Copy-Protected CDs Going Mainstream 621
bmarklein writes "According to this CNET article, Arista is going to start shipping copy-protected CDs in volume. Looks like the discs will include DRM'd Windows Media files in the second session. No mention of which titles will be affected, but Arista is the home of Santana, Whitney Houston, Pink, TLC and Kenny G."
Kenny G ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Kenny G ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Kenny G ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Kenny G ... (Score:5, Insightful)
the RIAA and record labels are just bringing their demise on themselves
Re:Kenny G ... (Score:3, Insightful)
We'll see. It's possible that this will increase sales(don't know how--it's not going to stop file-traders--but miracles could happen, right?). If this increases sales, They will copy-protect more disks. If it doesn't increase sales, they'll copy-protect fewer disks. It's up to us to make sure they make the right choice.
Re:Kenny G ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Eat a toad in the morning. Nothing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. Never underestimate the self-destructiveness of business people.
Record people: Eat a toad in the morning. That way, nothing worse will happen all day.
Re:Eat a toad in the morning. Nothing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Kenny G ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Kenny G ... (Score:3, Funny)
Come on, you were all thinking it!
Re:Kenny G ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Kenny G ... (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll get around to that in a few years. The kind of people that listen to that Kenny G shit probably won't have any idea about the DRM issus. This will allow them to get an "install base" for this copy protection and then they can go to congras and say "look at all these millions of people whe are ok with it".
Re:Kenny G ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:40-somethings hate him too! (Score:3, Funny)
No, but a lot of the none geek ones do. Dude, when I am SEVENTY, it will still be Aerosmith, Aerosmith and more Aerosmith. Got it?
Yeah, but when you are 70, will you be able to hear.
Re:Kenny G ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apology accepted.
Just out of curiosity, what data are you extrapolating a "geek" like of Linkin' Park from?
Either way, I don't find it particularly dangerous for record labels to attempt to be compensated for their products. I think it's fairly natural for them to use increasingly more extreme measures of reducing the brazenly open distribution of their content.
I mean really [peerweb.org] did you expect them to just bend over [f2s.com] and take it?
The more people steal their products, the more they're going to do everything within their power to reduce the effectiveness for the average person to do so. Dangerous? Not particularly. The people that whittle away your fair use rights are the people that think they're the ones with the power, take whatever they want, and fail to understand that the music industry isn't just going to sit there and let them pick its bones.
If you want to find someone to be angry with download [kazaalite.com] this program, do a search for some of Arista's artists, and then message all of the people distributing their work. Something like, "Hey Fuckhead, you're evaporating my fair use rights of copyrighted materials."
Re:Kenny G ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have any inalienable rights either. All rights are provided as a matter of law. It matters rather little what Locke and those that shared his views believed to be their source.
Calling it "stealing" is subverting the language to fit your viewpoint, it implies there is more in common with downloading songs and shoplifting other than both being illegal. It is copyright infringement, nothing more.
I suggest you grow up. The person distributing and the person receiving copies of media without the permission of its owner are taking away their equally law-given right of control, and through which, compensation for their efforts.
It is illegal, but it doesn't always have to be, nor was it always so. For example, there is new economic theory that proposes copyright isn't necessary and sometimes harmful to artists and innovators. If this was accepted as common knowledge, copyright would eventually cease to exist. I'm not saying this is going to happen, but pointing out that copyright isn't some inalienable right.
And civilization could collapse and I could take your food and beat you to death with a stick. There goes your inalienable rights to life and property.
