Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

Lawsuit Over Crippled Charley Pride Music Disks Settled 175

Posted by michael from the warning:-this-silver-disk-is-not-a-CD dept.
thumbtack writes: "In a follow up to the /. story "Record Companies Sued Over Charley Pride CD" last fall, Boycott-RIAA is reporting in this story that the case has been settled with Fahrenheit Entertainment, Music City Records, and Sunncomm. They have agreed to a list of 10 items that were the basis of the lawsuit. In addition following the link to the settlement document (pdf) the plaintiffs got a little cash to pay their lawyers as well."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lawsuit Over Crippled Charley Pride Music Disks Settled More

Lawsuit Over Crippled Charley Pride Music Disks Settled

Comments Filter:
  • It's about time the little guys get something.

  • The Ten Items (Score:4, Funny)

    by wrinkledshirt ( 228541 ) on Friday February 22, 2002 @01:18PM (#3052352) Homepage
    They have agreed to a list of 10 items that were the basis of the lawsuit.

    Too bad none of those ten has to do with the fact that country music makes your ears bleed.
    • Dude, all you Barbra Striesand fans should stay in the closet...

    • Re:The Ten Items (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Too bad none of those ten has to do with the fact that country music makes your ears bleed.

      The trick is to play country music backwards. That way you get your job back, you get your wife back, you get your dog back, and you stop drinking.

    • The 8 types of country songs (Score:4, Funny)

      by StormCrow ( 10254 ) on Friday February 22, 2002 @01:49PM (#3052686) Homepage
      1. Losin Songs (she left me)
      2. Lovin and Forgivin Songs (she came back)
      3. Hurtin Songs (the bitch done left me again)
      4. Drinkin Songs (nobody here to cook, might as well get drunk)
      5. Rodeo Songs (she ran off with a cowboy)
      6. Train Songs (they hopped a train west, think i'll derail that sucker)
      7. Jail Songs (you know, they take derailing trains real serious in Mississippi)
      8. Never Give up Hope Songs (I wonder if her sister still lives in Alabama)

  • Point of the article (Score:3, Informative)

    by grinwell ( 138078 ) on Friday February 22, 2002 @01:19PM (#3052369)
    Left out of the main heading is that the article is spinning this as a "consumer victory" over RIAA.

    Basically, consumers can get new de-protected CDs to replace their protected ones.

    Yawn. They'll just try again.

    • Re:Point of the article (Score:5, Insightful)

      by daniel_howell ( 457947 ) on Friday February 22, 2002 @01:39PM (#3052579)
      No, it's more than that. The settlement requires the CD maker to put warnings on the protected CD. If a manufacturer has to alert buyers to the fact that this CD won't work on some computers, DVD players and MP3 players then that's going to hurt sales.

      And manufacturers are going to think twice before implimenting something that hurts their sales.

      The efforts we've seen so far have been low key, trying to put protection on without making a big deal out of it. Forcing such protection schemes to be advertized on the product will be a big disincentive to their use.
      • The settlement requires the CD maker to put warnings on the protected CD

        Unfortunatly I don't think that protects those (like myself) who buy CDs online. I suppose I could go to a store and buy CDs except for the fact that they don't have any CDs I want (mainly just the popular garbage).
      • The settlement requires only that they label *this* CD - it does not require future labeling. And more importantly it has absolutely no effect on any other record company.

        Universal can go right ahead and copy protect their CDs however they chose, and label them (or not) in whatever manner they want.

        But the point of almost all of this is that there is nothing illegal with any of these copy protection schemes - at the *most* you will get gov't imposed labelling standards and requirements. But when N*Sync releases their album with fully-labelled copy protection, do you really think it won't sell to the teen masses?

        In other words, get used to this idea - it's their IP, and they can protect it however they want (so long as they aren't tricking people, etc.)
        • But when N*Sync releases their album with fully-labelled copy protection, do you really think it won't sell to the teen masses?
          It will sell, but not sell *as well as it could have sold*. Having (3) relatives still in their teens, I can tell you that with their computer, portable cd/mp3 player, DVD/mp3 player (no, not one each, but still) they won't buy it if they realize. (Or if I know them, buy it once, return it, and tell the music biz where to shove it).

          Actually the DVD/mp3 players are the showstoppers for the records companies around here, even people without computers got one. Guess what? They'll ask people like me to download it off the net and burn it to cd for them, and give me a nifty profit on it too. That's people that wouldn't bother to steal music normally, but the record companies would be driving them off. And then they'll go crying to the politicans over all the bad people who steal their music...

