Full disclosure: I love waves. Analog, digital, acoustic, we’re talking vibrations in sound (and other substances, as well — and light). I don’t think you get into this area without having a certain wave addiction. If you love waves, you could easily get lost in exploring videos of vibrating guitar strings and pondering the physics of the string.

This story begins not with how guitar strings actually vibrate, but a curious phenomenon when combining the regular oscillation of the string with the rolling shutter of a CMOS digital camera — namely, the iPhone’s. To accurately capture motion, you need to record an image all at once (or at least come close). Rolling shutter or line scan as exhibited in a CMOS camera sensor like the iPhone is a side effect of the capture being scanned from top to bottom, so the bottom portion of the image is saved later than the top. That causes motion to skew across the image. (Long before digital, people played around with the same effect in analog video and even using film photography – all you need is something moving and a way of capturing the image that moves gradually in a different direction.)

When the regular oscillation of the scanning combines with the oscillation of what you’re filming – as with a vibrating guitar string, or the rotating propeller on an airplane — the two frequencies effectively phase, causing some curious distortion. In the case of the guitar, this means seeing the appearance of standing waves that, while they can occur in nature, don’t occur on any conventional guitar. (You can also think of the basic effect as aliasing, as seen optically when video shutters capture the frequency of rotation of a rotating car wheel in such a way that it appears to move backwards.)

As with many concepts in physics, it’s all easier to see than explain, so I’ll turn it over to some terrific videos. I’ve contrasted two at the top of the story; here are more examples.

Below, a high-speed camera operating at 600 and 1200 frames per second, played back 20x and 40x, respectively, slower than you’d see with your naked eye.

And here’s another example of how that might appear on a camera like the iPhone:

Of course, that means – fodder for our sister site Create Digital Motion – potential for more creative abuse, beyond the mere novelty.

What’s also amusing is the heated discussion this triggered as the iPhone video went viral. Read some angry comments – and some solid science among them — at Reddit:
Guitar string oscillations captured on video [reddit.com]

I’m glad people don’t behave (yet) in person the way they do on the Internet.

In person: “Excuse me; I think your fly is open.”

On the Internet: “That guy’s fly is open. He doesn’t even know his fly is open. That’s bullshit. I mean, what kind of person leaves their pants just *(&$#ing open like that? Look, look, look at his open fly. I’m never talking to him again. I’m not even going to wear pants from now on.”

(Seriously, happily, many of the comments are perfectly polite and well-informed!)

School’s out for just about everyone, but I’m going to remember to file this away for the next time I have to explain sound vibration. Now, back to the beach, or wherever you’re relaxing.

Thanks to Alexander Chen, from whom I lifted this via Google+. (See his own work on CDM here and here. Alex is just the kind of person I want to see this, as he’s been working with the aesthetics of vibrating strings! So, hurrah, Google+…

The explosion of interest in filtering out sounds of the vuvuzela has spawned some interesting discussions. Most amusing to me is the notion of some sort of anti-vuvuzela bias. The simple matter of the fact is, recorded (and broadcast) sound are not the same as the sound you hear when you’re physically in a location. If you’re at a sporting event, you hear all kinds of noise. Your expectations are differently calibrated, and you have 360 degrees of (real world) sound spatialization. Watching TV is different. You want background sound, yes, but not to the point that it drowns out commentary. In effect, you want the broadcaster to create an artificially well-balanced soundscape. What’s really striking about the World Cup is that the planet’s largest broadcasting companies all seem to have been caught unprepared for the vuvuzela cacophony.

Which brings us to Waves. So, yes, I took some cheap shots at Waves’ pricing on their plug-ins in yesterday’s massive round-up, and yes, I did actually … hear about it.

First, I want to be clear that in the avalanche of responses to the vuvuzela, there are a number of different techniques – not all notch filtering, though, as my headline hinted, the fact that “notch filtering” is a phrase coming up in mainstream media, blogs, and sports coverage is itself newsworthy.

Waves’ approach involves their noise suppressor. What I said about pricing may have been unclear in regards to the presets: the custom-developed preset chain, made by Waves for broadcasters (and apparently in collaboration with one, specific broadcaster Waves has not named), is entirely free. The cost to which I referred is the noise suppressor itself (US$2900) and the parametric EQ ($300).

And no apologies here for pointing out the gap: compared to most audio software, $2900 is indeed a lot to pay for a plug-in. One of the strange things about audio is that there are sort of parallel dimensions of value/cost equations and markets. In this case, I’m sure the broadcasting market is absolutely willing to pay $2900 for audio software – looking at the cost of, say, a World Cup license, the cost of the equipment used for that broadcast, the human hours that go into plug-in development, and the limited number of potential broadcast customers, Waves’ pricing is actually pocket change. But that further illustrates the disparity: it’s pocket change to the BBC or ESPN, whereas an individual, home audio producer might well use tools that are entirely free as an alternative.

