Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Media Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

EMI and Sony Lose Lawsuit Over Crippled Music Disks 407

Posted by michael
from the good-start dept.
neves writes "A brazilian consumer has sued EMI and Sony, and won! The reason was a copy protection technology in the best seller album "Tribalistas" that didn't play in his car. You can read about it in Folha de São Paulo (babelfish translation here), brazilian biggest newspaper. They must be very afraid, since EMI vice-president defended the company himself in a lawsuit involving less than US$ 350,00. A more detailed report is in my music site Agenda do Samba & Choro (babelfish here), where we release some of the lawsuit files to make it easier for others to sue them. Since last year, we are calling for a boycott (babelfish) of copy protected albums. The companies appealed, and said that they will take the case to the Supreme Court, because it is a 'question of principles'. The consumer is sueing them again, because all new EMI albums in Brazil are being released with copy protection and won't work in his car."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EMI and Sony Lose Lawsuit Over Crippled Music Disks

Comments Filter:
  • Funny (Score:4, Insightful)

    by T40 Dude (668317) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:28PM (#6321877)
    how the the indutry's seep pockets didn't help them in court ( at least in Brazil).
    • Re:Funny (Score:3, Funny)

      by Hogwash McFly (678207)
      The previous post was brough to you in association with babelfish
    • Re:Funny (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Fred_A (10934)
      It didn't help them in France either where they (well EMI) have recently lost in court. Two other lawsuits are pending against Sony France and BMG and another series is in preparation.

      The court ruled that the customers had been decieved as to the nature of the disk, the corp tricking them into believing it was a regular CD. EMI now has a month to appose a label on all modified CDs saying "Warning, this disk cannot be read on any home or car player".

      I still think they should have hit them at the wallet wh
  • CarMac! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Capt'n Hector (650760) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:29PM (#6321884)
    so if I hook wheels to my G4, I can sue too?
  • by Skater (41976) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:30PM (#6321887) Homepage Journal

    If you find that this process is little thing, the recorders you do not agree.

    I'd like to read the articles, but...

    --RJ

  • by Hogwash McFly (678207) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:31PM (#6321902)
    August or September is marked for the third album of Otto, already baptized "Without Gravity"

    Well if you put Holy Water on your CDs what do you think's gonna happen when you try and play them!?
    • August or September is marked for the third album of Otto, already baptized "Without Gravity"

      Well if you put Holy Water on your CDs what do you think's gonna happen when you try and play them!?

      I think 'christened' would probably be a better translation. ;)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:32PM (#6321904)
    This shows one of the main limitations of the laissez-faire capitalism that USia endorses over the more rational policies implemented in the rest of the world. When corporations are as unfettered as they are in USia, getting them to agree on things like CD-ROM standards is a herculean task - each corporation is assured that it has the One True path.

    In Brazil OTOH they're more used to being told what to do by more socialist governments, and the idea of a standard is more easily applicable to the way they work within regulations anyway.
    • Ok I'll be the goof

      what is the ia supposed to be ?
      • by Anonymous Coward
        America - Brazilia - Canadia = USia
      • I don't speak Portuges so I'm at a loss as to explain this en detail but it reminds me of other renaming of that "USA" moniker I've seen (like VSA, amiland,..) which I tend to explain as the expression of the speaker's/writer's enstrangement towards the militar/political/economical conduct of said country by writing its trademark in a strange way.
        Call it an linguistic attempt of anti-propaganda.
      • It's a way of distinguishing between American, encompassing all of the countries that make up the Americas and the United States. If you say America suffered an Earthquake, which America do you mean? North or South? It's a level of precision that's growing, mainly because other countries on the American continents don't want to be lumped in with the US.
    • by cait56 (677299) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:41PM (#6322278) Homepage

      Don't defame the laissez-faire approach.

      I don't endorse it, but to be fair most laissez-faire economists still believe that market participants have to label goods and services accurately.

      Even a laissez-faire capitalist recognizes that selling a "CD" that will not play in a standard CD player for what it is - fraud.

      Republicans on the other hand can probably come up with some idea why this is a good thing.

