Sound Blaster Live II (Audigy) = fascist anti-consumer product?

[Leo V]

The below specs were copied from HardOCP, which took them down at Creative's request. I'm pasting their contents, and my commentary below them:


* Powerful EMU10K2 Audio Processor -- expanded power, double the effects
* Secure Content Support -- Expanded content secruity, safe box, secure music, secure transaction
* Dual Firewire/1394 Support -- expanded high speed connectivity, connectivity to DV cameras, connectivity to external storage and 1394 supported devices; similar to USB, but 30x faster; can hook up to 60 devices

CLI will also be creating sub-brands for each feature to leverage technology, EX: Audigy Audio Processor, Content Pass, Sound Blaster 1394

Secondary Features
* 6 channel digital and analog output (Dolby Digital approved -- CLI is only company to have this approval)
* PlayCenter 2 -- high quality 320kbps encoder with up to 9x digital audio acceleration; digital media organizer; audio only media player that allows selection of frequencies, added click remover and noise reduction features
* Customization with EAX effects and Oozic-- various acoustic properties, voice shifter; visual component/enhancer
* Complete softare package
* Upgradeability via CreativeWare (formerly LiveWare)

Platinum Product Only
* Audigy Drive with Firewire connector -- connects to front of PC, offering consumers 2 connectors
* Remote control

I'll emphasize the following line from the specs:

"Secure Content Support -- Expanded content secruity, safe box, secure music, secure transaction"

If this doesn't ring a bell to you, they're implying support for SDMI=Secure Digital Music Initiative. The goal of SDMI is to prevent you, the legitimate purchaser of digital music, from being able to access it. It aims to give the distributor total control over how, when, or how many times you can play your own music. Such a fascist anti-consumer plan was (obviously enough) developed by the RIAA, and I'm surprised Creative would ever succumb to their demands.

What this means to you is, the SBLiveII will support playing back encrypted music designed to prevent you from accessing it in any non-sanctioned way. In other words, it'll come with a built-in Trojan Horse whose sole purpose is "securing" (ie taking away) your rights in the future. Even if this scheme can be cracked once SDMI music becomes common, the very support for SDMI is a spit in your face as a customer.

What makes me sad is that people will swallow it, just like they swallowed DVD's which employ similar anti-consumer measures (encryption which is illegal to decipher, even for the DVD's owner). The only way for us consumers to fight a highly organized corporate onslaught is to become educated about what's going on, and get others around you to become educated. This next decade threatens to turn abysmal for all freedom-loving individuals, and only with the utmost effort can we stand our ground against powerful lobbies and, worst of all, plain old ignorance.
LeoV

 

[Sir Fredrick]

While I agree that this is awful, I am not at all surprised to see Creative leading the way here. I have never been a big fan, and I began to resent them when they refused to offer Win2k driver support for my 6 month old SB PCI 128. They're only losing points now. It's safe to say that I won't be purchasing any creative cards any time soon. Thank god there is finally some competition in the market again, with the Philips Acoustic Edge, and the Turtle Beach cards...let's just hope they don't soccumb to the RIAA too.

 

[JellyBaby]

I'm against the RIAA consortium maintaining control over music. For that reason I won't buy this Creative Card. Hopefully Sir Fred is right and TB and Philips will not include this stupid rights removal technology.

I agree with Leo about losing our liberties in the future. Windows will soon gain "content protection" (i.e. RIAA revenue stream protection). All removal media (DVD-R, etc.) will include it. Hard drives would have included it and still might, though the battle continues there. And now sound cards?! Geez why don't we all just drive over to Warner Bros. et all and let 'em shackle us up once and for all?

Think I'll fire off some correspondence to creative telling them how I feel about this move. They've lost at least one customer.

 

[Phil21]

Hurm, that sucks.

what are some products that will truly be able to match the SB Live! / LiveII or whatever in sound reproduction (surround) and CPU offload?

I love my SB Live, it rocks.. but I won't be supporting any company that thinks they have a right to give themselves a profit by whatever means neccessary.

-Phil

 

[Oyeve]

Oh bitch, bitch, bitch, whine, whine, whine! I cant believe people getting bent our of shape for stuff like this! There will be a crack for it.

 

[skace]

Hah Oyeve, which is worse: bitching/whining or making random assumptions? You can assume there will be a crack for it, but you can't back it up yet. So until that happens, commence with whining. I will sit here and enjoy music from my Santa Cruz card.

 

[Leo V]

"Oh bitch, bitch, bitch, whine, whine, whine! I cant believe people getting bent our of shape for stuff like this! There will be a crack for it."

It's exactly this it-won't-happen-to-me apathy that allows such things to happen in the first place. There probably will indeed be a crack, I'd be surprised otherwise. However, I'm absolutely not tempted by the idea of being reduced to a surreptitious criminal for exercising my most basic freedoms.