Waves isn’t even, as [someone] pointed out to me, the pricey end of that spectrum – not by a longshot. France’s Canal+ hired an entirely private commission to do what, for Waves customers, at least, was free. [article in French] The result: a non-TDM custom effect solution from a local developer with what was likely a very, very high price tag.

But you can also judge this for yourself: if you’re curious to try out the Waves solution, both WNS and Q10 provide a 7-day demo. It’s definitely the posh steakhouse of plug-ins, to the “street vendor sausage cart” alternatives I mentioned. Pricing is economics, not a quantification of value – such is the nature of the beast. But you can determine how much that market-driven pricing translates to the software. What Waves gives you is certainly a friendly interface, some sophisticated tools tailored to the task, and what’s likely, out of the box, to come closest to producing broadcast-quality sound. Naturally, I also think that delivering that broadcast-quality sound ought to be the job of the broadcasters, not someone at home with a TV set. The question of which tools are relevant for music production, rather than covering the World Cup with an entire network TV crew, can be saved for another day.

While we’re clarifying, I think the most interesting of the long list of solutions I mentioned, apart from Waves’ solution, is the plug-in from the Centre for Digital Music (C4DM) at Queen Mary, University of London. Dan Stowell notes that, while some of the other techniques mentioned do indeed involve notch filtering, what’s at work here is “a bit cleverer, kind of tuned median-filter.”

The C4DM plug is truly free software, under an MIT-style, open source license. It’s actually a pleasure to browse through the code – bless you, digital signal processing, as mathematically, tasks like this look pretty readable in C and C-style code. No, such things aren’t comparable to, say, a Waves plug-in. At the same time, at their heart, they are fundamentally the same animal. We’ve seen this basic technique (digital signal processing) packaged in wildly different forms. We have academic research centers, which one might argue should engage in open code if they’re publicly funded. We have free code that comes from people who aren’t in academia. We also have businesses that naturally spawn around catering to a very different customer, for whom value is easy to justify given the potential revenue from the product (a sports broadcast), and who likewise have higher expectations of user interface, real-world performance, and support.

But such is the broad spectrum (ahem) of sound software today. Take something as simple as filtering out a drone at a particular frequency, and you see a broad set of potential uses, an audience literally as large as the entire planet’s sports fans, tools on every conceivable platform and operating system, and markets that range from interested academic researchers and programmers to broadcasters with deep pockets.

All over a cheap plastic horn.

It’s a reminder of all kinds of disparities. There’s the economics of sound software, scaling from hobbyist to academia to business, from code that people give away to highly-priced custom services that make Waves plug-ins look like $2 iPhone apps. But more important than that, while specialization in sound software remains the domain of a tiny niche of society, but the ultimate market – human ears – is in the billions. Perhaps while we hide out in our blogs and trade magazines, we forget that.

Vuvuzela Orchestra Demo from Pedro Espi-Sanchis on Vimeo.

It’s an extraordinary sporting event, one in which the spirits of the many nations of the planet come together, driven by a passion for one thing.

No, not football. Notch filtering, apparently. It’s not very often geeky audio matters cross onto the mainstream radar, but such has been the case in the divisive case of South Africa’s beloved vuvuzela horns. Yesterday, I used the whole thing as a teachable moment for learning Linux audio routing, but since then, my inbox has been bursting at the seams.

Along the way, we learn more about the instrument, how to play it, we meditate to the sound of its drones in an electronic remix, and (at top) even hear an orchestra of the things.

Here’s what you may have missed.

A meditative vuvuzela serenade:

First, let’s consider the beautiful, otherworldly sound of a swarm of vuvuzelas, droning. That’s what composer Alec Vance did, and the results are, frankly, gorgeous. Remember how yesterday I was talking about mindfulness? Who needs chanting monks when you’ve got this sound:

Vuvuzela.mp3

More on a post on his blog, though it may be a bit painful if you’re an England fan:
Vuvuzela! (USA Wins 1-1 vs England)

More, more, more vuvuzela:
How to play the vuvuzela and get a good sound [The Guardian]

http://www.vuvuzela.fm/ for 24/7 Vuvuzela radio, because you just can’t get enough of the sound

But wait — there’s more. So. Much. More.

Analysis and coverage

Boing Boing covers the physics of the sound and why it’s annoying:
Acoustic engineer explains why vuvuzelas are annoying

Isophonics explains what’s happening in the sound spectrum, and provides their own plug-in:
What’s all this about the vuvuzela?