      • oh please (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Ender Ryan (79406) <TOKYO minus city> on Saturday June 28, 2003 @09:22PM (#6322484) Journal
        Republicans on the other hand can probably come up with some idea why this is a good thing.

        If you seriously believe that the Democrats wouldn't do the same, you need to wake up and smell the fucking coffee.

        Stop the partisanship and recognize that both parties have serious issues.

        • Re:oh please (Score:5, Insightful)

          by cait56 (677299) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @11:08PM (#6322912) Homepage

          If you get past posturing being above politics, you'll quickly realize that both parties do indeed have very serious flaws and limitations.

          But they are very different flaws.

          If you think Democrats are prone to immunize large corporations from truthful labeling in the marketplace then you haven't been paying attention.

          There used to be a wing of the Republican party that really believed in the strength of the market system. They've been gone since Reagan. So it's true that neither party has sufficient faith in a true free market, but the ways that they interfere with the market are very different.

    • by clueless_penguin (514639) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @09:47PM (#6322600) Homepage
      This shows one of the main limitations of the laissez-faire capitalism that USia endorses over the more rational policies implemented in the rest of the world.


      Let's see, Sony is from Japan, Vivendi Universal from France, BMG from Germany. What's that about the US? This anti-American BS is completely pointless, not insightful. The US has no monopoly on greedy capitalism.

  • Excellent news! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:32PM (#6321906)
    Thank God someone had the initiative to actually do something about this! My only contribution has been to vote with my wallet, not purchasing any music that comes in a crippled format and encourage others to do the same. As much as I hate the "just sue them" philosophy, it seems to have worked in this case. Perhaps the time has come for us to vote with our lawyers rather than our wallets.
    • Re:Excellent news! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by keirre23hu (638913)
      I too am boycotting ALL major label releases, not just because of the crippled disks, but also because of the whole RIAA/Napster/Kazaa/Verizon/Grokster/etc issue... Just curious though, am I the only one who thinks it is sad that the only place where the labels are invincible in court is the US? I think it will be damn near impossible to beat then in court. The best thing that could happen is more people just quit buying from them. Eventually they will get the message. Its funny though, because the cri
      • Re:Excellent news! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Martin Blank (154261)
        The labels are not invincible in the US. They lost the first round of the Kazaa case in Los Angeles, when the judge decided that the legal uses of Kazaa outweighed the potential illegal uses.
    • Re:Excellent news! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by EvilTwinSkippy (112490) <yoda&etoyoc,com> on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:33PM (#6322237) Homepage Journal
      Here here!

      I know Philadelphia has a fairly large number of unemployed Lawyers. Surely one of them would take up the charge. Hell, I'd set up a fundraiser to pay the court fees.

      Although, the folks to be doing the suing should really by Phillips (and ironically) Sony. They license the CD logo and the CD-Audio trademark. Producing materials that cripple the standard is grounds to have a license revoked.

      • ISTR that Phillips put the industry on notice over 2 years ago, that the CD could not carry the 'logo' we've all come to ignore if it was copy protected.

        In case you haven't noticed, the CD or Conpact Disk Digital Audio logo has all but dissappeared from the display bins, even at CitGo/7-11.

        If it doesn't carry the logo, it gets dropped back in the bin like the trash it is.

        Re your sig, I started programming on a 1.79 mhz RCA 1802 cpu, where it took 8 of those 1.79 mhz cycles for one machine cycle. You had
  • by Kwil (53679) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:33PM (#6321910)
    ..President George Bush has recently announced that the CIA and FBI have received "reliable information" from Microsoft and the RIAA indicating that Saddam Hussein has relocated to Brazil, hotbed of godless Communism and Linux supporters, where he is currently setting up WMD factories with funding from Osama Bin Laden, who is expected to be arriving there shortly to personally oversee the distribution.

    The President has announced that he is specifically not taking the nuclear option off the table, though he declined to comment further on what exactly he meant by this.
  • Worldwide fight ? (Score:5, Informative)

    by borgdows (599861) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:33PM (#6321914)
    EMI has just lost a trial about copy-protected CD's in France too (and the consumer association behind it is now suing Sony and BMG).

    you can read the complete article at : http://linuxfr.org/2003/06/26/13036.html/ [linuxfr.org] (in french)
    • What would be a reasonable fine for the music corporations to pay?