          Kjella

        • Universal can go right ahead and copy protect their CDs however they chose, and label them (or not) in whatever manner they want.

          But now, armed with the precedent from this case, plaintiffs will be able to take down the labels easily. To avoid legal expenses, the labels will likely voluntarily comply.

          there is nothing illegal with any of these copy protection schemes

          What about misrepresentation? The user is sold a disc with the Philips Compact Disc Digital Audio logo on it, but the disc doesn't meet the Compact Disc Digital Audio standards. Fraud is a felony.

          at the *most* you will get gov't imposed labelling standards and requirements.

          And ad campaigns to "look for the logo" on behalf of independent labels and Compact Disc logo trademark holder Philips.

          But when N*Sync releases their album with fully-labelled copy protection, do you really think it won't sell to the teen masses?

          Ever heard the old joke about the three fastest forms of communication? Telephone, television, and tell-a-girl. Negative word of mouth will kill the *NSYNC franchise rápidamente.

          get used to this idea - it's their IP

          IP stands for "Internet Protocol" or a numeric address assigned thereunder. The notion of "intellectual property" exists nowhere in the letter of United States copyright law; Congress presumably passed the copyright act "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," not to create a new form of property.

      • The settlement requires them to put a warning on the Charley Pride CD. It doesn't cover any other CD using this same technology. Will a new lawsuit have to be filed over each protected CD? Looks like it.

  • Most important (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hether ( 101201 ) on Friday February 22, 2002 @01:20PM (#3052384)
    I see this as the most important point:

    6. Defendants shall include a warning that the Charlie Pride CD is not designed to work in DVD players or Computer CD-ROM players;

    As long as they mark the cd, and people know ahead that the product will not work for them, they can protect all the cds they want to. People will just learn to avoid cds that are marked that way.
    • As another post pointed out, there isn't any regulation on where, how, or how large the marking has to be.

      It could just be a little logo where the CDDA logo is on many CDs now... The point, of course, is that Joe Sixpack doesn't examine everything he buys for little wording, especially when it comes to CDs.

      Whereas those of us who were pushing for this don't have to look for it - most don't buy CDs anyway.

      'course, the RIAA is a bunch of idiots anyway.. What're they going to do next? Scramble the music such that it can't be heard out of the analog out port on a CD player? Hell, you can plug that bad boy into a PC and record it with Goldwave! CRAP! Gotta get rid of that! :P
    • Phillips is requesting that these not include the cd logo, since it is a trademark of phillips, and that they be placed in their own section--like tapes. now this would kill the technology!
      • I don't see how this could possibly hurt sales. The average consumer is not going to care where the CD is. People, unfortunatly, just arn't going to care.
    • As long as they mark the cd, and people know ahead that the product will not work for them, they can protect all the cds they want to. People will just learn to avoid cds that are marked that way.

      And when there are no non-protected CDs available, will people continue to avoid them?

      • And when there are no non-protected CDs available, will people continue to avoid them?

        Name one independent label that has committed to using technical fair use restrictions on its entire music catalog.

        [/me hums the Jeopardy! theme song]

        Give up? None of them have. Real CDs will continue to be available; teens will just have to give up *NSYNC and a few other manufactured bands.

    • Re:Most important (Score:1, Informative)

      by bloo9298 ( 258454 )

      The language is deliberately misleading.

      There is a difference between "is not designed to work" and "is designed not to work". Bah!

    • Re:Most important (Score:5, Interesting)

      by polymath69 ( 94161 ) <dr.slashdot@NoSPam.mailnull.com> on Friday February 22, 2002 @02:10PM (#3052853) Homepage
      As long as they mark the cd, and people know ahead that the product will not work for them, they can protect all the cds they want to. People will just learn to avoid cds that are marked that way.

      Yes, but this is still a problem for people who buy most of their CDs online, and so don't have the opportunity to inspect the packaging before making a purchase. Even if this settlement makes music stores more willing to take back (rather than exchange for the same item) non-compliant CDs, the hassle may make the whole experience just too irritating.

      Imagine buying 10 CDs at cdnow and finding seven of them have warnings on the label. So you send them back. Then you open the other three, to find that two of them have warnings inside the shrinkwrapped package. Even the imaginary more liberal return policies are unlikely to help you now.

      • Re:Most important (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jon doh! ( 463271 )
        i think though that most online sellers would recognize that if they start having too many problems because of the encrypted "CD's", they'd start letting consumers know from their website that they may not be compatible with all CD players. otherwise, they'd be the ones to lose money, not the record companies.

