Biometric Digital Rights Management? Have they gone too far? 1

[mattaw]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/04/biometric_drm/

In summary this is a digital music player that uses fingerprint verification to unlock its files.

Is this a step too far? Or another step too far?

What do people think?

Personally I think the music / film industry is too busy telling itself it is important and telling us what we want to hear and what we want to see rather than transferring films and music to us in ways we want for a fee.

Matthew

The Universe: God's novelty screensaver?

 

[chiph]

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do it. In this case, because you can secure a music file by a biometric value, doesn't mean that people will want to have their files secured in that way.

Chip H.


____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first

 

[mattaw]

I am more afraid of the idea that music will not be available any other way!

There is no compulsion in the Music / Film / TV industry to supply in any formats except for the wide availability of a playing platform, aka CDs.

Their attitudes are currently behind the fightening TCPA / Palladium ideas, the corruption of the Digital TV standard to allow customisations and now a proposal to limit the sale of high speed DAC / ADC chips to prevent a home / non licensed user accessing software radio.

Sometimes it seems like no matter which way you turn these days there is yet another restrictive practice.

Matthew

The Universe: God's novelty screensaver?

 

[flyboytim]

Music has been around for a long time. Whether as part of tribal get-togethers, religious ceremonies, working chants and shanties or as news spread by wandering minstrels, it is part of us. The church successfully controlled music for centuries in Europe, and "Labels" filled that position for the latter half of the 20th Century. Commercial music, as it exists in living memory, for the most part is ephemeral, trite, and the lifeblood product of the industry that has massively profited by it, rather than an expression of culture, art, or social comment in which music's roots lie. Music's value does not lie in distribution or medium, but in the intrinsic ability of music to affect the listener and those that participate in its expression. The 19th and 20th centuries have globalised some music as a powerful commercial force, but "The times they are a changing". I look forward to an evolution in music, its expression, and performance, that will continue to entertain and involve all people today and in the future, by whatever media it can popularise itself.
The ability to pay for music has only ever limited initial exposure, and if there is merit to any piece or performance, it will rapidly transcend and enter the public domain like any copyrighted material becomes popularised, by public demand. Limitations on exposure, biometric or otherwise, will only harm the potential for exposure. The artists will not necessarily enjoy the commercial benefits the distribution systems that the late 20th century brought, and the vast profits made by the music industry may never again be realised, but music will not be limited by profitability.

 

[mattaw]

Thankyou, I needed reminding of that. Every so often a cynic like me needs a prod to remember humanity does have some things going for it.

Matthew

The Universe: God's novelty screensaver?

 

[SemperFiDownUnda]

We can expect a lot more messures over the coming years. I fully expect that you'll see more and more Pay-per-use meathods coming out. Also look for water marks in digitial music that will allow tracing of pirated works back to the source. Even possibility of critical portions of tracks to be streamed allowing easy pay-per-use while making the works a bit more secure.

I do think the industry may shoot themselves in the foot if they are not careful. But they'll ease the changes in slowly. Gradual change that we'll all grumble about but not really effect their sales enough adversely to not do it.

Is it wrong for them? Hmmm well...its up to them and the musicians how they distribute and all. We can either say yes or no to buying the product. Have they gone to far? That is a decision you have to make for yourself and that decision is only valid for you. I don't buy CD's that can't be played on computer without "special software".



Hope I've been helpful,
Wayne Francis

If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first

 

[pmonett]

The counterpart to whatever lockdown strategy employed by RIAA et al. is filesharing, and the Internet itself.
I am not advocating piracy, far from it. However, filesharing is here to stay, whatever RIAA thinks of it.
More importantly, there is a growing number of artists, some with rather noticeable renown (in other words, not just wannabe beginners), that have turned to the Internet to host their own site and distribute their music using this nearly-ubiquitous distribution platform.

Therefor, I think it is important to realize that, whatever happens to DRM and whatever "commercial" players get put on the market, there will always be a second, or even third offering available.
Not everyone will agree to putting money down to hear a given piece of music only once, or only on a single support (media player). I tend to think that a lot of people will view music ownership as property (in the fair use sense), and will contrive - legally or not - to keep the music they like available on the media that suits them the most, regardless of what platform the RIAA and other such organisms deign to offer.

