Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Another Class Action Over Crippled Music Disks 154

Posted by michael from the oh-the-humanity dept.
pulaski writes "Here's a link to an interesting Baltimore Sun story. It's about the case of two Californians trying to take some major record companies to task for selling copy protected CDs. It's got the classic Cary Sherman whine but the plaintiffs apparently have some legal muscle." A similar suit was settled with the defendants agreeing to make changes in their practices.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Another Class Action Over Crippled Music Disks More

Another Class Action Over Crippled Music Disks

Comments Filter:
  • "...If you use an Apple computer, you can't even get the disc out of the tray. It requires the time and cost of taking the computer into a repair shop and having it removed that way..."

    Or you could just hold the mouse button down whilst rebooting...

    Apple really needs to provide an obvious external means of ejecting CDs.

    (tig)
    • Do Macs not provide the little bitty hole for manual release of the CD tray? Or does this not work? Just curious...

      • Re:Hole... (Score:3, Informative)

        by Sc00ter ( 99550 )
        Newer Macs no longer have that hole for paperclips. But the poster is right, if you hold down either the mouse buttor or some key on the keyboard it will pop the CD out before booting.

        • Newer Macs no longer have that hole for paperclips.

          Mine does, and it's less than a year old. There's a hole there, anyway. I've never actually tried to use it. Of course you have to pull down the plastic flap to get at it.

    • Actually, these copy protected CD's can sometimes so confuse the Mac, that even holding in the button at reboot won't cause the thing to eject. I had this happen a couple of weeks ago. I had to reboot, drop the machine into Open Firmware, and ask for an eject at the command line. Even this took some time to accomplish, as OF has to wait for the CD drive to quit thrashing on the disk, long enough to get an eject request in.
    • Apologies in advance, all. No flamebait intended. Evidently I (a Mac-o-phile since '87) am having a curmudgeonly morning...

      "...If you use an Apple computer, you can't even get the disc out of the tray. It requires the time and cost of taking the computer into a repair shop and having it removed that way..."

      Complete silliness. Of course it can be removed.

      Worst case, most Macs do have the manual ejection hole. (Even G4s. If you manually flip the outer case door up, there's a standard Sony tray behind it.) Perhaps somebody can give an actual example of a 'new' Mac without one, but every Mac I've ever worked with has one.

      Even without, TIG is right...

      ... you could just hold the mouse button down whilst rebooting...

      Quite so.

      Apple really needs to provide an obvious external means of ejecting CDs.

      For users who can't/won't RTM? I'm not sure it would it help...

      **Sigh**

      Maybe you're right.

      They should label all of their cases with friendly yellow letters, too...

      Ah, well...

      • Perhaps somebody can give an actual example of a 'new' Mac without one...

        Ah. SkipNewarkDE just did.

        The newest iMac. Bummer.

        Kudos to him for really useful info, too. (see #3707420 [slashdot.org]).

        Those friendly yellow letters are looking better and better... :)

    • What I don't like about this attitude is that its a Mac - you buy a Mac because according to the ads its supposed to be the end all to ease of use. And if computers intimidate you - you should buy a mac (no I don't fully believe this, but this is Apple's message)

      You're honestly going to tell me a person that has a hard time turning the machine on and off is going to know how to push the mouse button while booting. Well then you're going to have to describe to some users when the computer is actually booting or not.

      I have experience with Mac's and Mac users (at least brand new mac users) - there great machines, but back when I was servicing these things we used to get imac's in that wouldn't boot - they wouldn't load the finder and a friendly message popped up saying "try loading the finder without extensions (left shift)" - where upon doing so would give you the same error. The solution was to reset the pram, but that was no-where in the flimsy manual - it was even buried in the actual service manual. And some people really had no concept of pusing ctrl+apple+3 (or something like that - it was a while ago) and brought the machine in for us to look at.

  • NOT the same as other copy protection (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dave_mcmillen ( 250780 ) on Saturday June 15, 2002 @08:37AM (#3707236)
    From the article (the "Cary Sherman whine" referred to in the posting):

    "Music creators have the right to protect their property from theft, just like owners of any other property," Sherman said. "Motion picture studios, and software and video game publishers have protected their works for years, and no one has even thought to claim that doing so was inappropriate, let alone unlawful." [said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Assn. of America]

    Umm ... Cary, mi amigo: The copy protections on video tapes and computer games don't cause your VCR or computer to become unusable. If they did, those industries would have exactly the same problem you're currently having. Putting a warning label saying "Be careful, this apparently innocent disc may eat your computer" isn't sufficient: it would be better to, oh, I don't know, maybe use a method that works without breaking things?