 

[Oyeve]

Theres a good chance that, being CL is the largest manufacturer of sound cards, they are getting pressured if not forced by the industry to include this SDMI technology. Before we can slam them and refuse to buy their products, we should get the facts straight. A lot of people complain about CLs products but I bet 99% have sound cards made by them. And for the exception of a few BAD products (SB16 ISA PNP, CL ensonique) they have made great products for over 10 years. And no, I do not work for them .

 

[Leo V]

"Theres a good chance that, being CL is the largest manufacturer of sound cards, they are getting pressured if not forced by the industry to include this SDMI technology."

No doubt they are pressured! However, at the end of the day, it's Creative's decision and Creative's alone. Apparently pressure from the RIAA means more to Creative than their own customers.

I'd disagree with you about Creative products' quality (ie their "sound quality&quot, but it's completely irrelevant here and you know it.

 

[skace]

Personally, I think the SBLive should be in that list of BAD products
Creative Labs needs to get their act together. I'd rather shoot myself then have to deal with the way they handle drivers.

I think the facts are straight also, the information was taken from a feature list. Who cares if/how they were pressured into it. The fact remains that the feature is there and the end buyer is the one that takes the repurcussions of this "feature".

Yes, the chance is probably high that people own CL sound cards, why? because they have owned a lot of the market. That is like saying chances are high that you owned a voodoo based video card 2 years ago. So because something is dominating a market means you can't criticize it? More and more competition is coming and its only a matter of time until CL loses its footing.

 

[Pariah]

It amazes me how people will shoot their mouth off about stuff they don't understand in an attempt to drum up apathy towards someone else or some company. SDMI will have zero affect on anything currently on your computer. The only thing SDMI compliant hardware/software won't play is illegally copied SDMI music. About the only place you're going to see SDMI music for the near term is on online stores that allow the downloading of music. So what happens if you have an SDMI compliant CD and you want to make an MP3 of it and take it on the road? You have every right to do that, and you can, as long as you have the original disc. The only thing you can't do is copy the ripped file. Creative a facsist company for supporting an antipiracy scheme? Give me a break, find something better to do with your time. For the facts about SDMI go here:

SDMI FAQ

 

[Soccerman]

yeah I noticed that line when I first saw those 'specs', I'm worried too.

I won't be getting it, though it looks to be a good card otherwise.

 

[CigarSmokedByClinton]

nice post, pariah, I agree with you, as I did some research on the matter, and if this inhibits you from doing "only" illegal things, I'm all for it.

 

[Oyeve]

Thanks Pariah a Cigar. Finally someone who understands.

 

[JellyBaby]

CigarSmokedByClinton,

The trouble is, the RIAA is the driving force behind SMDI. SMDI as it is planned is upgradable. So what the RIAA allows today it may not tomorrow. The shackles may feel really comfy when you first try them on but after a few years expect to bleed.

I will personally embrace a standard like this if the RIAA is no part of it. Also, it must truly be based on open standards and I must always have a choice whether or not to participate as an end-user/customer...and finally, of course, if it doesn't drive prices up.

 

[Noriaki]

It would be a minor annoyance for me, but I think companies have the right to protect there own. If it only prevents illegal things then what's the problem?

My minor annoyance would be in that I ran a "trial" (read: warez) version of Win2k for a few months before I bought it.

I've collected a few MP3s to check out CDs before I bought them...

But in the end I've bought all my software and I've probably tripled my CD collection since MP3s....I have no problems with paying for what I use.

Though I would prefer a world without it, *shrugs* we can all go back to pen and paper and 8 tracks to. It's a digital world, and eventually companies are going to start protecting their own.

 

[Buddha Bart]

I read the FAQ, I still dont' get it.
How does it actually affect the end user?

Do I have to insert the CD for a check every time I want to play an MP3?

bart

 

[j@cko]

geez... just don't buy their cards! as simple as that!
There are still other great cards out there.

 

[Playitagainsam]

Another great example of technology enforcing legal measures which might not even represent the will of the consumers... nice try, Creative!

Pariah, you are wrong, but I'm not even going to bother explaining you why SDMI is a consumer-rights infringement. I just wish people like you wouldn't vote as often as they seem to. For additional political considerations, check my sig...

 

[Noriaki]

"Bible Thumper = Mother Humper" that is profound.

Does anyone know where to get a TB Santa Cruz in Canada? This doesn't look like a big deal, but I don't think I need it in my system.

 

[Leo V]

"I think companies have the right to protect there own. If it only prevents illegal things then what's the problem?"

If a company (or rather, a monopolistic cartel of companies) lobbies the Congress into enacting laws which take away your freedom, I have a major problem. A corporation wouldn't blink at murder if 1) they didn't face legal consequences, and 2) they were "protecting their own" profits. You could say the flaw resides in our political/legal system with its comfortable tolerance for corporate crime.

