Decryption and Internet Anarchy

I've never seen such a mass rebellion against DRM. The decryption code for high definition DVDs (HD DVD & Blu-Ray) is everywhere. It's not something you have to seek out for any period of time. It's almost difficult to avoid. In fact, some guy on YouTube posted a video of himself singing the code. While I can't see the film industry thriving if there was a mass movement of DVD copying, this is more of an issue of Freedom of Speech. The Internet generation has proved that ubiquitous censorship of anything is impossible. And it's waste of time, energy, and money, unless the U.S. government forces individuals to obtain licenses to create websites, totally restructuring the medium. That'll never happen, so why try and fight the publication of information? Like I've said before, if you're going to fight anything, fight the creation of this information. It's not ideal, but it's more in line with democracy and law.

I think it's amazing to see how the Internet has truly overpowered the powers that be. It's become a sort of organized anarchy (kind of an oxymoron, I know), and there's beauty in its consequences.

Digg and DRM

"The website [Digg] was one of several that received 'cease and desist' letters from Athe ACS Licensing Authority, which administers the DRM used on Blu-ray and HD DVD discs. At the letter's urging, Digg removed a link to a Web page that revealed the encryption key that could enable content on HD DVD discs to be copied, circumventing the DRM."

Soon after a flood of user comments denouncing Digg's decision to comply, site founder, Kevin Rose, had this to say:

"But now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you've made it clear, you'd rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won't delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.'

Although I'm not necessarily wholeheartedly against DVD DRM (see a few posts below), I'm glad to see Rose not bow down to these contemptible companies and stand up for the people that made his website so popular. That's the problem with a great deal of these entertainment companies and third-party companies: they alienate their consumers in order to appease the higher powers and often to make an extra buck. Like Apple, Digg was not prepared to put their consumers second to pressures from above.

Also, I think it's absolutely ridiculous to persecute a site for allowing the publication of information. This, to me, violates the First Amendment. Granted, this situation walks the fine line, but I wouldn't like to live in a society where the messenger is not valued, but, well, shot. First of all, they didn't come up with the DRM crack, and second of all, they only re-published the information. It wasn't information they picked up themselves and reported on, it was really just submitted by an outside party. As long as the Anarchist Cookbook can be published, so should a benign piece of information like this. Apparently the law is more concerned about copyright protection than the building of explosives. What I'm saying is: it should all be permitted. In the worst case, the only one to be persecuted is the mastermind. And instead of gunning down people who circumvent the DRM technology or publish the code, maybe improve the technology itself. It's their fault that people find loopholes in their ineffective technology. And I say all of this, not in support of DRM, but rather in condemning this breach of the First Amendment.

Hi-Fi, Goodbye

I typically upload my music at 192 kb/s in the mp3 format. The quality isn't incredible, but it's more than listenable and it doesn't eat away hard drive space. I consider myself much more than a casual listener, yet I'm willing to sacrifice some quality for a great deal of quantity. Maybe it's a good thing, maybe it's bad. But either way, we're witnessing the gradual demise of hi-fi.

Now, I wasn't around at the time, but I know that high quality sound performance hit its popularity in the '70s. Hi-Fi this and Hi-Fi that. At the time, you had nowhere to go in terms of convenient listening experiences, so they had to market quality. Vinyl's sound quality is warm and vivid, but it's cumbersome and delicate, so the market of the 70s and 80s was unconsciously dying for an improvement.

There was the fruitless introductions of 8-track and audio cassette, but what caught on was the compact disc (CD) in the 80s. The quality was crystalline, but it sacrificed the warmth and intimacy of a record, which was a physicaly representation of music. CD quality is almost saccharine and it loses the colored silence of a recording and the haunting character that could be physically developed on a record. But now, people could listen to a clear sound on the go and without worrying about quality deterioration. And now there is the MP3, which retains the the digital luster and permanence of a CD, but the sound leaves a bit to be desired and can even damage your hearing. For instance, bass response is weak, and because of it, listeners tend to increase the volume to get that kick. They often over-compensate. The high-end's volume level survives the format, so it becomes, often unnoticeably, blistering and therefore, harmful to hearing. And this occurs more commonly with those white, Apple earbuds. I'm no audiophile, but I can't stand those little guys. The quality is tinny, rusty, and has hardly any bass. But walk down a street in Manhattan and you'll see every other person wearing them. I'm willing to give up some quality in the MP3, but not quite that much. And I'm sure when they listen at home they're using a 2-piece speaker set that came with their computer. Tons of people listen to music over the MySpace stream, too. And that's why we won't see an upgrade from the digital music format in a very long time. It's not about quality. We don't need Hi-Fi. Even casual music listeners are listening to more music groups. It might be our shortening attention spans, or maybe it's our propensity to that, "I found it first" or "I know more music than you do" sentiment. For me, I listen to tons of music, mostly albums in full, but I think that I retain all of these characteristics. But it's also because I love music so much, and I finally have the means of listening to so much more--because good music doesn't have to be limited to the radio legends anymore. And in this, I sacrifice the hi-fi quality of music. If there was a popular format that had better quality and didn't take up much space on my computer, I'd love it, but I think our standards for sound have become so low that the future of hi-fi is dismal.

In all of this though, I don't feel like I'm losing much. Although I listen to vinyl, because I didn't grow up with it, I don't expect that quality of sound. I expect CD quality. There is the occassional file that is unlistenable, but for me, it's rare that I even notice this supposed poor quality. My roommate is a music technology major, and after performing a blind test on him, he was unable to tell the difference between a song encoded as an mp3 at 128 kb/s and the same song encoded as a CD wav file. Now, I'm not saying he's a true audiophile--a hi-fi fanatic--but he has to be more conditioned to notice differences in sound quality than the most of us. So do I think there will be a hi-fi revival? I doubt it. What was cool in the 70s is what is inconvenient now. And covenience, flashy devices, and earbuds that don't mess your hair is what's cool. Trends change, but sometimes trends become staples.

MySpace Disappoints

As other industry heads in the music industry are gradually detaching themselves from DRM, Warner Music can't let go. We know this, but they're making big, DRM-supportive statements almost in a spiteful reaction to this moving away. Warner announced they'll be the first company to offer music through MySpace's music store, and what do you know? It'll be DRM-embedded. To me, this is a big middle finger, after Steve Jobs and EMI announced they'd be offering music DRM-free. Even if it's a result of the pressure from the European distaste for the technology, Jobs is listening to his customers. Warner Music just doesn't give a damn.
MySpace has always been a haven for independent musicians to get their music heard. The music sector of the website is inherently designed with a marketing system for otherwise unheard of musicians. It was founded upon free music, so we'll see how MySpace users feel about costly music without the ability to make copies. MySpace should have went with EMI. It would have been a smoother transition from free music temple to yet another MP3 music store (yes, you'll still be able to stream free music from the site), had they went with the more progressive label. Instead of promoting music from a company that's willing to grow, they shed their (whether intentional or not) customer-friendly and DIY roots for a customer-alienating skin. I guess it doesn't matter, because I don't see a bright future for the MySpace music store, even with an indie label and EMI catalog.