  • Proposed change in terminology (Score:5, Insightful)

    by peter hoffman ( 2017 ) on Saturday June 15, 2002 @08:40AM (#3707242) Homepage

    It's a small point but I'd like to see people start using a phrase like copy crippled instead of copy protected as protected has a positive connotation.

    • Re:Proposed change in terminology (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Saturday June 15, 2002 @09:10AM (#3707281) Homepage

      Also, let's please be careful to never, ever refer to a crippled disk as a "CD", because (by the Red Book standard) it isn't.

      • Also, let's please be careful to never, ever refer to a crippled disk as a "CD", because (by the Red Book standard) it isn't.

        To me, CD stands for one of two things. For Red Book conforming discs, it stands for "Compact Disc". For discs that deviate far enough from the Red Book standard that they become unplayable, CD stands for Completely Disabled. (Such discs are even more disabled than this little fellow [rose-hulman.edu].)

      • True, it may not be a "CD" in the sense that it's a Compact Disc, but is still a CD in the sense that it's a Crippled Disc! ;c)
      • It's still a CD. It just isn't an Audio CD. I could write garbled crap to a CD and it's still a CD, just a horribly non-standard, completely useless one. :)
    • Better yet, the manufacturers should be permanently enjoined from using the term "Compact Disc", the familiar logo form of those words, or the abbreviation "CD" anywhere on the disc or packaging, because they deliberately violate the standards specified by the owner of those Distinctive Marks ... Phillips, the only big company in a position to use IP law to protect dilution of its work to fight this crap. I don't believe they have tried to do that just yet, but the company has at least made public statements [newscientist.com] that sound promising.
      • Actually, I don't think that they can use the term "cd" on the covers of these crippled disks. Yes, they LOOK like a cd, but they don't meet the standard. Therefore, even the record companies cannot legally claim that these are cds. You won't see "cd", any logo related to it, or the words "compact disk" on any of these releases unless their lawyers really stepped in it. Maybe they should just call them "non standard shiny round things that might fuck up your mac", if they want to make sure that the customer knows what they're shelling out money for.
    • Clearly we use the term CD because it looks like a CD, it feels like a CD, and all our previous experiences indicate that this is, yes, a CD.

      Call it a shiny music platter, a music coaster, a corrupt round of sound, an audio ache, a Hilary's Horror, what? Ideas are welcomed...

      :-),
      Chuck
    • I prefer the term "anti-play" technology. That's what the technology does; it prevents you from playnig the music.
    • Among the politically correct, the term 'crippled' is deprecated. One of the accepted replacement terms is 'physically challenged'. I therefore propose the term 'copy challenged' for the new shiny discs resembling compact discs.

      This term also correctly indicates that copies are not protected, nor are they even prevented. Copying them is simply more challenging than copying actual compact discs.
  • The RIAA President quoted in the article implies that what they're doing to copy protect disks is some kind of encryption. My understanding is that this is not the case. They're basically messing with the directory structure of the disk in such a way that computers will misunderstand what's going on and will, at minimum, be unable to play or read the music. Isn't he being somewhat misleading by calling this encryption when in fact its an issue of deliberately failing to follow the CD standard? Is this distinction going to play a significant role in the class action?
    • Dave,
      You're right. It isn't encryption *at all*, it is simply messing around with the Audio CD standard so that computer-based CD players get confused or reject the corrupt CD. In short, they look like CDs, but they really aren't. They're just shiny music platters that we mistakenly assume are CDs based on our previous experiences with these things.

      Peace,
      Chuck
  • I hope they're successful. It could be the deciding case on whether or not our fair use rights will be upheld.

