Next Restricted CD Coming Soon 451
jroysdon writes: "Music industry quietly unveiling copy-proof CDs - 'Gariano said the CD case would carry a copy protection sticker and an insert explaining the technology. Record stores will accept returns, even if the CD case is opened, if buyers are unhappy with it.' I say we specifically look for titles with this sticker, purchase them, give them a whirl in our PCs and see them not play, and return them. Vote with not just our money, but their overhead costs to handle all the returned merchandise and bad publicity when stores don't want CDs with those stickers." Read the article - there are some great quotes there.
not all stores will accept open returns (Score:5, Insightful)
They wont allow you to return the cd because it's open. because they were told not to.
you need to open it, return it for another, open that and continue for 3-4 of the stock and then get a manager, explain how you have tried several and none work, take your open disc and have the manager try to play it on a dvd player or a pc.
The manager will probably clear and return the whole stock of the offending item to keep his annoyance down.
No. (Score:2, Insightful)
I think that we should simply _not_ buy these CDs. That alone will speak louder than purchasing said CD and then returning it. Check the label (man are they stupid for marking these things), if it has the "new" copy protection, move on. They'll get the hint after a week or two of no sales.
We don't want to hurt the local retailer, or even the big chain. That is one sure-fired way to get the increased costs passed on to the consumer.
The WSJ said it was OS specific (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, they say that the new CD's won't play on Macintosh, but are designed for Windoze. It's More evidence that WMP and WinXP are designed to bring DRM restrictions to the desktop, and most individuals either don't know or don't care how bad this is.
Not their style (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course none of this restricts anyone's fair use rights, and consumers won't find this at all annoying. I'll be happy when their carefully thought out scheme is adopted by exactly zero people, like DIVX and SDMI..
That's zero cost for "pirates". (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand it (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey music industry: crack down on the counterfeit rings, that is where you are losing billions of dollars.
Re:Why bother ? (Score:4, Insightful)
The RIAA is counting on the fact that most consumers won't go through this trouble. They are right, of course. However SOMEONE will go to all the trouble to rip the music, put it on P2P, and within 24 hours the whole world is "pirating" your "intellectual property". Don't they learn anything from the software industry? You CAN'T copy protect software for open spec hardware such as the PC. Period.
What is wrong with this? (Score:2, Insightful)
While total copy prevention is bad for us consumers, no protection at all is bad for the producers. Instead of the childish stimulus-response behaviour against all forms of copy-protection, we need to work with the content producers in order to develop a scheme that helps both consumers (by encouraging fair-use) and producers (by preventing large-scale robbery of copyrighted works). They are willing to please the consumers (remember, they have to in order to keeping getting our dollars), so instead of rejecting it, make constructive criticisms. This is the only way we are going to be able to full realize the benefits of digital information.
Re:Not their style (Score:2, Insightful)
The concept of a "secure" file format is a fallacy.
It's not too bad... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm just pointing out that it could be worse. They're only fuckin' you over your fair use.
eh?? (Score:2, Insightful)
And even if there was a new-fangled electromagnet that took encrypted input, there is still going to be analog sound coming out of the speaker itself. Get a REALLY good mic, and set up the speaker in a REALLY good acoustical room, and make your copy.
So to ammend the previous statement:
If I can see it or hear it, so can my "recording" device.
Re:Just use a CD player with optical out (Score:5, Insightful)
How does this solve the problem of multinational corporations aggressively moving to quash fair use in all of its guises? Oh, I see. You just want to rip CDs.
Yeah, this solution will work great until they stop putting unrestricted digital outputs on consumer electronics equipment. Once the laws are on the corporations' sides and the consumers have rolled over for copy prevention technology the picture won't look so rosy. People who dismiss news like this with statements like, "who cares? I can get around this with technique X," are playing right into the copy-prevention advocates' hands. They're just trying to get the *idea* of copy prevention accepted by the public. Strengthening the prevention schemes is just a matter of time and money. If you don't boycott copy-restricted CDs, or better yet register your displeasure with the place you buy CDs in addition, you're letting the "content management" assholes write the rules.
If you roll over now do you really think that in 20 years you'll have an optical in/out (or whatever we'll be transferring A/V data over in 20 years) that doesn't have "content management" hardware built in?
-DA
Re:Copyright and respect. (Score:2, Insightful)
"Morality"? You have got to be kidding me. How is it somehow "moral" to say that the creator/discoverer of something is entitled to dictate its use? What about the morality of societally-determined "fair-use"? Doesn't that supercede the wishes of an individual?
You say "that we should respect what the author of a piece of music wants" -- well, what if s/he only wants members of a certain race/religion/gender/ethnicity to be allowed to listen to it?
What if s/he thinks that only certain groups should be allowed to make archival copies, and others are SOL?
What if s/he thinks you should pay them $1,000,000 every time you happen to hear a song they wrote, even if you just were flipping radio channels or walking down the street?
Do you really mean that the artists get to dictate ALL the terms of a work's use, no matter how restrictive and irrational???
Fact is, no matter how much the producers of a product want to control use, they don't hold all the aces (and they shouldn't, either).
voting early, voting often (Score:2, Insightful)
Vote with your money, yes, but deliberately buying and returning a product you're not interested in to begin with reeks of ballot stuffing to me.
Re:A Convienent Excuse (Score:3, Insightful)
Attaining high production quality of a CD with something on it is much more time consuming and expensive than doing the same to the contents of a blank CD. The only way this argument could stand is if you entertain the idea that intellectual property is monetarily worthless even with regards to the assumption that people were paid to produce the contents of the CD.
This sort of snide remark is starting to really annoy me, and I consider myself progressive on the subject of intellectual property and freedoms.
Re:A Convienent Excuse (Score:2, Insightful)
While it may not be completely true. There is something to the statement. The last time the music industry really jumped the price on their music was when the CD format was introduced. The problem with the price jump was that the cost of material went down by 1/2 or 2/3, and did not justify the $4 to $5 price hike.
What about the free market? (Score:2, Insightful)
I know people here are going to bitch about how it's a monopoly and the free market doesn't apply. That's crap. If you think this, you need to get down to your local independent record store and buy some titles from some independent bands before both of them disappear forever. It'll only be a monopoly if you allow it to be.
I have a friend who pirates stuff, both software and music, and I have debated with him many times why he shouldn't. His excuse it always that the stuff costs too much. So I always ask him, what if he goes into a 7-Eleven to buy a candy bar and in his opinion, it costs too much. So is he going to shoplift it? And he never gets it... "that's different" he says.
it doesn't matter... (Score:2, Insightful)
as most of us know, most of the major labels (label?) have so many middle men and procedures that very little of the money off a CD is given to the artist. the artist mostly sells their music to the label to be given promotion and financial advances to be able to pay rent and eat...barely. i was in a group that was signed to a major label which was associated to universal. the group is still paying off a loan the group had taken out to pay for studio time. i believe the label had paid part of the studio fee. the guitarist works as a ticket agent for a local theatre. the drummer is working 70 hours per week as a session drummer and barely makes 15 thousand cdn per year i think. i have to work as a customer service representative for a cellphone company to survive and focus on music in between my shifts.
a lot of the labels i do respect are small ones. one without an almost infinit budget to spend on promotional videos, banners, radio airplay, etc. most of these small labels also split the profits 50/50 between the people behind the label and the artists. the middle people who work for these small labels mostly do it for free. the most they get are free label releases and get into shows. and, most of the time, the label barely breaks even. yet they keep releasing albums whenever they can. why? because they _believe_ in and _love_ music!
the major labels might have had the right intentions in the beginning but they lost it over time. they are always worried about losing anything or even breaking even. there must always be a finacial profit, hence: copy protected CDs.
if i go on a p2p client right now and look for any music i really enjoy i will rarely find any. but if i put in nsync or some other pop stars i get hundreds if not thousands of hits. are we to seriously believe that all these mp3s i'm staring at are killing universal's profits? and even if they are, does that mean they won't be able to throw another few million towards an 'entertaining' music video, meant always to be promotional, instead a truely creative piece of visual art? i wouldn't be surprised there are many truely great thought provoking artists who are washing dishes for a living because their vision doesn't match a potential and exploitable demographic.
major labels aren't the end all/be all of music distribution. i think a lot of you are forgetting that. the music industry, as a giant corporate machine, is useless. they are simply the bigger kid with the biggest wad of cash in their pocket who are able to buy bits of your attention span and environment. this is not a new idea! you all know this i'm sure, but i get the feeling that many of you are leaving it behind.
a lot of artists look up to these great promotional machines as their way of getting larger exposure but they simply don't realize that unless they become quite big the machine will just spit them out and they will be left to fend for themselves yet again. also, major labels invest in cultural fads for finacial gain while most small labels invest in art simply because they enjoy music. who do you think i give more respect as a music lover and an artist?
i know this goes a little off topic, but it does relate to why these copy protection cds aren't really that important unless all you listen to is what universal records is putting out. i'm willing to bet that small record labels find the whole concept of copy protection laughable. they don't necessarily agree with people ripping complete albums and people making complete album copies and never investing any money into their efforts to share music they love, but they do know that mp3s are an excellent way of people knowing about them because they can't afford buying the amount of promotional space and time major labels can. personally i've found MUCH more music and artists i like because of mp3s than watching television or listening to the radio. again, this is not a new idea!
you DON'T need to eat up everything the major labels feed you because what they are feeding you is entertainment for the sake of profit. they almost never give people any challenging or thought provoking art simply because they love it.
here, i'll make it even easier for you: replace 'major labels' with 'microsoft' and 'small labels' with 'open source'. it's almost exactly the same situation.
Re:What about the free market? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, that is different. Most pirates make copies of things they would never buy. And no teenager/college kid has the funds for an expansive media collection. Stealing something physical is a direct loss to the victim. Pirating is no loss when the individual would never buy in the first place.
Since I have income I buy all my music (unless I can't find it anywhere or am evaluating). But I understand the pirate philosophy--having recorded music off the radio as a child, making tapes, and so on.
BTW Music and software do cost too much, and the companies are not hurt by penniless kids (or adults) pirating their stuff. But that's more debating so I'll quit for now.