Slashdot Log In
Artist Suggesting Ways Around Copy Protection
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Sep 19, 2005 03:05 AM
from the silly-rabbit-artists-dont-own-their-work dept.
from the silly-rabbit-artists-dont-own-their-work dept.
fanboyslayer writes "Switchfoot's new album Nothing Is Sound shipped from Sony with copy protection software on the CD, much to the dismay of thousands of iPod-wielding fans. The band posted a response on their official forum apologizing for the protection and detailing ways to circumvent the protection and rip their songs to PC. Switchfoot linked to open-source program CDex's download page with instructions on disabling the autorunning protection and ripping the files to MP3. Many of Switchfoot's fans have been upset by the copy protection measures, and it's nice to know the artists seem to care about the issue."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Artist Suggesting Ways Around Copy Protection
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 548 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Nice comment (Score:5, Informative)
For those too lazy to RTFA their advice is "press shift when loading the CD", and "if that's too late, burn the music back to CD and rip it again".
Re:Nice comment (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.unsanity.org/)
A) If you're a mac user, or you have access to a mac, or you purchased the dual disc, you should have no problems... simply import the songs the same way as you always do.
Re:Nice comment (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.underachievement.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday January 21 2007, @10:58PM)
Not trying to Mac-bash, but having only about 3% of the consumer market share does have it's advantages.
If the Apple and Windows userbases suddenly became equal, you'd see copy protection for both platforms. Why spend an equal amount of money for copy protection that's only going to affect 3% of your consumers vs 95%?
That said, the whole DMCA side of this is plain stupid. Microsoft designed Windows (this really *is* a feature
Re:Nice comment (Score:5, Interesting)
What's the odds that in Vista, the Autorun feature will be "improved" so that it's more like, "to disable Autorun, hold down SHIFT, unless it's a copy-protected disc in which case it WILL auto-run regardless of any key-presses or registry changes you make"?
Re:Nice comment (Score:5, Funny)
That would be great! Finally we can again make bluescreen disks which won't be defeated with a trivial press on the shift key, hehe...
Re:Nice comment (Score:4, Informative)
There are a lot of rumors and reports about terrible copy protection in Vista, whether it's this or allowing only 'approved' monitors and the simplest solution is to switch to Linux. Unfortunately I still need Windows, and there's no way my wife would ever consider Linux at the moment so if copy protection gets too bad the best solution is to have a separate Linux box and do the rip/burn there. I can say for certain that I have no need to upgrade to Vista now, but when I do buy a new PC I'm sure it'll be on there.
My current setup would be a decent linux box, good enough for web browsing, listening to music, and ripping CDs. Then all I would need to do is set up a shared drive on the windows machine that I could access across my home network. Am I right to assume that Linux can read NTFS but not write?
Re:Nice comment (Score:5, Informative)
You are thinking inside the box. The simple fact is MS doesn't own the Phillips Compact Disk standard. MS is trying to sell a format that they do own. Seen any secure WMA files lately? They simply haven't gotten the labels to bite yet because too many players in cars and such still won't play the format.
Does anybody know if the CD contains the Compact Disk logo? So far I have avoided the copy protected disks simply by not buying any CD without the Compact Disk logo as registered by Phillips. I wouldn't want any DMCA liability that the band advocates by defeating a protection mechanism.
Re:Nice comment (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nice comment (Score:4, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday September 25 2005, @10:11PM)
However, they have all had that cute little FBI logo on them.
Re:Nice comment (Score:5, Insightful)
When the Mac Market share hits, say 25%, I'll re-evaluate my platform choice.
Re:Nice comment (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.sadistech.com/ | Last Journal: Monday June 05 2006, @11:55AM)
same idea as spyware.
i've got a question, though (being as I don't use windows and I've had the opportunity to rip several protected CDs for other people)...
One of the main problems with windows, in terms of reasons for lack of stability and the like, is that there is so much crap being installed on a regular basis (spyware, adware, and not to mention actual real software), what's to stop all this crap from conflicting and bringing down the system?
at my job, they just locked down all of the windows computers. Software cannot be installed without an administrator password. hell, you can't even look at the built-in calendar without loggin in as an admin (doubleclick the time in the taskbar).
how are office peons supposed to listen to music, now?
this also brings up another issue. Earlier on slashdot, there was an article about the 6 stupidest ideas for security. the author proposed a whitelist for executing software on a machine, rather than a blacklist. Having audio CDs require installation of software just to listen to music completely shatters his idea of keeping a clean system. Suddenly, you go from knowing exactly what you need to run (excel, word, minesweeper, adobe reader, etc) to saying "sonydrmdaemon32.exe? columnbiaprotect_win32.exe... wtf is that crap?"