  • Why not just put a label on it? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by knownzero ( 571410 ) on Saturday June 15, 2002 @09:02AM (#3707270)
    Would it really be that hard to put a label on the disk saying that its copy protected? If they can do it with the explicit lyrics label, they can do it with this. Although, I can see it now where the artists will start suing because they can't get their cover art on the discs because there will be so many labels on the front. Back to the longbox! :-)
    • Because the consumer pays for it. Fair use law says that once you buy it, it's yours for your personal use any way you want. I can buy the finest china platters and use them for skeet shooting. I can buy a porsche convertible and use it as a flowerpot. I can buy a newspaper and use it to train my dog, or read it on the subway, or read it in the john or at the breakfast table. It's unlawful for the copyright owner to determine how I use the product I buy from them. What I am buying is, in effect, a personal license to use the product (music). If I wish to wire it into the shower so it plays loudly while my mate sings, that's fair use.
      Designing the product so that it destroys or disables other products is unlawful. Eventually, rich enough lawyers will get on the right side of this issue and put a stop to RIAA/MPAA's illegal behavior. This entire post is an opinion only, as IANAL.
      • If you are buying a license then the license owns you.

        If you are buying an object then you own it.

        When I buy a CD, I own the CD and its contents. Just as I buy a book, I own the book and ink printed on the page.

        Now my uses of each are only limited by copyright law and extentions that a 9 member panel oked.

        A lincense does not need to copyright law. It a business contract and bypass all protections of the copyright law, unless you can get them to agree to your changes. Why do you think MS is powerful, it is the EULA. RIAA/MPAA is thrying to sue the end run.

        Get out of your head the idea of license, because is that brianwashing that allows RIAA/MPAA to do what the do.
        • A lincense does not need to copyright law. It a business contract and bypass all protections of the copyright law, unless you can get them to agree to your changes.

          Usually contracts rely on an agreement between parties and exchange of consideration. Selling something meets this kind of criteria, as does the GPL, when it comes to any kind of EULA it's hard to see how these could ever be considered "contracts". Indeed it's hard to see anyway they could be binding which would not be terrifying to software companies. Since any customer could change the terms simply by writing a letter.
    • I've seen labels on a few crippled disks but they are A) very sugar coated and do not use direct verbage and B) are placed on the back of the CD in an area in which the customer is not likely to look until after the purchase.
  • In the article about Sony and Universal's liquid audio releases recently, there was an interesting section which gave hope about the situation. When it came to copy protection, which whether or not people can burn CDs, someone was quoted as saying the reality of the situation is music is being pirated now, so not allowing songs to be made doesn't really add any value. Obviosly, that is not an exact, quote, but it close and shows some people in these companies are starting to "get it."

    The barn door is open, and has been for years now. They are bickering over how the close the barn now. Needless to say, the horses got out years ago, and already have children and grandchildren.

    I may be sick in the head, but I will be very interested to watch the moves these companies make over the next couple of years.

    -Pete
    • One of the problems with using the copy protection scheams that have been presented, is that a music pirate that removes that copy protection and starts to distribute CDs without it, has a product that has more value to consumers than the original.

      Worse is that it is very rare that the people who are affected by copy protection of this nature are affected because they are going to pirate and distribute the music. These people are engaged in completely legal archiving of their music, as well as making lower quality copies for use in portable media devices.

      -Rusty

  • Distinction (Score:4, Insightful)

    by torqer ( 538711 ) on Saturday June 15, 2002 @09:09AM (#3707279)
    From the article: "Music creators have the right to protect their property from theft, just like owners of any other property," Sherman said. "Motion picture studios, and software and video game publishers have protected their works for years, and no one has even thought to claim that doing so was inappropriate, let alone unlawful."

    Well there is a distinction that needs to be made. Copy Protection is OK (witness: video games). Protection from theft is OK. Crippling a product and calling it either Copy Protection or Protection from Theft is not.

    There's a line between trying to stop people from copying/stealing and selling things that don't work in equipment that should be compatible.

    • It is not okay.

      Depending on what it is you're doing, copying is entirely legal and in fact, desirable and encouraged. For example, it is beneficial to be able to rip cd tracks to mp3. This is not theft in the least.

