Beastie Boys' New Album Silently Installs DRM Code 1035
nfsilkey writes "After more than five years, the Beastie Boys have released a new album. It seems that the retail disc is bundled with a copy protection autoinstaller which silently silently puts itself onto the listener's computer. Many listeners are up in arms and some are venting their frustrations on the band's website."
Virus (Score:2, Insightful)
Control (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Control (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck them. (Score:1, Insightful)
should be a law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuck them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, I'm sure thats what someone said when they realized how much they lost by people downloading their stuff and then decided to add this DRM crap.
Re:Control (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Control (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Control (Score:3, Insightful)
When you can't even listen to your music without worrying about what programs may be installed on your computer, you need a different operating system.
Re:Does the band know or care..? (Score:1, Insightful)
Anyway, it sounds as though they're too gutless to have taken the correct action:
d) Dump EMI.
I'm sure there are a hundred other record labels that would have loved the chance to release a Beastie Boys album (worldwide, without DRM). Contracts probably prevented it though.. I can't imagine that they'd let an act like the Beastie Boys slip away without putting up some sort of fight.
Re:DRM for what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet.
Re:Control (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Beasties (Score:2, Insightful)
With tricks like these ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a simple fact that people expect to be able copy their CDs.
Prosecute them for writing a Virus/Trojan horse (Score:5, Insightful)
1. It is malicious (prevents you from copying the CD as you noramlly would be able to.
2. It silently installs itself, masquarading as a
standard Audio CD (I'm sorry, 5" music disc)
How is that different than any other trojan horse?
Re:They aren't the only ones. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:DRM for what? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:DRM for what? (Score:4, Insightful)
17" eMac $799.00 USD for Combo Drive version with 40GB HD or 999.00USD for the 8X DVD-R/RW drive version with 80GB HD.
Not to mention all of the bundled software.
How much is virus free a, commercial software compatiblity (photoshop and most of the hottest games) computing experience worth to you?
Yes, linux is immune to windows viruses but it lacks commercial software, hardware support and ease of use.
Any bet on OS X? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
By reading this you acknowledge my right to use your computer to research how better to write future comments. Oh yeah you have to give me your stuff too if you break our agreement. By reading this sentence you have broken our agreement. The next bag of potato chips you open signifies your compliance to turn over all properties that can be used to drink out of.
see this is what happens (Score:5, Insightful)
Beastie boys my ass
Heh, Naive slashdotters.... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no such thing as a band "selling out". That's naive bullshit. They're an entertainment act, created to make lots of money. Period. They preach the revolution, because they know you guys will pony up your cash and buy into it. It sells records.
Very true (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason that people target Windows is because it is, BY FAR, the largest consumer OS. Well over 90% of desktops run it. Thus if you want the widest distribution of something, be it software or malware, Windows is your target. However, should another platform raise to dominance, or even just large enough to make it make sense, you'll see it targeted as well.
An excellent example of this in action is website malware. Some sites you browse to try and install some crappy software on your computer, usually spyware but sometimes worse. Now for a good while, this was an IE only problem. It was all ActiveX apps, so only IE users were ever prompted to install.
However Mozilla/Firefox are getting to be quite popular these days. The number of converts I know continues to grow, and it's not just the tech savvy crowd either; I know plenty of non-savvy users who are now non-IE.
Well, the malware writers have responded to the trend, and now many sites attempt to throw an XPI at you if you are on Mozilla/Firefox, as well as the ActiveX control for IE. The market is now big enough (and the additonal work minimal enough) to warrant doing this.
So, if one of the main reasons you like Linux, OS-X, or any other non-Windows platform is that it remains below the radar of most virus writers, spyware authors, and so on then I suggest you work to KEEP it that way and DON'T advocate it. You don't want it becomming big because, if it does, you'd have to abandon it for another platform.
If you do want Linux/Mac growing to dominance, that's great, but then don't try to argue benefits gained form obscurity. If Linux becomes dominant then most apps will be written for it. This includes legitimate software, and malware alike. Both kinds of authors will target what is the most popular and espically in the case of malware, where the most clueless users reside.
Arrogance (Score:5, Insightful)
And if they say no, the goddamned thing doesn't play, they take it back to the store and get a refund.