      • Re:Most important (Score:2, Insightful)

        by IMWakko ( 198704 )
        Imagine buying 10 CDs at cdnow and finding seven of them have warnings on the label. So you send them back. Then you open the other three, to find that two of them have warnings inside the shrinkwrapped package. Even the imaginary more liberal return policies are unlikely to help you now.


        Well why not? These are "copy protected" cds aren't they? There shouldn't be a problem with returning open items then.

      • Re:Most important (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sulli ( 195030 )
        Not so - CDNow, Amazon, et al. have reasonable return policies and active message boards. Take a look at the "More Fast and Furious" page on Amazon .. tons of complaints. It is very likely that these vendors will warn their customers, because returns and chargebacks are very expensive!

        As for me as a buyer: I use my iPod for all my music, so I have no plans to buy any CD I can't rip into real MP3. Warnings will help me make reasonable decisions here. Vendors who wish to sell crippled CDs will need to find other customers.

    • My point is this is good for them - not good for us. They can mark it in any way they want to. Small, large, or invisible ink (jk!) and as long as they mark them they are probably covering their asses. The fact that joe sixpack doesn't know how to look for the mark isn't their concern.

      I wish the court had specified that they now had to mark them in 72pt. bright red type on the cd's front or back, but any step towards marking them is a good one.

      Phillips is a doing a good thing asking the CD logo not be displayed on them, but I wonder if any more people will take notice of that than they would a fine print warning. More info from EFF at:
      http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020206 [eff.org]_eff_philips_ale rt.html
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • The problem I see is that there is no requirement that they not label CDs that aren't copy impeded. Once they cross the magic threshold (I'd guess about 10%) they start putting the label on everything.

      -- This is not a .sig

  • A win? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by slutdot ( 207042 )
    I'm curious as to how this might affect future lawsuits. Since it is a settlement, can this case be used as leverage against Universal or others planning the same thing?

    • Re:A win? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Misch ( 158807 )
      No, in fact, quite the opposite. Because it didn't go to court and wasn't judged, it won't be able to be used. It means next to nothing if it will ever be brought up in court.

    • Re:A win? (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I think this case definitely establishes a legal precedent. Even if major content oweners find some way of creating a system that bypasses these constraints, which I wouldn't put past them, this case could be used to demonstrate the intent of the courts to protect consumers.

      max
    • Since it is a settlement, can this case be used as leverage against Universal or others planning the same thing?

      No. A settlement gives no precedent at all.
      What I'm wondering is whether those ten points agreed too were haggled over or whether the label simply agreed to all the damands. My suspicion is that they knew they had over-stepped the bounds with this one (due to those blatant privacy violations that consumers could not opt-out of), and so if it went to court, they would likely lose on at least some points AND as a result have a precedent set that could cripple further attempts at corrupting CDs in the future. So what they perhaps did is "lost" out of court (ie agreed to the demands) to avoid a precedent being set, and will continue to sell corrupt CDs until such a time as they have the tech working better, the issues nailed down a bit more, and THEN they'll let it go to court, and they'll win. A precedent will be set establishing that they have the right to sell corrupt CDs under certain conditions.

      I'm thinking this matter will get to a courtroom only when the labels are sure they're going to win a precedent in their favour. The bastards.

  • Wow! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PowerTroll 5000 ( 524563 ) on Friday February 22, 2002 @01:23PM (#3052414)
    They agreed to ten demands and even coughed up lawyer fees. Seems like one of the most powerful weapons one can use is public humiliation. If this went on, more and more of the public would learn about this.

    The only problem is they're going to continue using this copy protection. How many other distributors will adopt this or similar protection schemes in the future?
    • Not many, because I'm fairly sure people will see all this stuff written on the CD case, get tired of reading it, and go buy something else that doesn't require thought.

  • Demographic? (Score:3, Informative)

    by maniac11 ( 88495 ) on Friday February 22, 2002 @01:24PM (#3052423) Homepage Journal
    Does charley pride's label really think that a high percentage of Charley Pride's [yahoo.com] listening demographic is likely to rip, encode, and post ANYTHING to the internet?