Besides the fact that I am convinced that once people are caught in the inevitable situation of not being able to hear music they have paid money for (it will happen, someday, somehow), there will be a heavy backlash against rights-holders to unlock the limitations and "give us our music back".
After all, there can only be so much tolerance in the public for accepting restrictions that did not exist during the record era. Even if todays teen probably do not know what a record looked like, we have all passed a good amount of time with CDs that were not "locked", "protected" or blessed with other enhancements which, in the end, have all prooved either useless (with a felt-tipped pen) or quickly rendered harmless (via using the SHIFT key).
And, in the end, if I download an illegal MP3 of a title I bought a CD of, is it still illegal ? Do you pay a license to HEAR the music, or do you pay a license to purchase a given MEDIA with the music on it ?

For me, this whole debate is rather rhetorical anyway. Like Mr. Francis, I do not buy (much less download) protected content. For me, the crap that we are served these days is not worthy of my listening time, not to mention my money.

Pascal.

 

[gbaughma]

You know, I had a funny thought the other day, and this seems like the perfect time to share it (since reading this thread reminded me of it).

The music / motion picture industry whines that they're losing money constantly... and yet every sales report they have, they say that sales are up. There is certainly something better about actually going to a theater, and watching a movie on the big screen with full THX than watching a downloaded camcorder version of it on your PC, in mono, that took you three days to download anyway.

Artists will continue to create music; with or without the RIAA. You can see this with the number of "private labels" and "small labels". Artist, generally, are getting fed up with the big boys (read: sony, Warner, BMI); Prince (or the artist formerly known as, or whatever) made his protest visible by writing "Slave" on his cheek during performance; that wasn't a hidden sexual message; he was protesting Warner Brothers.

Many artists have gone bankrupt with songs on the charts due to bad deals with big record companies.

So, meanwhile, back to my funny thought. I was humming a tune the other day to myself; and thinking "If the record companies keep this up, I won't be able to hum my tune in public without someone busting me for copyright!" ... which, of course, led to an even funnier thought....

... if things keep up the way that they are, you can go to the theater and see a movie, but the memory of it will be erased as you exit the theater..

... Just ranting.

--Greg

 

[jrbarnett]

Going back to the original subject of this thread, on the page that mattaw quotes there is a link to another story about a researcher has developed a way of overcoming fingerprint security 80% of the time using easily accessible cheap materials:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05/16/gummi_bears_defeat_fingerprint_sensors/

This is a 2 year old posting, however, so it may be that recognition and accuracy has improved in the intervening time period to render such methods inoperable, but on the other hand it may be just that the developer of this MP3 player has been wasting their time.

John

 

[CajunCenturion]

Have they gone too far? In a capitalistic society, the consumer will in time, answer that question.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Kjonnnn]

Why do we rationalize stealing music more than other commodities...

The markup on designer clothes is way higher than a CD, but if yet to hear people rationalize stealing from Proda because they already have enough money. One think the owners of Neiman Marcus were crazy if they didnt secure THEIR products. We rationalize because its easy. If Sears left a van full of products parked unlocked outside your home, and you took the contents, is that anyless stealing than shoplifting at the local store? I guess because its easy, its ok.

 

[CajunCenturion]

I don't it's quite that simple Kjonnnn. People think there is a difference between taking a physical object which therefore is no longer in the possession of the owner, and copying an intagible object, of which the owner still has their copy.

It is still stealing, but the rationalizing is that illegally downloading a file does not take the file away from its original owner, unlike the removal of a physical object. What is actually being stolen is the potential value that the owner can obtain from the file. Of course, the thief will then argue, "but I wasn't going to buy it, so the owner lost nothing." It is nothing but rationalizations that the theif uses to clear his/her own conscience.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Stella740pl]

As for comparison with other commodities...