The Beeb talks vuvuzela controversy:
BBC receives 545 vuvuzela complaints over World Cup [BBC News]
Can you block out the blare of vuvuzelas? [BBC News Magazine]

Ars Technica has a good round-up: Enjoy a vuvuzela-free World Cup, thanks to technology

Filtering solutions

http://vuvuzelafiltering.com/, an entire website devoted to the topic

Pocket Lint on filtering on your TV, plus a EUR2.95 filtering sound

Samsung TV: EQ using on-screen controls

Windows/Mac Ableton Live set

Mac LADSPA (works with Audio Hijack Pro), Linux LADSPA, Windows VST: Free Isophonics plug-ins [compiled plug-ins at the bottom of their how-to]

Mac, AU: Free Prosoniq VuvuX filtering plug-in [sonicWORX]

Mac, AU Free Isophonics plug-in [direct download link]

Mac, AU / GarageBand: How to filter Vuvuzelas using GarageBand

Mac how-to and links in Italian; cross-platform VLC tutorial in Italian

Mac, Logic: Vuvuzela-Filter how-to, in German

Mac/Windows, TDM + native: Waves has a “pro” solution that it developed “in conjunction with a major television broadcaster,” which works in conjunction with Pro Tools, Waves MultiRack, and Cubase. Of course, this being Waves, unlike every other solution listed here, it costs a load of money (to the tune of US$2900 for the noise suppressor and $300 for the parametric EQ), requires a dongle, and could get you sued if a sting operation catches you pirating it. Sorry, Waves, I couldn’t resist. You were an open target. A bit like a UK goalpost. BOOM! (okay, I’ll stop, before I get hatemail from Waves Audio AND the nation of England)
Waves Introduces Vuvuzela Noise Reduction

Mac, Soundflower + free app Vuvuzela noise filter app for Mac OS X [Albert Feller]

Mac, Soundflower + your TV: Mikkel writes in comments:

On Mac, I used SoundFlower in combination with AU Lab (comes with Apple Developer Tools, eg XCode).
You have to make an aggregated device containing the SF input and the Default System Output. Then route your tv-sound to the SF Output.
In AU Lab, you can make a new document with the aggregated device. Then double-click on the audio output and select Stream 2 in the Output Settings. You should now hear the tv-sound coming through. Then you can insert whatever effects on the input track. I used some of Apple’s AUParametricEq with frequencies 233, 466, 932 and 1864 Hz from the http://fetzig.org/ article, and it did seem to help.
I used a test video from youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW5kByJPZos

Mac: Lifehacker covers one of the Mac tutorials

Mac, Windows, PreSonus Voodoo One gets its own file

Windows, Winamp [German] Vuvuzela Filter Kostenlos!

Windows, Reaper: Vuvuzela Filter Windows

Windows, entirely using free (as in beer) software: Vuvuzela audio filter using (free) Windows software

Windows, VLC [German]: Vuvuzela Filter für VLC

Windows, Mac, Linux in a free Pd patch: http://puredata.info/Members/anechoic/patches/pluginvuvuzela.pd/view [Kim Cascone]

Windows, Mac, Linux – another free Pd patch, this one with copious blog documentation, too:
http://joaomartins.entropiadesign.org/2010/06/15/vuvuzela-filter-a-puredata-approach/ [Ricardo Lameiro]

And, of course, previously on CDM, Fedora and Ubuntu instructions:
Filter The Vuvuzela Horn Out of the World Cup; Learn JACK Routing on Linux

Okay, does anyone have time left to actually watch the games?

WAVES and PACE defend their anti-piracy hardware protection and respond to allegations of technical difficulties from a blog entry … and why, if this discussion really matters, we should look at it a different way.

At the beginning of the month, we pointed to a blogger who posted what was essentially a rant about why he was fed up with PACE. (PACE is a common anti-piracy developer whose technology is most often deployed as an iLok dongle, but available as software-only protection, as well.) The blog entry began with a series of technical problems, but developed into an argument about why the author felt third-party anti-piracy technology was problematic in general. There’s nothing so unusual about that, or even the fact that he announced he was "boycotting" products that use PACE. I’m sure you’ve heard people gripe about PACE and iLok; I’ve heard just these kinds of rants for years, and the word "boycott" does come up. (Whatever the equivalent of a "watercooler" is for audio — coffee maker? — it’s something you hear, period.) That’s not universal — some people are very loyal to PACE-protected products, and in some cases prefer an iLok to another solution. But complaints are common on the user standpoint; it’s no secret that copy protection in general is not something that users are enthusiastic about.

What made this slightly unusual was that the blogger, Adam Schabtach, works as a developer (for Audio Damage), and that a rant that a few years ago might have been shared with friends wound up on the Web. (The blog entry was NOT an official message from Audio Damage, but it did cause the blog to be received differently than if it had been a random user.) And because I believe in meeting these issues heads-on, I personally helped the story get more attention.

Of course, just as the Web amplifies rants, it also amplifies the responses. You can read some 86 comments in response to Adam, some very well-reasoned, some heated (including those who claim Adam was biased by being a developer). Sure enough, some people stepped up to defend PACE and iLok. Some did not, though there were two separate responses, one frustration with PACE, and the other with WAVES customer support. (I should note, these are not the same issue. Any developer, no matter their intention, can be bitten by unhappy users.)