What this evil corporation is saying, is: "Fuck you. We own you. We own your computer. You'll take it and like it, because protecting our digital rights trump fucking up your piece of shit from Dell, you fucking Joe Sixpack sheeple. If you don't like it call your Congresscritter. Oops, we own it, too."
Re:There is autorun on Mac OS (Score:3, Insightful)
So, by default, when I insert an audio CD, my PowerBook is set to launch iTunes. Is there some type of exploit or buffer overrun that is hijacking iTunes and telling it to install malware? I don't see how this is possible. iTunes will just read the audio data from the CD, as far as I know.
Could you please provide more information? Thanks.
Re:should be a law (Score:3, Insightful)
How about this instead- when software wants to install, it has to *ask*. No need for written consent or anything silly like that. Just let the users know what they're getting into and what they're getting (if anything).
Re:Control (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, much easier to use too for Capital, Gator, klez,....
Re:Control (Score:1, Insightful)
>average user Windows is much easier to use.
The average windows box has 28 pieces of spyware, a handful of viruses, and untold gobs of privacy invading proprietary gunk on it (such as DRM ware etc).
On top of that they have to run an obnoxious firewall system and memory and resource hogging virus scanner- just to prevent their computer from self-destructing.
Having your computer be that much of a hassle is not my definition of easy. Not to mention that XP and win2k systems still seem to lockup or blue screen quite regularly despite the much touted "stability improvements"...
Re:Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
Just return the god-damn CD! (Score:2, Insightful)
There are two simple solutions
1) Don't buy it
2) If you already bought it then return it
If everybody keeps their bought copy, they won't get the message.
It doesn't bother all that much to me ... (Score:5, Insightful)
What bothers the hell out of me, though, is that it can be done.
How in the world can I trust *anything* that willy-nilly follows whatever orders someone else tells *my* machine to do, leaving me powerless to override? The most surprising thing to me is that business is taking this. Do they really think only "good guys" know where the unlocked back doors to the operating system are?
Stuff like this just convinces me further that anyone even thinking of using this kind of system in a business environment needs to have his salary and standing in his organization re-evaluated.
Re:This is Illegal in Minnesota (Score:2, Insightful)
On another note, if you take a look at 609.87 Subd. 12:
Destructive computer program.
"Destructive computer program" means a computer program that performs a destructive function or produces a destructive product. A program performs a destructive function if it degrades performance of the affected computer[yep], associated peripherals[yep] or a computer program[definately]; disables the computer[partially], associated peripherals[uh huh] or a computer program[of course]; or destroys or alters computer programs or data. A program produces a destructive product if it produces unauthorized data, including data that make computer memory space unavailable[e.g., the copy protection keys]; results in the unauthorized alteration of data or computer programs; or produces a destructive computer program, including a self-replicating computer program[To be determined].
This definition gives a pretty clear cut case against them. Particularly if you were the one that disagreed to the EULA and it installed anyway. However, there doesn't appear to be any other clarifications or penalties definitions referencing this excerpt.
I'm no expert in law, but I'm thinking you could take this as a "no maximums" kind of deal, and claim $50 billion per millisecond of seek time...assuming your running Windows (a.k.a. the Codename Logwhore security model has given the Internet access to your hard drive) and that every employee in North America might have needed to accidentally jack your data at that moment in time for important business. Hey, everything that isn't impossible can happen, no matter how improbable
On a more serious note, the entire Minnesota statutes e-law-book (link goes to chapter 609) can be found here [state.mn.us].
BOYCOTT!!! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Control (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this modded funny? Just sitting here, I've imagined ways of them getting out of their contracts. Of course, I'm imagining that the Beastie Boys are rich, which can't be too far of a stretch. How? Simple.
1) Release crap albums until their contract runs out.
2) Make sure everyone knows _why_ you're releasing crap albums. Make public press releases about why you're doing it. If your contract prohibits that, then make private statements.
3) In all likelihood, the contract would be ended early by the RIAA. If not, it isn't hard to live on a million for the next few years or so, until the contract runs out on its own.
4) Release on an independent record label. Aphex Twin has a successful one. Paul Van Dyk is doing fine on his record label. The Beastie Boys have the clout to do it.