    • Mod Down! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by a3d0a3m ( 306585 )
      Look at that post you modded up as "Interesting"! It isn't interesting, it is flamebait. It is most definitely a rip on fans of country music and shouldn't have recieved any positive moderation. I personally enjoy country music and must say that I have ripped and encoded many country CDs for my own personal MP3 collection. I take great offense to people who stereotype the country music listener as in imbred appalacian who is lucky enough to own a trailer and a CD player let alone a computer! Let me be the first to stand up as a proud, intellegent, and critical listener of country music.

      Just think if this was a rap cd and you said "do you really think anyone who listens to rap is smart enough to encode it on their computer", people would be all over you. Let's not trivialize the criticism of country music listeners!

      Adam
      • Let me be the first to stand up as a proud, intellegent, and critical listener of country music.

        The problem is, he IS the first to stand up as such....

        Just think if this was a rap cd and you said "do you really think anyone who listens to rap is smart enough to encode it on their computer", people would be all over you.

        Nah... we'd agree.. In fact there are scientific studies that say rap makes you dumber :)
      • I don't think country music listeners are any dumber than the rest of us, anymore than I think people who smoke are any dumber than the rest of us. The only problem I have is with that they're listening to country music/smoking in public!

        Wait a minute, mr. TRACK, don't you intentionally look for music that causes other people pain and discomfort? Looks likes it's back to the self-accusation world for me...
      • If you consider that Mr. Pride's main demographic is about 60-70 years old, then the OP may have a point. That doesn't do anything for the younger, newer, more tech-savvy listeners, but there aren't enough of those to cause a resurge in sales.

        Me - I can't stand modern country music, except for Lyle Lovett. Most of my favorite country singers have one foot in the grave or are gone the Grandest Old Opry or it's counterpart.

        Pity.
      • LOL! Yeah, just goes to show most people who rag on country music haven't really listened to much of it. Country is really a sort of new-wave blues.

        Funny thing, two of my fave musical forms are country and punk -- which have a LOT in common, if you think about it. They're both basically about real life and the consequences of your own actions.

        That said, I don't care much for Charlie Pride :)

        To be somewhat on topic despite myself.. does this settlement cover ONLY his stuff?? that's the impression I got. And being a settlement and not a court decision, it's not likely to have any lasting impact anyway. Out of court settlements are often done for exactly that reason -- to AVOID setting a legal precedent that would have a more far-reaching effect on corporate behaviour.

    • Does charley pride's label really think that a high percentage of Charley Pride's listening demographic is likely to rip, encode, and post ANYTHING to the internet?

      You joke... but perhaps that was calculated. If they release a Charley Pride CD this way, and no one complains, they have a successful "test market" example they can use to justify it for other, more popular artists...

    • What's worse the the "Founder's" webpage.

      http://www.angelfire.com/mt/mistybrooks/

      Too bad she's kinda hot.

  • Read the fine print.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dutchmaan ( 442553 ) on Friday February 22, 2002 @01:26PM (#3052441) Homepage
    You just know that "warning" is going to be in tiny little fine white print at the bottom of the CD mixed in with all the other text no one ever reads.

    • Re:Read the fine print.... (Score:4, Funny)

      by SIGFPE ( 97527 ) on Friday February 22, 2002 @02:03PM (#3052799) Homepage
      When you're born a midwife should be standing there with a card held up in front of you in big letters

      BY BEING BORN YOU ENTER INTO AN IMPLICIT CONTRACT THAT YOU AGREE TO READ ALL THE SMALL PRNT THAT'S GOING TO GET THROWN AT YOU FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE. AND BY THE WAY THIS IS THE LAST TIME THE SMALL PRINT IS GOING TO BE THIS BIG.

      BTW Ignore this text down here. I had to write it to make /.'s lame lameness filter accept my post. By padding your post out with lower case text you can get away with writing more upper case text. Simple attempts to hack a free market often fail and in this case the next effect is that I have to pad my posts out causing clutter which is far worse than inadvertent yelling.

  • Limited victory (Score:5, Insightful)

    by danspalding ( 560127 ) <teachrdan@gmail.com> on Friday February 22, 2002 @01:27PM (#3052455) Homepage Journal
    IANAL, but two points on this:

    My understanding is that a settlement is _not_ an admission or wrongdoing. So while this settlement may give moral support to others, it won't give you legal leverage against a music label in the future. (the whole point of a settlement is that it's cheaper and quicker than going to court, and since no legal decision is made, no precedent is set)

    Second, it's not clear how much the label can get away with if their CDs give consumers explicit warning. People will just "avoid" CDs that are hobbled? There are five music labels that control the industry, from signing artists to what gets produced and distributed to what gets played on the radio.

