Legally stripping DRM from content
p2pnet news view | DRM:- Washington lawyer Steven Metalitz, the man who works for the Korporate Kopyright Kartells’ MPAA, RIAA and other “rightsholders” at the US Copyright Office, “strongly opposes any exemption that would allow users to legally strip DRM from content if a store goes dark and takes down its authentication servers,” says Ars Technica.
“We reject the view,” the story quotes him as saying in a letter to the office, “that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works. No other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards. No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so.”
Like so many of the things to do with the entertainment industry, it’s a complete waste of time and money for everyone involved — except the lawyers, of course — because consumer control through Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) is a dead horse.
“But the entertainment and software cartels keep on beating it,” p2pnet posted almost exactly a year back, going on, “Anything which can be seen or heard can be copied by one means or another.
“Full stop.”
However, “DRM is still alive and well on streaming music and most video streams and downloads,” says the Ars story. “Metalitz doesn’t want his clients to face a situation where decryption tools can be produced under the proposed exemption, then widely distributed. How could such decryption tools be limited to those who have actually suffered from authentication servers going dark, he wonders?
“But the Copyright Office indicated that it may grant the exemption, asking Metalitz and other respondents to “assume that” the case has been made. Metalitz declined to assume this, writing that ‘we cannot accept this invitation to assume that the Register [of Copyright] will recommend that the Librarian [of Congress] violate his statutory duty by recognizing Exemption 10B’.”
‘MP3s dusted with a dash of obfuscation’
The p2pnet story cited above centres on thoughts from the EFF’s (Flectronic Frontier Foundation) Fred von Lohmann on the music end of things.
Two leading on-demand streaming sites, iMeem and LaLa, aren’t using DRM on their audio streams, “instead sending the music as MP3s dusted with a dash of obfuscation,” says Fred, continuing »»»
This is significant because both sites have been licensed by all the major record labels — the very same record labels that were just last year pushing Congress to require DRM on all noninteractive webcasts. So it looks like the RIAA companies have changed their minds, dropping DRM requirements for the on-demand streaming music services.
This should put an end to legislation to mandate DRM on noninteractive webcasters. After all, why should these webcasters be in a worse position than the free, on-demand music services like LaLa and iMeem?
This also undermines the argument that DRM for music is necessary for subscription services. If the major labels have given up DRM for free, ad-supported, on-demand streaming services like LaLa and iMeem, there’s no plausible reason to insist on DRM for paid subscription services like Rhapsody and Napster 2.0. After all, there’s no reason to think that those who prefer commercial-free subscriptions like Rhapsody are more likely to “pirate” streams than those who prefer ad-supported services like LaLa.
LaLa and iMeem each take slightly different approaches to streaming music. LaLa uses HTTP to download each requested song as an MP3 to your browser, but relies on aggressive “no-cache” headers and pre-expired date stamps to suggest that your browser not make a copy of the file on your hard drive. Using a packet sniffer to capture the entire HTTP session, however, easily reveals the complete MP3 embedded right after the HTTP headers.
iMeem also downloads and caches each requested song, but sends the MP3 as the audio track of a Flash Video file. This FLV file is typically saved (cached) on your hard drive as an obscurely named temporary file, which is overwritten when you request your next song (we mentioned iMeem’s approach back in January, and it’s essentially unchanged). Copy this temp file, however, and you can easily extract the audio track from the Flash video, saving it as a stand-alone MP3 file.
(The location of this TemporaryItems folder, and its equivalent on other operating systems, varies significantly depending on operating system and version. On some operating systems it’s buried deep within the directory hierarchy, but it can be found automatically with standard tools.)
While the light obfuscation used by iMeem and LaLa might create a “speed bump” of inconvenience for users who want to keep the MP3 files, it doesn’t rise to the level of a “technical protection measure” protected by the DMCA. In short, this is yet another example of why there is no legitimate business case for DRM on music — it doesn’t prevent piracy and it’s not necessary to enable “new business models” like subscription or ad-supported music. (Of course, as the movie industry has demonstrated, DRM can still be valuable for impeding competition and putting the brakes on disruptive innovation. But it’s hard to see how the law should protect those goals.)
