Audio content delivery

[Cosmik]

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

IP rights are IP rights. If one has to get the content illegally through devious means then only an idiot could think that was OK.

I have a very specific requirement: I want to run my own DSP-based crossover system, using my own code. The current situation is amazing. I can run a streaming service such as Tidal, and access the raw digital stream on which to apply my filters etc. This is based on Linux. I could, obviously, pipe the stream to memory and save it as an audio file - it is only the fact that I can't be bothered that stops me from doing this.

If, and when, this loophole is closed down, I will have to resort to digitising the stream from an analogue output - that might even involve hacking a piece of commercial hardware. Would you regard this as devious and dishonest?

How could the loophole be closed down? By streaming suppliers restricting their dealings to players that feature secure hardware. In fact it may be the only way to get around the laws regarding open source operating systems needing to be given equal rights to the guts of the PC as the evil corporations. If the interaction is between the streaming supplier and the chip, with the OS having no access to the unencrypted stream, there's no problem.

The only way that anyone could access the audio in that case is to connect croc clips to the speaker terminals or some such and digitise it via an ADC. For sure, they may then have a file they can send to their grubby friends over Torrent. But who is to say that future audio players won't refuse to play them? Of course the desktop PC from 2005 with XP will play it - but it's not a glamorous scene from the future is it?

 

[sergeauckland]

I'll have no truck with stolen music, whether ripped from a friend's CD, downloaded from a torrent site or whatever. However, equally, I want all my paid-for music to be on my hard-drive under my control. That's why I don't pay for Spotify, Tidal or any other streaming service, nor will I store my files in the cloud. It's easy to say that music will play anywhere there's an internet connection, but I've played my music in all sorts of places where there isn't an internet connection, I do listen to the radio over the internet, as I gave up with an FM tuner as a main source several years ago, but at least for the moment, the alternative of FM exists.

I do agree, however, that my position is old-fashioned, most young people I know don't have physical media at all any more, so when us old fogies die, I would expect physical media to go with us. Equally, I think that listening to music as a dedicated activity on a dedicated system, even in a dedicated room is a rarity these days. Most people use music as wallpaper, just there in the background, or as entertainment in the car, so which version of a track plays is of little import, and they're happy to leave the choice of what plays to Alexa or whoever.

S.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I am largely sticking to LPs and CDs. The files I have were ripped by me to my hard drive from my CDs to listen to while travelling.
I have bought a few files from Qobuz but not many. Usually if I like some music I discover on Qobuz I buy the CD.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Nobody can design a chip (or a system) that is doing any kind of authorisation that cannot be bypassed in one way or another. There are no unpenetrable armors, no locks that cannot be picked, no software protection systems that cannot be hacked.

It takes only one guy to crack the content and make it available on torrent networks and it will spread.

Here comes Apple’s T2 chip:

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/10/30/apples-t2-security-chip-microphone/

And, of course, it’s good for you; it’s meant to increase safety...

Locked systems are here to stay. Producers will argue it’s good for consumers. Government will be very happy. Gilets jaunes, sorry, ordinary people, will have less reason to applaud.

It’s probably Apple engineers’ humour to name the new chip T2, a Terminator shorthand:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_2:_Judgment_Day

Machines will prevail and resistance is futile

 

[svart-hvitt]

I'll have no truck with stolen music, whether ripped from a friend's CD, downloaded from a torrent site or whatever. However, equally, I want all my paid-for music to be on my hard-drive under my control. That's why I don't pay for Spotify, Tidal or any other streaming service, nor will I store my files in the cloud. It's easy to say that music will play anywhere there's an internet connection, but I've played my music in all sorts of places where there isn't an internet connection, I do listen to the radio over the internet, as I gave up with an FM tuner as a main source several years ago, but at least for the moment, the alternative of FM exists.

I do agree, however, that my position is old-fashioned, most young people I know don't have physical media at all any more, so when us old fogies die, I would expect physical media to go with us. Equally, I think that listening to music as a dedicated activity on a dedicated system, even in a dedicated room is a rarity these days. Most people use music as wallpaper, just there in the background, or as entertainment in the car, so which version of a track plays is of little import, and they're happy to leave the choice of what plays to Alexa or whoever.

S.

OFFICER: Do you have receipts of your stored music?

MR. AUCKLAND: What? Of course not!

OFFICER: Lock him up!

 

[Cosmik]

Name ANY software that cannot be hacked. In fact, the more folks own it the more easilly it can be hacked.