    Courtney Love, Tom Petty and others are suing those labels on the basis that their contracts for artists are basically identical - and uniformly screw the artist. We could be looking at a parallel situation here.

    • My understanding is that a settlement is _not_ an admission or wrongdoing. So while this settlement may give moral support to others, it won't give you legal leverage against a music label in the future.

      Agreed. Nevertheless, considering the hardball tactics played by the music industry, the aparently infinite financial resources and their general arrogant attitude this seems to be a major victory.

      A little ol' lady (I guess) with bad taste seems to be able to throw the fear of god into those bozos.

      If they'd had considered their chances as good, there's no way in hell, that they would have settled.

    • >People will just "avoid" CDs that are hobbled?

      You could have put 'avoid "CDs"', as they arent really CDs as far as Philips is concerned. Check out:

      http://www.gramofile.co.uk/newsMainTemplate.asp? st oryID=930&newssectionID=1

  • I may not be a lawyer but... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Demon-Xanth ( 100910 ) on Friday February 22, 2002 @01:28PM (#3052469)
    ...I'm glad to see this trend started where labeling similar to software packaging is required and the companies are required to take some reponsibility and provide a kind of warentee on this disk (even if it's just 30 days). I hope that it'll convince other companies and CDs to adopt these policies and not just stick with the Charley Pride album and blindly continue ignoring the consumers.

    A guy can't wish, can't he?

  • You are the weakest link, goodbye! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BlueJay465 ( 216717 ) on Friday February 22, 2002 @01:29PM (#3052474)
    People are still stupid enough to buy it anyways. They don't read warnings simply since they are jaded by the sheer amount they get daily. Not on CD covers (besides, the RIAA would probably print it with a 2 point font) not on styrofoam coffee cups from McDonalds, not on aerosol canisters, not on ladders. Record stores will only have more unhappy customers, like the 45 year old secretary who hasn't a clue about this whole debate and buys Kenny G's greatest hits so she can listen to on her work computer, only to find out that she isn't responsible enough to do it without the permission of the RIAA.

    Maybe it is good that the RIAA lost in the long run, but they are now absolved of any liability for stupid people who could potentially help our cause...

    On the flipside, this may raise more awareness as to the dirty deeds of the RIAA by creating more unhappy customers.
    • They aren't absolved of any liability.. they still have to accept returns from non-satisfied customers (and pay return postage!), either directly or through resellers (stores) for up 30 days.
    • Not on CD covers (besides, the RIAA would probably print it with a 2 point font)

      What if it were regulated like the way they have "Parental advisory / Explicit Lyrics" on the CD? It doesn't have to be on the cover even, the back would do. But it would have to be a certain size and format, so it's easy to detect?

      mark

  • Not that big a win (Score:3, Insightful)

    by st0rmshad0w ( 412661 ) on Friday February 22, 2002 @01:29PM (#3052481)
    Remember this is just a settlement, not a victory in a court of law. While it is good news, its also mostly a stalling tactic while the record companies figure out their next move. Personally, I still want to see ALL crippled (in any way) "CDs" segregated from true CDs in every place they are sold.

  • Contributing factor (Score:5, Insightful)

    by darketernal ( 196596 ) <joshk@@@triplehelix...org> on Friday February 22, 2002 @01:30PM (#3052490) Homepage
    I think one of the vital contributing factors was that Music City Records provided the CD playing software that would track user habits - NON-ANONYMOUSLY - and use it for free marketing research.

    If this had not happened would the RIAA have not lost?
  • How does the the CD contain a way to track users listening habits? I understand the downloads might have something (in conjuntion with various players), but the cd?

    From the story:
    ...and that the CD included a proprietary electronic music scheme that tracked, stored, and disseminated specific consumer personal identifying information, listening data, and downloading habits to entities beyond the control of the consumer.

    • Depending on how you play it - if it comes with a custom program that opens on your computer, then that program could be sending info across the Net without you knowing it. (I'm not sure what the setup is, since I don't listen to Charley Pride)

      It's not an original idea - Windows Media Player does reports your playlists back to Microsoft secretly if you don't stop it. Download and run ZoneAlarm [zonealarm.com], fire up a CD with Media Player, and wait for the warning.

      • Windows Media Player does reports your playlists back to Microsoft secretly if you don't stop it. Download and run ZoneAlarm, fire up a CD with Media Player, and wait for the warning.
        The ZoneAlarm warning is probably reporting Media Player downloading the CD data from Gracenote or whoever.