I can see it now. in 2 years when nearly every audioCD comes with their own flavour of software DRM, the next wave of security exploits are going to involve that software.
the future looks pretty dark.
Re:How will burning back affect quality? (Score:4, Insightful)
I really can't understand why this audiophile crap has infected almost everyone. Just try it yourself people. Try it with *your* ears. I'm pretty sure you won't hear any difference.
Re:How will burning back affect quality? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh wait..
Why don't they tell Sony to sod off? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, while still taking Sony's money and saying that it is "impossible" to change the system, and therefore supporting its continuation.
Let's be honest here. They don't WANT to change the system, because they like Sony's cash too much.
If they were genuine about being pro-fan, there is a hell of a lot that they could do about the situation.
For a start they could tell Sony to sod off with the copy protection, or they'll go with another publisher. If Sony threatens them with litigation on the basis of the contract signed, then get together with other artists in the same situation and run a class action on the basis of such contracts being in restraint of trade.
Sony (and other labels) are just distributors and promotors in this day and age when you can have a billion-track studio at home for peanuts, and hire in your mastering experts for a session. Yet, the labels want to own it all, for eternity. Bollocks.
It's time that bands did something about it, or be branded money-grabbing hypocrits. The power to bring down the system is in their hands. Currently the majority just have no interest in using that power and getting rid of the old machine.
Re:Why don't they tell Sony to sod off? (Score:4, Insightful)
They're also pro-feeding and clothing themselves. There's not a "hell of a lot" that they can do in the notoriously fickle recording industry.
Re:Why don't they tell Sony to sod off? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://conceptjunkie.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Monday August 25 2003, @10:22PM)
That's all well and good. Would you risk your livelihood to stand up for a cause against a company to which you will almost certainly lose?
Most people can't afford to put their lives on hold and lose years' worth (if not more) of income to take a moral stand.
That might be sad, that might be selling out, but that's life. Most people can't afford to fight a crusade, and no sane person wants to be a martyr for a cause he probably can't win.
Re:Why don't they tell Sony to sod off? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://houndwire.com/)
In fact, the fact that they are nice and trusting is probably what allowed Sony to sneak this under their radar.
Re:Nice comment (Score:5, Informative)
(http://thehardsell.wordpress.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday July 03 2004, @08:34PM)
The good news is that they're becoming less common - I've seen some very unwelcome uses of CDS here in the UK (including a jazz CD) but most new CDs I've seen from EMI/subsidiaries, the biggest users of CDS previously, have been protection-free; and new issues of some of the previously protected CDs, like Blur's Think Tank, have been CP-free. Which is certainly a good thing.
As for the Switchfoot protection, this is almost certainly the pain-in-the-ass SunnCOMM MediaMax system as seen on a lot of Sony USA albums. It's basically a legal trojan - it will install its Windows service even if you decline the licensing agreement (illegal in the UK under the Computer Misuse Act, which may be why we haven't seen many MediaMax CDs outside the States; they usually turn up as either CDS or unprotected instead.) It may be a good idea not to load the CD as Administrator, as well as turning off autorun.
Since it's a service, it's removable from the Computer Management services screen and from a hard to find link on he SunnCOMM website, but it has an obscure name - "SbcpHid" according to the CD3 analysis here [princeton.edu], although I suspect they've either changed it now or added a partner (can't find any info to suggest otherwise). Can't someone sue them?
Re:Nice comment (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
This almost certainly falls under various US anti-spyware laws. It *probably* falls under good old 18 USC 1030 [usdoj.gov] as well. The reason why spyware and other trojans don't is the nominal "authorization" of the EULA. If it installs even when you specifically decline that authorization, that should be a violation of law. Granted that the odds of any DA choosing to go after media companies for this is... poor.
Re:Nice comment (Score:5, Interesting)
They did give up all their principles, if they ever had any, when signing for Sony. You're either part of the problem or part of the solution.
This is the same logic that Bush used. You're either with us or with the terrorists. It's just fallacy. Empty rhetoric. It just sounds good.
Sony are not a "problem" they're a symptom. They're a company, created by commerce-based culture. If they go under, another company will form to take their place. Your problem is with the system that created them.