There was also an official response: I was contacted by PACE Anti-Piracy. PACE had communicated with WAVES, the developer whose products Adam was using. Waves didn’t contact CDM, but PACE relayed this response from them. Specifically, both PACE and WAVES called into question the blue screen that had so frustrated Adam, claiming it had another cause:

The last written correspondence WAVES had with this user was over two years ago. No other mention in their database of correspondence with this user under this name.

In this "article" the user mentions to different scenarios where he has attempted to install/use Waves.

It is difficult for Waves and PACE to comment on the first attempt as there are not enough details for us to diagnose the problem. [PACE agrees - not a lot of info and historically very very few if any Mac issues seen].

A Waves tech rep will not recommend a user to reformat his system unless; they have found a number of symptoms indicating a major problem with the system. This is extremely rare. I can speak for my self, handling thousands of cases by phone and email where I have maybe suggested 1 or 2 users that they need to reformat their system.

[Note: PACE will NEVER recommend such reformatting due to any PACE issue as that is not how issues can be resolved].

The second scenario is not PACE related, this is an issue with Windows DEP (Data Execution Prevention) protocol.

“The installer almost immediately informed me that it had to restart my PC, so I let it. It launched itself automatically after the PC rebooted, started the installation process, and then my good faith and efforts were rewarded with this: (picture)”

There is a very simple fix to overcome this. All of WAVES tech support reps are aware of this issue and are able to resolve this issue within minutes. Period.

End of Waves response.

Since this description and Adam’s didn’t match up, I went back to Adam to find out what he had to say about Waves’ response. He wrote back:

I did not contact Waves after this most recent failure of their product because my previous contact with them was completely unsatisfactory.

Regardless of what their records say, I was asked on the phone whether reformatting my hard drive was an option. At the time there were not "a number of symptoms indicating a major problem with the system." The support rep seemed essentially stumped by the problem, and I believe asked about reformatting the drive as a last-ditch attempt to rectify the situation.

It may indeed be true that the problem documented in my blog is not related to PACE but there is no way for me to know this as an end-user. This Waves bundle was the first PACE-protected product I attempted to install on this system, and it was the first whose installer caused my PC to blue-screen. I have successfully installed products from at least ten other vendors on the same system–products that are not protected by PACE.

As I attempted to make clear in my post, this incident was only the latest in a number of problems I have encountered as a (former) user of PACE-protected products, not an isolated one.

To be honest, I’m not sure this really clears up much about this particular situation. It certainly demonstrates that one technical incident — or even a series of incidents experienced by one user — can’t really be taken as the basis for a deeper discussion of anti-piracy technology.

In fact, what it seems is that this is really more about customer support and a dissatisfied customer than anything else. (And yes, for the record, sometimes people who develop software are also themselves customers — often demanding customers, I would imagine.)

Ironically, it illustrates the opposite case of what Adam had originally been trying to illustrate.

In his original post, Adam said,

This points up the biggest problem with PACE: if something goes really wrong, the maker of the PACE-wrapped product can’t help you.

But the reverse is also true: if something goes wrong with the maker of the PACE-wrapped product, PACE often gets blamed. That’s neither a defense of PACE or a criticism of the software maker; it’s just a matter of fact. And in this case, something did go wrong: at the very least, Waves wound up with an unhappy customer; that’s inarguable. Unhappy customer can translate to larger rants about technology, which in turn can make other unhappy customers. That’s what happened with an infamous 2002 PACE rant on ProRec. You can read an archived copy of that story on Google, though looking at it again, even a hardened PACE foe would have to admit there’s plenty in there that’s just not technically true, at least today. If you want to criticize PACE, in other words, that’s not the best place to start: the concepts are sound, but the examples may not be, and that’s a problem.

Also, if you do want to talk about PACE (or any other scheme), you also have to talk about the different ways anti-piracy pteoction is used and supported by vendors. Take hardware keys (known to most of us as “dongles”): you’ve lost or broken your dongle. Some vendors will sell you a replacement for a fee (say, $100), or even replace a broken dongle for free. Some will make you pay the full purchase price of the product (say, $500, or $1500). Now, how do you feel about dongles? Probably depends on which vendor you purchased from, huh?

I think the good part of all of this is that discussions are being had in the open, more so now than even in 2002. The challenge is basing those discussions around technical realities, not just personal experience. Likewise, while Adam may have made broad arguments based on specific technical issues, you’ll notice WAVES and PACE avoided all of the broader questions he asked. (Does PACE actually prevent piracy, why do we use it, and is it really better for developers?)

And if we were to continue the above back and forth, I expect we could get a circular argument going between Adam, readers here, Waves, and PACE — and learn absolutely nothing from it.

So, if none of these is a good way to look at the issues around piracy and software copy protection, what is?

My New Year’s Revolution for 2008: we will look at these issues in a comprehensive, technically-accurate way, involving both developers and users. There are two major topics here: one is piracy itself, and the other is anti-piracy measures, whether it’s a simple serial number protection, an iLok, or BanPiracy.org suing studios. It’s time for a serious examination of how bad the piracy problem really is (or isn’t) at this point, what makes people invest in software in the first place, and what can be done to improve the customer/developer relationship. It’s also worth revisiting the available options for protection, what the drawbacks and advantages are, and just what users really think of them.