5) Profit. Again.
Where there's a will, there's a way. That's a way. The Beastie Boys just don't have the will.
Re:Control (Score:4, Insightful)
> set it up so everything works perfectly, including their webcam with
> AIM, Yahoo, etc, and all their Windows games, then you can tell them
> to "get a new OS".
Or you can tell them what I say to that argument:
Listen, you have a choice.
Option 1: Keep Windows, reinstall every few months and suffer through every malware that comes along and run the risk of some criminal outfit in Russia keystroke logging your credit card and DON'T BUG ME ABOUT ANY OF THIS BECAUSE I WARNED YOU. I can't fix it for you and other than a trivial tweak now and then I don't plan to even try. Bill Gates can't fix Windows, why do you think I can?
Option 2: Toss the PC and buy a Mac. Sorry, that isn't my preferred platform so I won't be able to help you much. I do know they don't suffer from most of the ills of Windows though and from my limited experience on one they are very easy to use so you shouldn't have too much difficulty.
Option 3: Invest the effort in learning Linux. Almost all of the important software genres are available, you will just have to adapt to different programs. I have been running Linux for about ten years now and I'll be happy to help when you get stuck on something. (No, I have never recommended someone use BSD. If you don't know enough to know when to choose BSD on your own, you are not ready for BSD.)
Life in a Free Society is about making choices, and living with the consequences. Windows has some pretty dire consequences and I have little pity for the ones who know the risks and choose Windows anyway. The ones who don't even know there ARE choices are a different matter though, I'll spend a little more time on those folks.
Re:They aren't the only ones. (Score:3, Insightful)
So to avoid having the CD install DRM software on your computer, you used a DRM system you already had (iTunes) to buy the songs in AAC format with DRM?
Re:Very true (Score:4, Insightful)
Other factors include such things as the TYPE of person using the platform in question. While this is purely anectedotal, Most of the Mac users I run into have one of several attitudes that make them less likely to be virus writers. Many are proffessional/serious hobbiest audio/visual people and preffer to spend thier time on that. Most Mac owners are very pro Apple and Evangelize the apple heavilly, writing Mac viruses would counter productive.
Another is the anger issue. I would wager comparatively few Mac users hate apple compared to the number who hate Microsoft.
And Finally there is inherent differences in the platforms themselves. Windows security model and codebase seems very exploit friendly to my mind, and with OSX being bsd at the core is most likely less malware friendly (I couldn't comment on previous mac os's, but bsd seems to be widly held as doing well in this regard).
And I'd like to point out at least one flaw in the site you linked to. It pointed out some windows exploits target as small or smaller a subsegment of windows users as the macs overal market segment. This completely misses the fact all the toolkits virus writers have developed for windows sofar (A great many) are much more easily adapted to target a single windows application than they are to port to a mac, where so much is different right down to processor.
Mycroft
Re:Virus (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously: How does someone so blatantly shortsighted manage to breathe?
Re:see this is what happens (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
There is NO DEFENCE against this so long as the user has administrative access to the system. If they WANT to install it, they will. If it asks for admin, big deal, software does that all the time when it installs. I've never seen a Mac user give a second though to entering the root password in during a software install.
For viruses, the situation is about the same. The vast majority of viruses these days are e-mail viruses. A person recieves an e-mail that has an attachment claiming to be something they should open. They do so, and it installs a virus, that then proceeds to e-mail itself out to people on their contact list. Again, this is a USER INITATED ACTION. It's not sneaking itself in through a hole, it's waltzing in through the front door. Again nothing you can do if the user has admin access.
As for exploit viruses, which are a good deal rarer than e-mail viruses, these could possibly reduced on alternate platforms. It is possible that MacOS really is less prone to exploits than Windows. Unforunately, this isn't really testable at this point since there is less effort devoted to looking for OX-X exploits than for Windows exploits. However it is dangerous huburis to think that a UNIX basis equals security. I invite you to look at the history of Solaris/SunOS security holes. Here is real, enterprise grade UNIX, and it has a rich history of security problems. Again, this is not ot say that MacOS might not be better, but one cannot infer it is better from the fact that it is UNIX, or from the fact that it has less found exploits (that you don't know they are there does not mean they are not there).