      Given that they recently forced a student to pay over his life savings, the vile evil filth should have the same done to them -- force them to turn over all their assets, including all their money, property and intellectiual property.

    • First for those which do not know, "que choisir" is a consummer protection association (a non governemental one), a bit like EFF. They argue that this belong to "hidden default" since the consummer aren't warned that those CD do not play everywhere like in car CD, and they were comercialised with the company [b]*KNOWING*[/b] that they would not work everwhere. Second they argue that there is already an anti piracy tax on DVD and CD and thus there is a contradiction between this [protection] and the antipira
    • As the texts are in french, here are the interesting points about this story :

      1. There are not one but MULTIPLE lawsuits on that matter in France. The lawsuit ruled this june was brought by the "Consommation Logement et Cadre de Vie" (CCLV) association against EMI. There are pending lawsuits against sony and BMG. Then there is another french consumers association ("UFC Que Choisir") who sued EMI France, Warner France, Universal Pictures Video, Fnac and Auchan (the two latter are distributors).

      2. The court
  • Under US Law (Score:5, Interesting)

    by oaf357 (661305) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:34PM (#6321921) Homepage Journal
    These CDs are illegal... the RIAA hasn't gone as far as saying that but they've said that if you buy a CD and want to make a copy of it for use in your car that doing so is okay.

    I hope it does go to the supreme court so we can get rid of these CDs that infringe on my rights.

    • who gives a shit about US law? the US will continue to astound the world with these silly super-DMCA laws while the rest of the world gets at least a bit of value for their (insert local currency). We laugh, knowing that US law will never become world law.
      • Well. The DMCA hasn't been tested in the US Supreme Court either. Hopefully, someone will take it that far.
      • Re:Under US Law (Score:5, Insightful)

        by zenyu (248067) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:32PM (#6322234)
        We laugh, knowing that US law will never become world law.

        Ummm, yeah, only the 150 and growing signatories to the WTO will be subject to TRIPS, plus what 20 pending applicants. Hell the TRIPS treaty even mentions countries may be as liberal as the USA by 'allowing' american style "fair-use" exceptions to 'intelectual property' (The single quotes are mine, the double quotes theirs.)

        Unless you plan to live in Cuba you ignore your rulers in the American congress at your own peril.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Your rights, such as they are, are outlined in the license agreement that you accept. If you do not accept the license agreement, you have no right to use the music. If you use it anyway, you are a felon. This crime is far worse than rape or murder, because it strikes at the heart of the system of natural incentives which drives our free economy. Any "rights" that the vendor chooses to grant you are gifts, pure and simple, and you certainly have not earned them. The vendor has sunk millions of dollars of ca
  • If confirmed, the sentence would generate jurisprudence for that if they oppose to the technology of "controlled copies"

    I would be interested in knowing as to what the logical reasoning and the legal framework of the case was.

    Was the winning based on something substantial, or could it be just overcome by the CD producer putting up a disclaimer sticker on the CD saying the "this might not work on certain devices." Basically the intention is to understand the depth of the victory.

    Could somebody help with some links or any more info??

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:20PM (#6322165)
      I live in Brazil. The CDs DO have small print on the back saying that they may not work on some personal computers, Macs included. But nothing about cars, DVD players, Discmans and other stuff. However...

      Put the CD on a Mac (I'm running OS X) and 2 partitions are mounted: The first one with the 'player' used to play the disc on Wintel PCs, and the second one with the audio tracks. Drag them to the desktop and... voilá! Instant rip!
  • by Pompatus (642396) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:36PM (#6321937) Journal
    Copy protection is like the war on drugs. It doesn't work. It's been tried for at least 20 years and the problem has only gotten worse. Remeber code wheels? And then the classic "page 36, paragraph 3, line 7, word 2". It only serves to make life more difficult for the legitimate user.

