[plug] [ot] Another copy protection scheme bites the dust

[The Thought Assassin]

On Wed, 22 May 2002, Tim Bowden wrote:
> So has anyone come up with a digital info copyright protection scheme that
> has lasted?  Is it all a futile effort?

Completely futile. At some stage, the data has to be converted back into a
useful form. At that point, it can be copied. Copy protection schemes try
to push the point of decoding as far along the chain as possible, keeping
the data useless as long as possible. An audio CD becomes useful
information the moment it's reflection is picked up by your CD player.
That's incredibly convenient for you: you can make your CD player, (or
your amp) play whatever tricks you desire with the signal. (be it volume
control, graphic equalisation, stereo/surround processing, mixing, or
encoding into your format of choice - CD, MP3, cassette...) The copy
protection-racketeer's dream is for your signal to travel encoded and
useless all the way to your speakers, which will decode the signal as it
is played. Makes it hard for you to copy the signal, but it also makes it
hard for you to do any of the other things I listed. The upshot is that
you will not buy such a system as long as you have any choice in the
matter.

Imagine, however, that you did have such a system (say that your favourite
data was only available in this format) and still wanted to copy data.
All you would have to do is make a perfect copy of the original encrypted
volume. So the copy protection system has failed to prevent copying at
all. It has, however, managed to prevent a whole bunch of examples of fair
use like the ones I mentioned above.

So, the organised pirates with expensive equipment win because we can no
longer do our own copying, giving them a monopoly. The consumer loses
because we lose our fair-use rights. We therefore buy less content, and
the content-producers suffer, while gaining nothing, because they've
failed to stop organised piracy.

Wait a minute, you're thinking... why do the content producers publish in
these formats if they lose and only the pirates win?

Answer: The content-producers don't decide the formats, that's generally
up to the hardware/media/player manufacturers. Imagine you're a hardware
manufacturer with monopolistic tendencies. What if you could sell your
customers on the benefits of a secret media format, then use that secrecy
as a reason to stop other hardware manufacturers from competing with you
by selling compatible hardware? Now you have a monopoly on your product,
and can even charge would-be competitors exhorbitant license fees and
swear them to secrecy as well. Perhaps you can even buy some legislation
(DMCA anyone?) so that even people who find out the secret are legally
barred from using or even publishing it?

Sounds great, but how do you rope the content-producers in? First and
foremost, you're a big hardware company and have a big say in what the
next generation of media format will be - if the content-producers want a
new format with enhanced capacity/functionality, they'll have to dance to
your tune. (if you have rivals of similar strength, it's time for a
cartel) Next you realise that you only really need to very biggest
content-sellers in order to dominate the content industry and force
_everyone_ down your road. What can you offer them? Just like you locked
out hardware competition on the grounds of secrecy, you can lock their
smaller competitors out with huge license fees and secrecy agreements.
Thirdly, you play on the government, media and society's perception that
copyright protection will prevent piracy and thus increase creative output
- never mind the facts, they're irrelevant here - so that you will be
painted as having the moral high-ground against anyone dares to suggest
that your plans will hurt consumers and artists.

This is why copy protection schemes are futile, but copy protection
rackets are highly lucrative. Anyone feeling enlightened? Bored? :)
Hopefully I've made you all think a bit.

> Is providing fair value for money and relying on honor the only way for
> big (or small) corporations to protect their interests?

Fairness is never in your interest when you have the power to make the
unfairness favour you. Remember that the entire content/media industry
makes its money by abusing "intellectual property" laws that were written
back when copying was a very difficult and expensive thing to do, and as
such needed regulation to prevent the rich from preying on the poor - in
these days when copying is cheap and easy, the laws have broken down to
the point where they are preventing the rich from competition.

Technology has changed, and "IP" law is no longer relevant or useful to
our society. The rational amongst us would see this as a reason to change
or repeal the law. The profiteering amongst us are trying to eliminate our
access to technology to fit the assumptions of the law.

Futile, yes, but damned profitable.

-Greg