Oh and by the way, saying "Windoze" just makes you, and your argument, look immature. It does no good since you aren't going to convince anyone that Windows has faults though simple name calling. Keep it professional and people are more likely to listen to what you have to say.
Re:Control (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, i'd rather have an "uh oh, ethernet decided to die!" error message than just a random restart. Although the blue-screen didn't help me too much with my bittorrent problem: just caused my mom to yell at me: "HELP THE COMPUTER IS DESTROYING ITS MEMORY!"
*should switch his parents computer to Linux/*BSD soon, and sell his mac*
Re:So for all Windows users (Score:4, Insightful)
Amazing isn't it? If there is no service, there can be no denial. The problem is that most people WANT things that make their life easier, their computing experience nicer. Trying to advertise an non-Windows OS as better because it lacks a feature is not a very good idea. That shows lack of polish and completeness to most people.
I can't blame Microsoft for the auto-run thing. It was simply a way to make the computing experience easier on their users. Rather than needing to find the correct file to run (which is usually setup, but not always), simply make the CD come up by itself when inserted. It isn't their fault that some asshats have corrupted this in to installing software without user consent.
This is akin to blaming the creators of the SMTP spec for SPAM. They created a useful spec that allowed for the non-realtime interchange of messages. Good idea too, as it was one of two killer apps of the Internet (the web being the other). Without e-mail, I'm not sure the Internet would have taken off like it did. Well, some fucks have now figured out how to abuse it for their own gain. That's the fault of the spammers, not the creators of SMTP.
So advocate Linux on the things it does better, not the things it does not do.
Re:This is Illegal in Minnesota (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You could also (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Control (Score:4, Insightful)
In any case, what is an artist supposed to do? The Beastie Boys wanted to broadcast a political message with this album (NB, released just before the US presidential election). If your label springs some crap like this on you, what can you do instead of releasing your chosen work? Just suddenly come up with some mediocre crap instead? That makes no sense.
In reality, making music is expensive for most major-label artists, even established ones. If the Beasties run out their contract with terrible albums, they could well end up in a few years owing EMI money. And I'm sure that by rock-star standards they aren't that rich. You don't see them endorsing Pepsi.
Re:Heh, Naive slashdotters.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that's a bit of a stretch. Just because Lennon wanted to make money didn't mean he cynically told people what they wanted to hear. Just as a surgeon may make wads of cash and yet earnestly believe that he does as much as he can for his patients.
Not all artists lack integrity. I think the Beasties are one of the better groups in this regard.
Re:Heh (Score:3, Insightful)
AAW
Re:Illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
The EULA's power stems from how a computer works. Because a computers' processor has registers, it must copy the cd over and over and read/write it in order to play the CD. This essentially requires you to have their permission to copy.
No it doesn't. The supremes have ruled that copying a copyrighted work is perfectly fine so long as it is required to actually make use of said work (other conditions notwithstanding). If I own a copy of some CD, I can play it - this isn't really debatable. If the CD contains an EULA, I can ignore it, as I already have the right to use it under copyright law. You could make a similar argument for software, but I am not aware of any specific precedent.
Re:They aren't the only ones. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So for all Windows users (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm terribly sorry to inform you that basic security ALWAYS invloves some level of inconvienence to legimate users and computers are no exception -- welcome to reality.
Well, there's a very clear and simple message here (Score:5, Insightful)
Do not buy this album. If I want to hear it, download it instead.
Their instruction is just crystal clear. Yes; it sucks that Windows auto-installs crap off CDs, and yes, there's easy ways around that. But to arrive at that is to miss the point. The point is that if you don't want their DRM, don't buy the product... you can get the music for a nice $0.00, without rewarding their vile practice.
If people in the biz are reading this, please take note: DRM offends and insults and disrespects those who you're trying to sell to. You're only getting sales from the ignorant, and I'm working to reduce their numbers by telling as many friends / family members as I can to stop buying big label music. Flat out stop. Download, buy used, or go with small, respectable labels. (I do still buy, generally direct from small artists; the rest... fuck 'em. Not a dime to the RIAA from me.)