Stay tuned.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Ars Technica – Big Content: ludicrous to expect DRMed music to work forever, July 29, 2009
p2pnet – DRM for streaming: d-e-a-d dead, August 18, 2008
EFF – DRM for Streaming Music Dies a Quiet Death, August 15, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
July 31st, 2009 at 4:29 pm
“No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so.”
A- Standar indistry strwman argument where physical object are compared to non physical objects as if they are equal.
B- No one would buy electronics that stops working whenever the manufacturer wanted it to. Oh wait that;s built into Blueray isn’t it. Guess that’s why I don’t have one.
July 31st, 2009 at 9:12 pm
“We reject the view,” the story quotes him as saying in a letter to the office, “that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works. No other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards. No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so.”
WTF kind of retarded logic is this? If i buy a CD and keep it in pristeen condition, then I expect it to give me perpetual access to the music that is on it. (music which i OWN, btw). Now, as RW says, comparing a physical object
ie: my CD, to digital music is an end run at best, cant compare the old apples to oranges. Of course, if you waste your money “renting” your music from these MAFIAASS clowns, well, i guess you get WHO you pay for!
stw
August 1st, 2009 at 4:52 pm
“What kind of retarded logic is that?”
Simple: a complete and utter failure to understand the difference between digital and analog.
Or between “content” and the physical medium used to deliver such content. (Ironic as fuck, since their whole “you may own the disc, but not what’s ON it” excuse for copy”right” DEPENDS on such a distinction).
Corporate bullshit pisses me off.
August 2nd, 2009 at 3:01 am
There you have it in a nutshell as to why everybody hates you, entertainment industry! It is your completely uncaring, unsympathetic, arrogantly flagrant disregard for your customers, seeing them as nothing more than cash cows instead of living breathing people, which drives all of us to do what we do and HATE YOU WITH A PASSION. So long as this is the horrendously bad attitude you insist on showing to the entire world, we will all keep on doing what we feel is right and just no matter how many draconian laws you manage to have passed. For some that may mean breaking DRM. For others, downloading from file sharing networks. In my case I choose to avoid DRM altogether and treat it as if it were the bubonic plague itself. You despise pirates yet fail to realize that it is you who are creating them! I’ve said it before and will say it again. Treat the consumer with respect, ditch the DRM and make your entire library available in a choice of quality formats at a REASONABLE price, and we will all become loyal customers for as long as we live. All you have to do is look at the raving success that AllofMP3 was before it was killed off to see I speak nothing but the absolute truth. Your continued existence as a business on this planet is a privilege, one which can be taken away at any time and definitely will be if you insist on acting like an petulant two year old throwing a fit whenever they don’t get their way. The clock is ticking. Please smarten up before it is too late.
August 2nd, 2009 at 10:34 am
“No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so.”
1) but you can still replace your old record player but not your broken drm music
2) nice to see them basically admit they are intentionally realeasing a product they purposley intend to break in the future
August 2nd, 2009 at 8:47 pm
“2) nice to see them basically admit they are intentionally realeasing a product they purposley intend to break in the future”
Well, digital audio doesn’t have the “advantage” of them being able to re-release stuff every time a new format comes along:
Admit it: how many of you bought the CD of something you already had on tape?
Remember: every time you fail to buy the “remastered” version, they “lose a sale” — even though they’re just “re-releasing” something they’ve been milking for decades already.
Scumbags.
August 8th, 2009 at 8:05 am
“Admit it: how many of you bought the CD of something you already had on tape?”
It’s strange how analog recordings sound fine when played via analog means, but as soon as it enters the digital realm all bets are off.
I once gave a go at transferring my cassettes to the computer. No matter how much effort I put into the process, such as hiss removal for example, the end result still always ended being horrid. In the end it was easier to simply find lossess CD rips and download those.
I refuse to pay a second time for any album I’ve already paid once for, especially in light of high prices and an ongoing boycott.