      And in fact, frankly, I object strenuously to self help measures such as these by copyright holders. They are not courts, they cannot judge what is and is not legal copying, particularly when you factor in that the copyright will ultimately expire. This is an attempt to cheat the public, to contravene the goals of the copyright laws. (i.e. solely to promote the public good)

      Were it up to me, attempting to employ a base, mechanical system that didn't 100% accurately mirror the outcome under the law for any given situation, even taking into account changes over time in the statutory and case laws, would be sufficient to require that the copyright be voided. Self help and copyright would be mutually exclusive.
      • 'They are not courts, they cannot judge what is and is not legal copying, particularly when you factor in that the copyright will ultimately expire.'

        if there is a disc that is copy protected and it becomes public domain, is it still illegal under DMCA to copy it?
      • They are not courts, they cannot judge what is and is not legal copying, particularly when you factor in that the copyright will ultimately expire.
        --
        There's one problem here. Copyrights can be renewed by the holder of that copyright, so given the fact that artists must effectively sign away all ownership rights to the record companies just to get discs pressed, if the record companies persist for any length of time (based on the amount of money they swindle from the public every day, they'll be around awhile) the record companies can renew their copyrights virtually indefinitely.

        Now, what can happen is a situation similar to some of the video-game makers of the 1980s, like Exidy: They simply went out of business with nobody to buy the IP rights. Once that happens, all that work reverts to either the original creators, or the public domain (I don't remember which, but both are possible). Regardless, it's not a pretty picture.
    • Copy Protection is OK (witness: video games). Protection from theft is OK.

      But video games pretty much have one specific use, and that isn't impacted by VG copy protection. But when you buy a CD there are any number of legitimate (fair use) things that you should be able to do with it, from pay it on your computer to transfer the music to your portable MP3 player and play it there. Just what is one expected to do with their Sony MP3 player if Sony protects disc that you buy? Seems they are legitimizing downloading illegal copies from the Internet.

    • Copy Protection is OK (witness: video games).

      Yes, video games which don't let you make a backup copy (well, at least not in theory [www.elby.de]).
    • It depends. Copy Protection in video games is not OK because I can't back it up. CD's are not exactly bullet proof. I think Microsoft got it right with Windows Activiation - believe it or not. They have a completely unintrusive, EXTREMELY EASY, anonymous method of validating your copy on your machine. However, I can make 100 copies of the disk if I see fit. Sure, I'd rather _NOT_ have Product Activation, but it's "copy authentication" is better then "copy prevention" IMHO.
  • "Music creators have the right to protect their property from theft, just like owners of any other property," Sherman said.
    Oh, I agree. They have a right to protect their property. But not by destroying their customers' hardware, damnit! On a similar notice, yesterday I crashed a Win2k server by inserting a scratched CD. It just froze. No blue screen, no error message, it died. Had to punch the Big Red Button. How's that for copy protection?

    • Re:Flawed logic (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Subcarrier ( 262294 ) on Saturday June 15, 2002 @09:42AM (#3707372)
      I crashed a Win2k server by inserting a scratched CD. It just froze. No blue screen, no error message, it died.

      Heh, I've had that happen with no CD at all. It's almost magic.

      This is not intended as a troll but, seriously, CD drives and OSs shouldn't freeze up just because there is a faulty CD in the drive. This is just one more example of crappy software/hardware design. Behaviour like this gives me a strong impulse to take the computer back to the shop.

      On the other hand, spitting a flawed disc out and putting up a popup with "Defective Compact Disk" would be more likely to encourage the user to return the CD and demand a refund.

    • Re:Flawed logic (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JimDabell ( 42870 )

      "Music creators have the right to protect their property from theft, just like owners of any other property," Sherman said.


      I agree too - although I haven't heard of very many cases where the lorries full of CDs get hijacked on the way to the record stores. Perhaps the police should get involved. Copyright infringement, however, is a different story.

  • Well... (Score:3, Informative)

    by anonicon ( 215837 ) on Saturday June 15, 2002 @09:14AM (#3707289)
    I for one am hoping this case either ends in a positive settlement for the lawfirms involved, akin to the way Charley Pride's label caved in over his CD [boycott-riaa.com] when a California woman sued them for deceptive trade practices and other goodies.

    I run FatChucks.com [fatchucks.com] and get a ton of e-mail over the Corrupt CDs issue every week. It would be nice if this case makes my site obsolete because big, fat warnings would have to appear on the CDs themselves (rather than Joe Public having to know about my site).

    Last, the warnings you see on corrupt CDs are so far *not adequate.* They need to warn the potential buyer of the following:
    1. Will not play on your computer.
    2. Will not play on your DVD player, Discman, CD-Duplicator (like the kind put out by Sony, Harmon-Kardon, Pioneer, etc), high-end stereo CD player, car CD player, game console (PS, PS2, XBox, etc) or MP3-CD player.
    3. Using this CD in any of the devices above may damage that equipment.