If you agree, you can help... simply assist as many people as you can to find alternatives to buying big label music. If people really want the latest Beastie / other-pop album, there's torrents, k-lite, etc... and the price is better. Is it wrong? Is killing in a war wrong? I'm working to destroy my enemy or change their stance here; that is the nature of war. You gotta fight... It may be company policy, but you're still sell-out bitches, Beastie Boys (and I love some of your work... oh, well).
Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the 1980s. The software industry tried all this copy control nonsense with Commodore 64 software. Many companies did not survive the backlash. The record labels will not learn until everyone stops buying. [dontbuycds.org] Any business that alienates their customers deserves to fail. Vote with your pocket books. Stop feeding the hand that bites you.
Re:Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there any reason to have autorun "on" in the first place ? One of the first things I do when I set up a system is disable it. I would like to choose which app to use, not rely on the OS to decide. I saw a previous story about the new Velvet Revolver CD having copy protection. I came home after buying it, popped it into my CDR, and burned it to MP3 for my car player. I would have never known it was copt protected until I saw the story. BTW I have never had a DRM disk that would not burn in CDEX [n3.net]
Re:Very true (Score:3, Insightful)
This goes hand-in-hand with the market share argument; with the bigger market share would come typical users.
Another is the anger issue. I would wager comparatively few Mac users hate apple compared to the number who hate Microsoft.
I doubt many people release viruses because they don't like MS; It just doesn't make much sense. Punish the users, many of whom don't know any better? It's at best a very, very indirect means to an end.
And Finally there is inherent differences in the platforms themselves. Windows security model and codebase seems very exploit friendly to my mind, and with OSX being bsd at the core is most likely less malware friendly (I couldn't comment on previous mac os's, but bsd seems to be widly held as doing well in this regard).
While I'm sure that there is quite a bit of improvement room in the Windows codebase, I have a feeling that a lot of people here overestimate the security of *nix when put into the hands of Joe User. "Don't run as root" (or administrator when Windows is the subject) people scream. But really, I suspect you'd see most people running as root anyway.
I run FreeBSD, read
(Why do I have root open? I need to use it a somewhat fair amount; install this program, give read permissions for this device I just discovered I have a use for, load the NVidia module that I still haven't gotten around to making load automatically because there's only motivation to do so when I boot the computer, which is not that often...)
Re:TCPA is not DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
If I want to enforce a control technology on your computer, I need some way to keep users from modifying the very program enforcing my policy choices, I need TCPA or some other hardware control technology that keeps my program from being modified.
In one sense, this is security, I know that any sowftware runnign under TCPA/Palladium won't be changed by any virus and will only be given decryption keys only if its unmodified by any virus or worm. But at another level, it is *the* enabling technology to let anyone install *arbitrary* digital control technology, creating *arbitrary* hoops for me to go through on my computer before I can access the data it controls access to.
Can you say ripe for abuse?
Re:Silently installing DRM eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
installs DRM as well as a backdoor and cannot
be legally removed.
Re:Heh (Score:3, Insightful)
So unless you Mac users require a password to copy a file from A to B, where you have read access in A and write in B, then it seems unlikely that this can 't install without your knowledge.
Re:Illegal? (Score:2, Insightful)
First, that's not true. There's nothing stopping CD drives to stream sound directly to the speakers (hey, look, there's a headphone plug on my CD drive...; okay, my DVD+-RW drive doesn't have one).
Second, even if the above *were* true, it's nothing. Why? Because to view a page of a book, you have to shine light on it which means there's a copy "suspended" in the air by photons. Even with brail, your fingers would be temporarily deformed into a copy of the text you read. So, there's no reasonable way that temporary copy doesn't occur regardless of the work. All this discussion about temporary copies and acting like a computer is somehow "magical" is stupid.
By buying a copy of a copyrighted work, you have a fundamental right to use said work. That's what First Sale Doctrine is about (and please realize, First Sale Doctrine is an inherent part of copyright, not something written up that can be taken away; it doesn't make any logical sense to allow for a copyright owner to copyright a work, sell copies, then make it impossible for someone to actually *use* the copies; doing so fundamental goes against the idea of "promoting the progress of the arts and sciences" as it's impossible to advance the arts or sciences if you can't access a work, so the idea the people would give an author exclusive rights to such a work is ridiculous).