Your ideology is irrelevant, and I suggest you come back to Earth with the rest of us. It is illegal. Those people are benefiting without compensating the owners. The people with a vested interest in maintaining the right to control their intellectual property have large sums of money to use, and lose, and will take those steps that are economically viable to fight the illegal distribution of their property. You don't have to like it, but they're going to do whatever it takes. If they need to obfuscate their property, poison P2P networks, sue companies into oblivion, or pass draconian laws to push back the tide, they will. They're being pushed against the wall by the open illegal distribution of their property. They wouldn't need to waste their money on Congressmen and cryptography if there weren't petabytes of their work being downloaded without a second thought by the very markets that have sustained them. They're _going_ to make it as _expensive_ as possible for the average person to download their products freely because people _are_ making it more expensive for them not to. They don't care about where you place their rights in your fantasy food chain.
How many people have to go untaught or uncultured before it is considered harmful?
Intellectual honesty: 0
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kenny G ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I gather that you don't believe in inalienable rights --ie, natural rights that exist because, well, we believe that they do. That all rights are privileges granted by those with power, and that any other view is fantasy and de facto childishness.
Do you realize that you have disowned Jefferson's view of the rights of man? You've rejected everything that the United States was founded upon. Is this what we're really up against? People who have swung so far to the right that they have disowned the ideals of our country? Might is the only right; we're pricks, we're rich, get used to it?
From what I've seen of the neo-conservatives, I think you exemplify what they stand for, from debt explosion, to treaty abrogation, to the destruction of the tax base, and free schools.. the creation of impossible "property" composed of notes of a song or the ideas in a book.
The rights of man do not really exist. They are not written on an asteroid by the hand of God himself.
The rights of man, which we hold to be self-evident, are a fiction agreed to among civilized people. Since they can be denied with the flick of a pen, or an election, they can only exist if people understand them -- support them -- and die for them. This is what patriotism means.
The artsy-fartsy intellectually dishonest people whom you mock are the real source of the free air you breathe. They maintain the big lie -- that you have the right to a constitution that guarantees certain rights to the individual. We, the intellectually dishonest, have for over 225 years fought the "realistic" people who point out that our rights can be taken away with a club. Or a gun. Or a secret arrest and imprisonment at the President's mercy (0).
No gun, no army, no flag can guarantee the rights in the U.S. Constitution, if a majority of the people of the U.S. don't understand their heritage. The intellectually dishonest hippies are the true conservatives, trying against desperate odds to preserve over two centuries of hard-won rights and beliefs against "intellectual honesty" which basically champions thuggery as the only true reality.
I am a true conservative. You are a radical.
Jack Valenti saith... (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe it isn't the copying that is the problem, much as the use of needles isn't the problem.
Needles are harmless. Drug addicts spread disease and crime. Copying is harmless, It's what you do afterward that may or may not be harmful.
And don't even go there...
Jack Valenti (MPAA) saith:
Why would you buy something you can acquire for free?
I saith:
Why would you give away what you payed for? And since you are now paying, why wou
Re:Kenny G ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, that's the scariest thing I've read in a long time, and is completely opposite to the principles the USA was founded on.
An inalienable right, like the right to your life, is something the state cannot grant, because if the state can grant it, it can just as easily deny. Now, these protections are enforced by law, but the law does not give you those rights in the first place.
Re:Kenny G ... (Score:3, Funny)
Don't worry -- you'll still be able to get your easy-listening fix right here [tesh.com]! =P
Re:Kenny G ... (Score:3, Informative)
The fact is, as long as the bits are on the discs to be read, there is no way they will ever devise an unbreakable cd copy protection format. This is really why they are trying to trojan us with this DVD-A and SACD crap.
My Question is (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My Question is (Score:5, Informative)
The DRM embedded in These Audio files is made so that only Windows Media Player can play them, and once they are on a PC they are branded to that specific PC.
But I really wouldn't try playing them in a computer anyway, as even Apple Computing has released a statement [com.com] along the lines of "Play copy protected CDs in a Mac, void your warranty."
They're not CDs... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They're not CDs... (Score:4, Informative)
Blue book is for stamped CDs and allows for two tracks, one audio and one data.
Re:They're not CDs... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way around this would be for the store to set up a seperate area for DRM'ed discs, with big signage indicating that they were NOT CDs.