    To see this in action, check out this image for the Rosa CD in Europe:
    The Image [uazu.net]
    In Spanish, it translates to this:
    "This disc is equipped with a device to prevent digital copying, which could impede the playback of the recording in personal computers and/or harm such devices, in videogame consoles, in automobile CD and DVD players and multi-changers, as well as other CD-ROM and DVD-ROM players."

    The record labels probably have a legal right to corrupt their CDs, but they need to *fully* warn consumers about what they are buying.

    Peace,
    Chuck
    • "2. Will not play on your DVD player, Discman, CD-Duplicator (like the kind put out by Sony, Harmon-Kardon, Pioneer, etc), high-end stereo CD player, car CD player, game console (PS, PS2, XBox, etc) or MP3-CD player."

      While I can see why it wouldn't play in any DVD player that plays MP3s (because then it would look for a directory structure) I don't see why it wouldn't play in any other DVD player. Why wouldn't one of these CDs play in a Discman or a car CD player? Why not a high-end CD player? I can see why it wouldn't play in an MP3 player or anything that looks for files, but anything that is JUST a CD player, they should play fine.

      "3. Using this CD in any of the devices above may damage that equipment."

      Except for the stupid Apple stuff that says you have to take apart the whole computer to get the CD (untrue, just hold down a key when you power up, disk comes out) I haven't heard a confirmed report of these CDs actually causing any damage to the equipment (i.e. hardware)

      • Since I'm not a techie, I can't really answer your question, but I believe (perhaps mistakenly) that DVD players look for data to play first rather than audio. When they see data (for example, video files) on a disc, they attempt to play those instead of the audio tracks on a disc. Basically, the DVD player is fooled into not accessing the audio tracks.

        Chuck
      • About damaging equipment, here's an observation:
        They had to have tested this on MACs in order to be sure that the MAC, with its drastically non-windows tech, would also be prohibited from using the CDs. SO they knew it would do this, and warned nobody. They didn't care enough about their legal consumers who play music on their MACs .
        They were willing to ship this disk knowing what it would do to a MAC. Is there any doubt that they would willing ship a product that actually fries other technology?

  • When will RIAA get it? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You cannot distribute millions upon millions of instances of copy-protected and/or encrypted data along with millions upon millions of devices capable of reading and/or decrypting that data worldwide to literally billions of people and not expect it to be reverse engineered and/or cracked in rather short order.

    And the big offenders will be the pirates who don't care that DMCA or whatever has made the reverse engineering illegal. It's not like they are paying attention to the law anyway.

    Might as well save everyone a lot of time and effort and just piss right into a fan.

    • You cannot distribute millions upon millions of instances of copy-protected and/or encrypted data along with millions upon millions of devices capable of reading and/or decrypting that data worldwide to literally billions of people and not expect it to be reverse engineered and/or cracked in rather short order.

      The whole exercise is rather pointless if you need the system to work for something like a century.

      And the big offenders will be the pirates who don't care that DMCA or whatever has made the reverse engineering illegal. It's not like they are paying attention to the law anyway.

      Assuming they even need to bother with reverse engineering anyway. Many "pirate" CDs originate from regular production lines.

  • False Advertising... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tranvisor ( 250175 ) on Saturday June 15, 2002 @10:22AM (#3707498) Homepage
    This case is simple and I'm glad a huge law firm finally saw the opening to cause the RIAA and assc. companies some major pain.

    Deal with facts people, this case is not going to deal with Fair-Use Rights. This case will likely be based on the simply premise that the recording companies are mislabeling the things they sell and furthurmore being secretive about it from the public.

    Copy-Crippled PCC's (Polycarbonate Coated Circles.. note I didn't call them CD's) are not CD's, they will not work in a large array of CD capable player devices, and might actually harm some of those devices. This case will likely set out to prove that the Recording Industry did not make a good faith effort to explain the limitations and possible dangers of their product, which misleadingly looks like all of their older, but different products. The RIAA will likely loose this lawsuit. All that remains to be seen is how much the law firm makes them pay.

    Somedays I wish this country wasn't so litigious in nature, but others I figure out that its the only thing holding back huge mega-corporations from totally screwing us.