Trojan horse (Score:4, Insightful)
This is "trojan horse" software.
If this is legal then creators of webpages could legally install software of their choice into systems of people who just browse a page containing copyrighted content, and say it's "copy protection". e.g. install stuff like monitoring/blocking software so that they could keep track of the user's activities - "to ensure that the terms of use are complied to".
Even if there's an agreement with lots of fine-print to click on doesn't necessarily make it OK. Otherwise those wormmakers will be spreading those greeting card/screen saver stuff which does other things that's written in the fine print (like allow the worm makers to use the PC for whatever they want).
How about if I sold you a movie DVD that hypnotized you so that you would never ever willingly make copies of that DVD for whoever or whatever reason? A "Copy Protected" label doesn't count. If the DVD was explicitly about convincing people not to copy then that's different - there is no or little deception involved.
To any record company execs who can read (Score:4, Insightful)
However, after ill-advisedly buying a copy prohibited disk (Norah Jones), I had to get my car serviced to get the disk out. This cost me a morning of my time, and $70, plus I have a disk I can't use and couldn't return as Borders felt that I had copied it, even though I showed them the VW dealership receipt.
Norah has released a second album. I will not be buying it. I will not buy any copy prohibited disks. Ever. Not even if you pay for my lost time and my bills to get my stuff repaired when playing music I legally bought and used in usual fashion.
Wise up or go bust.
Re:Control (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. I've been running XP Pro at home and at work for a couple of years now, and I have reinstalled zero times, and had zero problems with malware, viruses and the like.
How? Simple. I don't use IE, I only use Outlook at work and then only because I have to, and I don't run unknown executables from untrusted sources. Throw (free) AV software and a software firewall in there with timely updating and I'm as safe running Windows as you are running Linux.
Windows has some pretty dire consequences
Only if you don't know what you're doing. You appear to have a clue; I think your efforts would be better spent educating users on how to protect their systems, rather than trying to convince them to change OS. Should Linux gain significant market share, virus and malware authors will start targetting it. Users will get used to running as root or entering their root password to install stuff, so will not think twice about doing so when prompted. A lot of malware piggy-backs on the installers for other software (eg Kazaa), and running Linux cannot protect you from that. Please don't try to tell me that open source alternatives will save people - there are open source p2p clients for Windows (eg eMule), yet people still use the closed-source, malware-ridden ones.
Getting people to switch OS is a short term fix at best. They need to be educated out of their bad habits, or they'll fall prey to the same tricks again in the end.
Re:Heh (Score:3, Insightful)
Choice. (Score:3, Insightful)
I chose to install iTunes. And I chose to buy songs from iTMS.
And although I bought this CD, I did not choose to install its DRM.
Re:Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
This practice is in many ways similar to allusion in literature. By making reference to earlier works, one can enhance the depth of one's own work. Ezra Pound said, "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal" and this statement can be generalized to all forms of art.
Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Autorun" is one of the most irritating features of Windows. It's easily disabled, but at the cost of losing "notification" when you insert or remove a CD, which means you have to manually prompt for a refresh sometimes. But it's better than some installer taking over every time you insert a program disk to refer to something or copy some files. Trusting to "pressing the shift key" to defeat it on each insertion is about as reliable as using the withdrawal method of birth control; pretty soon your PC is going to get knocked up.
Just disable the god damn autorun (Score:4, Insightful)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?u
Oh, and not buying CDs from bands that have no respect for you would be a good idea, too.
Re:Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
What some people don't realize is that sampling is part of a very old tradition. Many jazz and classical compositions have been enriched by incorporating material from other sources. Often the borrowed material is just as recognizeable as a sampled song, so it's not like this is something that has been hidden.
This practice is in many ways similar to allusion in literature. By making reference to earlier works, one can enhance the depth of one's own work. Ezra Pound said, "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal" and this statement can be generalized to all forms of art.
... which completely undermines the use of copyrights and "intellectual property" in the arts in the first place. Think about it: Much of the idea of the copyright revolves around this notion that men are completely unaffected by previous works--as if their art is somehow independently conjured through the power of the artist's superior intellect.