I won’t pretend to be neutral, because I’m not — I have my own opinions, and I’m happy to be upfront about them. I think the effect of pretending to be neutral can be tip-toeing around the issues. I don’t believes that serves anyone, whether users, software makers, PACE, WAVES, or anyone else. But I also don’t want my opinions getting in the way of the full spectrum of discussion, because I don’t think my own opinions are all that matter. (Far from it.)

If you’re interested in being part of this conversation and series — PACE and WAVES included — let me know, seriously. We want to hear from software makers and users with different experience of piracy and copy protection. The "cat is out of the bag." (Or is that, dongle is out of the box? Torrent is out of the tracker?) No one can avoid the discussion. We can just try to make the discussion more productive.

And if you do get a blue screen of death and can’t get an answer why, let us know that, too, and we’ll see if we can find your solution. Philosophical discussions aside, I know users don’t like things to be broken, whoever is to blame.

Stay tuned.

The debate over copy protection in music software and anti-piracy tactics continues to heat up. Now Adam Schabtach of Audio Damage, the popular plug-in developer, has fired off a call for a boycott of products that use PACE and the iLok hardware dongle. And that means that Waves is again a target, in this case because Adam himself had technical difficulties resulting from the copy protection scheme. But here’s his argument: the problem isn’t copy protection per se, it’s that developers have to cede control to a third party when the technology breaks.

This points up the biggest problem with PACE: if something goes really wrong, the maker of the PACE-wrapped product can’t help you. They didn’t invent PACE, they can’t fix bugs in PACE, they often don’t even know enough about PACE to troubleshoot it (which is not so much a reflection of their ignorance but of the sheer arcane complexity of PACE and the amount of information about it which its makers do not release even to their customers). Their only recourse is to tell you to wipe your hard drive bare and start again. This is one of many reasons that Audio Damage doesn’t use PACE: we want to help our customers make music, and we don’t want to be in a position in which we have to say “sorry, can’t help you” if something goes wrong with one of our products. Of course, unlike Audio Damage, Waves doesn’t offer a money-back guarantee for their products, so in the end I was stuck with software I’d paid for but couldn’t use.

Adam just doesn’t like copy protection, right? Well, no, in fact. The issue is that while PACE fails to stop piracy (something admitted by Waves themselves as they sue studios around the world for millions of dollars), PACE did succeed in stopping Adam from using his software:

I went to the Waves website, logged in to my account, downloaded the latest installer, and retrieved my iLok from the shelf upon which it was gathering dust. I backed up my hard drive (”once bitten, twice shy” and I’ve been bitten way more than once by PACE), launched the installer, and held my breath. The installer almost immediately informed me that it had to restart my PC, so I let it. It launched itself automatically after the PC rebooted, started the installation process, and then my good faith and efforts were rewarded with [a Windows Blue Screen of Death].

… A PC running Windows puts this up when something goes really, really wrong and the OS makes the unilateral decision to bring all proceedings to a halt in order to prevent further mishap. Seeing this screen is the computer equivalent of seeing your car deploy its airbags.

The final analysis:

PACE doesn’t stop piracy; any copy-protection system can, and will be, defeated. What PACE does do is prevent legitimate users of software products from using products which they’ve paid for.

Why I Boycott Products That Use PACE/iLok (and Why You Should, Too)

PACE/iLok is the leading provider of this kind of copy protection, so I expect we may hear a response. If I can get a statement from them, I’ll post that soon. But I will say, Adam is not alone in his frustration. Developers will continue to make the choices they feel are right for their business, which is their prerogative — but it’s likewise the choice of their customers to vote with their wallets. I do know users who are perfectly comfortable with iLok. Let us know how you feel, and whether copy protection has influenced your purchasing decisions.

Updated: Note that we’re talking about two different kinds of copy protection offered by PACE. One is the PACE software protection, which does not use a hardware dongle (or “hardware key” as PACE prefers to call it). The other is the iLok.

Already, readers are split: we’ve got Max/MSP users (myself included) who haven’t had problems with PACE software protection, and even some iLok hardware users who haven’t been bothered. But there are some strong arguments against the hardware dongles, to the point of cutting into sales, something developers may want to watch closely. Keep the feedback coming.

Ross Johnson of PR firm Strick and Company contacted me this week to say BanPiracy had responded to my challenge and, presumably, various criticisms these tactics have attracted. (Paris Hilton and Halliburton have turned to his firm, which is known for defending companies in crisis.) Ross writes:

“As a big fan of the lively discussions on your user forums relating to BanPiracy, I have encouraged my client to respond to your challenge recently posted.”

The response is titled “BanPiracy Says Thanks to the Brave Ones on Its Anniversary!” and was sent to various media outlets. Now, I’m likewise a fan of lively debate, so I want to thank Ross for encouraging BanPiracy to join the discussion.