    • Copy-Crippled PCC's (Polycarbonate Coated Circles.. note I didn't call them CD's)

      I agree that we need new terminology, but this will never catch on. We need something a bit easier. How about "pseudo-CDs"? And "copy-prevention" instead of "copy-protection".

  • watch out! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by theflea ( 585612 )
    These xxAA punks are going to screw up the computer and home electronics industry. The whole idea of buying a stereo/music/computer for my personal enjoyment makes me shiver, because it might not be usable for a long time, and it might not play nice with other stuff. It's this big maze of incompatabilities that will scare people away from buying consumer electronics. Once those shiny discs stop working in one device, only working part of the time, the average consumer is going to be pissed. All they'll say is that these "things used to work fine, now I've got to get a new key or something." Suddenly my out-of-date electronics are looking really cool!
  • Sorry to nit-pick, but why did you say this lawsuite died? It was just filed and hasn't even got srarted. We all (or most of us) hope it does not die and costs records companies zillions of dollars for stupidity.
  • it says right on the cd's jacket that "This disc is not intended for use in computer CD-ROM drives" If they put them in thier cd-rom drive it is thier own fault they fucked up thier ability to eject.
    • What do ypu expect from Californians? As I said in another post, California is the state that has "effectively done away with the concept of individual responsibility."
    • it says right on the cd's jacket that "This disc is not intended for use in computer CD-ROM drives"

      Nope; that's not a sufficient disclaimer. A reasonable person would interpret that to mean "if you put this disc in a computer CD-ROM drive, it won't play the music", not "if you put this disc in a computer CD-ROM drive, it will break your computer".

      Next time you're in the store, look at the warning labels on any poisonous substance. They go well beyond "hey, don't drink this stuff". If anything, the warnings on these faux-CD discs need to be even stronger than those labels, because they address a danger that is completely unknown to the average consumer (as opposed to the danger of drinking something that everybody already knows is poison).

      • it's not the disc breaking the computer. it is the poor handling of corrupted data files in the mac that is breaking the computer.

        • it's not the disc breaking the computer. it is the poor handling of corrupted data files in the mac that is breaking the computer.

          And it's the recording industry that created the corrupted data that triggers the poor handling of corrupted data files in the Mac that is breaking the computer. Even if the labels could convince the court that they hadn't known about this problem when they came up with their scheme, they'd get hit with gross negligence for failing to recall the products once the problem became known.

      • Next time you're in the store, look at the warning labels on any poisonous substance. They go well beyond "hey, don't drink this stuff". If anything, the warnings on these faux-CD discs need to be even stronger than those labels, because they address a danger that is completely unknown to the average consumer (as opposed to the danger of drinking something that everybody already knows is poison).

        Typically such warnings are "warnings for dummies", including warnings against things no one in their right mind would do. These psudo-CDs need to carry warnings with the same kind of pitch, including a large "no computer" logo on both the packaging and the disc itself.
    • Sure they still have a case, and I'll tell you why...

      1. The warning is on the back of the CD, in small print, and very sparse with its information.

      2. The recording industry has incouraged the retailers to intermengle these CD's with regular CD's, confusing cosumers in the process.

      3. But most importantly, computer CD-ROM drives aren't the only thing these things don't work with. High-end CD players, DVD-players, MP3 CD Players all advertise the fact that they play CD's. The recording industry says on the label "This disc is not intended for use in computer CD-ROM drives" , which misleads the consumer into thinking that it might work in their DVD-Player and such.

      These are the reasons the recording industry will lose.
  • It may have been mentioned already, but in the OSX instances, at least, is it not possible for Apple to update firmware to verify if a disk is a DATA or AUDIO CD? Perhaps there could be a preference panel that lets the user specify how an inserted disk is treated.

    As far as I understand, the basic problem is that the data stripe that is dropped at the end of the audio disk confuses the machine and won't give access to the audio tracks. Would it be illegal for Apple to simply allow a preference panel to either (a) look for data information or (b) look for audio cd information? Since the protection scheme is not encryption, how could a solution like this violate the reverse engineering law? What is there to reverse engineer?
  • 1) Fair use means just that--you have the right to reproduce copyrighted works in a "fair" manner as prescribed by law. That doesn't mean that the publishers have to facilitate such reproduction--just that if you are able to reproduce the work, you have the right to do so for certain "fair" uses as prescribed law.

