Universal to Copyprotect All CDs 887
angkor wrote in with a link to a story about how Universal Plans to
copyprotect all CDs which
will render them unplayable on Macs, DVD Players, PS2s, and some CD Players.
And it won't even stop people from ripping MP3s I bet.
well shit (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to pay for my music, but I'm not going to buy a product I can't use!
Oh well, I don't like the music industry anyway... I've been listening to more non-mainstream music...
Re:No more universal CD's for me (Score:2, Interesting)
This can't possibly float...too many people in too many offices around the world pop in a cd to listen while sitting in a cubicle for 8 hours.
Either that, or mp3 will become even more popular....the only way to listen to music on a computer!
This will stop people Ripping Mp3's... (Score:5, Interesting)
If anything, any time I see a post on Usenet of Mp3's from a CD that is supposedly copy protected, the poster usually takes great pains to brag discuss the fact that he was able to rip despite copy protection.
Really, I think that even the record industry didn't expect the various copy protections to really work. What they're doing is building an easily hackable content protection system so that they can prosecute MP3 traders under the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.
Violatino of the Red Book Standard? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like ground for a class action lawsuit once they start to arrive.
Unintended Consequences (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:3, Interesting)
Better solution: Buy them and return them.
Universal *will* honor refunds (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article:
Universal told retailers that it would honor refunds on all returned discs -- even for CDs that have been opened.
This is great news. If you believe copy-protected discs are wrong, just buy one, open it, and return. In fact, buy 50 of them, open them all, then return them. If enough people do this, maybe Universal will get the message.
If you want to be even more eeeeeeeeevil, you could open it, rip it via line out, post the ripped tracks to newsgroups, then return it.
They asked for it.
--
Re:Unreturnable (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless you RECEIVED it as a GIFT. DUH.
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:2, Interesting)
If everybody does it, they might think it's a revolution.
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:3, Interesting)
So, it now becomes worthwhile for the RIAA to make examples of a few people in an attempt to scare everyone away.
I had initially thought that this was a complete misunderstanding of what copy protection can do. Used to be copy protection was semi-effective against people who had to trade physical media (diskettes.) However, when you're talking about medialess copies (downloads) none of this applies. One technical guy makes an MP3 (which you can always do from the analog output if you have to), and everyone on Gnutella does an expotential expansion of the number of copies.
However, I now think the first scenario I mentioned is much more likely.
Re:history repeats itself (Score:5, Interesting)
What we're witnessing is a rat backed into a corner. RIAA recognises that its days are numbered, and it's doing every goddamn thing it can to fight its way out of the corner.
It's beyond mere music piracy. They could live with piracy: they always have.
It's to the point where they can see that artists are going to go independent. And so they're desperately trying to invent a reason for artists to stay with them. "Music protection" seems to be the salespitch they've chosen.
But they're doomed anyway.
Artists don't need the megaexpensive recording studios. These days, most anyone can set up a decent studio for a relatively small investment.
Artists don't need the megaexpensive advertising. These days, anyone can gain popularity via web media. Fansites, mailing lists, word of mouth: it's worked before, it's working now, and it's hella cheaper than MTV.
Artists don't need the distribution chain. They can post to the web. As soon as a good payment system comes along, where the artist can be paid directly and receives most of that payment, the distribution chain is toast.
And artists have recently begun to discover that they can sell out concerts via the net. There's no need to for the megapop media orgy that the old-style companies provided. Word of mouth is doing it.
The writing is on the wall: as soon as the one hiccup is removed -- paying the artists directly, cheaply -- the RIAA is dead. Their *only* hope is to convince artists that music theft is more harmful than the music mafia.
new doublespeak: # of blank CDs vs. music CDs (Score:3, Interesting)
In Germany alone, one survey by market researcher GfK found that blank CD sales jumped 129 percent this year. Purchases of pre-recorded music dropped 2.2 percent in the same period.
What a bizarre and useless statistic. What's the point? I can't even begin to comprehend. Okay, for one thing, CDRs are much cheaper than CDs. The popularity of CDRs is rising, while pre-recorded music has been around for decades. Another thing, how do they know what people record on them, or if they've recorded on them at all? I've got stacks of blank CDRs to back up files. If I make a music CD it's from music that I bought on a regular CD.