At least in English consumer law (although IANAL.)
Re:My Question is (Score:3, Insightful)
If ever there was a time for a mass boycott of music CDs and merchandise, this is it.
Making copy protected CDs mainstream is a way to take away your choice to buy non-copy protected CDs. Since you have no choice, they figure you'll still buy.
Let's prove them wrong. Hit'em in the crown jewels - their wallets.
Re:My Question is (Score:5, Informative)
The article is a little vague on this but it appears that they will be combining the copy protection schemes they have been utilizing in the past with a second session on the CD containing data. The copy protection usually follows the form of modifying the format of the data in such a way that 'dumb' devices simply ignore the modifications but 'intelligent' devices (read: computers) choke on the corrupted data. The inclusion of the second session is simply an attempt to downplay the complaints by consumers who argued that they wanted to be able to play their CDs in their computers.
The tactic here is to pacify 90% of the average music purchasing public (windows users) while simultaneously giving everyone the shaft. By the time the average consumer realizes they've been screwed it's already common practice. I assume this is an attempt to see if these CDs really do receive less complaints the infamous Celine Dion CD that broke [theregister.co.uk] a herd of iMacs.
Re:My Question is (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm surprised at myself, but suddenly I think "I'm okay with that." I mean, I don't get upset that the frozen belgian waffles I buy won't play on my linux box. I don't get upset with the knowledge that if I put diesel in my car it will not run.
Somebody has a case (Philips?) if these discs get the CDDA logo, I presume. I'm okay with that too. I will let them work it out amongst themselves. All this DRM and copy protection crap is fine with me right up to the point that it stops me, a musician, from being able to record and distribute my own music. The industry has already tried to raise the barrier by artificial means. It is very difficult to create work in the formats required for professional A/V postproduction without using expensive proprietary formats, or equipment that is kept out of the consumer market becaue IP concerns inflate the price. That upsets me, but I still don't cry "foul, rights violation."
Now when someone tells me I can't put my OWN mp3 online, music I wrote, recorded, reserve all rights, etc.... THEN I have a Federal case to make out of it, and would be willing to take up arms against the authority that tried to take away my most fundamental rights.
DRM on Kenny G is news, but it's not violating your rights. Kenny might be advised to look over his contract and see if HIS rights are being ripped though. Might be some meat there for his lawyers.
Article in 2600. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:My Question is (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a simply way of dealing with copy protected CD's. I will only buy a CD if it's avalible on Kazaa or the like so I can preview it. If the CD is copy restricted, I will simply live with what i've downloaded. If they are normal, I will go to my local used CD shop and buy the CD.
Good point... (Score:3, Interesting)
Fair enough. I wonder how long it'll take before the big recording companies realise that they often make more sales by publically releasing some of the content.
That's certainly working well for a lot of musicians working for themselves.
That aside, is there anybody seriously working on a Linux hack to work around this copy protecion? instant Score 5 Informative, anyone?
Copy Protection means NO FAIR USE (Score:2, Insightful)
Since I cannot back them up.
When no one buys their copy-protected law-breaking titles, they'll stop issuing them that way.
Re:Copy Protection means NO FAIR USE (Score:2, Insightful)
Therefore I will not buy ANY of those titles.
Since I cannot back them up.
If you're buying titles like these, I hope you're not backing them up now!
Re:Copy Protection means NO FAIR USE (Score:5, Funny)
Flashback to 80's computer software. Just hope your new music CD doesn't quiz you on the liner notes before allowing playback. ;)
not buying any (Score:2)
and I'm patient. this will all be sorted out in 10 years and I'll re-stock my collection.
Not all DRM uses are bad (Score:5, Funny)
And thus we have proof: not all DRM is used for evil purposes. Sometimes it's used for the common good ;)
i finally have proof (Score:2, Funny)
Now you're just asking for jokes.. (Score:5, Funny)
That's just too easy.