    2) Even if these CDs do damage or destroy hardware--so what? It's your own fault for using them in there. No one forced you to buy them, and no one forced you to put them in your computer's CD-ROM drive. But then again, what do you expect from California, the state that has effectively done away with the concept of "individual responsibility".
    • That is incorrect. If a copyright holder creates a protection system that makes copying absolutely impossible, circumventing it or creating tools to circumvent it -- even for "fair use" is illegal. Is it not? That's the beauty of the DMCA. --the verb
    • How is it my fault? I buy a disk that "looks" like a CD, plays like a cd in my discman, and then locks up my computer to a point where I have to reboot it! That's not "my fault." That's the record companies' fault for selling something that is not compatible with established standards.
      I was going to respond to your comment on fair use, but I decided to read your comment history, and it looks like you're just trolling. So nevermind.
      • It doesn't matter...the fact remains that no one is forcing you to buy OR use it.

        And go ahead and respond to my point about fair use if you want. I'm not trolling--a troll doesn't come back and respond to replies to his posts.
        • The consumer is being tricked into buying it -- it looks like a cd, comes in a package like a cd, is sold with cd's, therefore, in the consumer's mind, it is a cd.

          Fair Use: You're probably correct that publishers don't have to facilitate copying for fair use. However, for them to intentionally make fair use impossible -- for instance by copy-protecting a cd and then buying a law that makes it illegal to defeat that copy-protection, defeats your ability to use your music the way the fair-use doctrine intended.

          I believe in personal responsibility, but that's not what this is about -- it's about money-grubbing corporations who are using every tactic that exists to remove my rights to use material I bought -- including buying congress (the DMCA, in case you're not following me) and trying to break consumer's machines. You do realize the goal of this, right? The goal is to make it so I have to buy my music for every single piece of electronic equipment I have that can play music. In my case, I'd have to buy four copies of the same music in different forms: one for my mp3 player, one for my cd player, one for my computer, and one for my hand-held -- oh, and one for my car, I'm sure they can come up with another proprietary format for that if they put their minds to it. That's a pretty fat profit margin for an industry that's already selling something that costs them less than two dollars to make for almost twenty dollars. Not only that, it's an insult to me to assume that I'm stupid enough to fall for it.

    • Do you have a car? How about the next time you pull up to a gas station and start putting gas in, you fail to notice the itty-bitty label on the back of the pump down by the ground that says "This fuel will not work in any Ford or Toyota cars". At the very least, you have to go through the hassle of removing the gas from the tank; at worst, it can sometimes cause major damage to the engine, necessitating repair work.

      Considering that the stuff looked like gas, smelled like gas, and was advertised as gas, would you really just shrug and say, "Well, I guess it's my fault for trying to use it. No one forced me to"?

      This has nothing to do with individual responsibility. This is about purposely releasing faulty products and damaging equipment.

      • Actually, that's moot because I drive a Dodge Ram :)

        But, to answer your point, that's pretty much what I'd do. I am responsible for what I do. It is my responsibility to educate myself about whatever I do before I do it so I can make an informed decision about it. If I choose not to educate myself about the possible consequences, well, too bad for me.

  • Well two problems realy (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    1) The copy protectected CD's cause a segment fault in OSX v 0.0 -1.4.


    2)On at least my toshiba laptop with PCMCIA slot loaded CD tray aren't playable in windows by any practical method.


    Ifthis keaps up Apple has been heavly rumoured to take the RIAA to court over phiscal damages, infringements on NDA information to get the firmware to play the embeded CD in sound mode


    Not being a lawyer I personally don't see any ethical ground they have to stand on, something to be noted though is that Sony Corps is threatening to send down a writ of mandata to sony music over the horrible PR this has caused wich in essence would most likely read to stop or they'll revoke some independance


    Frivalas or not the perpetual suit counter suits are just not good for Public Relations on anyones part

    Who honestly in our society wants to go down in the anals of history as being a legal ass and winy


    I thought as much very few people

    It seems to me that the ultimate way to stop this is for the big three to form a coalition requesting or mandating a cease fire on the RIAA's part

    Print new music on the new cd thick DVD's that are in readbook format on one layer of low enough quality that playing them legaly on a DVD players makes it more interesting to own than to steal making it win win. Music pirates gain the ability to have all the shity sounding music the desire the RIAA has a sense of controll and don't have to "go their" with the computer conglomerates. They'd have: No support as firmware level hacks are almost always stoped in courts (thus far as an outside sentlement)woudn't be in the bad position to potentially be purchased by MS Corporations and turned into MSNB's hoe


    Btw anyone that works in the Arts and Research division of Sony Music Enterprises care to comment on the validity of Sony Corporporations threat to tell them to stop the bad PR?