Also, comparing a bunch of entertainers to mother Theresa and Gandhi is downright laughable, and only serves to reinforce my perception that these guys are some sort of PR hoes.
Why? They're just human beings in the pubic eye. Look at Bob Geldof. He's an entertainer and he helps people. Just because you have them categorised into neat little boxes doesn't mean they have to conform to your definitions.
Oh, and good_press != heaven so there goes the rest of your argument. Go get some sleep, fanboy.
I'm going to ignore your childish insults and explain again.
You are *assuming* that these musicians are doing this for PR reasons. If they are doing that then, although your label of "karma bitch" might be valid, you have to apply that label in some places you might not expect in order for you critisism to be consistent, and hence for you not to be a hypocrite.
For example, the Catholic church (amongst many others, I apologise for using the easy target) preaches that if you don't follow their ways you will go to hell. It follows that people become Catholic to avoid going to hell. So, a catholic who performs a charitable act could be said to do so under the threat of hell. The same label of "karma bitch" could be applied, it's just that the reward comes in the afterlife instead of at a celebrity record launch.
Personally I disagree with your label of "karma bitch". I think that performing charitable acts in your own interests is perfectly acceptable. In fact, think that performing charitable acts is actually usually in your own interests, even if it's only to satisfy your conscience or to appear generous.
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Respect to Switchfoot. Oh, and down with the record companies, who don't give a damn about the artists or their music.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
I've been too lazy to hold shift so I just disabled autoplay:
Win95/98/ME get to properties of the drive uncheck auto insert notification
Win2000/XP run gpedit.msc Administrative Templates - System - Disable Auto play-enabled
NOBODY WANTS IT (Score:5, Insightful)
Artists dont want it.
Consumers dont want it.
When will they learn? It's such a pain in the ass to get any media, especially DVDs with diff region codes that I am literally FORCED to warez movies to play on my mac. If I buy the DVD, I can not play it (I am in the UK - I want to buy a Region 1 DVD...)
Re:NOBODY WANTS IT (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday February 13 2006, @07:11PM)
You're extrapolating a bit. In this case:
Artist dont want it.
I'm sure we have thousands of artists out there that puts record company deals before their fans abilities to use iPods. I wouldn't even be surprised if it's more the rule than the exception.
Re:NOBODY WANTS IT (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.slashdot.org/)
Very true, and those 'artists' that feel that way will end up without any fans.
Bands who care only about money won't last.
Bands who care about their fans? They'll last forever.
Good to see... (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.securethe.net/)
RIAA Lawsuit Factor (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:RIAA Lawsuit Factor (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday September 25 2005, @10:11PM)
Re:RIAA Lawsuit Factor (Score:4, Informative)
I'd never heard of the band.. (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 05 2006, @05:31AM)
-jcr
Re:I'd never heard of the band.. (Score:5, Insightful)
No Possible way out??? (Score:5, Insightful)
[Bolding mine]
Not sure about there being "no possible way" - perhaps when it comes time to renew their contract with Sony they'll consider going to alternative solutions. Worse comes to worse, perhaps they won't ever be able to escape Sony but they'll serve as a warning for others.
If the large corps keep on with this process it'll typically generate a new band of recording studios who don't and thus are seen as somewhat more friendly (though the cycle will probably still go on).
DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a band from the USA. Unless I'm mistaken, since the record company is usually the copyright holder of the recordings, this is actually a case of a band infringing the DMCA by telling people how to access their own music. Seems like a perfect example of how screwed up the DMCA is. I can only hope that they get sued for it, perhaps then people will realise the extent to which both copyright and the music industry is screwed up.
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.pokerroom.com/)
DMCA only involvement in this story is the fact that the band gave instructions on how to circumvent the copy protection. But the discussion about DMCA belongs in another thread.
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
(bold emphasis mine) Except we all know that's not actually the truth. Sony still gets the money, and the copyright. Cue the href to the now-five-years-old Courtney Love [salon.com] article for more information.
Sadly, unless you're Fugazi, you're not likely to be heard by many people unless you sell out. Something about the world just not being a fair place or some such...
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Interesting)
Notice how they try to blame Apple because they only allow customers to rip to crippled (and crappy, IMO) WMA. I eventually just downloaded Exact Audio Copy [google.ca] and it ripped it just fine. Still frustrating.
sigh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Evil? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://alive.dienub.org/)
The record labels ARE the bad guys, and the band themselves probably didnt have a say when their record label decided that the CD should have copy protection, right?