    The real solution to stop piracy is to drop the prices on software, music, and movies to a reasonable amount. A friend of mine was offered a free copy of Windows XP and turned it down because he got such a large student discount (I think $20) that it didn't matter to him. Before anyone points out loss of profit from discounted prices, if more people acutally BUY these things at a discount instead of grabbing them off Kazza, these companies would make the same money that they do today.
    • by Darthnice (591865) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:53PM (#6322034)
      Customer: I'd like to buy MegaSoft Doors 2K3
      Retailer: How does $200 sound?
      C: Way too high.
      R: Then $100?
      C: I'll pass.
      R: But that's a deal! The last guy who was in here paid $150!
      C: Would you take $20?
      R: If I say no are you going to download it from Kazza?
      C: Yep.
      R: Where is the pre-crimes enforcement division when you need them?
    • Copy protection is like the war on drugs. It doesn't work. It's been tried for at least 20 years and the problem has only gotten worse. Remeber code wheels? And then the classic "page 36, paragraph 3, line 7, word 2". It only serves to make life more difficult for the legitimate user.

      I believe that one of the major reasons in introducing new copy restriction technology is to get the legal system to protect that technology. The technology itself might not be so effective but if circumventing the restri

  • by isolenz (466129) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:36PM (#6321938)
    The way I look at this

    US$ 350.00 - A little bit of money, but waste of time
    US$ 350,000 - A lot of money, well worth the lawsuit
    US$ 35,000 - A fair bit, still worth the lawsuit

    BUT WHAT THE HELL IS US$ 350,00

    -isolenz
  • Oh RIGHT. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Faust7 (314817) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:37PM (#6321946) Homepage
    The companies appealed, and said that they will take the case to the Supreme Court, because it is a 'question of principles'.

    It is difficult for me to read this sentence and not be a little angry at its blatant hypocrisy. "Principles" indeed:

    The vice-president of EMI, Bannitz Luiz, affirms that she is inevitable will happen problems in situations of implantation of new technologies. "the consumer complains, we changes the product. But it is lamentable that certain people use this as extortion form "

    Right, because not being able to listen to a CD in my car is an "inevitable problem." And suing them because I can't do this is "extortion." Exactly what principles do these companies subscribe to? (Don't answer.)

    The only principle involved here is an affirmation of one's rights as a consumer.
    • Re:Oh RIGHT. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Crashmarik (635988) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:45PM (#6321989)
      Well you have to remember

      When the consumer sues its Extortion.

      When the RIAA sues its protecting your property rights

    • Right, because not being able to listen to a CD in my car is an "inevitable problem." And suing them because I can't do this is "extortion." Exactly what principles do these companies subscribe to? (Don't answer.)

      I hope the appeal court changes the $350 fine to $350,000.

  • I didn't buy it (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I was in Brazil in March and I almost bought the Tribalistas CD when I saw the notice that it was copy protected.

    If I can't copy the songs to my MP3 player, I won't buy the damn thing. I imagine they've lost a lot of sales.

    By the way, all of Tribalista's songs are available in Kazaa, proving copy protection doesn't work. Talk about the medicine being worst than the disease.
  • by OzTech (524154) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:41PM (#6321959)
    I haven't read the story, but this bloke is on the right track. When we buy music CD's, we are in fact purchasing a license to listen to the audio content, along with a fee for the media the licensed content is supplied on. What we end up owning is the media, and a perpetual license to listen to the content. If the media becomes damaged, our license to listen to the content is still valid. Therefore, we should be able to duplicate the content ro protect our investment in the license fee we have paid to listen to it. In summary, we are paying to listen to the music, not the media it is supplied on. By not allowing us to protect our investment, we are in fact being ripped-off. I for one, wish that more people would realise this. If they did, then perhaps more people would start to take a stance to protect their rights, when they realise that we are in fact being ripped off. The real pirates are the companies who are forcing us to purchase multiple licenses to listen to music, for which we have already paid. We need to make the courts, and policitians aware of this double-dipping that is being snuck in under the guise of "protection from pirates" In my view "Media Pirates", are people who duplicate and sell for profit, not individuals who are simply trying to listen to something they have paid a license for.
    • by Qzukk (229616) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:13PM (#6322128) Journal
      What we end up owning is the media, and a perpetual license to listen to the content.

      That thought right there is what seems to scare the big guys the most. See, what they want is for you to own nothing after putting down your hard-earned cash.