But the answer to my challenge, evidently, is no, they can’t demonstrate that they have any other developers onboard. They even acknowledge that the fact that they’re a for-profit endeavor might “be a tough sell.” They manage to copy and paste supportive comments from a trade group and an anti-piracy manufacturer, but take those quotes out of context (including, bizarrely, a comment left here on CDM by one of our own contributors — he has a few, ahem, words for BanPiracy in comments now that they’ve distorted what he said).

Here’s the full response, penned by Tomer Elbaz and Michael T. David, COO and CEO respectively. I’ll say this: couched in epic battle terminology, it isn’t PR speak:

It’s been a year since BanPiracy, a company devoted to stopping piracy in the audio software industry, was formed. This is our report card to you, our cohorts in an industry that we love, but one that is also in serious trouble.

Has it been lonely walking the walk as one of the only groups willing to enforce copyright protection for our clients? Absolutely. Do we wish we had more support from audio software developers who are getting their software “cracked” and are afraid to stand up for their rights as businessmen? Most definitely. Are we going to stay the course in our battle with pirates who abuse international copyright protections? Bet on it!

This past year has been one of lessons learned. We learned to accept the harsh reality that the way our company was structured — as a for-profit LLC which gets its operating income from the collection of fees from those who are unjustly enriching themselves by using unauthorized software – might be a tough sell to manufacturers accustomed to looking the other way when their copyrights were violated. We learned that those who’ve come to depend on “cracked” software see their illegal activity as an unalienable right to exploit the efforts of talented professionals who labored to author that software.

And we’ve learned that there are brave people that will not be cowed by the noise of the rabble who want to take what’s not legally theirs.

It is a tribute to our industry that it supports such ethical publications as Pro Sound News and its European counterpart, Pro Sound News Europe. Both publications in mid-November published extensively-researched stories about our enforcement efforts. The writers of these stories were not afraid to take their shots at what they perceived as our shortcomings, but they bent over backwards to get both sides of the story, and we at BanPiracy acknowledge their professionalism.

In a Pro Sound News story written by Christopher Walsh, Andrew Kirk of PACE Anti-Piracy Inc., the developer of the ILok and InterLok tools, noted the uneven history of audio software manufacturers fighting the pirates, and noted:

“BanPiracy has a noble goal,” and added that the audio software markets “do need some enforcement – think about a society in where there was no enforcement of law.”

Another of our counterparts in the anti-piracy campaign is Ray Williams, director of the International Music Software Trade Association. We salute Mr. Williams for his efforts, which were heralded in the Pro Sound News story. “Our whole reason for being,” Mr. Williams told PSN, “is to try to have musicians respect the work of the companies who supply their software tools the same way they respect the makers of their hardware tools.”

We at BanPiracy also welcome the voluminous opinions on Internet message boards about out campaign. One of the most interesting challenges to what we’re doing was posted on Peter Kirn’s Create Digital Music website. In referring to the only client we’ve been able to sign for BanPiracy, Waves Audio, Mr. Kirn wrote, “Waves, I put the challenge to you: either demonstrate you have other developers onboard with you, or stop trying to convince people this is an effort on behalf of the industry.”

Mr. Kirn’s theory is that until Waves Audio, the initial client of BanPiracy, is joined by other software developers, any effort by Waves Audio to promote its involvement in BanPiracy is NOT a legitimate effort on behalf of the audio software industry.

A note to Mr. Kirn: The clients of BanPiracy are not asking your permission, or anyone else’s, to stand up to audio software copyright infringers. BanPiracy hopes that others will join Waves Audio in this fight, but the fight will go on as long as there is one man or woman willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Adrian Anders, who posted the following in a user forum on Mr. Kirn’s website on November 14, 2007.

“I think the studio owners were being very irresponsible to their paying customers,” Mr. Anders wrote in response to the many proponents of “cracked” software who frequent Mr. Kirn’s website.

Mr. Anders then added:
“Cracked software often causes severe problems in DAW environments and may even contain trojans, viruses, and/or worms that could compromise the data of their clients. Beyond the moral obligation to buy the software they use, [the studio owners] violated the trust of their customers by having potentially damaging software on their machines.”

Count on this, Mr. Anders: You’re not alone in this fight.

By Tomer Elbaz, BanPiracy COO and Michael T. David, BanPiracy CEO, Nov. 20,2007

CDM Responds

Since the cards are out on the table, and this site is singled out several times in BanPiracy’s public statement, I think a brief response of my own is only appropriate.