    • "Who honestly in our society wants to go down in the anals of history as being a legal ass and winy" The anals of history? Legal Ass? You seem to have an unhealthy fixation with the derriere. And, please, LEARN HOW TO SPELL!!!!
  • "Music creators have the right to protect their property from theft, just like owners of any other property,"

    Yeah, and I have the right to put up a fence around my house to protect myself. But if I decide to cement broken glass along the top, and someone tries to get in and inevitably cuts themselves, they can sue me.
    • Exactly. The process they have used to ensure copy protection is similar to setting up a booby trap to protect your house. Even if you post notices that the booby trap exists, you are still liable for any damage that that booby trap causes.

      The labeling of the CD in english that it is not intended for computer use, is insufficient. The city I live in has speakers of English, Spanish, Arabic, Hmong, and Viet in large quantities, including many who only speak that language. Any warning label at a minimum must cover all of these languages, and even that will not cover the significant portion of the population who does not know how to read, but can use a computer.

      Exactly how much reading knowledge is involved in using a CD Player on a computer? You turn the computer on, wait for the pretty pictures to settle down for a little bit, hit the eject button on the CD-Rom drive (if necessary) put the CD in the drive, wait for the CD Player software to start up, and hit the button that looks like a single arrow, [||/|>]. Even your two year old could follow those instructions if they were read to him or her, translated into whatever language is necessary. That may not be the way you have your computer set up, but I am reasonably confident that your computer (if not built by you from components) was originally configured to work that way once the computer was ready to use.

      -Rusty
      • The labeling of the CD in english that it is not intended for computer use, is insufficient. The city I live in has speakers of English, Spanish, Arabic, Hmong, and Viet in large quantities, including many who only speak that language. Any warning label at a minimum must cover all of these languages, and even that will not cover the significant portion of the population who does not know how to read, but can use a computer.

        Thus you need a logo for "it will break your computer", similar to those to indicate poison, radioactive, biohazard, etc.
    • A better analogy would be to put up a sign saying "Come on in, premises protected by security device", but not mentioning if that they step off the walkway onto the lawn they will be hosed down by a flamethrower.
  • Taking into account what the result of other class-action lawsuits will be, I'm afraid that if this one is successful, the result will be that I'll get a coupon for a free Magic Marker (to modify my affected "music discs," of course).

  • sigh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bilbobuggins ( 535860 ) <`moc.tnujtnuj' `ta' `snigguboblib'> on Saturday June 15, 2002 @03:03PM (#3708425)
    unfortunately i only see two possible outcomes for this case...

    A) The case gets dismissed after a bunch of FUD from the record companies
    B) They settle out of court for what is a large sum of money for these two people but a very small sum for the RIAA.

    the sad truth is, it's just like the tobacco companies: they're just too big and no _real_ change will happen until some major players (i.e. states) become involved.

    • the sad truth is, it's just like the tobacco companies: they're just too big and no _real_ change will happen until some major players (i.e. states) become involved.

      What's wrong with tobacco companies?

    • Off topic.

      the sad truth is, it's just like the tobacco companies: they're just too big and no _real_ change will happen until some major players (i.e. states) become involved.

      Whatever makes you think that the states (or the feds, for that matter) want to do anything about the tobacco companies?

      Do yourself the favour of finding out how much tobacco taxes your state takes in every year. Then, and only then, will you understand how little desire there is on the part of the states to do anything about the tobacco companies...

  • Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Assn. of America, called the case "frivolous" and insisted that the music labels have every right to use encryption technology to protect their intellectual property from theft.
    Question: What are the IQ's of the people who say this stuff?
  • This just occured to me. I do not see the word "CD-ROM" on the faceplate of my DVD drive. Since the label only says "no CD-ROM's", isn't it implied that it will work fine on my drive? Wouldn't the same go for my CD-RW?
  • If this lawsuit gets anywhere the RIAA will settle out of court and continue to Copy-protect discs so that i won't be able to take my CDs copy them to mp3, burn them off and play them in my $600 Alpine mp3 player. sux

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close