Re:Now you're just asking for jokes.. (Score:2, Funny)
Out of feet but plenty of bullets left! (Score:5, Insightful)
If they force copy-protection on us then I think they're quickly going to find:
1. lots of people bitching and returning disks because they won't play in there car player or on their DVD.
2. unskilled people being *forced* to download their MP3 rips from the Net rather than buying a CD and ripping tracks themselves for use on their MP3 players and computers.
3. *no* change in the rate of serious piracy because serious pirates just laugh at the stupid copy protection schemes being used (audio patch cord and decent soundcard anyone?)
And how stupid will the recording industry look if their CD sales figures don't immediately soar to new heights as a result of this copy protection?
If sales levels remain basically unchanged then they're going to have to admit that either:
a) people weren't pirating much anyway
or
b) their copyprotection doesn't work.
But you've got to feel sorry for an industry that has already shot off both its feet but keeps reloading and blasting away in vain, right?
Re:Out of feet but plenty of bullets left! (Score:4, Insightful)
So how long until they buy, erm.. "loby" a law saying the posession of a patch cord or a sound card with a "line in" is illegal? Becuase after all, normal people only have sound coming *out*, you only need sound in if you're a terrorist.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Out of feet but plenty of bullets left! (Score:3, Insightful)
More accurately, this should read:
a) The pirates weren't making much of a dent in sales anyway.
There's a huge difference. One assumes that there weren't that many pirates. The other (and what I think is more accurate) assumes that those pirating weren't going to buy the stuff anyway. 90% of the population could be pirating music but if 89% of those pirates weren't going to buy the music in the first place, sales won't be affected by effective copy protection.
Re:Out of feet but plenty of bullets left! (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry but that won't happen.
Most people, the average Joe user simply dont care. They dont give a shit as long as they can play their cds on the cdplayer. For their sake the RIAA companies could start putting programs that invade their privacy and monitor their behavior. RIAA-companies could start filling their CD's with annoying pop-up ads or force them to use a dubious DRM-scheme.
And 95% of the cd-buying population would ignore it and still continue buying cd's.
The thing most people care about is price and availability.
A friend of mine who work part-time in a large record store (city with 300k population) told me that after they started sellinng cd's with copy-protection last summer the total number of returned CD's was totaling.......*silence waiting for the numbers*...... "somewhere between 25 and 50".
And they are selling something like 1000-1500 cs's a day (open 7 days a week). Go figure.
Exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't want people downloading mp3s--so they're going to actually RESTRICT their CDs even more?
They're simply giving me even more of an incentive to download a cracked (and these are always "cracked" in some way) version so I can burn my own, fully-functioning CD.
Revel in the logic!
fuckum (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:fuckum (Score:2)
How do you record the AUX IN port?
I tried to record a tape to CD once, and the only way I could make it work was to record the tape to my digital recorder, convert the Sony
How to record from the other input (Score:5, Informative)
How do you record the AUX IN port?
I assume that like 90+% of the population, you're using Microsoft Windows, so I'll give instructions that apply to Windows 98 and Windows 2000.
Step 1: Open the mixer. If there is a little speaker icon in your tray (the tray is the part of the taskbar next to the clock), double-click it. Otherwise, go to Start > Programs > Accessories > Entertainment > Volume Control.
Step 2: Show the mixer's recording panel. Options > Properties and then Adjust playback for > Recording. Click OK.
Step 3: Choose the line input. Normally, the check box under "Mic Volume" is selected. Select the check box under "Line In". (Microsoft made a user interface design faux pas here by drawing the input selections as square checkboxes, which normally represent individual on/off settings, rather than as round radio buttons, which represent choose one of many.)
Step 4: Set levels. Open your recording program, record a relatively loud segment of the analog source, and tweak the levels so that the peaks don't make a harsh digital clipping noise on playback.
Step 5: Record. For this, you should use a program that records to disk such as Cool Edit or Sound Forge. Read the fine manual.