Of course software can be hacked - for a while.

Many, many years ago, I built my own satnav - sad, but it's just the kind of person I used to be. There was a route planner web site, and by studying the URLs that it went to, it became apparent how its maps were stored. I set a program running overnight and downloaded all of the UK's Ordnance Survey maps at several scales! In other words, data that would have cost me thousands of pounds was just sitting there unencrypted waiting to be downloaded. Such was the naivety of the 1990s interweb. (Needless to say I didn't distribute the maps any further). Of course I couldn't do that 'hack' today because it would be closed down and secure.

As things stand, an ISP can be forced to reveal names and addresses of people who are found to be distributing files illegally, so the internet is hardly the neutral pipeline that people claim. Why, in the future, should all this 'dark web' VPN type stuff not be blocked by ISPs using blacklists, or merely prohibited in the small print that you sign? Why should the ISPs not start 'Shazam-ing' the files you distribute and block them if they're dodgy? Or why should the OS that comes with your laptop not start doing this? To me, it seems clear that the direction is towards more and more control of data, with the latest twist being based on the establishment's abhorrence of the dissemination of deplorable political ideas. It is prepared to force ISPs to monitor and block content. Once the principle is established, there is no limit to where that will end.

But in parallel, secure player hardware is a simple, direct means by which media content can be regulated regardless.

 

[Pluto]

It really is very simple. The obvious logical progression for DRM is to create an environment in which every playback of the media incurs a cost. We have sufficient evidence of this from a hundred years experience of what the media companies do, and how they behave. The transition from a physical product to the more nebulous cloud environment has played into the media corporations’ hands and has, probably, made the successful implementation of “pay-per-play” happen a generation sooner than it otherwise could have, had physical media remained the norm. In a perverse way, I'm rather glad that most modern popular music is so poor that I feel little desire to acquire it.

I have a large amount of legally-acquired digital media, but to dispute that I do not have the right to transfer and store this data in a manner of my choosing is a fundamental denial of democratic principles, and this is what DRM seeks to achieve. Make no mistake – while a man-made DRM system can be theoretically undone by man, to do so can be awfully impractical. And while people are happy to buy media from the Apple store to play on Apple hardware (which will be increasingly sold at loss-leading prices, mark my words), the masses are blindly walking towards that day when they loose all control of their music and movies.

 

[Krunok]

If, and when, this loophole is closed down, I will have to resort to digitising the stream from an analogue output - that might even involve hacking a piece of commercial hardware. Would you regard this as devious and dishonest?

As long as you are listening to the content you had to pay for but you avoided that - then yes, it's dishonest.

 

[Krunok]

It really is very simple. The obvious logical progression for DRM is to create an environment in which every playback of the media incurs a cost.

I don't see how is that techically possible. Given enough time fokls will always find a way to bypass any enforcing mechanism.

 

[Cosmik]

I don't see how is that techically possible. Given enough time fokls will always find a way to bypass any enforcing mechanism.

I don't see the point you're making. Yes, it will always be possible to play your music on one of these:

But in the real world, if a person wants to play his music collection conveniently and maintain it dynamically, he isn't going to be wanting to be in permanent 'security bypass' mode, forever maintaining old PCs, soldering wires onto chips and logging into dodgy web sites. The industry just needs to make it difficult enough that it isn't worth doing. At the moment, it's very easy, but it needn't be forever.

 

[Krunok]

Of course software can be hacked - for a while.

It's same old story as with armour piercing rounds and shields - bettter shield, better munition, even better shield.. and there it goes.

As things stand, an ISP can be forced to reveal names and addresses of people who are found to be distributing files illegally, so the internet is hardly the neutral pipeline that people claim. Why, in the future, should all this 'dark web' VPN type stuff not be blocked by ISPs using blacklists, or merely prohibited in the small print that you sign? Why should the ISPs not start 'Shazam-ing' the files you distribute and block them if they're dodgy? Or why should the OS that comes with your laptop not start doing this? To me, it seems clear that the direction is towards more and more control of data, with the latest twist being based on the establishment's abhorrence of the dissemination of deplorable political ideas. It is prepared to force ISPs to monitor and block content. Once the principle is established, there is no limit to where that will end.

Even if regulator chooses to force ISPs to do that (which is higly unlikely as ISPs would want money for doing the government work) it would be extremely difficult to check every VPN as they are also often used for legit commercial purposes. Trust me, it is impossible.