      They don't want you to own the cd iteself, because then you could give it to someone else since it is your physical property. They most definitely don't want you to own a perpetual license to listen to the CD, because then they couldn't charge you for each time you hear the song.
  • Looks like (Score:3, Funny)

    by mikeophile (647318) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:42PM (#6321969)
    Brazil has really got EMI by the macarenas.
  • by thelandp (632129) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:44PM (#6321975)

    Consumers are copying music ... No es nada

    Music company puts in anti-piracy system ... Who cares

    You can't play music in you car while trying to seduce the seniorita ... LAWSUIT! Revolución!

  • Clear Labeling (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jcsehak (559709) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:44PM (#6321979) Homepage
    I said it before, and I'll say it again - there's nothing wrong with copy-protected CDs - as long as they're clearly labeled as such. Label them and let the consumers decide, I say. Cases like this should really fall under false-advertising precedents.
    • Re:Clear Labeling (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Surely there _is_ something wrong with copy-protected CDs if at the same time all blank media is "piracy-taxed"?

    • Barking Cats (Score:5, Insightful)

      by The Monster (227884) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:05PM (#6322092) Homepage
      there's nothing wrong with copy-protected CDs - as long as they're clearly labeled as such.
      Except that they aren't even 'CDs' anymore [smr-home-theatre.org] if they're crippled this way. Phillips and Sony worked out the standards for compact disks, and (thank God) Phillips doesn't have a music-publishing business - they've warned the major labels not to call these things CDs or use the Compact Disc logo. [usatoday.com]

      A copy-protected 'CD' is a contradiction in terms.

      • Re:Barking Cats (Score:3, Insightful)

        by seth_k (667214)

        We know this, being up on such issues, but the average music buyer does not. Jane Q. Public expects that what she buys IS a CD and will work in any player/drive she owns. Instead she ends up with a shiny, high-tech coaster.

        Another related problem is that real CD's usually aren't labeled as such on the outside of the jewel box. You can't be sure it's the real deal until you've taken it home and opened the package. I've checked my own collection and none have a CD logo on the outside. It's invariabl

    • by fmaxwell (249001) on Sunday June 29, 2003 @05:56AM (#6324021) Homepage Journal
      I said it before, and I'll say it again - there's nothing wrong with copy-protected CDs - as long as they're clearly labeled as such.

      Though I see your point, I have several problems with your conclusion.

      Through copyright, record companies have government-granted monopolies. The reason for this is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." If I cannot play the music, it is not useful. Record companies should have to choose between copyrighting music or releasing it in a copy-protected form. They should not be able to do both.

      It's not like truthful labelling of a dishwasher. If the energy usage of a dishwasher you were considering was too high, you could just buy a different one. But music is personal. It stirs the soul. If the song that was playing when you and your wife met is only on a copy-protected CD, what do you do? Pretend you were listening to a different song? If you want the latest Goo Goo Dolls CD and find that it's copy-protected by Warner Brothers, you cannot buy a version that is not from some other label. Truth in advertising is only truly useful when the consumer has a reasonable alternative.

      What if I buy a CD and the music falls into the public domain because the copyright expires (It's a theory because, by the time I die, copyright will probably be the life of the creator plus two millenia)? Does the copy protection magically disappear?

      Discrimination. The record companies are actively preventing certain consumers from playing the CDs. What they are saying is "we think people with PCs computers steal music, so we will keep this from playing on PCs." It is analogous to deciding that blacks are more likely to shoplift CDs and then engineering the CDs so that they didn't play in a boom box or car stereo (because of the popularity of those devices within the black community).

      Fair use. Why should a record company be able to employ a technology specifically to prevent fair use? What right do they have to prevent you, as a consumer, from compressing the music to MP3s, copying it to DAT, or making a copy on your hard drive?

      Backup. A CD, like any media, is not impervious to damage. For that reason, people might wish to create backups. I play backups of irreplaceable CDs from my collection. If I cannot back up a CD and it is damaged, how do I replace it? If a sizeable percentage of the price I paid for the CDs paid for a license for me to listen to the music, why should the record company be able to charge me that same license fee again if the CD I originally bought becomes damaged?