The artists did realize that by putting copyright-protection on their CD, the piracy of their CD would increase, and not decrease - like the record company propagates - because everyone wants to listen to their music not just on their CD player, but also on their mp3 player, car stereo, and whatnot, right?
I really salute these guys for doing that they did, by putting out these instructions. It doesnt even matter to me that this smells a bit like a PR stunt - The thing that matters is that maybe more artists will follow this example, and soon "UNPROTECTED AUDIO-CD" will be a treat, just like "Limited Edition" is today.
The bottom line of DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies should learn that all it takes is one copy cracked for it to be out there.
But then I see the upcoming standard for Blu-ray, etcetera - and I suppose making the paying customers pay is the point. I mean, it's wonderful for the bottom line when you can sell the same person a movie on VHS, and then on region hobbled DVD, and then entice them with a HD version on Blu-ray. And the incentive is even greater for Joe Consumer once they can't back up their stuff or transfer it to other formats.
I'm glad for corporate thinking - because of this whereas I used to buy 25 CDs a year from mainstream RIAA companies, I buy 1-2 now. I don't download music but I simply don't care anymore. My money has moved onto other interests......
Nice try, but (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.wilwheaton.org/)
Re:Nice try, but (Score:4, Interesting)
Respect (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.woohp.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday September 07 2005, @12:59AM)
"Hello friends,
my heart is heavy with this whole copy-protection thing. Many PC users have posted problems that they have had importing the new songs (regular disc only, not the dual disc) into programs such as Itunes. Let me first say that as a musician AND as a music fan, I agree with the frustration that has been expressed. We were horrified when we first heard about the new copy-protection policy that is being implemented by most major labels, including Sony (ours), and immediately looked into all of our options for removing this from our new album. Unfortunately, this is the new policy for all new major releases from these record companies. It is heartbreaking to see our blood, sweat, and tears over the past 2 years blurred by the confusion and frustration surrounding this new technology. It is also unfortunate when bands such as ourselves, Foo Fighters, Coldplay, etc... (just a few of the new releases with copy protection) are the target of this criticism, when there is no possible way to avoid this new industry policy.
For mac users these songs should import seamlessly. We are told that itunes is coming out with a new version for PC users in early November that will be compatible with all of these new CD's but in the meantime it's frustrating for all of us. That said, there are a number of solutions (as is always the case with these types of things) for importing the CD into your itunes and ipod. We have compiled some of the easier ways below. I feel like as a band and as listeners, we've all been through a lot together over the past ten years, and we refuse to allow corporate policy to taint the family we've developed together. We deeply regret that there exists the need for any of our listeners to spend more than 30 seconds importing our music, but we're asking as friends and partners in this journey together to spend the extra 10 minutes that it takes to import these songs, which we think you'll agree to be our finest collection of songs yet. As a band, we've always been known for having the best fans in the world and I know that will continue for years to come. A month from now, I hope to be singing these songs together at a show, and the extra time spent importing the music will perhaps be forgotten, or at least forgiven. Thank you for your understanding and the continued kindness that you have always shown for five dreamers from San Diego, we love you guys,
-tim foreman"
Re:Respect (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.staticgamer.com/)
One up for Linux and Alt OSes!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Nite Rider
Re:One up for Linux and Alt OSes!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
The vast majority of their clientele will have Windows, with the CD-ROM Autorun feature switched on. The fact that the technology does nothing to prevent copying by the tech-savvy demographic indicates that they know that there is nothing they can do to prevent "cracking" of their protection schemes. They would love a universally uncrackable scheme, but they know that such a thing is not achievable. So they have settled for a scheme that nets them more money from a demographic that they can push around, and pointed the finger of blame at "those dirty smelly hacker pirates".
Wondering... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.staticgamer.com/)
Re:So, are they any good? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.daishar.com/blog)
If only there was a way to register a reason why you're buying something when you buy it. Without that, you'd just be adding to the total number of sales, proving to Sony that consumers don't care about, or even like(!), this copy protection BS.
My advice? Don't buy the CD. Even if you're a fan, don't buy it. The artists get barely anything from CD sales. Go see them live, or buy their songs off of iTunes or MSN Music or similar (I have no idea if they're listed on any online music service). The very last thing you should do is buy the CD if you want to show support.
CDs? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.maddwarf.co.uk/)
Any small-silver-disk that includes copy-protection could not be labelled as a 'CD', and must have the fact that it has copy-protection notified to the customer.