I think they ought to compare the sale of bread to the sale of pre-recorded CDs. I bet they will find a real "disturbing trend".
Donate to the EFF instead of Buying CDs (Score:2, Interesting)
This is an uphill battle, but there's no better time to start than now.
This works quite well (Score:5, Interesting)
So, this could be a very effective strategy for dealing with record companies. With hundreds of lawsuits coming from different directions, they won't bother appearing in court and they will lose every case - making copy protection economically infeasible.
-sting3r
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:2, Interesting)
The catch is, you can't return opened CD's. Ostensibly, this is because you may have burned an illegal copy and are returning it to get the music for free. The irony, of course, is that Universal claims you can't copy the CD, because they have the big, bad, unbreakable copy protection scheme. But they still won't let you return it because they hate you.
Re:Use their best weapon against them (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hi read the article (Score:3, Interesting)
Any next-term strategy characterized by the word 'saying' is far from living up to the word "plans". They're announcing that they're introducing one copy protected CD into the American market, so you could legitimately claim that they plan to release one. They've announced a press release 'saying' that by 2002 all their CD's will be copy protected - though they don't specify the method, or whether it will be anything like their trial balloon. I would at best characterize that as a "trial balloon", or maybe an "announcement", maybe even a "threat". But a plan? Considering that they don't even have artists on board, characterizing that remark as corporate strategy in my mind falls way short of the mark.
Perhaps I should have rambled on more when originally posting, without assuming this was obvious. Trusting the recording industry to actually do anything but what they've announced they're doing at the moment is not a habit I've been able to form.
But that wouldn't have given you an excuse to flame me, and honestly I think we could all deal with some more of that.
Re:Listening to music at work is unprofessional (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not posting this for you or any of slashdot's need to see this info. This is strictly so that the Hilary Rosen RIAA-bot can see these numbers, understand why I'm so fucking upset with all this new copy-protection crap that goes completely against the consumer's wishes (the "customer is always right" no longer applies I guess), and formally state that I will not buy any Universal CD's with copy-protection on them, until it has been removed, or until an easy plugin for a computer program is made that circumvents the copy-protection completely. (I'm sure there are such plugins, I just haven't had the need to go find them for music CD's up until now).
P.S. I forgot to mention that one CD copy I have of my favorite group, the 77's, has been an out-of-print CD for some time now ("Pray Naked"). I burned a copy from a friend who still had it because my original copy was stolen from my car about 5 years ago. I would still pay upwards of $25 for a good condition original CD w/ Jewel case, but alas, it's a hard to find item, even on Ebay. Now you tell me, do I sound like I'm trying to get every CD I have for free, or maybe I just don't like paying for shitty NSync and Britney Spears drivel, and would rather try-before-I-buy?
Oh yes, and while you're at it, Hilary, why not cut out the kickback system you have in place with all the radio stations? I hear so much boring, repetitive music from uninspiring bands on the radio stations in this town that it's just silly. It's no wonder I get most of my interesting music over the internet in so-called 'pirated' mp3 form.
Re:Maybe the music sucks! (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it jsut me, or is this in fact the networks doing precisely what they are trying to prevent -- they say loudly "your unrestrained copying will destroy quality and drive prices through the floor by saturating the market." Meanwhile, they copy each other and thereby destroy quality, drive prices through the floor, and saturate the market.
The difference is, I can actually see the deleterious effects of their piracy.
--G
no Maybe about it (Score:2, Interesting)
No legal option (Score:2, Interesting)
Which copy-protection format will win? (Score:2, Interesting)
It would be interesting to know what kind of copy-protect they're devising that results in such profoundly "unplayable" CDs. Some of the major players attempting to win the early lead in the copy-protection tech field include TTR Technologies [ttr.co.il] and Midbar Tech [midbartech.com].
CD Media World discusses how to create a copy-protected CD [cdmediaworld.com]. Personally I wouldn't want to, but I think it's interesting to see the business maneuverings and keep abreast of the technological tricks they're trying out on us.