Having the right to "protect" your own doesn't entail having a right to take away somebody else's freedom (everybody's in this case). If I say that I can't live peacefully unless you are forced to adopt a meat-free diet, people will (perhaps rightfully) call me a fascist control freak. When a monopolistic entity tells Congress essentially the same thing (we'll go bankrupt--yeah right--if you don't take away your constituents' freedoms) it gets a very sympathetic ear.

By the way, only a monopoly gets away with a product/standard that "protects" you (their customer) from yourself.

 

[EvilDonnyboy]

curious, how would RIAA pressure Creative into this thing? What would stop creative from saying "eff off fuko's it's my business not urs, leave us alone"? I don't think RIAA controlls anything that's essential ot Creative, so how would the blackmail them? Legally, I think refusing to encorporate this technology is pretty much sound.

 

[DeeK]

<< It would be a minor annoyance for me, but I think companies have the right to protect there own. If it only prevents illegal things then what's the problem? >>




It can't only prevent illegal use. You see, there's provisions under copyright law called &quot;fair use&quot;. It includes such things as making backups for personal use. In order to prevent all illegal use, it would have to prevent legal use like that which is allowed by fair use.

The bottom line of the war over copyright is that there's no middle ground. In order to completely prevent copying, it would have to be enforced by nothing less than totalitarianism. Open Source software would have to be outlawed, because having the source available would mean it's trivial to modify it to bypass copy control measures. That would also mean that software compilers would have to be registered. Compilers! The concept of the public domain would vanish when everything is encrypted (&quot;Yes, we know that that song is in the public domain, but you can't decrypt it because you could use the same tool to decrypt other, newer songs that aren't in the public domain&quot.

Every recording device would have to assume that you don't own the copyright to what you're recording, limiting you in how you can use recordings that you should own because the equipment can't tell if you're recording your baby's first words or if you have a microphone in front of your speakers, trying to copy that new album you just bought. This is exactly what happened to consumer Digital Audio Tape. Anything with an analog output would be illegalized and replaced with equipment that only features encrypted digital outputs. Intel has already written a proposal for a standard for an encrypted digital video interface.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

What's for sure is that no matter which side it ends up on (anarchy or totalitarianism), there's going to be a LOT of fallout over this issue. There's going to be major changes in the future, so try to be as informed as possible.

Me, I vote anarchy.

 

[Pariah]

All you people looking at this like some sort of constitutional right debate need to learn how to read. Since I know most of you haven't nor will read it, just so you have something to complain about, I'll hit on a few of the key points.

Q - Why does the SDMI framework allow both protected and unprotected formats?

A - SDMI members agree that protected formats enable the growth of electronic music distribution (EMD) by protecting the rights of artists. Members also recognize that there are many legitimate uses for unprotected formats. As a result, SDMI supports both.


In otherwords, just because it is SDMI compliant, doesn't mean there have to be any sort of copy protection.

Q - Will consumers still be able to copy their CDs onto their personal computers?

A - Yes. The specification allows consumers to copy (rip) their CDs onto their computers for personal use (on their PC, on their portable devices, on their portable media, etc.). In fact, the specification enables consumers to do so as many times as they wish ? as long as they have the original disk.

This clearly states you will be able to make as many &quot;backup&quot; copies as you want, as long as you have the disc. How is that in anyway infringing on your rights?

Q - Will the privacy of users be compromised as a result of SDMI technology?

A - No. Any user who wants to legally distribute music anonymously on the Internet or elsewhere will be able to do so using any of a number of alternative technologies, such as MP3. And of course, the use of the SDMI system is entirely voluntary.

In otherwords you can pirate all the music you want using a different format. Just because a device, the new SB Live for example, is SDMI compliant doesn't mean it won't be able to play all your illegal music on it.

There is nothing in this specification that infringes on any of your so called user rights. Sony music stick has been out for over a year and is SDMI compliant. Yet you can play whatever you want on it. You people are getting your panties all in wad over nothing.

 

[JellyBaby]

<< curious, how would RIAA pressure Creative into this thing? >>

Oh certainly it wasn't coercion as some believe. How about if the RIAA said to them, &quot;Incorporate secure digital mechanisms and think about all the money we can make together. Here's some to get you started...&quot;. Or it may not be sinister at all -- a few silver tongued marketers and bidnuss men could accomplish the same deal...&quot;Creative Labs -- the company that start it all (secure content control for the masses).&quot;.

<< Since I know most of you haven't nor will read it >>

Indeed I did read that FAQ. Some parts certainly sounded sincere, others scared me. Are you so certain it's not a living document? I saw no promises and no gaurantees. Of course that will change through time. It is entirely possible a future generation of sound cards will only accept SDMI-encoded data streams. Some slopes are mighty slippery...especially when a pack of lobbiests are pushing something along..