First, let’s get one thing straight: criticizing a specific means of enforcement is not the same thing as advocating piracy. BanPiracy’s statement attempts to blur those lines, implying an “if you’re not with us, you’re with the pirates” mentality. That’s ridiculous. The real debate here is over BanPiracy’s enforcement tactics and their rhetoric, not whether piracy is a good idea. CDM has been an aggressive advocate of legitimate software use, including commercial software, freeware, and open source tools. BanPiracy is quick to mention “the many proponents of ‘cracked’ software who frequent Mr. Kirn’s website.” Let’s address that as what it is: an attempt to discredit this site. The comments are an open forum. People looking for legitimate software look to CDM; people looking for pirated software elsewhere. I’m happy to let cracked software advocates speak freely here because they are so quickly shot down by users who pay for what they use.

Also, I never said BanPiracy needed my “permission” to pursue legal action — as near as I can tell, this action is within the law and within their rights, as is the ability of the targeted studios to try to defend themselves. But BanPiracy claims in bold type on their website that they represent multiple clients — and yet they admit elsewhere that, in fact, Waves is their only client. Even in this statement, I see a mention of “clients” (plural) and “client” (Waves). The question is not whether BanPiracy can represent Waves’ interests. The question is why does BanPiracy continue to refer to multiple clients and the industry when they in fact represent only the interests of Waves?

In addition to representing Waves, BanPiracy represents its own interests: by their own admission, they stand to make money here. The recent wave of 11 suits in the United States totals $1.7 million in damages, according to one of the Pro Sound News stories cited by BanPiracy. Those lawsuits are based entirely on Waves’ products. No other developer is mentioned. Updated: Pro Sound News Europe estimates damages at $4 million dollars and goes into greater detail on the US litigation.

The Music Software Industry

Now, maybe BanPiracy can claim to represent broader interests, even if they can only demonstrate one client. BanPiracy does manage to find supportive comments from a trade group and anti-piracy product maker, though they lift those comments from a Pro Sound News story from earlier this month. The headlines is “PACE, IMSTA Support BanPiracy.” Andrew Kirk of PACE Anti-Piracy, maker of the iLok and Interlok systems, in fact says some supportive things in that story. Here’s the quote you don’t see copied in the BanPiracy statement, however:

Kirk agrees that “Education will be key,” adding that lawsuits are not market friendly, nor do they fit well into a business model, yet “In some cases, the law is the last resort to flagrant piracy.” The anti-piracy movement is working, says Kirk, evidenced by the 123rd AES Convention. “I can tell you” he asserts, “if piracy rates were equal to the level of seven or more years ago, more than a handful of pro audio software companies and their products would simply not be at AES, nor would they even exist. Just about anyone would agree that this would be detrimental to the market.

So, lawsuits can be damaging to the market, often don’t make business sense, and may be a “last resort.” Oh, and other non-piracy efforts are actually working. That’s an argument I would’ve made, except PACE just made it for me.

BanPiracy also conveniently edits the International Music Software Trade Association quote. If you read the original Pro Sound News story, the group’s director Ray Williams is clear that — unlike the music industry’s RIAA — IMSTA focuses on education, not enforcement. Williams told PSN: “At IMSTA we are focused purely on education and making musicians think about piracy. We want musicians to buy the software they use.” In fact, when the IMSTA launched a recent anti-piracy education campaign, the emphasis was on positive communication with musicians, not litigation and scare tactics. So IMSTA may be “sympathetic”, but if at some point they do decide to openly support BanPiracy, in my view they’ll compromise the very positive image they had worked hard to build. (In fact, I’m disappointed Williams didn’t take this opportunity to more clearly distance what IMSTA is doing from what BanPiracy is doing.)

Cakewalk’s founder and CEO Greg Hendershott is on the Executive Board for the IMSTA. He spoke to us this summer about the cusomer relationship, among other issues. He talked about how piracy has hurt Cakewalk, but defended their decision not to use additional copy protection methods. Whether or not that particular decision is right for every developer, I think Greg speaks really eloquently about the customer relationship in a way that’s very appropriate to this conversation:

“But that doesn’t mean we like people to copy the software. It really comes down to the culture around intellectual property, and establishing your relationship with customers that is about more than just them buying the product, where they can get good support, there is a good community, a good forum for them to interact with you and other customers. So I think if people are buying into a long-term relationship, that’s part of the key to dealing with that issue. And I notice customers really tend to think that way.”

I’m not sure BanPiracy is aware when they quote Adrian Anders that Adrian regularly contributes to CDM, and does a series on free and inexpensive software. Adrian’s extensive knowledge is proof that saying you don’t have enough money is not an excuse for piracy: you can put together an entire software studio using free and affordable software. Adrian is quoted by BanPiracy as follows:

“Cracked software often causes severe problems in DAW environments and may even contain trojans, viruses, and/or worms that could compromise the data of their clients. Beyond the moral obligation to buy the software they use, [the studio owners] violated the trust of their customers by having potentially damaging software on their machines.”

Count on this, Mr. Anders: You’re not alone in this fight.