But in parallel, secure player hardware is a simple, direct means by which media content can be regulated regardless.

Which will accomplish nothing as when it comes to receiving digital stream and playing digital audio file you can do everything with the computer. You only need a simple USB DAC which will always be present on the market and which you anyhow have in your mobile phone, which also happens to be a computer, so just install some software, use the analog output and there you go - free music.

 

[Krunok]

I don't see the point you're making. Yes, it will always be possible to play your music on one of these:

But in the real world, if a person wants to play his music collection conveniently and maintain it dynamically, he isn't going to be wanting to be in permanent 'security bypass' mode, forever maintaining old PCs, soldering wires onto chips and logging into dodgy web sites. The industry just needs to make it difficult enough that it isn't worth doing. At the moment, it's very easy, but it needn't be forever.

Here's my point - you will always have sites like these where you can simply download whatever you want. No matter if you want old stuff, new stuff, yesterday's recording of Springsteen on Broadway, it doesn't matter.. Literally whatever.

http://tparser.org/

http://kinozal.tv/

https://www.magnetdl.com/

...

 

[Cosmik]

You only need a simple USB DAC which will always be present on the market and which you anyhow have in your mobile phone, which also happens to be a computer, so just install some software, use the analog output and there you go - free music.

Again, I am in the odd position of being not being behind the times

Future devices won't even have exposed analogue outputs, and the idea of a DAC is so 'audiophile' as to be unknown to most people. All it needs is for the streaming services and/or the OS to work only with secure hardware. 99% of people could be persuaded to live with locked-down systems that simply don't give the option of playing non-authenticated files or streams. You want to use an old audiophile DAC? Fine, but don't expect streaming services to work with it.

 

[Pluto]

I don't see how is that techically possible

When the same corporate interests control the platform AND the content [we are close to this with Apple] it is easy. In principle, it's similar to paid-for sporting events on TV. The un-hackable player reports your listening of un-crackable media files to the authorization server and you get a bill. Simple.

While it might prove possible to crack some of these DRM techniques, it will become more and more difficult with the passage of time. The more VLSI used in the playback kit, the harder it becomes to hack. And as soon as the hardware becomes sufficiently robust, the media companies announce that new releases will only be in MQA protected format (gosh, did I really say that?) and, soon after that, they turn off the ability of the kit to play media that is NOT DRM-signed.

Watch my lips people: do all you can now, today, to fight the scourge of DRM and resist its adoption. While it might prove possible for the technologically elite to mitigate its effects, for John Doe it will be like wearing media handcuffs.

 

[Krunok]

Again, I am in the odd position of being not being behind the times

Future devices won't even have exposed analogue outputs, and the idea of a DAC is so 'audiophile' as to be unknown to most people. All it needs is for the streaming services and/or the OS to work only with secure hardware. 99% of people could be persuaded to live with locked-down systems that simply don't give the option of playing non-authenticated files or streams. You want to use an old audiophile DAC? Fine, but don't expect streaming services (via your OS) to work with it.

As long as modern generation is using earbuds phones will have exposed analog outputs. I don't see that changing any time soon..

 

[Sal1950]

.

How silly that cover art looks today, like a bad drag queen photo. LOL

 

[Krunok]

When the same corporate interests control the platform AND the content [we are close to this with Apple] it is easy.

Telco operators, who control the delivery platform, tried to get control of the content but have miserably failed. Neither content providers can notrol the network nor network providers can control the content - it's simply not their line of bussines.

In principle, it's similar to paid-for sporting events on TV. The un-hackable player reports your listening of un-crackable media files to the authorization server and you get a bill. Simple.

And here's another simple thing: one guy pays for the broadcast and re-streams it freely to the network. Simple.

 

[Cosmik]

How silly that cover art looks today, like a bad drag queen photo. LOL

You did watch the video....?

 

[Pluto]

Neither content providers can control the network nor network providers can control the content - it's simply not their line of business.

My friend, how wrong you are. Please check out the interests of the Sky organization in the UK and you will soon appreciate the naivety of the above statement.

one guy pays for the broadcast and re-streams it freely to the network. Simple.

And the moment that this kind of practice is specifically outlawed by a complicit government, what happens then?

Edit – I'm fairly sure that this kind of thing is already illegal under EU (and probably) US law.

 

[Cosmik]

And here's another simple thing: one guy pays for the broadcast and re-streams it freely to the network. Simple.

Complete with watermark that traces it straight back to him..?