Has this changed, or does this type of protection not break the CD Standard?
Re:CDs? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.livejournal.com/users/strawberryfrog/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 27 2005, @06:28AM)
My main argument in returning the CD was that the CD attempted to install unknown software onto my pc without my consent when I inserted it, and said software did not come with any way of unistalling - after taking advice from geeky friends, I uninstalled this driver by reverting to the last system restore point.
Also at the time there was no indication of any copy protection on Amazon's product page.
If everyone did that, they'd soon get the message.
Re:CDs? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://ettlz.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 12 2006, @06:53PM)
This is actually a good point. Did the grandparent contact the Police?
Re:CDs? (Score:4, Informative)
(http://hur.st/)
It's just a shame these discs don't have to be clearly labelled by law as not being "real" audio CD's. I basically don't buy CD's any more because it's a crapshoot as to whether you get a real disc or not.
Re:CDs? (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.zocalo.uk.com/)
All of which, given the title, is going to make it somwehat ironic if Texas' upcoming CD entitled "Red Book" [amazon.co.uk] includes any form of copy protection...
How stupid are Sony? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure that is true for a large number of people these days, most of whom are 18-35 with a reasonable disposable income: ie. exactly the kind of people that buy large numbers of CDs. It's amazing how companies can be so incredibly short sighted.
Do not buy those CDs or stop whining (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday December 10 2006, @10:25AM)
In general good, but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://ekj.vestdata.no/)
It is also unfortunate when bands such as ourselves, Foo Fighters, Coldplay, etc... (just a few of the new releases with copy protection) are the target of this criticism, when there is no possible way to avoid this new industry policy.
This is bull. The artists are the original copyrigth-holder for their work. They choose to license it for publication by some record-company, or not. They are free to set whatever demands they want for this publication. (with the risk that if their demands are too stiff, the record-company will say: "no deal")
Especially famous, well-selling artists have considerable leverage. If say Madonna (more realistically, her manager or whomever representing her) walks into a record-company and say she'd like to publish her new record with them, but one of the conditions is that it be released in standard CD-format, that the company would refuse to negotiate a contract.
Artists do have a way of influencing record-companies. It may not be easy, and it may be that not all artists have a lot of negotiation-leverage all the time. But to claim, as he does here, that they have "no possible way" to influence things, is bullshit.
Re:In general good, but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://web.lemuria.org/)
Not all. Most of them are under long-term contracts. Remember Prince? He didn't even own his own stage name.
If they really cared... (Score:3, Informative)
Wealth, fame, and integrity; pick two.
Albums I would buy if they weren't "protected" (Score:4, Informative)
Chemical Brothers: The Singles Double CD
Chemical Brothers: Push the Button
Fatboy Slim: Palookaville
K-OS: Joyfull Rebellion
Massive Attack: 100th Window
Massive Attack: Danny the Dog Soundtrack
A Perfect Circle: Emotive
A Perfect Circle: Thirteen Steps
Radiohead: Hail to the Theif
Royksopp: The Understanding
That is just off the top of my head. There may be more. I know I could probably circumvent the protection with a sharpie, but I prefer to not pay for something that is essentially a broken CD.
The irony of it is at 15-20 $CDN a disc, the record companies have not only helped me choose to not give them a few hundred bucks but also managed to give me more reason to "pirate" that music all with one idiotic move.
So what is it they are really trying to protect here? My wallet?
It's a (Score:3, Insightful)
For "Bobs" sake just turn auto run off. (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.jollyboyscc.org.uk/)
Every single time that anything is allowed to automatically run on Windows (opening email attachments, Word document macros) it's been a source of viruses and other crap. It's a fatally flawed idea.
So just turn the bloody thing off (Google to find how for your version of Windows) If the CD contains drivers, etc. etc. then the worst you'll have to do is open the disc in Explorer and double click on something yourself. No big deal.
Then again you could just hold down the shift key when you insert a CD.
Bah.
Publicity? (Score:5, Interesting)
The artist gains from having that warm fuzzy feeling of "speaking out", and generating sales of course. They also have a shared voice with their fans, without lifting a finger.