Re:Obligatory Warning (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Obligatory Warning (Score:3, Interesting)
Two reasons:
I. On principle. Because generally, the mom-and-pop shops are owned by people who are motivated by something else than pure profit. They're mostly music fans who're trying to make a living working with something they love. Ever seen the movie "High Fidelity"?
It's a lot like Wendell Berry's description of old-school farmers vs agribusiness:
"Though my father had left the farm and become a lawyer, though he had become in a sense more than a farmer, there was also a sense in which he refused to become less. In addition to, and in spite of, all else that he had become, he remained a farmer. Alongside the knowledge and abilities by which he functioned in courthouses and offices... he kept the farmer's passion that sees beyond the market values into the intricacy and beauty of the lives of things.... to him, crops and animals were not only to be sold, but to be studied, understood, and admired for their own sakes..."
II. It will be more effective if you do it with a larger chain. They can absorb more loses, but they can also complain louder than mom and pop shops.
This isn't to say you shouldn't return a CD that you bought from a mom/pop shop if it IS defective or you can't use it how you'd like. You should. Just don't go INTENDING to the that. Save that for the Media Plays, the Wherehouses, the Sam Goodys, and yes, even Tower Records.
They're trying to kill the medium (Score:3, Interesting)
By making CD's that don't always play, they will turn people against CDs as a whole. It's looks like a standard FUD tactic.
Soon they'll introduce a 'better' medium with more capacity, other hype, and a player that is under industry control, like DVD without the security hole.
It's all a waste, people seem to like MP3's just fine. I don't like the quality myself, but I have no problem with the quality of sampled analog. A standard quality MP3 is no worse when ripped from analog than from a cdda track, and it's just a tiny bit more work.
They can kill CD's, and they will, but they can't kill the LINE OUT jack!
yep (Score:2, Interesting)
Lets look at the specs.
BASEketball DVD
1) 2 hours long
2) High quality video AND audio
3) Sturdy case with brief guide to chapters etc..
4) Movies cost a hell of a lot more to make than albums
Now Rob Zombie CD
1) 60 minutes long not counting the 5 minute pause between House of 1000 Corpses and the hidden song after it
2) Very breakable case that came from amazon pre-cracked for me.
3) High quality audio NO video
4) Took Rob Zombie all of a few weeks to record in a studio
Just why do CD's cost so much anyway? I can't see any logic in it at all.
How to rip any music CD (Score:3, Interesting)
What you'll need are the following two pieces of hardware: a stand-alone cd player with digital output (either coax or optical), and a sound card, such as the Audigy Plantinum, that supports digital input.
With those two items, it is very easy to just hit play and record to make a perfect digital copy of the CD. End of story.
EASY SOLUTION TO SAVE PROTECTED MUSIC (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Universals sales plummet !!!!! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Use their best weapon against them (Score:2, Interesting)
There simply is no such "lawsuits must crawl slowly up the food chain" rule. I know it's well-meant, but I wish people would try harder to make sure they've got the law right before presenting this type of misinformation as factual dogma.
some are labeled.... yet still work on a mac? (Score:2, Interesting)
Even better (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obligatory Warning (Score:4, Interesting)
You make three incorrect assumptions:
I work for Amazon.com and hurting a retailer like us does not effect higher ups like Jeff Bezos, it effects people like me, the lower level owners of the company. My stock is not worth much, so when you damage the company your not hurting someone who owns a million or so shares of stock that they bought at 25 cents or less, your hurting people like me who own a few thousand where the buying and selling price is very narrow. If I sell stock, I do not get much, or worse yet, my buying price is above the market price!
The second flaw is that everyone who works at a large company is evil does not care about customers and thus desires to be hurt. Most employees of large companies care alot about the customer and thier experiences with thier company. Alot of the large companies spend lots of money and time figuring out how to make the shopping experience better and more enjoyable.
Third, you make the assumption that Mom and Pop stores are not motivated by pure profit. Mom and Pop places are just as motivated by profit as any large company, they just do it on a smaller scale. In the free market, all persons who own a business are motivated by pure profit, if they are not, they quickly go out of business.
