, but at least rip your own CDs into MP3 format, not whatever restricted format is set as the default in your software.

Labels: audio, DRM, video

posted by bruceb at 9/15/2006 01:15:00 PM | permalink

CORY DOCTOROW ON DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT
Cory Doctorow, one of the chief contributors to popular web site BoingBoing.net, has written a compelling article about digital rights management for Information Week. It's a nice overview of the effects of DRM on consumers. There's a compelling argument that DRM is bad business - bad for the music and video industries, bad for consumers. Worth reading, especially if you buy anything from iTunes or if you're considering a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player.

Here's an interesting followup from a post on BoingBoing itself. A number of studios licensed movies to CinemaNow, which blanketed the press a couple of weeks ago with announcements that consumers could download the movies and burn them to DVD. "True innovation in home entertainment." "A big deal that the studios are going to do this." Etc., etc.

An optical disc engineer examined the downloads and determined that the DRM used on the downloaded files is designed to introduce errors into the data burned to a disc - on purpose, as part of the copy protection scheme. The DRM is designed so badly that many of the attempts to burn DVDs will fail and many or most of the DVDs made from those downloaded files will be unplayable.

Sigh.

Labels: DRM, video

posted by bruceb at 8/02/2006 05:25:00 PM | permalink

DRM HISTORY AND HACKING
Content creators and publishers are engaged in nonstop efforts to lock down the products you purchase from them. This is a fascinating article about the history of digital rights management and what to expect in the future.

Most restrictions have been cracked so far, whether on CDs, DVDs, E-Books, or downloadable audio. You may recall the technology intended to prevent copying CDs on a computer that could be disabled by using a Sharpie. DVD encryption is now trivially easy to defeat, if you can find a program to download to do the job. Apple is in a constant battle to keep a lid on the encryption used for iTunes downloads.

It's tempting to think that media companies will come to their senses and give up on DRM efforts, but the article makes it clear that DRM will always be with us. Even though history has shown that formats can and will be cracked, the studios and publishers have used the legal system as a bludgeon to make the cracking tools obscure enough to prevent casual piracy. The constant drumbeat of lawsuits and rhetoric is helping create the impression in the public that they can only do with their media what the publisher allows them to do. That stands copyright law on its head, but this is about money, not law. "This type of thinking will enable media companies to better monetize their core products by selling them multiple times — movies on DVD, then again on Blu-ray, then once more for PSP, maybe a fourth time for your iPod, and a couple bucks for the privilege of time-shifting."

In the next few years this will become far more obvious but it might be too late to do anything about it. One example: the media companies are currently implementing HDCP, a method of enforcing restrictions in the hardware between HD DVD players and televisions/monitors. If you buy a high definition TV that doesn't support HDCP, it's likely that you'll have to replace it in a couple of years if you want to watch HD DVDs. Honest. "Ed Felten, a computer science professor at Princeton, has analyzed the encryption and concluded that 'the bottom line is clear. In HDCP, 'security' technologies serve not to disable pirates but to enable lawsuits. When you buy an HDCP-enabled TV or player, you are paying for this—your device will cost more and do less.'"

Labels: DRM, video

posted by bruceb at 7/22/2006 01:10:00 AM | permalink

URGE MUSIC AND THE SMALL PRINT
The Urge music service, an iTunes competitor jointly sponsored by Microsoft and MTV, is supposed to be one of the major selling points of the new Windows Media Player 11. When I clicked on it the first time, the service asked permission to download some software. I declined - I don't plan to shop there and my unbending rule of thumb now is to be conservative about installing software.

I missed a 6800 word, 13 page license agreement - with some interesting details in the small print. A ZDNet columnist went though it carefully in this article and this followup article. It's a whole lot of control handed to people who may not have our best interests in mind.

When you install the software to support the music store, you agree to automatic updates of