Vivendi, Thomson join to fight piracy

vbimport

#1

I just posted the article Vivendi, Thomson join to fight piracy.

In another attempt to fight piracy, Vivendi and Thomson Multimedia have announced to work together to develop anti-piracy technology.

The companies will focus on copy protection of products…

Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/3716-Vivendi-Thomson-join-to-fight-piracy.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/3716-Vivendi-Thomson-join-to-fight-piracy.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

I do not believe that copy protections (or DRM) will stop ‘unauthorized’ copies of cds or DVDs. I believe copy protections are just a pain in ass to the customer and businesses, as it costs them more time and money to use these copy protections and it costs the customer more of their time to find/develop/use tools to circumvent copy protections. I wonder why these companies do not research into the true reason people pirate music online. They all assume simply because we can obtain the music for free online, we all will do so, but this is not entirely true. Basically, it boils down to when you buy something (in a free market economy) you give someone x amount of money and they give you product y and both sides feel they have mutually benefitted from the trade. So when I go to buy a GeForce4 Ti4200 for like $170, NVIDIA is happy they got $170 and I am happy I got a GeForce4 (that sounds really good :)) Now, when we place these circumstances on audio cds, you go pay $20 for an audio cd so you get an audio cd and the RIAA gets $20. Are you happy about this trade and feel both sides have mutually benefitted? FUCK NO! You (and the rest of the world) would feel you got ripped off and only the RIAA benefitted from the trade. You still want the music though, so you obtain them online for a more reasonable rate (currently free :)). My suggestion to these assholes is to lower prices so the customer feels like the are actually happy with the trade and offer the music from the cd online. The online music should also be cheaper since it is not on medium, except some server’s HDD, was not packaged or shipped, and does not include the middle man (i.e. Music Stores). Using this system, these pinheads would get most (not all) of their customers back. It seems to me these people know absolutely nothing about economics, but they sure the fuck know about greed and ripping their customers off to the extreme :r


#3

Erm no. Copy protection does not stop piracy, because pirates just crack it. It merely irritates regular users.


#4

I agree with the111 fully. I dont know of many people who are pirates who have problems finding cracks or cracking something themselves. If people are pirates or know much about it they can find a crack for the format in a day or less and can then continue to crack the format for the rest of the formats life. Regular customers however who have properly paid for and bought the CD, DVD etc are the ones who get screwed over. The hand over their hard earned money to the industry only to get a CD that they cannot play in their home computer, dvd player etc. This just frustrates them and makes them all start asking their friends who are computer geeks how they can get around the problem. Their friends then tell them to take the CD back, get a refund, buy them a drink with the cash and that they will show them where they can download a version off the internet for free that will work on their home computer and on their DVD player. The industry needs to get a brain and start thinking in a technological way and needs to hire a few people up to date with current technologies to get them to suggest new ways it can do things. Singles aren’t a viable business product because of the expenses incorporated in using a full cd for a single song, in packaging that one song and then paying for it to get shipped. All these expenses are just as great whether for one song or for 18 songs. The internet is where singles then become a viable business product. Customers pay $2 and get to download the song they want. The only cost this incurs for the music industry is the cost of the bandwidth which is covered per download by the money paid by the user. Another reason that the industry is falling down is, like Fish said because we are not happen with the trade we do. We part with our money and get a CD. Sounds fair enough (well almost). We dont like being forced to pay for all the extra shit music on the CD that we dont want but even ignoring that matter. We pay for the product and then feel that we have paid for it and are therefore the owners of it. Not so. The music industry is trying to tell us that we give them our $15 and then they give us a CD that we can ONLY play in our home cd player, our car or our portable cd player. Not that we can play in our mp3 player which is far smaller and has more songs on it therefore making it more conveniant for us. NOT on our home computer where we often sit and relax and surf the internet or in many of our cases, where we work all day. NOT in our top of the range home entertainment system that cost us a fortune and that uses our DVD player to play the songs. And as well as all those things they feel they tell us we can or cant do with the item we just purchased, they also want to tell us that we cant make a backup and use this and leave the original somewhere safe. NO - we HAVE to use the original in our car cd players and when it gets scratched as it obviously will from us changing cd’s while we drive. We have to give those morons ANOTHER $15 for a new copy. Not even offering us a discounted price to replace the original with even though we have already given money to pay for the copyright and artists effort, all we want is a new, scratch free copy which should only cost them the cost of one CD (20cents).


#5

First off, i FULLY agree with copy protection being a bitch to legit users. my dad today had MANY problems with Quicktax. That app is a plain BASTARD for being copy protected…it rivals the XP protection hassles… but i digress. First off, i am NOT PAYING for an mp3. mp3s are encoded with LESS quality, (yes i know about LAME, i use it religously…) but still. what i WOULD like to see…is being able to order a custom cd of music from a publisher. i would be inclined to pay for something like that.


#6

As has been said before…and I iterate…If you can see and hear it , you can reproduce it, WTF are they going to do ,bring back grossly overpriced radio and TV licences…??? :7


#7

Adding to my comment, the online service I would prefer would be cd quality, i.e. wav files. I know they would never do anything like this, but that is my preference. I am also one who prefers good old wav over MP3, simply because I can tell the difference even using LAME. Good hearing can sometimes be bad :wink:


#8

Fish - You can hear the difference from a normal mp3 fair enough but have you tried encoding a song at the highest bitrate available? 320? From everything I have ever read this is cd quality music according to tests. Also - they wouldn’t use wav files to let you download them. There are other audio formats that provide compression that could be used that are lossless.


#9

Yes, even at 320Kbps LAME or whatever MP3 encoder, I can tell the difference in a car, on my home stereo, or on headphones, but not on the PC, as they are shitty speakers (nice sub though :)). As far as the MP3s I create using r3mix (I think that is it, just off of the top of my head) usually. Hard to explain, but I can tell the difference. As far as a music sharing service using wav, I know they would never use that. Hell, they would use LPAC or something along those lines before they would distribute raw wav files. I just did not feel like getting too far in depth, I just want to say I want REAL cd quality, not something that is ‘near’, ‘almost’ or ‘virtually’ cd quality. As far as 320 being actual cd quality, that is mathematically impossible: 320Kbps = 40KBps and cd is, according to the yellow book (or whatever stupid colored book), 150KBps (75 samples per second x 2048 bytes per sample (not including ECC)). There is obviously some loss going from 150KBps way down to 40KBps. Even LPAC and the likes of those, cannot get that much compression and they are designed to be lossless. MP3 is not so even if the bit rate was 150KBps, MP3 would still probably fuck something up. Now OGG on the other hand, I have heard it is REALLY good and I hope to give it a try sometime, but until then, I will stick with wav for the car, stereo and headphones :slight_smile: