Slashdot Log In
Lawsuit Challenges Copy-protected CDs
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Jun 17, 2002 11:33 AM
from the truth-in-advertising dept.
from the truth-in-advertising dept.
acer123 writes "An article states that 'The five major record companies have been hit with a class-action lawsuit charging that new CDs designed to thwart Napster-style piracy are defective and should either be barred from sale or carry warning labels.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
NOT digital quality (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, wasn't something like this reported a few days ago?
Re:NOT digital quality (Score:4, Funny)
I just want to see the "Can also be downloaded as 128Kbit MP3s from #mp3l4m0rz on dalnet"
Parent
How to join? (Score:5, Interesting)
---
I'm tired of waltzing for pancakes. - Gwen Mezzrow
Re:How to join? (Score:2, Informative)
Was this in the U.S.? (Score:2)
Re:How to join? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, I'm not sure about this lawsuit in particular, but I do know that other firms are planning class action suits as well.
If you would like to join an upcoming class-action, here is some useful information for you (from Check Heffner).
"Larry Feldman of the law firm Feldman & Rifkin (www.leflaw.net [leflaw.net]) is in the process of filing a class-action lawsuit against the major 5 record labels - Sony, BMG, Universal, EMI and Warner Brothers. Please write Larry directly at leflaw@leflaw.com
Larry is looking for the problems you have had with a suspected corrupt CD. Please include this information if you write him:
1. Your name and contact e-mail address
2. Your city and state
3. The CD artist and album name
4. Where you bought the CD (store name, city and state)
5. Your CD experience. Were you able to copy your CD to MP3 or another CD? What software did you use? The more details you can share about your corrupt CD, the better.
Larry will contact you about your report."
Parent
Now where have we seen this before? (Score:4, Informative)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/15/02502
What will this accomplish? (Score:4, Interesting)
The pessimist in me though, says this is only a delay tactic. LEt's hope it's not economically feasible for them to make this a new standard.
Hopefully this'll work... (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's hoping that at the very least it'll become obvious which CDs are copy protected (maybe a sticker like the "Warning: Mature Content") sticker. Then I will be able to at least be guaranteed a functioning product that does what it claims to do.
What if they win? (Score:5, Funny)
Big Hairy Deal (Score:4, Insightful)
A better one was the business that they were getting sued for Trade Descriptions for describing the product as an audio CD when it did not follow Audio CD formatting rules - anyone know what happened with that? (That could have some interesting consequences for PC CD games with mangled volume tables)
i think that.. (Score:2, Insightful)
my own way around it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:my own way around it (Score:2)
Quite true. Why would a company treat a paying customer like a thief? Besides, the second that they come up with a new protection scheme, it'll be broke by someone, then back to the drawing board (where your music buying money is spent) with more useless protection schemes that will most likey make playing music more of a hassle than it's worth. ad infinitum
I dunno, maybe it'll get to the point where the RIAA will find some way to make possesion of mp3s illegal with a jail term and fines. Film at 11.
OTOH, this might be a good thing for the smaller indy labels that just want their artists music heard.
Re:my own way around it (Score:3, Informative)
16 bits stereo PCM (often refered as WAV but that's inaccurate) is a digital copy! You can add "exact copy" if the ECC on the disk worked well.
Now, ripping from your stereo's CD may be a good idea if you can get the fiber output and plug it into your soundcard (many soundcards have fiber output, some must have fiber input too). If you copy from the jack output then you'll have a SNR of ~60-70dB (check the noise level with Soundforge!) whereas CD players give >90dB!!
(Difference will be noticeable at high volume, maybe not that important for your car or for a portable player)
Ripping from FM radio is a very BAD idea: the sampling rate is limited to 19kHz (the carrier that separates the Right+Left and the Right-Left (that's 'plus' and 'minus') channels is located 19kHz above the tuning frequency IIRC)
(You can add a crappy SNR on top of that)
Same idea for TV, don't do it
insulting (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting note: It was pre-copyright times in which publishers owned the works. Now, with the big 5, you have to sign your copyright to them for them to publish. And the copyright law is now 70 years after the death of me. Its kind of ironic
I really wish people understood how 'copyrights' that labels are arguing they must be able to protect are not copyrights at all, but more akin to the Licensing act of 1722 where publishers held a monopoly in the distribution of cultural works. (Also worth noting that the Licencing Act was also the first law that allowed government, and subsequently printing houses to censor works deemed against the Church or State.)
At any rate, I sure dont need to screw up your CDROM to make a living
Re:insulting (Score:2)
Umm, you didn't have to do anything. You wanted to do it. I tried to explain this concept to my ex-girlfriend many, many times, but she never really understood that she wanted a diamond ring, not that she needed a diamond ring.
If you want your music to be heard, you have many options at your disposal. I have no sympathy for people too stupid to look at their options before singing the first contract thrust in front of them.
That'd be like me complaining about how it was necessary for me to sign up with AT&T's worst long distance plan, because it was the only way to use my telephone.
The real truth (Score:5, Insightful)
These CD's aren't about stopping Napster/Morpheus/Kazaa/etc, they're about taking away our right to time shift and give the record companies the ability to charge us over and over again for the same music.
Well isn't that special. (Score:3, Interesting)
Uhm. Hello? Is this thing on?
DVD movies and PC games don't crash other platforms when you put them in last I checked. DVD movies work on DVD PLAYERS. PC games work on PC's. Music CD's should work on ALL CD PLAYERS.
What do they expect? If I pop'd a music CD in my PC and it locked my box I'd be awfully pissed off too.
Sorta (Score:2)
Software Developers (Score:2, Insightful)
I suppose that's why every single real copy protection for software has been abandoned, right? Anyway, the Jargon File defines copy protection as:
I think Sherman's claim is pretty specious.
If the RIAA wins... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wanna see how this plays out and I hope someone finds an angry grandmother type who doesn't take any guff to be the posterchild for this.
Sue the copy protection companies instead. (Score:5, Insightful)
Once a few of those companies have been sued into smoking holes in the ground, their surviving ilk should be hesitant to repeat the same mistake.
Jon Acheson
Re:Sue the copy protection companies instead. (Score:3, Funny)
Something tells me what i said above is too subtle for most of slashdot
Amusing how often they prove their stupidity... (Score:5, Interesting)
"...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."
This is just wrong on so many levels. One, as anyone in Usenet knows, there are a lot of trolls out there who claim its wrong, not that we listen to them.
But seriously, how many CD copy protections prevent the CD from being used on a majority of players?? I know of one game thats been almost endemic in its lack of functionality, and thats MS' Dungeon Siege. I've got 3 cd drives (32x, DVD-ROM, and CD-RW) and dungeon siege only worked with my CDRW. Thats the worst case instance I can think of for software lack of functionality due to media changes (MS has some lovely copy protection nonsense on the CDs). And there are legitimate complaints all over the place about that problem.
The majority of software is protected via regkeys and other software based methods, *not* by scratching the CD so only some players can read it. Someone want to come with me to smack this guy with an EUL printout or two? It'd be fun...
Re:Dungeon Siege is copy protected? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the US version I'm referring to, so I believe there is probably a difference. Copying was near impossible for a while, until someone released a cracked ds.exe file. Even then it was hard to find (not that I was looking, it was a friend at work, honest).
3 of us purchased the game, one person's worked fine in his computer, the other two of us actually exchanged the game because it did not work on a total of 6 cdrom drives between us. After the exchange, there were still problems, but after a long fight I got it installed. On my computer at work it installed fine. It just depends on the CD drive, but there are an awful lot of non-compatible drives out there for this game. Its disturbing that my newish Sony DVD-ROM wouldnt install this, and my 6 year old Ricoh CDRW would. Of course, since the CDRW is a 6x read, it took an hour for a full install.
As it is, I'm afraid to try and install it again...dont feel like dealing with the PitA that it is, despite it being a fun game. Fortunately, I got it for $20 at Best Buy, when it was still retailing for $50 on average, so I'm not worried about letting it gather dust.
Crappy reporting (Score:2)
Besides being deliberately designed to prevent the copying of music on personal computers, the anti-piracy technology often prevents playback altogether on PCs, and even on some CD players, Mansfield said.
If it prevents copying on personal computers, it always prevents playback on those computers.
Won't this protection hurt the record industry? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm No Lawer, But... (Score:3, Insightful)
heres a suggestion (Score:5, Insightful)
AFAIK (Score:3, Interesting)
I would intuitively think that this is a more dangerous tactic for the record companies, as it pretty clearly shows for thought and planning in their bid to actually disable peoples computers causing them a not insignificant expense in both time and money. The crippling of the computers wasn't a side effect of the 'copy protection' (such as it is) it was actually the plan. I personally can't see a difference between that and any other malicious act which damages someones computer.
But I do think going after the stores would be the way to go, with their thinner margins, it would hurt them a lot more. And they, in turn, would use their market muscle for ends that are more inline with their customers wishes. The last thing Best Buy, Sam Goodie, or any chain wants to do is end up in a court battling a former customer.
Bring the CD back and DEMAND a refund. (Score:2)
Until then, you're just suckin wind.
Packaging Laws (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, this warning label should be in big, bold, black text on a white background.
At the very least, this would make these CDs a very unattractive proposition.
But of course that is probably not likely to happen.
frivolous lawsuits (Score:3, Funny)
It must be a frivolous lawsuit. Has to be. The RIAA has filed so many, it has to know one when it sees one
RIAA Pres did make one valid point (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm curious to hear the Slashdot community's response to Sherman's point. We cannot copy movies, even under "fair use" provisions, thanks to Macrovision (VHS) and CSS + Macrovision (DVD). While we can make backups of our software, it is harder to pirate them due to the use of software keys. This is a relatively effective, and unobtrusive protection mechanism.
But when it comes to music, it's no-holds-barred. There is absolutely zero protection on a CD to prevent unauthorized copying. Don't you agree that it is hypocritical to cry foul regarding CD copy-protection, but not the guards built into VHS and DVD works?
Why the double-standard? Why do we just accept that any VHS tape we buy will be uncopyable thanks to Macrovision (barring any specialized hardware to bypass it that's beyond the reach of the lay consumer), but we so vigorously oppose those similar protections on CDs? I can't copy my VHS tapes, even if I own them and want to make a copy to take on the road in my van, or to preserve the slowly-degrading quality inherent in repeated playing of such media. But we don't cry about it - we just accept it. Why?
Re:RIAA Pres did make one valid point (Score:5, Interesting)
DVD CSS/region coded: sucks, yes, but at least part of the standard from inception. Anything designed to play DVDs *should* play even CSS/region coded discs (provided the region matches, etc...). Copy protection does not interfere with playback for commercial systems. The peeve here is that non-sanctioned players (i.e. ogle) cannot legally read CSS discs in the US (though many ignore the law, it is still illegal). And backup is not an option for the average consumer, and backup is important.
Macrovision, unlike DVD, was a modification of Tape encoding methods. It sucks for backup purposes, but has minimal effect on playback. The technology kept confined to the relatively small world of VCRs, so the technology pretty much works as intended. Backups are made possible by 'signal enhancers' available from anywhere that remove macrovision spikes. Backups are suddenly possible and the slight video degradation is taken care of. Again, the law-abiding person suffers most from the slight picture degradation, while copiers continue, but the impact is minor.
Now CD protection is different, the worst of both worlds. CD technology has gotten to the point where many people use computers/computer based cd players to play back music and ditch the far more limited dedicated low end cd players. This is fine for the standard, but now the RIAA screws the standard so that very high end and computers no longer play back this music, and the chunk of listeners cut out by that is quite significant. Meanwhile, the ones who are determined break out sharpies, post it notes, and analog lines to copy to their hearts content. In the long run only the legit customers really get screwed, and get screwed quite significantly by this bastardized format...
Parent
Re:RIAA Pres did make one valid point (Score:3, Informative)
Huh? Excuse me? What Slashdot have you been reading? People bitch all the time about CSS and Macrovision. Or did you miss all the fun stuff happening about DeCSS [slashdot.org]? Or maybe the story about how the Harry Potter DVD won't be Macrovision protected [slashdot.org]? The resulting discussion talked about loads of ways to get around Macrovision, as well as many people complaining about how Macrovision lowers the quality of the video.
I'll complain about video games using copy protection too - I could barely play my copy of Black and White since for whatever reason the copy protection would take a full five minutes to finally get around to deciding my legally purchased CD-ROM was valid. And then, since this is in the pre-patched days, it would start up, and then crash as soon as I tried to actually play the game.
I'd really much prefer video game manufactorer's don't use CD-based copy protection schemes. I'd like to be able to make backup copies of their CDs without shelling out money for CloneCD. I don't mind registration keys; they work fairly well and they allow people to just play the game without worrying about their hardware being unable to play the game due to some bogus copy protection.
I hate having to root around for the CD to a game that allows all the data to be stored on the harddrive just so it verifies I'm not using a stolen copy. It's a waste of my time and it suggests that they expect me to be a thief - not good customer relations, really.
Being a mostly-Windows 2000 user (although I do run Linux on my server and have my desktop set up to dual boot into Debian Linux), I really don't mind CSS since it doesn't effect my ability to watch movies on my computer. Since I'm an American and region encoding usually works out so that people in Region 1 get the DVD first and imported DVDs are usually more exprensive, I don't really care personally about the region issue - but I can understand why others might hate region encoding with a passion.
In other words, yes, people bitch about movies and computer games being copy protected.
Unlawful? (Score:5, Insightful)
Never mind the fact that the software industry has pretty much given up on copy protection in favor of hardware keys and activation code methods. No it was never unlawful, just a PITA for users who paid good money for software.
The music industry however is trying to forget the Home Recording Act of 1992, where they promised not to copy-protect CDs in exchange for a "royalty" on blank CD media. As far as I know, they are still get the royalties.
Re:Unlawful? (Score:3, Informative)
they promised not to copy-protect CDs in exchange for a "royalty" on blank CD media.