Let's say I got myself a designer purse, and my daughter wants to borrow it to go to a party. All she needs to do is just ask - me, not the maker of the bag. She won't need my help every time she has to reach for her wallet, because if it has a key, I will supply it along with the bag. Fortunately, so far, I don't have to agree to some contract to use my bag as I wish.

Now, she got herself that new media player, and I want to borrow it, along with some music, to go on a weekend trip where she isn't going (notice, just borrow, not copy). Would I be able to use it without her physical presence (literally pressing buttons for me), do I need to ask permission from the company to use the thing/listen to music we already bought (to supply an additional set of fingerprints?), or we have to buy as many similar players/media carriers/designer purses as there are members of the family willing to use those commodities even once?

 

[lionelhill]

I'm just waiting for the first lawsuit from someone with no hands.

 

[mattaw]

It wouldn't matter so much if the companies come up with an unobtrusive method of funding themselves, that doesn't cost me money or time to sort out.

But I plan to break their stranglehold. I am attempting to source a saxaphone so I can play it. As long as they don't incorporate DRM into it (ie certain notes disappear as you appear to be breaching a songs copyright) I can then enjoy music for as long as I like, (until someone patents "Making a noise for personal amusement"... note in the case of certain males I know that would include wind).

Matthew

The Universe: God's novelty screensaver?

 

[drlex]

I am attempting to source a saxaphone

Just make sure you don't get one of those new ones with fingerprint readers on the keys....

Seriously, I'm with Cajun on this - if people don't like it, then it will fail, with or without the use of confectionery.


soi la, soi carre

 

[skiflyer]

Cajun

First, let me state that I agree with you in principle. It's thievery plain and simple.

Second, let me point out another one of the reasons/rationalizations which I think is quite prevalent.

Before the advent of ITunes, the major labels refused to meet anyone half way on this. And then, they went backwards. People want music on their computers/portable MP3 players. Fine, great... but you couldn't get it anywhere except for ripping it yourself... in the beginning this was not a process for the faint of heart, much easier to download it off of napster than to roll your own.

Then, they started making CD's such that you couldn't roll your own (few, but some still use this crap)... hence for those CDs it was legally impossible (except for those of us with a few skills) to convert their music to another completely legal format.

Then came ITunes, and they blew their chances by adding scary DRM and using a format different than the one most of us like. (I say scary DRM, not because I think ITunes uses bad DRM policies, but because I think if I'm shelling out a buck a song, I don't want to worry that something somehow somewhere might happen such that I can no longer listen to that file... and (again) unless I'm tech savy I probably don't really understand all of the details of the DRm employed).

So, here I am, with my 40 gig iRiver player... and I cannot legally aquire the music without buying the CD, and then I run the risk of getting one of those protected CDs. And even then, we're talking major time commitment for most folks to rip those.

They need a good, simple, affordable approach to distributing MP3's (not apple music or windows media player or any of that) and I honestly believe more people will comply.

In the meantime, it's theft to go steal the music, if you want to rebel against the problems above the answer is to write lots of letters and boycot, not to steal.

 

[KornGeek]

Once upon a time it was considered acceptable to borrow a friend's record/tape/CD and copy songs that you liked to a tape. The quality wasn't as good as if you bought an original, but this was still a common practice.

Now, copies can maintain all of the quality of the original. Is it illegal/unethical to borrow a CD and rip it to mp3 for your mp3 player? Was it illegal/unethical when we were doing this with audio tapes? Is there a substantial difference between the two?

 

[CajunCenturion]

Is it illegal/unethical to borrow a CD and rip it to mp3 for your mp3 player? Was it illegal/unethical when we were doing this with audio tapes? Is there a substantial difference between the two?

Yes, Yes, and No.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[mattaw]

I agree with the post about the iRiver, I own one and I cannot access content as I wish for the player.

Morover I feel that we should not steal, I have been taken for a ride with the russian allofmp3.com website that I thought was genuine but turns out to be a complete fake. But a very well made and organised one.

I can get the music I want in the format I want and bitrate I want. How come it takes a pirate site to provide this? They are so good at it!

Matthew

The Universe: God's novelty screensaver?