Step 6: Cleanup. Here, you are remastering the audio back into a digital format. Apply noise reduction and equalization filters until the audio in your computer sounds just as good as or better than the CD does.
Step 7: Compress. For MP3, use lame --alt-preset standard. For Ogg Vorbis, put the quality setting at 5 or 6.
Re:Step 5: Record. (Score:4, Informative)
Where the apps are... (Score:4, Informative)
wait! I almost forgot! PRO TOOLS FREE! [digidesign.com] Yep, what the professionals use, just with slightly less bells and whistles. Get your head around this, and you've got jobs waiting for you in recording studios.
Nope, the sound is degraded on your computer ! (Score:3, Informative)
No
It may as well be a bug, but I'll tell you a story. I recently bought Massive Attack's latest album, as well as Air's recent City Reading. Both are "copy-protected". Fine.
I boot under Windows (98), put the CD in, and the D: shows somes files (no audio tracks!), including a player.exe. I execute it : it's an ugly CD-player that plays the audio tracks of the C
Guess I'll just use warez then... (Score:5, Funny)
Step 1: Want MP3
Step 2: Buy CD
Step 3: Have MP3
After:
Step 1: Want MP3
Step 2: ???
Step 3: No profit!
Way to go RIAA...
(Not to mention that I don't even want the music on landfill-type media. Sell me MP3s online and I'll pay, goddamnit!)
Try eMusic (Score:2)
Sell me MP3s online and I'll pay
Does $15 per month [emusic.com] sound like a bargain?
Only Windows affected? (Score:4, Interesting)
There're a lot of Linux users that keep a Windows box for games. In the future some Windows users could want a Linux box (maybe a barebones) for media.
standard answer (Score:2, Insightful)
It only takes one Windows system to make it work for the rest. Warez community can afford it :-)
not gonna help them much (Score:2, Insightful)
Copy-protected CDs have been shown not to be effective at stopping people "pirating" them. Even if an ideal copy protection did exist, there's still that blasted analogue hole. If they want to copy protect their content, they'll have to use a different medium since older CD players don't like copy-protected CDs.
As I've said before, this is just an
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
They killed Kenny G! The bastards! (Score:2)
And this is a bad thing, how?
I mean, really: suppose an errant Tomahawk cruise missile took out any one of these "artists". My first thought would be "Why couldn't they have killed Bon Jovi, too?".
Now if they started using this copy protection scheme on the works of Zamfir, Master of the Pan Pipe, then I'd be pissed, and rightly so. Can't be mackin' tha ladiez without Masta Z, tha OG.
Word.
k.
Don't call them CDs (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is no name for them, they cannot be feared, and despised, and resisted. There is no way to think about them, or talk about them - which is exactly what they want.
You must speak the true name of your enemy.
Re:Don't call them CDs (Score:5, Interesting)
And in the meantime, the enemy's already thought of an alternative name: enhanced CD.
Ohh, the doublespeak. Ohh, the irony! . . .oh, well, I had better things to do with my money anyway.
Re:Don't call them CDs (Score:5, Funny)
How are those? I figured we should stay with acronyms.
Un-CD, Non-CD (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe Non-CD works better for the english language.
It's both short enough to be snappy, and makes clear what these
things are (not).
Re:Un-CD, Non-CD (Score:3, Interesting)
A much better English equivalent is "Anti-CD".
Not that bad though... (Score:2)
eg.
Fire up an irc client
Join an irc server
@find $lt;song title>
!SomeNick <song title>
*dum dee dum*
DCC get complete...
Ahh, the sound of music at near CD quality... And no bloody saxophone or whatever instrument that gayish Kenny G thinks he can play next.