        According to article in Wired [wired.com] Microsoft admits caching the information on what you play, but they say it never goes out. The cache removes the necessity for Media Player from going out again for the information.

    • Re:How can a CD track you? (Score:4, Informative)

      by thesolo ( 131008 ) <slap@fighttheriaa.org> on Friday February 22, 2002 @02:19PM (#3052947) Homepage
      This particular CD used the MediaCloque "Copy Protection" on it. When you inserted the CD into a CDRom drive on a Windows Machine (not a PC, a Windows Machine, it would run a program that lets you put in your personal info, and then download Mp3 copies *of the music you have sitting on the CD*. They then store your info, your IP address, etc.

      Not only is this a total invasion of privacy, but it also extends the MS Monopoly, since your CD theoretically wouldn't play under Linux, MacOS, etc. It's also ridiculously stupid; if you are at home on dialup, and you want to listen to this CD on your computer, why the hell would you want to wait hours for it to download when you HAVE THE MUSIC ON THE CD?!

      We can only hope these things crash & burn ASAP.

  • Fat Chuck's Corrupt CD list (Score:3, Informative)

    by Bilestoad ( 60385 ) on Friday February 22, 2002 @01:38PM (#3052568)
    Don't forget Fat Chuck's list of corrupt CDs:

    http://www.fatchucks.com/corruptcds/

    You can scope out your CDs _before_ ordering them online, something that is otherwise difficult. If you're having trouble with a new CD in the DVD or CD-ROM drive it might be worth checking here also.
  • What a crappy press release. How many different ways can you spell Charley Pride's first name? How many different ways can you spell "cloquing"? (what the hell is that supposed to mean? "Cloaking"?) Makes me wonder whether the boycott-riaa people know their asses from their elbows. Good thing they have lawyers or nobody would take them seriously at all.
  • WTF are you going to sue a company based on the company breaking copyright in an untested way and then turn around and settle!!!!! now the company can just turn around and do it again!!!!!

    IDIOTS!!!

  • Only applies to Charley Pride CD, not future CDs (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rarose ( 36450 ) <rob.robamy@com> on Friday February 22, 2002 @01:42PM (#3052606)
    If you notice, everything is specific to the single instance of the Charley Pride CD. Who cares? What was really needed was an agreement like this for labeling *ALL* future discs.

    Given that... I don't see how this is much of a victory; a draw at best.
    • If you notice, everything is specific to the single instance of the Charley Pride CD. Who cares? What was really needed was an agreement like this for labeling *ALL* future discs.

      Easy: that's 'cause it's the Judicial Branch's job to make decisions based on current law, and it's up to the Legislative Branch (Congress) to make new laws.

      Unfortunately, that doesn't always work the way it's supposed to. See Roe v. Wade.

      • Not quite. While your point about Judicial vs Legislative is true, this case involves an out of court settlement which involves neither branch. It's more like a contract.

        The Plaintiffs didn't have to roll over and accept this settlement that applies only to the Charley Pride disc. The publisher of this CD could have been required to label all of their future protected discs as a part of this settlement.

        The next time there is an unlabled protected disc, we'll go through this all over again.
  • I think that the agreement contradicts itself a little:

    II.B.c. Defendants shall not impair or limit in any manner the ability and right

    of consumers to lawfully sell or transfer ownership of the Charlie Pride CD
    to others who shall have the equal ability to download related digital music
    files;
    and
    II.B.a.v. Defendants shall include a warning that the downloadable encrypted

    digital music files of the songs contained on the Charlie Pride CD may only
    be downloaded six times    .


    Does this mean that If I use my 6 downloads and then sell the disc to a friend, they'll get 6 downloads, too? Or will they have bought a disc that they can't play in their computer (and they'll have no way of knowing it until after they've bought it)?
    • It is an interesting question. Are the downloads part of a tangible "thing" that can be transfered? Currently, if I sell you a CD then you get every benifit that was originally available to me. But what if I sold you a bag of half eaten candy? You certainly aren't going to experience everything I did. But is the candy distributor to blame for that? (Could I have made a poorer analogy?)

      Are we, as consumers, free to sell products we originally purchased and transfer their entire worth to the purchaser? Conversely, are we, as purchasers, entitled to expect the entire value of products we purchase second hand?

  • This isn't a win. At all. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They settled out-of-court. No admission of wrongdoing, no court precedent, nothing. Out of whatever number of people bought the Charley Pride CD, *one* filed suit that we know of. The payoff to get her to go away was pocket change. They can keep on doing this for a long time, because until they get hammered with hundreds (or thousands) of lawsuits, or someone has the stomach to actually take the case to court, the cost to them to settle a few cases out of court is nothing. Especially if they believe their marketdroids when they are told they're losing millions to pirated CDs.
    So no, this wasn't a victory for anything but the status quo.

  • spaceshifting? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by R. Paul McCarty ( 3571 ) on Friday February 22, 2002 @01:46PM (#3052655) Homepage
    In the letter from Sunncomm and Music City Records it says:
    ...allegedly acted against the reasonable expectations of consumers by electronically tracking consumers listening habits and preventing consumers from spaceshifting songs to portable MP3 players.

    It's interesting that the music companies would use a term which sounds like "timeshifting" (a legally protected consumer right for recording television programs) rather then just "copying".
    Perhaps they are anticipating laws that would regulate moving music files around for your convenience.

    I'd like to spaceshift to a warmer climate. :-)

    -Paul
  • I think the last time I bought a music CD was about a year ago. The last time I bought a music CD from anywhere but a used CD store, I can't remember.

    Boycott the RIAA? Who needs to? I've simply and effectively removed the RIAA from my life by just not buying music. If they want to play hardball, they can play all they want. I just won't play the game.

    And before I get irate comments about me stealing music, I don't download any music from any of the big name file sharing networks. The free stuff at MP3.com (well, what used to be free, haven't been there in awhile) from independent artists in the kind of music I listen to is more than enough for me. If you want Charley Pride or Metallica or whatever, go on right ahead. I've ceased to care.
  • While I do agree that country music is painful to the ears, I hardly condone calling Mr. Pride "Crippled" because of it.

  • This decision still sucks. The poster who pointed out that this will lead to region encoding of CD's is only partially right. All they have to do is put a little label or warning on the CD, and they can exclude entire OS's, especially Macs. (Think : "Don't steal music.") Wait 'til MS figures this out.


    There are already legal requirements about CD format, including a requirement that the "true name and address of the manufacturer" appear on the CD. This is in most states (here's Arizona's [state.az.us], look at Subsection A, 3 & 4) and in Federal law. This decision will just mean another line of fine print on the back of your CD.

  • Warning labels (Score:4, Interesting)

    by morcheeba ( 260908 ) on Friday February 22, 2002 @02:13PM (#3052882) Journal
    Overall, a great settlement. But, I wonder if the warnings will follow the obfuscation standards that liquor [icap.org] and cigarette [tobaccofreekids.org] manufacturers use. (Why the pregnant woman warning before the drunk driving warning? Surely there are more drivers than pregnant people!).

    I wonder if the warning would like this:

    PLAYS IN ANY CD PLAYER. TO ACCESS ADDITIONAL DIGITAL MUSIC FILES ON A COMPUTER, YOU NEED MICROSOFT WINDOWS 98 OR LATER, MICROSOFT WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER 7.0 (INCLUDED FREE ON THIS CD), AND ACCESS TO THE INTERNET (ALSO INCLUDED; TRY AOL FOR 50 HOURS FOR FREE). ACCESS WILL REQUIRE NOT MORE THAN SIX DOWNLOADS. NOT DESIGNED TO WORK IN DVD, MP3, OR COMPUTER CD-ROM PLAYERS. FOR A LIST OF KNOWN COMPATIBLITY PROBLEMS RELATED TO COMPUTERS, CD PLAYERS, AND DIGITAL MUSIC PLAYING DEVICES, PLEASE VISIT WWW.RECORDSTORE.COM/01lOI/|I\!.HTML

    (Yeah, I know it's in upper case. It's meant to be hard to read. That's why liquor and cigarette labels use it...)
    • Yeah, I know it's in upper case. It's meant to be hard to read. That's why liquor and cigarette labels use it...

      There's another reason, too -- they use it so that it's "prominant". Quite a few laws require that some statement be prominant or emphasized; making some text upper-case (as opposed to, say, bolding it) fulfills that requirement, but also makes it harder to read. That's why disclaimers of implied warranties, for instance, are always in a different typecase or font size, or are upper-cased, or something else of that sort.

      Of course, it's pretty stupid when everything needs to be "prominant", so the upper-casing/bolding/whatever fails to stick out; there've been cases where, since everything was uniformly bolded and upper-cased, the judge ruled that they'd done nothing to fulfil the legally required prominance.

      But then whada I know? IANAL.
    • (Why the pregnant woman warning before the drunk driving warning? Surely there are more drivers than pregnant people!).

