[kfr01]

FWI:  The Register has also been covering this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/01/sony_rootkit_drm/

and Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174334,00.html

and the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4400148.stm

[ooheadsoo]

Just got this link off of head-fi: http://cp.sonybmg.com/xcp/english/updates.html

I wonder where they got the link from, because none of my emails and inquiries ever got a response.

[ScottMayo]

Just got this link off of head-fi: http://cp.sonybmg.com/xcp/english/updates.html

I wonder where they got the link from, because none of my emails and inquiries ever got a response.

As I read that, it removes the cloaking - not the copy protection itself. As for getting a response to email, forget it. Sony isn't going to open itself up to conversations on this topic.

[kfr01]

Yes, even with that update the technology is not removed.  All the update does is unhide it.  

Sony still hasn't provided a full removal tool.  I hope this crappy trick of releasing such a "patch" doesn't make this serious issue blow over.

They need to STOP -AND- release a full removal tool.

[jakepunk]

Exact Audio Copy has an option to disable autoplay when a disc is inserted.  In theory, that feature should allow you to rip a disc without the DRM goop being installed on your machine.

[Scott F.]

I read that Sony has moved over 2m copies with this malware on it. Has anybody seen the list of which CDs are affected?

I don't remember buying and Sony CDs recently but it sure would be nice to see a list so I know which ones to avoid. Since I'm getting ready to rip a bunch of CDs to my hard drive when the SB3 arrives, I'm more than a little leary.

That begs the next question, how do we know if Sony is the only company using this protection scheme? Crap like this makes me wonder what the other companies are up to.

[ScottMayo]

That begs the next question, how do we know if Sony is the only company using this protection scheme? Crap like this makes me wonder what the other companies are up to.

We trust the large and distributed hacking community, who are very, very good at detecting software tricks applied to their machines, and talking about it. If it happens, it'll be on EFF in a day and on CNN in a month.

That said, this whole game has exactly two possible outcomes:

1) The music industry eventually forces everyone to buy encrypted music files, which can only be decrypted by chips they design and liscence, and which only put out analog music signals. You will rent, not buy, the key to decrypt and listen to the music. It will be illegal to store the music in any form but the encrypted one. You will never legally own music again, unless you perform it yourself. Yes, that's all technically feasible.

2) The music industry collapses, and bands become their own publishing companies, relying on loyal fans to buy music and tickets to keep the band afloat. This is really bad; the only thing that will survive is pop and classical music, because there aren't enough loyal fans to support anything else. What diversity we have today is because record companies gamble of lots of new bands, trusting that a few of them will make it big and bring in the megadollars. With no big companies willing to take expensive gambles, most new sounds will sink without a trace before it gets enough of a following to support it.

I can't wait to see which happens, can you?

[Rob Babcock]

I think there's lots more options than those two, Scott.

[ScottMayo]

I think there's lots more options than those two, Scott.

Well, I'd like to be wrong. But record execs are often from my generation, and they remember LPs and cassettes. Nice analog forms that didn't copy well. In those days when you bought music, copying was not much of a serious option; in fact you often ended up buying your favorites more than once, because they wore out. You were in effect renting. It was good to be the record company.

They aren't going to be happy until they get back to those glorious halcyon days. I hope they go out of business trying, but I'm not optimisitic. Businesses have a way of getting the law on their side.

[lonewolfny42]

I think there's lots more options than those two, Scott.

Sure is...start buying Lp's again..."perfect sound forever".

[kfr01]

Scott:  I don't think option number two will ever happen in a free market.  There will always be an industry to supply music to meet demand if there's money to be made.  The companies in charge may eb and flow, but the industry will not disappear.  The dollars spent per band may also eb and flow, but the industry will remain and we will continue to have access to music primarily from commercial entities.

Unfortunately, I think option number 1, substantially centralized control of media, is a real possibility.  Consumers either want "on demand" access to media or subscription based access to the latest media.  Either business model is desirable for commercial entities.  They can reap premiums for the on-demand service because of the instant gratification and ease-of-purchase.  With a subscription service they create a secure recurring income stream for themselves.  For a yearly subscription they are guaranteed 12 payments up front.  This is highly desirable compared to the situation where you may or may not buy a CD in any given month.

Both "on demand" and subscription-based digital infrastructures place the location and control of the media squarely in the hands of the companies selling the product.  You will no longer be purchasing a tangible piece of property.  You'll be contracting for limited viewing/listening rights of a copyright via a service.

There still may be room for physical media in such a world, unencumbered by EULA; it may just eventually carry a large premium once the norm has changed away from physical media.  Rob is right, there are many other options.  However, I do think #1 is the most likely.

:/

Anyway, to bring this back on topic:  Boycott Sony because of this - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051101-5514.html

[JohnR]

The music industry collapses, and bands become their own publishing companies, relying on loyal fans to buy music and tickets to keep the band afloat. This is really bad; the only thing that will survive is pop and classical music, because there aren't enough loyal fans to support anything else.

I've been looking into publishing (a book) recently, and there seems to be some changes afoot that could well translate into music. If you write a book now, you can have it listed with a "print-on-demand" printer. What these guys will do is print and bind a copy of your book every time someone orders one. They will get your book listed on Amazon, or you can just have them sell it off their own website (eg www.lulu.com). The author retains all rights to the book, and is responsible for all marketing (think Internet discussion forums... ) As long as you think that your book is likely to be sold online anyway and not in B&M stores, the quality is "almost" as high as printing 10k copies via an offset printer, the selling cost is (can be) lower, and the royalties are higher.

With music, why can't the same thing happen? Someone sets up a business whereby bands upload their content and PDF files for the CD jacket etc. (A new industry springs up around designing them.) When someone orders one, they burn a CD, print the cover, put them together and ship it. "Someone" could be Amazon, or someone on their own website -- it doesn't matter.