DRM goes mainstream, not that it should matter... (Score:2, Informative)
A good example is now, I'm listening to a lot of Red Martian [redmartian.com] on the punk side and John McCutcheon [folkmusic.com] on the folk side. Both of which provide MP3s online of their stuff and actively support the promotion of online music. Not only that, but Red martian sells their albums an
two copies? (Score:3, Interesting)
This so-called second session, containing files that can be used by computer music aficionados but not widely distributed, has come to be a key goal for the labels.
based on these lines, it looks as if they're going to have two versions of every song? that no doubt means that there will be fewer songs on some CD's... or perhapes will have really low bitrate versions for the computer, to save space... except that these versions will also sound crappy, due to their low bitrate.
and i guess people without constant internet connections are going to be a little screwed, since, afaik, all microsoft's drm techiniques involve some sort of online interaction with a remote server. that kinda alienates half the population right there...
It'll be interesting to see the impact on sales (Score:2)
On the other side of the argument, opponants of current DRM strategies can argue that demographics of the respective fan bases of thes
It can be Encrypted and Decrypted (Score:3, Interesting)
2.) If it can be encrypted it can be decrypted...what makes them think that this time crackers will just roll over and not break this copyright protection? I dont think a small band of corporate code jockies will forever outsmart a determined community.
3.) There are always alternatives, they can spend years locking, bricking up, chaining, securing the main door and not accomplish anything with the back door, side doors, and windows left wide open.
4.) Alternatives will provide new rips anyway and what have they then accomplished except...see point 1.
Anybody know where I can get some toilet paper with DMCA on it?
Do they really think this will work? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is the music industry really so dumb as to think that hardware and software solutions will really ever work?
Think of it this way, software companies have been trying for years to copy protect their software. They've gone rapidly through overburned CDs, hardware dongles, encrypted CD verification. Sony even masked Playstation discs so that they could leave sections of the CDs blank as a sort of key. None of it has worked yet. What makes record labels think that they're immune?
Of course, don't get me wrong. The more time they spend on pointless hardware and software solutions the more time they divert from their likely more effective political attempts.
hmmmm... (Score:2)
well..no love lost there!
Unbreakable copy protection & perpetual motion (Score:5, Funny)
Too late, its already happened. (Score:5, Informative)
The 'Compact Disc' logo we've come to expect is missing.
A 'enhanced CD' logo is present.
Reading the fine print, this Capitol Records release (released on march the 6th) says:
"Enhanced CD" is a certification mark of the RIAA
Need I mention that this CD cannot be burned in any of my machines? Ripping to mp3s is only possible via the line-in jack, and has horrible quality (compared with ripping from my cd-rom, that is).
This is not a santanna album, its from a much smaller, newer act. The RIAA has made more headway with promoting thier agenda then this article seems to imply: These CDs are already on the market, and have been since the begining of the month, at the least.
Please note: The RIAA site has the definition of the 'enchanced CD" 'standard' available here [riaa.com]. The standard does not require any form of watermarking of copyright protection. However, as a copy-protected cd is technically NOT compliant with the original philips specifications, I find it very suspect that the RIAA made thier own standard. Especially since this standard serves no purpose other than to replace the ageing 'Compact Disc' logo.
Phew! (Score:5, Funny)
Phew! So we don't have anything to worry about then. I was really getting worried for a minute there!
Wow.... (Score:5, Funny)
Buy them, then return them as unplayable... (Score:5, Interesting)
Returns rip the heart out of Music profits...
ttyl
Farrell
insidious. aka you're missing the point. (Score:4, Insightful)
owns a windows machine and doesn't suspect there are alternatives
is the least likely to hack/reverse engineer the drm in the copy protection
couldn't care less about drm or fair use rights, and doesn't bother using kazaa...
i mean come on, folks. the average kenny g listener (sorry, dad) probably doesn't give a rat's ass about any of this baloney, which is exactly why it will be successful and touted as the solution to piracy after n number of albums have been released with all this copy protection and nobody complains.
think they don't have a profile of what your average linux using ogg vorbis encoding windows bashing music fan listens to? of course they do. are you surprised that none of those bands are on this list?