No, Adrian, you’re not alone — I agree with every word you say. But BanPiracy misappropriated the quote. Adrian wasn’t responding to any commenters at all. He was the first comment, criticizing (rightfully) a studio behaving unprofessionally. In fact, quite a few commenters criticized the studio in that very thread. Many other comments came from paying customers, some of them paying Waves customers — again, not pirates. Many paying customers explicitly said they would spend money on products that compete with Waves’ software. (note: NOT pirate Waves software, BUY someone else’s.) Most importantly, BanPiracy appropriated Adrian’s comment in a forum, distorted the context, changed his meaning, and then used it to support their cause without his permission. Then they sent that out as an “official statement”, evidently on the urging of their PR firm.

So, keeping score, BanPiracy has misrepresented which clients they represent, they’ve misrepresented what I said, and they misrepresented the readers and comments on this site.

I do hope we’ll talk more about finding solutions to piracy. But this really comes down to how to support making great software by legitimate means, whether that’s open source and free business models or commercial models. And that really starts with users and customers. It’s a conversation we’ll continue to have here, for those willing to read it. I hope readers will continue to agree and argue with what I say here; that’s the point. But it does mean you will have to actually read.

Related:
BanPiracy Puts Controversial Plans in Motion [Pro Sound News, 11/15]
PACE, IMSTA Support BanPiracy [Pro Sound News, 11/15]
Waves versus cracks: first writs issued in LA [Pro Sound News Europe, 11/14 - includes more details on the damages sought and funding]
BanPiracy Responds: Offical statement released to the forums [Sonic State, 11/21]
BanPiracy.org

Note that the Pro Sound News Europe story suggests BanPiracy might find clients beyond Waves:

“We are in active discussion with a number of companies we met at the AES Convention,” [CEO Michael T.] David concludes, “including software developers.”

Assuming they haven’t been turned off by BanPiracy’s statements, I’m sure any future client would be able to look forward to the same positive reaction from their customer base Waves has gotten.

Previously:
Studio Busted by Waves Anti-Piracy Police Shares Experience [CDM, 11/14]
Interview: Cakewalk Founder Greg Hendershott, 20 Years On [CDM, 11/12]

Tweet

Tweet

]]> http://createdigitalmusic.com/2007/11/banpiracy-responds-waves-going-it-alone-in-software-crack-crackdown/feed/ 52 http://createdigitalmusic.com/2007/10/meet-the-anti-piracy-vigilantes/ http://createdigitalmusic.com/2007/10/meet-the-anti-piracy-vigilantes/#comments Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:25:08 +0000 Peter Kirn http://createdigitalmusic.com/2007/10/09/meet-the-anti-piracy-vigilantes/ Continue →]]> How do you get new customers? How about filing lawsuits and taking a break-your-legs-style approach to busting recording studios via covert operatives? Yes, it’s Banpiracy.com, a new private business dedicated to threatening studios unless they “go legit.” Their efforts got started as part of Waves controversial sting operations in European studios. Now they’re coming for you Stateside, as an independent copyright police. First, they claim 50% (in the US) to 80% (in Europe) of studios pirate software, with no evidence to support that claim. Then, they plainly state their mission is to be a group of legal vigilantes, filing hundreds of legal actions around the country and taking on dozens of studios here in the US. (Great AES announcement; thanks.)

Let’s be clear: I’m absolutely opposed to piracy. It really has damaged the industry, and it really is often perpetrated by people can afford to pay. For people who can’t afford the software, we’ve been big advocates of cheap, freeware, and free/open source software that can be used legally. But making anti-piracy efforts look like brute thuggery is horribly damaging for an industry that’s been working for years to try to encourage positive relations with its customer base in order to compel them to buy software as choice, not out of fear. I’ve talked to many developers who, despite their concerns about piracy, have worked really hard to build that paying base of users, through mutual trust. And I can only see this nonsense having one effect: hurting the efforts of developers who have fought piracy by using sensible product authorization, providing great support, and taking an active role in the music community.

SonicState.com got a great interview, which is nice, as it means I didn’t have to talk to them:

AESNYC07: More On The Waves Antipiracy Campaign

And developers, please, we’re happy to help you sell more legit software; let’s stay away from these guys. They’re creepy. This isn’t really an anti-piracy effort; they plainly state they’re out to make more money for their clients. And that’s called extortion.

Updated: Amidst the roiling debate going on in our comments now, here’s an excellent and quite balanced article from Pro Sound News Europe. They detail the tactics used. In fact, what Waves/BanPiracy is doing is legal. Whether it’s good PR for existing, legitimate customers is another matter.
Waves tackles the cracks [Pro Sound News Europe]

Another observation, if I’ve got this right. Some readers do feel combating piracy may take this kind of strong-armed approach. But, so far, the only confirmed client of BanPiracy is still Waves. That means, whatever claims BanPiracy makes about the industry as a whole, it’s possible no one else is willing to take these kinds of measures. If you hear otherwise, let us know. But sticking to dongles, serials, authorization, and old-fashioned customer outreach may remain the solution for most developers.

Tweet

Tweet

]]> http://createdigitalmusic.com/2007/10/meet-the-anti-piracy-vigilantes/feed/ 79