What bullshit. No man is quite literally an island. We are all affected and shaped, by our language, culture, body of sciences, collection of arts and so on. To say that the artist is the sole "owner" of the resultant art is utterly insulting and ultimately counterproductive.
-Grym
Re:Well, there's a very clear and simple message h (Score:2, Insightful)
No, no, no dude. You've sent the wrong message. You've just told the music execs that you are unrepentant music pirate who will use any excuse to justify not paying for music.
Yeah, I know where you're coming from, but the Gucci-wearing music geniuses won't. And they'll take your above statement as the justification for their virus-laden music cds: you must be forced to pay for the music.
If you want to let them know you are really UPSET about legitimately purchasing a cd, about doing the RIGHT thing but instead of being given a pat on the back they label you a thief instead, then don't go anywhere near their music.
Don't purchase it. Don't download it. Don't listen to it on the radio. You hear the Beasties on Q107, phone the DJ and tell him not to put such crap on the air.
Then write, both to the Beasties and to the music execs, and tell them you aren't purchasing their music, you aren't downloading their music, hell, you won't even listen to it because of the DRM-virus on the last cd. Then tell 'em you are encouraging all of your friends to do the same.
When the music industry sees all interest in their bands die - put DRM on a music cd and sales/interest in the band/artist dies - the industry will soon learn not to DRM anything.
And that is what both you and me want -- to purchase an audio cd and be able to play it without fearing it'll screw the computer up and result in another 3 days worth of fighting with the damn machine to get it working properly again, all because I was stupid enough to want to play the music on the portable mp3 player. THAT kind of hassle I do not need.
Re:Illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)
And it's not even true. The first method only stops automatic selection of the program to open the content with, for example WMP for audio CDs, ACDSee for photos. It does not prevent executables specified in autorun.inf from being loaded.
The other 2 methods are not simple. Did you work out that reg entry or did you read about it on the web?
Thought so.
In win95, users could work it out for themselves, or if not it was in the manual.
Re:You could also (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with using a non-privileged account in Windows is not so much the OS itself as the applications. Most old applications are not multi-user aware, and even many new ones are plain broken as well.
I think it's been fixed in later versions, but running the Quake 3 level editor as non-admin just didn't work in Windows a couple of years ago. I could use it fine in Linux, as a normal user, at the same time, because no Linux app tries to store the user's files in a directory outside ~/ and so on -- no ordinary app needs special privileges. In Windows, many quite normal apps demand full Administrator privileges for no reason at all, apart from that they were developed for systems that had no privilege separation, or on systems where the developers just didn't bother running as something other than admin and never imagined anyone else would.
Re:Illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Heh (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll try.
The auth code scheme you're talking about sounds like Windows XP's activation and installation codes - do you think that works?
Yes. Yes it does work. It stops Mr. Brown from installing it on two machines. However, Mr. Brown is a manager of some sort, and has no kids. Mr. Blue however is an engineer, and has a 12 year old kid. His kid downloads an activation crack and fixes the CD or even just downloads an ISO of the precracked installer. It stops CASUAL copying of software, if you're determined enough, nothing will stop you.
Copy protection does not work and is in fact incorrectly named. It is just Copy Inconveniencing. The sad part is the record companies know this, and think that slowing down pirates by a matter of minutes is worth fucking up the experience for everyone.
I hate to say it, but you're wrong. They genuinely are trying to get a system that allows players to play, and PC's... not to play. Unfortuanately it was such a rushed system that it doesn't work and they are getting their comeupance. And no, people don't copy the SAME song. Check on any P2P network, type in something popular like Red Hot Chili Peppers. Ok, maybe not them, no-one can spell them - try Madonna. Just don't hit download
Put simply, rather than ramming "don't download" down our throats, the RIAA etc should be saying "if you like it, pay for it - it's the right thing to do". SOunds very cheesy and that it wouldn't work, but I know for a fact that I only bought the Piper Downs album because I felt it was wrong to rip them off. If you are sitting in your chair listening to something you downloaded, and you don't own it, sorry, own a licence for it, then go out and get it from your local shop!
Rant over... Next week we'll be discussing the Clergy...