For all I know, it's possible now. The "traditional" model of distribution will change, but I don't think that means just electronic downloads.

[ScottMayo]

I've been looking into publishing (a book) recently, and there seems to be some changes afoot that could well translate into music. If you write a book now, you can have it listed with a "print-on-demand" printer. What these guys will do is print and bind a copy of your book every time someone orders one.

This is a (nicer) variation on the Vanity Press. It's an old idea - if you want to print, but the publishers won't take your book on, you can pay to have it done instead. With tech updates, it sounds like what you pay has more or less vanished. Good deal.

The problem is going to be the same, though - unless your book gets pushed by publishers and shows up in brick and mortar stores, with some sort of advertising, it's going to be Just Another Lost Book. There are a lot of books on Amazon - why will anyone look at yours? Marketing a book is even harder than writing one.

This isn't to say it can't work. But the challanges look like something that has to be thought out carefully, by someone savvy.

Music's going to face the same issue. I don't like record labels, but they *do* get their stuff on the air and on the shelves, and that's how it gets bought. Most bands that strike out on their own, dissapear without a trace - "starving artist" is a cliche, but it's reality. The challange is going to be how to get music visible, distributed and sold without re-inventing record companies and their ownership issues.

I don't see an easy answer anywhere. We know it's trivial to give away music, and most bands do that now, whether they want to be or not. (My daughter's friends don't pay for music and they have no idea why anyone ever did. Music's free.) We know it's trivial to allow a oligarchy to run music and screw people with high profit margins. We don't know if there's a viable happy medium. I'd like there to be one - I like this trend of buying a song for under a dollar. But the execs are stepping up control attempts, and the pricing will go up as soon as the music is locked down.

The next few decades will be interesting.

[JohnR]

The challange is going to be how to get music visible, distributed and sold without re-inventing record companies and their ownership issues.

It's called "the Web" The whole point is that you *don't* have to have books or CDs in B&M stores for them to be sold. What you will get is a much bigger choice, and the challenge for the "end user" is to figure out what's of value to them and what's not. But this is how the web is, and Google (search), Amazon (recommendations), etc, are what you use to make sense of the much broader choice. You still buys books/CDs, you just get access to loads of them that you wouldn't if the market remained strangled by the major publishers/record labels. It's not at all a variation on vanity publishing, except for the fact that it's different to mainstream publishing.

I don't see how the oligarchy (whatever that is) can control what they don't own...

[kfr01]

It's called "the Web" The whole point is that you *don't* have to have books or CDs in B&M stores for them to be sold. What you will get is a much bigger choice, and the challenge for the "end user" is to figure out what's of value to them and what's not. But this is how the web is, and Google (search), Amazon (recommendations), etc, are what you use to make sense of the much broader choice. You still buys books/CDs, you just get access to loads of them that you wouldn't if the market remained strangled  ...

John:  The oligarchy can control what they don't own because the musicians are rational economic actors too.  They want to sell their products.  They want their music to be heard over the airwaves, over cable television, over satelite radio, over iTunes, promoted for concerts, etc.  The problem is compounded because most of these outlets want to contract with one or two companies; not hundreds of artists.  These facts give both the artists and the distribution channels incentive to support the big record (better called marketing and licensing) companies.  In exchange for this support the record companies bind the artists to contract terms that prohibit them from releasing their music through their own distribution methods.  This is the problem.  Artists have incentive to contract with Sony/BMG.  These contracts restrict the artists from using the web like you want.

No, you don't have to have books or CD's in B&M stores anymore.  However, in a day of multitides of distribution channels and media distribution conglomerates, the incentive is stronger than ever for rational artists (the ones that want to make money) to contract with Sony/BMG.

I agree.  The concept of "the web" solving all the problems sounds nice.  I'm sure it will happen for some group of artists.  The majority will continue to contract with the media conglomerates.

[DeadFish]

Hell and damn and more of those sort of things I shouldn't type here!

I've had flu all week but followed this thread since it broke the news, and finally felt good enough to get out.  Heard new Santana on Letterman last nite and I thought it was a really hot performance, so off to Best Buy, ranting at anyone who would listen to watch out for Sony.

M*-F*ing Arista is under Sony umbrella.  Still too bleery to read the back of cd until my computer lit up with installation software.

OMG!

Well, it ought to play all right on the hifi.  
DF don't always stand for DeadFish for me!

It'll be interesting to see how all this plays out and evolves.

Hang in there folks.  We may not be able to stop a war right now, but  I figure we can at least piss on Sony's shoes....

grumble, grumble....

Regards,
D...F...

[ctviggen]

I think the industry is going to have more small players.  For instance, Big Head Todd and the Monsters are now on their own label.  They said they make more money now (selling 500k copies of a CD) than they did on a big label (selling 2 million copies).

[JohnR]

No, you don't have to have books or CD's in B&M stores anymore. However, in a day of multitides of distribution channels and media distribution conglomerates, the incentive is stronger than ever for rational artists (the ones that want to make money) to contract with Sony/BMG.

Just to clarify, print-on-demand books *are* available through major distribution channels. You can buy POD books on Amazon. I don't see why the same thing can't happen with CDs... But yes, what you don't get with POD is *marketing*. So I guess it depends on how many copies you think you can sell

[JohnR]

I think the industry is going to have more small players.  For instance, Big Head Todd and the Monsters are now on their own label.  They said they make more money now (selling 500k copies of a CD) than they did on a big label (selling 2 million copies).

Cool

[JohnR]

What I am talking about, lulu already does POD CDs:

http://music.lulu.com/browse/

I am sure there are others.