Don't worry (Score:5, Funny)
"Compact Disc" (Score:5, Informative)
Bought One Recently (Score:4, Interesting)
2 weeks ago I bought Norah Jones as an impulse purchase, after listening to it once I proceeded to rip it and found that it was "Copy Controlled(tm)". The cover had a logo indicating this but I didn't see it when I was in the store. By using a different CDROM drive in another PC I was able to rip it no problems. That however, is not the point.
After spending $30AUD I've got better things to do with my time than fsck around with DRM.
In the same purchase I also bought the new (un-copy controlled) Aimee Mann album, guess who's going to be getting my money in the future and who won't?
CD-ROM Drives (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:CD-ROM Drives (Score:3, Informative)
For those of us that want MP3s for convenience... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have enough music that I don't have to buy those stupid copy-protected CDs for a good listen.
Your nightmare..Or it should be... (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree, we should have the right to do whatever the heck we want to with the media we own, however, the labels and artists have an equal right to make money off their work. And I don't care what rational you use, 6,000,000 GBs is a fucking gaping ass wound for a record company to simply ignore for our right to copy files however we want. And then I had to reflect on who opened this freakin pissing contest... We did, as a community of computer users (not you specifically) by letting this behavior spiral out of control. I used to be able to take CDs back if I didn't like them. Then the copying started. Napster. Kazaa. Ain't no way in hell that's happening anymore.
Fact is, the record companies, regardless of how greedy you think they are, have a right to make money. And right now, they have a 6,000,000 GB hole in their side. That's not even the volume in transfers across the internet, which is undoubtably a substantially larger number. As much as I would like to bitch about all the DRM shit happening lately, I have to honestly admit that we have done a piss poor job of regulating our own actions as responsible users. We happily cheat and steal, then have the gall to bitch about DRM and "The Man".
In short we deserve all the shit being piled down upon upon us by the labels as they scramble to stem flow of blood from their persons. Perhapse they are getting their just deserts for being overly greedy, but ladies and gentlemen, we have become a generation of parasites, and parasites eventially get plucked off and thrown to the fire.
Nothing to worry about... (Score:4, Insightful)
A) A multi-session CD, one Audio and one Data (from what the article said, I beleive this is what they're doing)
Or
B) A "CD" that is encrypted (etc) that uses software to un-encrypt it on a computer.
If it's B, most of their market will be alienated. They *MAY* stop illegal trading (doubtful, probably would get cracked) but anyone not wanting to listen to their CDs on anything other than a computer would be screwed (thus resulting in almost no sales)
If it's A, there are two solutions: Connecting your stereo to your computer, and ripping it that way, OR simply write a program that ignores the 2nd session, and plays/rips the cd that way. Record companies are wasting their money on copy-protection, because in order to maintain compatibility with old hardware (I still have a 10 year old CD-player) actually protecting the content is IMPOSSIBLE (because computers and other similiar devices can emulate plain cd-players) until we get DRM integrated into our computers, hard drives, CD drives, etc. Once that becomes a reality, thats when we have to start worrying.
Place your bets!!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Last time it was beaten with a pen.
I'm calling the Vegas Sports Books for the Odds.
Dolemite
__________________
How to circumvent multi-session-type protection (Score:3, Interesting)
I bought a "copy-protected" CD recently, well aware of the fact that is had protection, not just because I wanted the music but because I had to check out how this stuff worked.
The CD had two sessions, the first contained audio tracks, the second data withcrappy 48kbit WMA-encoded tracks. It was easy to rip the tracks though.
This method only works in Windows though. If there is a way to dump raw data from a CD in Linux, or even better, select which session you should see, there shouldn't be any problems extracting the tracks.
I am preparing my battle plan.... (Score:3)
Such a simple solution!
Two cents (Score:3, Interesting)
And I mean it. Two considerations, nothing more.