      I don't believe that this should be a simple truth-in-advertising case. Because of all of the above, it's far more complex than that.
  • by arcanumas (646807) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:45PM (#6321981) Homepage
    Babelfish translation too much in story is.
    Reading article i not can.
    Like Yoda speaking am.

    Help.
  • After a victory, it is considered proper form to refrain from gloating over your opponent.

    However, its perfectly acceptable to insult their lineage, mock the size of their respective genitalia, and generally make them feel inferior to you in every way, which, of course, they are =).

    I'd be surprised if something like this managed to happen in the US though. Theres to much lean and sway in the judicial system for megacorps. If it did happen however, I can only liken Sony and EMI to a three year old sent

  • All CD's I want to buy I take them to the cashier. Then I check if they have the mention "CD Audio" and if not or if it says "wont play on PC" I leave them there with the comment that those don't work on my system and that I'll download them as MP3 from the Internet instead :-)
    Shop will have to put them back themselves. It's their fault if they sell faulty items.

    • All that does is makes all the people in line think you're an ass for knowing that discs exist that won't play in your computer, yet waiting until you get to the cashier to check. It doesn't make anyone eschew copy protection, or teach anyone to do the same thing... it makes them eschew you, and teaches them to write you down an ass. It makes some minimum wage cashier who has nothing to do with copy protection have to restock the disc which if, was not something you wanted to buy, should have been left in p
    • I used to run a register and I *HATE* people like you. Like the cashier has a damn thing to do with it. You put them thru more work for something they have no control over. Think, brother, think. Is he or she going to say anything to the boss? I doubt it, they are just there trying to make a buck on minimum wage and couldn't care less. By the end of the day, what you did will just blend in with the rest of the fools. Maybe you should find a better way of protesting.
  • by darnok (650458) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:12PM (#6322125)
    I went along to a show last week, where the artist was performing songs off his latest, copy-protected CD. After the show, there was a stall selling his CDs at the back, so went back to check it out.

    Sure enough, out he came to sign copies of his CD for those who were going to buy a copy. I worked my way to the front with a copy of his CD in hand, and handed it over. I pointed out the copy protection notice, then said "although I really liked your show and your new stuff, I'm not going to buy a copy of your CD since I can't play it on my PC or in my car".

    He looked a bit shocked, and asked what I was talking about. I said that the copy protection would prevent me from playing the CD on my PC or in my car, and that since that was where I listen to music 99% of the time, his CD wouldn't be much use to me. I handed him one of my business cards and told him to call me if he wanted to talk about it further - there was a bunch of people behind me waiting for their CDs to be signed...

    I got the impression that he either didn't know his CD was released copy protected, that he wasn't sure what copy protection actually meant for a CD, or that he was surprised that someone like me (a 40 year old, normal looking guy, not an obviously raving half-wit) would confront him with something like this after his show.

    I also got the impression that he was going to look into it further - he's a 40ish guy also, with a fairly niche appeal and presumably wife/kids/mortgage etc. like the rest of us. He probably didn't like hearing a fan tell him people couldn't play his music in the car or at their PC.

    I'll check out his CD in the stores again in another month or so to see if it's had the copy protection removed.
  • by WIAKywbfatw (307557) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:26PM (#6322199) Journal
    Your Rights Online: EMI and Sony Lose Lawsuit Over Crippled Music Disks

    Music Disks?

    Ahem. Compact Discs, Hard Disk Drives. It's not that hard to get right.

    I'm sure someone will mod this down as flamebait but, seriously, would it kill the editors to do their jobs and actually edit the articles that get posted?
    • I'm sure someone will mod this down as flamebait but, seriously, would it kill the editors to do their jobs and actually edit the articles that get posted?

      The editors should left the ",00" off of "$350" also. I swear, half of the comments are about that. It's been educational and all, and that's how the poster posted it because he/she's probably from a country where that's the decimal separator, but the fact that the suit was an exact dollar amount is irrelevant to the story, and should have been left out
  • by earthforce_1 (454968) <earthforce_1NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:38PM (#6322260) Journal
    It seems to be the developing countries that "get it" and make legislative and legal decisions which are in the interests of the public at large, as opposed to multinational cartels. What we really need is for many such countries to pull together and speak with one voice when it comes to international trade. Our system will only be fixed when you get a lot of people really pissed off. If the RIAA runs around suing college kids for astronomical sums of money, and enough people get stuck with CDs that won't play, then it will raise the visibility level enough to get this on the front burner.

