[Free-sklyarov-uk] WATCHDOG etc - Long message

[David Haworth]

--0F1p//8PRICkK4MW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 12:38:20PM -0000, Darren Grant wrote:

> I have been giving some thought to the idea of copy protection.

=2E.. and I've got a few comments of my own to add:

> Everyone likes to get something for free
> and music is no exception. The justification for copying is usually things
> like..
>=20
> "It's just one copy for my brother, it won't hurt"
> "They make plenty of money they won't miss 1 CD"
> "CD's are expensive the publishers make gross amounts of money"
> "I wouldn't buy the CD anyway"

I'd add to this list:
"The publishers charge me obscene amounts of money for a cheaply-
produced copy, so I feel justified in making a couple of extra copies"

> It is important to ignore the fact that the publishers and artists someti=
mes
> make gross amounts of money on popular music as that is an argument that =
is
> all too easy to get into when discussing the issue of the publishers poor
> attempts to protect CD's. Publishers do have the right to expect to get p=
aid
> for material they publish.

Ah yes, the poor publisher argument. When cassettes appeared on
the market, they cost more than LP records, despite the lower quality
and lack of detailed cover notes. The argument for this was that
cassettes cost more to produce than LPs. When CDs appeared, they=20
cost more than LPs and cassettes, despite the reduced production
costs. So where does that extra money go?
The same thing isa happening with movies. Video tapes are very
costly to produce, whereas DVDs in bulk are relatively cheap. But
despite that, DVDs are twice the price of video tapes.

> The problem is that publishers are going about this all the wrong way
> preventing legitimate use of music.

Right. It won't actually stop people from copying, it will just
annoy them and further reduce their inclination to buy the product.
I'm now looking very closely at evey CD I buy, and I refuse point
blank to buy a DVD player (apart from the one in my PC) or in fact
any DVD movies, until this so-called copy protection and region
coding nonsense is consigned to history. The publishers are just
pissing off their loyal customers (if indeed there are any left
at this stage), without seriously deterring those who would
seriously infringe copyright. After all, if stealing from the
jewellers window is illegal, it matters little to the thief whether
he breaks it with a brick or drives a stolen car into it.

> As consumers we can't just stand by and do nothing
That's exactly what you should do. Nothing. Don't buy anything that's
corrupted or locked in any way. If we all did that, the publishers
would soon get the message.

> Publishers need to take some risks [...]

Reducing the price of their shoddy goods might be a good start.

> The increased quality and
> features offered by DVD have made it the fastest selling consumer
> electronics device  the world and yet has introduced security measures.

I'll wager thet most "consumers" don't even know which of their DVDs
are scrambled. Many probably aren't even aware that scrambling exists,
and won't become aware until DVD writers appear on the market. Then
they'll start asking "Why can't I make a clip of this DVD for my
class project", or "why can't I make a selection of my favourite
tracks from my DVD-audio collection". Or even worse, "Why can't I
make a copy of my holiday video?"

> This is the way to introduce copy protection a new
> system that offers something extra to the consumer not just taking things
> away.

Sorry, they _are_ just taking away, because all the "extras" mean a
a higher price can be "justified", and yet they take away fair use
(or fair dealing, depending which side of the pond you're on)
without compensation.
What's more, there's a fundamental flaw in every single one of these
so-called "copy protection" scams, and that is this: the consumer
must have the ability to unscramble the "content" in order to
use it. Unless that unscrambling process takes place inside a
sealed tamper-proof black box, it is open to observation, reverse
engineering and other so-called rubber-hose cryptanalysis. So no
matter how strong the encryption used for scrambling, it's only
a matter of time before the cat is out of the bag. As we've already
seen with DVDs, that time won't be particularly long. Furthermore,
the weakness of the DVD encryption scheme was only discovered after
the algorithm and a few player keys had been reverse engineered from
a DVD player.

Phew, that turned out longer than I intended. Sorry about the rant,
but I feel very strongly about this so-called "copy protection",
whether it be designed-in or hacked-on as an afterthought, because
its a very sneaky attempt by the publishers to eliminate non-infringing
copying and to extend indefinitely the duration of copyright.
Do you know what year Disney made Snow White? 1937. Do you know
when that movie's copyright first expired in the UK? 1987.
Do you know when it was released on video in the UK? 1995,
if my memory serves me right. Do you know when the duration of
copyright for movies was extended from 50 years (1988 CD&PA) to
"life + 50"? 1995. Coincidence? I think not. But the publishers
now realise that they can't get away with this trick any longer -
the world has spotted the sleight of hand. Nevertheless, expect
an attempt from the record industry soon, as the copyright on
the recordings of the early rock'n'rollers, especially Presley,
approach their expiry dates.

Dave


--=20
David Haworth                                            dave at fen-net.de
Baiersdorf, Germany.                     http://home.graffiti.net/pogue/

--0F1p//8PRICkK4MW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8I6J+HM6a+0rWdYoRAnF9AKDYJrJ1MZnp1VvmH/SIfNgKg/W+FwCdF/8u
L7gpkuGvwVUekXuLBVZvwIE=
=3QLH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--0F1p//8PRICkK4MW--