$0.01 #1
- I don't care what kind of copy protection they use, all I want is to buy a
- CDDA compatible disc and play it in any of my CDDA compatible players (including the one in my computer and notebook).
$0.01 #2It sounds weird to me, if they are so worried about money, why don't they worry about finding a effective to comercialize their product?
Heheh, yeah... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Anyone who listens to this (Score:2, Insightful)
Fat Chuck's Corrupt CD List (Score:5, Informative)
http://fatchucks.com/index.html [fatchucks.com]
I'll post more lists if I find any.
Re:Online listing of CD's _NOT_ to buy (Score:2)
Re:DRM on cds (Score:2, Insightful)
Am I too silly to expect a cd that is longer than 40 minutes?
Re:Uprising (Score:2)
Disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the real issue here is that the record labels are trying to stop us from format-shifting.
A lot of slashdotters might be too young to remember the mystical 80s when digital audio was new and we had re-issues of old stuff onto the new format with much fanfare and rejoicing ("The Beatles come to CD! Huzzah, hurray!"). The record companies were able to jerk all of us whose music collections existed on vinyl into replacing them with CDs.
?Fast forward fifteen years and MP3 comes along - except that we can do the format shift ourselves . This is the record companies' worst nightmare - they're not worried about the piracy per se.
People taping songs from the radio and assorted other cheapskate stuff have been around for a long time - only people with no disposable income are willing to go through the hassle. Guess what, they weren't buying records anyway.
My multi gigabyte MP3 collection is similar to what I expect most people's is, all my favourite CDs converted to the new format plus a few (say 10% of the total) songs that I don't own, but have been listening to on the radio for the past thirty years. If I wasn't moved to buy an LP / CD / Cassette of Guess Who just to get "American Woman", guess what, I'm never going to...
Re:whatever (Score:3, Interesting)
Fscking the legitimate rights of anyone, no matter how small the minority, is NOT acceptable. This is pretty clear in the Constitution, which last time I checked was still the law of the land. We are innocent until proven guilty, and by not allowing us to make our legal copies of albums we have purchased on the chance of piracy is an unconstitutional assumption of guilt on the part of the general consumer.
For the record, a good chunk of people buy their CDs and
Re:whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh? You have proof of this? Let's see a study that has been done which supports any of your statements. Hell, try giving some anecdotal evidence even.
Personally, I have something like 40Gb of MP3's. All of them are legally mine. I have the CDs or tapes still. Many people I know have ripped their music to MP3's to use with iPods and MP3-based CD players. Most seem to have only MP3s of music they own, in part since they find only pop-crap fit for 13-year-olds on P2P networks.
That, my shift-challenged friend, is because a car is a physical object, whereas what you are buying in the case of music, books, movies, etc. is the right to the use the works. Hence the term copyright.
Wrong. Physical goods are not treated the same as intellectual property. This was understood back when the U.S. Constitution was written. It's not just that people want to make copies of the music they buy, they have (in the U.S. at least, and probably in most other countries) the legal right to make copies of a work they have bought legally, as long as they adhere to fair-use principles.
The music industry has to "get over" their obsession of controlling how people can listen to music. The industry has been, for many decades, bloated and decadent. They jacked their prices through the roof out of all proportions to the cost of manufacture and distributing music. They regularly screw over their talent by continuing to charge fees for things such as records broken during shipment (virtually no CDs are broken during shipment nowadays, but the record companies charge artists as if they are still shipping fragile 30's era records). The record companies broke price fixing laws, and were forced to offer rebates to customers.
Frankly, I have no sympathy for the record industry. All they are is a bunch of middlemen who screw artists and their audience. They are little more than a pimp. If they want to make their product more unpalatable to me than it already is, so be it. I can live without them. I'm willing to bet that both artists and their fans can live without them as well. Implementing DRM may be good, in that it could make them face the fact that piracy isn;t their biggest enemy. Their biggest enemy is themselves.
Blue Note == EMI (Score:3, Informative)