I think Representative Rick Boucher needs to update his bill...

Not sure if every has read it, but the Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act contains the following:

2) Ensures Proper Labeling of “Copy-Protected Compact Discs”
Major record companies have begun adding technology to CDs that would block people from making copies. In many cases the technology has also prevented playback on computers, DVD players, or even some standard CD players. It has become apparent that even the limited introduction of these discs into the United States market has caused consumer confusion and increased burdens on retailers and manufacturers. Consumers are accustomed to the functionality of industry standard Compact Discs and should be aware of any reduced playability or recording functionality of non-standard “copy-protected compact discs” before they make the decision to purchase such items. For that reason, the bill directs the Federal Trade Commission to ensure that adequate labeling occurs for the benefit of consumers.

I think this paragraph, in light of the XCP confusion, needs to be altered. It's more than copy protection. Back in the "old days", copy protection was stuff like laser-holes, where the media was damaged to prevent the media from being copied.
This has now taken an all new meaning. Copy protection is now very intrusive, because the laser hole wasn't an application constantly running on your machine.

It can't be anarchy, but it can't be a dictature either...

This is something which I believe is really important...

While companies like Sony can sell CDs that contain code like XCP and can protect themselves with tough EULAs, is that really beneficial? Not only was there this huge backlash against Sony, but on top of that EULAs like the one that was shipped with those CDs clearly skew the balance on one side. Yes it might be legal, but what is the point? Is Sony writing such a EULA to start suing people that don't destroy the songs after they get their house robbed? Do they really need to write that in there?

I am not sure how effective prohibition is... Maybe it would be better to design EULAs and technologies around what is really effective, and not around what you can necessarily "pull". I am sure they already do these calculations, I wished they would publish them so that we can see what were their projections with XCP: How many more legal copies would be sold, what would be the "original" cost of technical support, etc.

It's not too late to find a good compromise between what technology and law.

Don't wait too long for that lawsuit...

I recently wrote about a theoretical lawsuit that would feature Microsoft on one end and Sony on the other. That won't happen any time soon.

From a recent Wired article:

You might expect Microsoft to be the first company to condemn this rootkit. After all, XCP corrupts Windows' internals in a pretty nasty way. It's the sort of behavior that could easily lead to system crashes -- crashes that customers would blame on Microsoft. But it wasn't until Nov. 13, when public pressure was just too great to ignore, that Microsoft announced it would update its security tools to detect and remove the cloaking portion of the rootkit.

If Microsoft isn't all over Sony, it's really a bad sign. I would be amazed if these issues resorb themselves without a third-party intervention (read: a federal law).

Is this really going to work?

I wonder how far this lawsuit will go...

Having worked in large (software) companies, I am always sensitive about these kind of class action lawsuits. It never seems like any settlement is ever really good for the plaintiff. For example, the latest Netflix settlement is good, but not quite good. In my case, they would offer me a free month of service since I cancelled a long time ago. But, anybody can get a 2 week trial, so we would be talking of 2 extra weeks here, not 4.

And the risk? If you don't cancel at the end of the 4 weeks, you now have to pay for the service. How different is this from the "free for 6 months!" magazine offers? Or the "free credit report"?

Anyways, to go back to the "rootkit" lawsuit, I wonder if the outcome will just be more money for the lawyers suing or if it will be a real change in the approach media companies take to protect their content. There has to be a better solution than a "rootkit", right?

Was I proved wrong or was it premonition?

This is so surprinsing:

Sony BMG's controversial DRM code controversy may have now spread to Macs.

According to long-running Mac user website MacInTouch, at least one CD distributed by the major label includes a Mac OS X application that purportedly installs a pair of extensions to the operating system's microkernel.

At least they are being fair... Now, where is the Linux low-level DRM code?

Maybe Microsoft should sue?

It seems like Microsoft was having problems with Sony over the new DVD standard, but now they have even more reasons to not be happy.

Not only does Microsoft have to deal with all the negative publicity generated by the constant flow of viruses, worms, malware and spyware, they now have to deal with negative publicity generated by the DRM Sony distributes.

And who gets protection for free?

If you have one of these CDs, and you have a Windows PC (Macs are totally immune, as usual), you may have caught the XCP bug.

The argument on why most viruses target the Windows platform is always on the topic on 'Most marketshare vs. less secure', it seems this extends to DRM as well.

Maybe what we need are basic rights?

So after all the Sony DRM / Rootkit snafu, maybe it's time to create a law that protects specific rights a consumer should have.

If I can choose the first item on that list, I believe it should be:

• Any program that alters the state of a machine and that isn't an operating system should contain either an uninstallation program or should document all the changes it applies to your system

This would at least give a little bit of transparency to the installation process. I don't think this would be too complicated because if you are installating it, you should be able to at the very least document it.

I really have to go back...

I really have to go back and find the court cases that used the analog hole argument as a reason why it is ok to have limitations on their digital counterparts.

If this passes, I wonder if those cases can be argued once more...

Such an analog hole allows a consumer, for example, to tape a televised baseball game on his VCR, even if Major League Baseball expressly forbids him doing so. Under the new legislation, such rights would be enforced through technology.

This confuses me... I thought it was ok to tape the baseball game for timeshifting purposes? Did I miss something here?

8$ a DRM movie?

I've never really seen CD for 99 cents a piece, but I have clearly seen tons of Hollywood movies for 5.50$ at Walmart. Hence, 8$ seems to be an expensive price for something that won't be as good as a DVD.

Plus, the itunes file comes with a bit more portability than a DVD movie through the internet would. Add the DRM angle and the portability is even more limited. For example, you can move the itunes file to your ipod, but could you burn the DVD that you just downloaded to a DVD so you can watch it in your living room or at your friend's house?

Costly DRM?

So first they pay to write it, then they pay to remove it...

Why? Because these things come at a cost... They have to pay developers to write the install and uninstall code...

Does this mean you have to be an administrator to "install" a protected cd on your machine? This would clearly go against better safety practices, where it's recommended someone runs his machine using an account with limited rights.