Comments on: Smarter anti-piracy?

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:04:09 +0000

I don’t know if this is the case with the tracks that you’re talking about, but stereo imaging is one of the things that inferior quality compression can muck about with. It seems an odd way of sabotaging the recording if that’s what they were about doing – plenty of people would probably play it totally happily and not even notice that anything was wrong. Better put in random clicks and pops or gaps or whatever, something that’s really going to annoy the pirates, if you’re wanting to make a point about downloading.

By: Grumpy

Grumpy — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 04:58:51 +0000

I think that would be a very clever anti-piracy measure, combining the promotional virtues of mass file-sharing with a strong sonic incentive to get the real thing.

I think that’s an extraordinarily bad idea, particularly from the artists’ perspective. As an artist, you want people to hear your work. It would also be nice if they enjoyed your work.

Releasing a munged track is just going to turn off potential fans. If a potential fan hears the track, they are going to assume that’s how the song sounds. If it sounds like ass, that band and that single is done.

The only way they would know that this mix was not the album cut is to already have the album, download a second non-fsck’d copy, or there is some indicator in the file that this track is an anitpiracy munge. If it’s the first, then it’s not in anyone’s interest to have a crap track circulating. The second requires more time and attention than any casual listener is likely to accord the work. And the third will just be avoided by any and all users savvy enough to use a filter.

Of course, if the track sucks anyway, you’re screwed no matter what you do.

By: hinglemarr

hinglemarr — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 03:43:46 +0000

From cw:
Is there a way for a song to tell if it’s being ripped. CDs are digital so each song could easily include code.
The CD standards were first released in 1980 before computers had CD drives. It’s too late to change now. Modern media (like Apple’s iTunes) uses DRM —Digital Rights Management—that restrict your ability to copy. Even HDTV broadcasts have DRM so that the broadcaster can stop you from recording a program. Or let you record but not copy. But since it’s just bits you can always write a program to strip away the DRM.

By: DonBoy

DonBoy — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 02:48:42 +0000

Note to RIAA agents: I’d already bought the CD.

Note to Steven: if they choose to come after you, that won’t matter, to the tune of $150,000.

By: cw

cw — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 02:35:43 +0000

Is there a way for a song to tell if it’s being ripped. CDs are digital so each song could easily include code. If there is a way for a song to know that it is being ripped it could take certain actions, such as those described above. In the future, when everyone will be known by their IP address (or whatever the equivelent will be) and therefor everone’s information will available to record companies, the song might even check back with (data) base and include ads or admonitions directed at the particular ripper (or even legal enjoyer).

What I’m getting at here is the idea of smart media (you heard it here first, now someone go out and invent it.) Media that is released into the universe with certain capabilites beyond “yes you can copy me,” or “on, you can’t copy me.”

By: Anthony

Anthony — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 02:24:44 +0000

Steven Poole – who prints large volumes at home, when nobnody will notice a hundred pages printed at work?

By: derrida derider

derrida derider — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 00:51:51 +0000

I’ve always thought those downloads with DRM which allow you to play it a set number of times have got it wrong. They need DRM which slowly degrades the sound quality each time it is played (it shouldn’t be hard – just introduce cumulative random errors).

This makes it hard for pirates to know whether the DRM has even been removed or not, or whether that rip on the web had the DRM removed before or after degradation. Further, it provides automatic price discrimination – teenagers with crappy sound systems or who just want to try the album out (and hence a high price elasticity of demand) will rarely have to buy another copy, while well heeled audiophiles will have to buy their favourite albums regularly.

As for the levy on recording media, that really is daft. It’s a moral licence to copy – as similar schemes on cassette tapes proved to be.

But then greed often clouds judgement, and the record companies don’t lack greed.

By: hinglemarr

hinglemarr — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 00:29:31 +0000

Like johnp, this is old stuff. When Linkin Park came out with their new CD Kazza-space was filled with songs that were the right length but were really snipets of interviews. I never bought the CD and lost interest in the band. Since I’m in Canada, where we pay a licensing fee on blank media and music players, downloading is allowed. Is this a great country or what?

By: Steven Poole

Steven Poole — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:50:51 +0000

Ball,
Yes. It doesn’t.

By: Steven Poole

Steven Poole — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:08:14 +0000

Corwin: that’s interesting, but my CD copy is simply not like how you describe your friend’s copy. The bass is maybe slightly off to the left sometimes, and the lead guitar is mostly in the right, but the drums and lead vocals are pretty much centred. It’s not at all “everything else in the left channel only” like the mp3 rip going round. Can there be two authentic versions in circulation?

Doesn’t anyone learn guitar anymore by playing along to the record rather than turning the guitarist off? ;-)

By: Christopher Ball

Christopher Ball — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:06:54 +0000

Poole,

Have you made an MP3 of your CD to see if the same effect occurs even if you own a legitimate version?

By: previously pre

previously pre — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:24:11 +0000

Could this be so people at home could just axe the right channel and have a “do your own lead” version of the album? Guitarists might love it.

Someone six floors down from me is doing exactly the opposite of that—learning the lead by axing the left channel—and on my way up I stopped to listen & wondered how on earth the mix was so clearly differentiated. I figured out it’s easy enough to do with the pricey version of Nero, though. Feeling inspired, I just ran a seasickened Idlewild album mix off the lossless WMAs, and it worked like a (terrifyingly disorienting) charm.

(RIAA/FBI/IRS/Interpol/TWIMC: I own the album(s) in question.)

By: Corwin

Corwin — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:11:52 +0000

According to a Guitar World interview with Flea, this is just how the album itself was mixed. It’s just more John Frusciante weirdness. I’ve not yet bought the album, but when a friend played me his copy, it was panned with the guitar in the right channel and everything else in the left.

By: Steven Poole

Steven Poole — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:43:31 +0000

Johnp: sure, “ringers” have been around a while. But I think this kind of thing – the whole album, but sonically screwed-up – is more subtle and more useful than Madonna’s swearing or bursts of static etc. The latter treat filesharing as the enemy; this uses it.

By: JohnP

JohnP — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:26:57 +0000

This is old stuff from my viewpoint. Someone I know uses Limewire to download music &c. There have been ringers coming online with many large, juicy-sounding files for download for quite some time. It would not surprise me to learn that they are in the employ of the RIAA. It’ not just music files, either. The files are not always what they seem to be, judging from the file names. In effect, it’s a type of online battle or competition. The purpose is to tie up John Q Pirate’s bandwidth and waste his time. It’s only after the download is finished that one discovers the downloaded file is not what the name indicates. Sure makes that 99 cent/song deal at iTunes look nice …