    I am strongly in favour of globalization, but it must be done with the interests of the public, instead of large vested interests. That means doing away with crap such as region coded DVDs and damaging tariffs. I should be able to travel whatever products I choose from anywhere I want, excepting only really offensive stuff like narcotics and weaponry.
    • by vanyel (28049) * on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:55PM (#6322349) Journal

      I should be able to travel whatever products I choose from anywhere I want, excepting only really offensive stuff like narcotics and weaponry.


      Baptists: ...excepting only really offensive stuff like pornography, dance music and things about those perverts
      Nudists: ...excepting only really offensive stuff like clothes
      Muslims: ...excepting only really offensive stuff like Jewish things
      Jews: ...excepting only really offensive stuff like Islamic things
      Loggers: ...excepting only really offensive stuff like spikes
      Earth First: ...excepting only really offensive stuff like chainsaws
  • by MTriper (623206) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @09:44PM (#6322586)
    What most people don't realize is the different reality that Brazil represents. Down here you better take care and protect your own business and interests, there's a lack of the sense of community, people and government are not part of each other and even the people side is formed of independent slices who live very different lifes almost like in parallel universes. Wages have no relation what so ever to taxes or the general cost of living, gasoline for instance is something that Brazil produces 80%+ of it's internal demand, yet it the government charges it's own people about DOUBLE the price you would pay in the US. Add to that the fact that the minimum wage is the amount which the majority of Brazilians have to live off is equivalent to about 1/10th of the American $5 / hour. Regarding the music industry, in Brazil over 70% of all CDs sold are PIRATED COPIES mostly found at street vendors or even at some very well known shopping malls. The situation is so out of control that is becoming somewhat difficult to find a music retailer like was so common in the 80's - early 90's. You can buy ANY CD down here for R$5.00 or about $1.75 US Dollars, that includes Brazilian and international music discs and any software or movie you can think of. That's all available in every street corner of all the major cities. Imagine that, it beats all the golden arches and 7 elevens put together. Now if you take that into consideration you might start to appreciate why artist and music labels down here are even considering that route. I DON'T think copy protection is the answer and I am not preaching for it, I just want to make sure some of you out there hear the other side of the story and become aware of that fact that we are talking about a country were every citizen and company are left to fend for themselves. Brazilian laws should not affect American justice and if it ever does you will all be in deeeeeeeeep 5H1T Sorry for the rant and the bad grammar.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28, 2003 @11:23PM (#6322980)
    First, good for the Brazilian courts. Common sense is nice to see.

    Several replies to this article have mentioned the US's laissez faire capitalist system. It isn't. Capitalist, yes; laissez faire, no.

    If the US system were laissez faire, then the government would keep its bought-and-paid-for hands off the economic system. We would have a Free Market system, which is at its core a laissez faire system. It means keep your hands off and let the marketplace decide what products and companies survive, and for how long. Capitalism is not synonymous with a free market, nor is a free market needed in a capitalist system. Actually, they are incompatible.

    Folks, the Republicans don't want a free market or anything resembling 'laissez faire' approaches to capitalism. They want what the Democrats want, a system that favors their big-money supporters. The only difference is who those supporters are.

    Please, when you bandy terms about, at least have some idea of how to use them in context, and how the real world works.

    Have a nice war,
    Mal the Elder

  • by ColaMan (37550) on Sunday June 29, 2003 @12:11AM (#6323159) Homepage Journal
    I bought a CD and it didn't work in my car either.... SUE!! SUE!!! SUUUUUE!!!!!

    I just won't mention to the judge that I don't have a cd player in my car :-)

  • by Trepidity (597) <delirium-slashdot@@@hackish...org> on Sunday June 29, 2003 @03:05AM (#6323697)
    Writting up comment slashdot box into internet commentwise albeit did, however. To read is difficulty I fear.

To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to provide a test load.

Working...