I'm not saying they don't care, i'm just saying this could easily be a publicity stunt. It's on
The thing is.... (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.kibbee.ca/)
Who's setting up the PayPal defense fund? (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://unugunu.blogspot.com/)
The best analogy I can come up with is this: A Microsoft exployee working on Windows XP discovers that Windows Genuine Advantage is about to be implemented and posts instructions on how to circumvent it. Microsoft is feeding him and his family, Sony is feeding Switchfoot and its members' families. The Microsoft employee and Switchfoot both gave up rights when they signed their respective contracts.
As stupid and unjust as it may seem, Switchfoot has set themselves up for a major lawsuit.
Or.... Maybe it's just a conspiracy.
1. The RIAA told Switchfoot to post the story so they would get sued.
2. The RIAA sues Switchfoot to "prove" bypassing DRM is illegal.
3. Switchfoot's lawyers intentionally do a horrible job presenting their case in exchange for an RIAA pay off, and the RIAA wins.
4. Precendent now says that bypassing the DRM on these discs is illegal.
5. People are scared to post instructions on bypassing any form of DRM.
6. Profit!
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.underachievement.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday January 21 2007, @10:58PM)
RTFA.
The band had no voice in the matter. Sony is their label and chose to put the protection on the disc, whether the band wanted it on or not. Switchfoot posted the info on bypassing it because it was pissing off a lot of their fans and that's not something most (read: not Metallica) bands want. In addition, they probably wanted to piss off Sony a little bit for abusing the power that labels have come to know and love.
Re:Publicity Stunt (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, while telling users how to circumvent the protection may or may not be a grey area (see DMCA), giving away the MP3's on their site is very much black and white: they (likely) do NOT have the legal right to do this. Their contract with their record company (likely) explicitly forbids it. And they are not worried about their fans' ability to SHARE the music, they just want their fans to be able to LISTEN to their music, on whatever devices they might own. So this would be the best way to help their paying fans make use of the CD's they have purchased. Switchfoot was never trying to give the album away.
Oh, and while bypassing this protection may be common knowledge on
Though of course I'm just guessing.
Re:Switchfoot's own fault (Score:4, Insightful)
The consequences of this fact and your above stated opinion are that the only faultless way of making money in a band is to self-publish
That conclusion is incorrect because it presumes that implementing obtrusive 'DRM' (and alienating your user base in the process) is a good way to maximise profit. What evidence is available, not the least of which is the dominance of the iTMS and the iPod and the relative obscurity of competing stores and DRM enabled media players, as well as the overwhelming balance of consumer feedback, would seem to suggest otherwise.
It is fair to say that Switchfoot bear responsibility if they knew Sony were engaging in this sort of behaviour before they signed (in that they 'did a deal with the devil' and can be expected to bear the consequences of their financial decisions).
Of course it's entirely possible Switchfoot signed with Sony years ago before this practice became practice became commonplace, but - and it's possible I may be misjudging them, but frankly I doubt it - I rather suspect they would have found the pull of fame and fortune hard to resist and that they would have signed with Sony even if they had been fully aware their music was going to be distributed in this fashion.
Re:Not a good Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://mkeadle.org/)
It's my understanding that Switchfoot originally signed with a smaller label that was later bought by Sony. For a band to sign a contract specificaly stating they do't want DRM no matter who may eventually own their contract would be extremely forward thinking and suprising.
** Are the artists prepared to lose sales to piracy or will they demand that their label pays them as promised?
If the label has promised to pay them then there shouldn't be a demand to follow through, unless they can be declared in violation of their contract by their recent actions. Plus, even if they succomb to a little privacy it might mean they lose a few immediate sales but gain a wider audience, meaning possible larger crowds for concerts.
** Before a court, this entire piece is worthless. No judge will let some filesharing kiddies go free because the band itself endorsed DRM circumvention.
I can see that happening, but it could take a lot. Switchfoot is more of an employee of Sony, and it may be determined thay don't have any authority on how to handle their CDs, i.e. speaking on behalf of their employer. On paper, Sony would be ultimately responsible, but I could see a court understanding that direct instruction from the band gives the appearance of legality.
** All this sounds like a cheap marketing move: "Look at us, we are really cool, freedom-loving anti-DRM guys!"
If it is a marketing move I doubt it's cheap. Details are details but in the end Sony is no fan of p2p or copying in any form. It's tough to imagine they would go through the expense to copy protect discs and then have the bands leak info on how to get around it just to be "cool". It could be a ploy by the band I guess, but they've just opened the door to getting around not only their own album, but evey other Sony album protected in the same way, and Sony can't be happy about that.
And for the record, though I do appreciate Switchfoot's recent actions, I'm no fan of their music.