This is not entirely correct. The royalty applies only to blank audio and video tapes. It does not apply to blank CD-Rs sold in the USA. Canada, however, does impose a tax on CD-R media.
Music Industry Unveils New Piracy-Proof Format (Score:3, Funny)
Music bosses have unveiled a revolutionary new recording format that they hope will help win the war on illegal file sharing which is thought to be costing the industry millions of dollars in lost revenue.
Nicknamed the 'Record', the new format takes the form of a black, vinyl disc measuring 12 inches in diameter, which must be played on a specially designed 'turntable'.
(Rumours at large say that a Japanese company, named the very mysterious name 'Sony', has been secretly developing a 12 inch wide, needle-based, firewire drive remain unconfirmed, turntable. It would appear that the music industry may, at last, have found the pirate-proof format it has long been searching for.)
It's the abuse of language I hate (Score:5, Insightful)
Where do I start?
a) It's not the music creators who have put "copy protection" on, it's the music publishers
b) Whether it's the creator or the publisher, the creation is not "property". If it were there would be no patent or copyright law
c) Illegal copying isn't theft, it's illegal copying
d) What they're doing isn't like any other property, and asserting the opposite doesn't change the facts
If the context for this sentence related to the theft of a truck full of CD's then it would be correct. But I somehow don't think that's what he means.
Dunstan
Frivilous? (Score:5, Insightful)
Suing a toy company for not putting labels that a teddy bear is not edible is "Frivilous"
Suing McDonalds for not warning you that coffee is hot is "Frivilous"
Suing somebody because you broke your leg while attempting to break into their home is "Frivilous"
I hardly see suing somebody because they sell a product with no warning that it is defective ( and yes, they are defective by definition of the CD format ) and that it won't work in your PC, MAC, DVD etc. In fact, these things have been know to kill Macs ( Celine Dion anyone? )
So no, I don't see this as being any more frivilous than the class action lawsuit againsts Firestone for their tires being defective.
I would like to know ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Monty Python Did It First.... (Score:3, Funny)
Inspector: Nevertheless, I advise you in future to replace the words 'Compact Disks' with the legend, 'Technically Flawed Compact Disks that could impinge on consumers' rights to copy music for their own use' if you wish to avoid prosecution!
Wouldn't be a problem if properly labelled (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, IF they had made a new name for their not-quite a CD, instead of trying to lie to customers and call it a CD, that wouldn't have been a problem - it would have been a case where the buyer has to decide if having the music is worth having it in a less useful format that might not even work at all on his machine.
Less painless? (Score:2, Funny)
Regardless, you're using a double negative.
- The Grammar Nazi
Re:Would the founding fathers agree? (Score:2)
In that respect, the impedus of how to 'protect' those works is all in the hands of companies now, with far too much power, nearsightedness, and complete lack of understanding of technology. The 'artists', the exploited posterchildren of all of this, are really powerless to have a say, and they are being tugged around in a battle that concerns their very nature, living and wellfare, in which they really have no voice.
Labels already have what they need in the form of insane copyright terms (nevermind that none of them are signing multi-album deals anymore like they did 20 years ago
Re:Would the founding fathers agree? (Score:2)
What would they say to an issue like this? Easy. If someone wants to distribute copyrighted materials all over the country to millions of people, without thinking how they will ENFORCE the ALREADY EXISTING copyright laws, these people are idiots and shouldn't be distributing such materials to such a widespread audience.
What the record labels should do is pay for their own internal policing force to go and find copyright law breakers. They can then go to the police, and say "arrest John Peterson because he copied one of our CDs."
Or, they can lobby their LOCAL police forces (not the FBI, not the state troopers) to go and find copyright infrindgers.
The government should NEVER pass laws "requiring" certain hardware, that's for the free market to decide on. The government should merely reinforce the original constitutional limitations, and then let the record labels work at finding those who are infringing on those laws.
It's a an old troll (Score:2)
This troll was copied and pasted from kiro5hin:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/3/8
It was used on Slashdot before:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424
Re:From the article.... (Score:2, Interesting)
> The RIAA may have a point about piracy
No, they dont! "just like owners of any other property"???! Thats why Copyright law exists! Because owners of cultural and artistic work is not like owners of other property.
The Great Big Lie has everybody forgetting this. Everybody get it through thy skulls! Copyright, and intellectual property is and never will be physical property! So you dont get to distribute it, or protect it like physical property. End of story.
Incidentally, copyright law 2002 is much more like the Licensing Act of 1722, which the first true copyright law of the 1760s was supposed to fix. The Statue of Anne, the firtst true copyright law meant to protect the creators of the work, not the publishers/distributors was meant to wrestle control of cultural distribution and publication from the companies to the arists. Nowadays, look in those 'big label' contracts. Guess who ends up owning the copyright when you sign (the only real way to get big time distribution these days?)