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Obligatory Warning (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone needs to turn a profit from business, but that doesn't mean they are in business only for the profit. Many people I've talked with personally (including a number of record shop owners) derive utility from the work they're doing. They do it because they derive satisfaction from doing the work or providing the service, and are content with making a living at it. Let me reiterate: they have a motive -- other than profit -- for doing what they do.
I have noticed that mom/pop/indie store owners tend to be more knowledgeable (breadth and depth) and passionate about music than their Media Play counterparts. Sure, they're there to sell something and keep the roof over their heads. But they're also there -- instead of getting their MCSE and getting paid double working in IT -- because they're doing work that's in line with their personal mission. In the process, they usually end up providing better service to customers.
I'm not saying that every small shop is that way. They seem to tend to be, though. And conversely, I'm not saying everyone who works at a large corp is evil...but, I feel like I get poorer service at Media Play and Sam Goody and the like. My theory is that once a corp becomes large and public, the obligation to the (often absentee) owners becomes almost purely that of investment. In our current system, most of the owners are simply looking for a good place to invest their money which will get a good return. They're abstracted away from the operations and mission of the company, and often don't have any interest in the product at all. Just return on investment. Those who make policy decisions high up in the company are thus only affected by financial pressures, and thus customer service and product quality only means something to them in terms of costs and returns.
My stock is not worth much, so when you damage the company your not hurting someone who owns a million or so shares of stock that they bought at 25 cents or less, your hurting people like me
First off, no one is trying to hurt amazon or the retailers, but....
Any action that people could take which would make an appreciable impact on stock prices in the way you describe would be noticed by the ceo, the board, and investors at large. Some of these people may have got in when the getting was cheap, but a lot of them didn't, and furthermore, they have large enough investments in the company that a fluctuation of a quarter can gain/lose them millions in some cases.
Anyway, back to the point. No one is trying to hurt the retailer, but rather punish the publisher. The large retailers have much more clout with the publishers. Returning lots of CDs to Amazon won't hurt them -- they have the clout and motivation to write it off to the manufacturer/publisher. Thus, returning lots of CDs to Amazon is much more likely to hurt universal than returning them to Crandall Records in Orem Utah.
Your argument is pure crap.
While I realize this is not an uncommon mode of discourse/rhetoric on slashdot, avoiding statements like this will actually give you more credibility and respect. Try actually refuting my arguments next time.
Linguistic Spin Applied (Score:3, Interesting)
are part of a music industry-wide attempt to stop online music piracy.
Gotta hand it to them for defining the language in their own terms - that wins half the battle in the sea of unwashed masses. Kind of like defining your opponents as "terrorists" and your collaborators as "freedom fighters".
Imagine how this would go over if the language were altered to read:
This doublespeak is continued with phrases like "Digital Rights Management" that IMHO is more accurately depicated as "Content Use Restriction". Suffice it to say, you'll never see the daily newspapers and national media outlets use any terms except those generated by their owners.
This is all to be expected, though, as evidenced by how he term "hacker" has acquired a strange foreboding and malevolence in the popular media, whereas the technically adept, those most like to "hack", know the difference between a hacker and a cracker.
Re:Probably won't happen. (Score:2, Interesting)
Still, it's not as if some smart coder won't come up with a program to remove the watermark, given enough time.
Boycotts/protests only stall real confrontation (Score:2, Interesting)
The recording industry is using every means at its disposal to gain leverage for the SSSCA or something like it. In the current environment, I don't believe there's any way to counteract the numerous lines of attack "copy protection" afford the industry.
No, I'm convinced that we'll only truly begin to make a difference after tougher legislation goes into effect. In addition to the hurdles listed above, most people--most Slashdot readers--aren't motivated by calls to not act and to forgo listening to their favorite music. The whole reason we're angry is because we want to enjoy our music. We'll only start to shine when what's needed is positive action taken, not to attempt counter-maneuvers against the RIAA, but simply to use technology the way we want to use it and the way we know it can be used.
I say, let them copy protect all the CDs they want. It will ultimately be no protection at all.
Robert Hutchinson