      Yes, but arguably fewer people don't know about the birth defects than about the not being able to drive part. How many people do you think really need to be told that drinking impairs their ability to drive? Show me one and I will show you an ideal candidate for the Darwin awards.

      Efforts to include warnings on cigarette packaging seem targeted more at trying to be a pain in the ass for the manufacturers than towards serving any useful purpose.

      The harmful effects of cigarettes are well known. This is not the 1960s. People who choose to smoke cigarettes today know what they are getting into.
    • "access to the internet (also included; try AOL for 50 hours free)"

      Sweet! Free modem with every CD!

  • How long before Sony catches up? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Nepre ( 252512 ) on Friday February 22, 2002 @02:14PM (#3052897) Homepage

    6. Defendants shall include a warning that the Charlie Pride CD is not designed to work in DVD players or Computer CD-ROM players

    The first DVD players didn't have the ability to play normal audio CDs. This feature was added by manufacturers in order to set their products apart from other DVD players. A "value-added" thing.

    If these copy-protected CDs become widely used in the music industry, then it won't be long before Sony, Panasonic, etc. will make players and CD-ROM drives that can read these disks. The consumer demand is too high to ignore.

    • Sony will be taken to task by RIAA for DCMA violations against the copy protection on the cd...

      ...actually, that's a court case I'd like to see. Two big, high expense leagal teams battling it out instead of the David vs Goliath affairs that don't seem to stand much of a chance.
    • it won't be long before Sony, Panasonic, etc. will make players and CD-ROM drives that can read these disks.

      Have you had your head in the sand?!? Sony IS the RIAA! Many years ago Sony used to make consumer electronics. They made good stuff. That's all in the past. Today, Sony makes their money from content (Sony Music, Sony Pictures, Sony Playstation titles, etc), and they build their hardware to maximize THOSE profits, at the expense of features.

      Sony equipment has more cripples than any other brand. They have a string of failed product lines because the cripples and proprietary restrictions were so blatant even Joe Consumer clued on. (Memory stick mp3-player-like devices that would not actually play mp3s, but only locked-down DRM shit instead. DVD players that are SERIOUS about implementing zone cripples and output restrictions as bulletproof as possible, while no-name brands do the mininum crippling that licensing requires of them, and sometimes not even that. Minidiscs packaged with "digital" USB connection devices that were not, in fact, digital connecters, but digital to analogue converters, ensuring that any transfer to or from the minidisc was via analogue, even though both machines have digital. Not to mention the prevention/removal of digital output jacks from consumer minidisc recorders to begin with, despite them already being SCMS compliant...). I shudder to think what kind of cripples a sony-brand HDTV system is loaded with...

      Sony doesn't make hardware, they make content. And they design that hardware to sell their content.

      Not only will Sony not make players to play corrupted CDs (unless every other company is doing it already), they are actively funding the developement of these corruption systems and will spend buckets of $$$ to get them the court's and congress's blessings.

      Know thine enemy.
      Sony is not the knight in shining armour waiting to take on the labels. Sony is the labels, masquerading as its previous business as an electronics manufacturer to fool the unwary.

      Don't ever buy sony products - after those failed products, they are getting very, very good at hiding the cripples. Better than we are at spotting them before purchase.

  • The 10 Conditions (Score:4, Informative)

    by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Friday February 22, 2002 @03:05PM (#3053313) Homepage
    Because some people won't read the article, here are the 10 conditions:

    Privacy
    1. Defendants shall immediately ensure that any and all Internet music file downloads and listening of the music contained or arising out of said Charlie Pride CD are always anonymous and personal identifying information including, but not limited to, e-mail address and IP addresses shall not be required nor obtained as a condition of downloading (including file downloads from sunncomm.com) or playing or listening to the CD or music files, thereby protecting consumer privacy.

    2. Defendants shall immediately purge all personal identifying information (including e-mail addresses and IP addresses) obtained via the music file downloading process to date.

    3. Defendants shall amend their privacy policy(s) to advise consumers that all Internet file downloads of the music contained on the Charlie Pride CD are anonymous.

    Right of First Sale
    4. Defendants shall not impair or limit in any manner the ability and right of consumers to lawfully sell or transfer ownership of the Charlie Pride CD to others who shall have the equal ability to download related digital music files;

    Return Policy
    5. Defendants shall immediately begin accepting from consumers not satisfied with the Charlie Pride CD due to problems with playability on their CD player, computer CD player, or electronic or portable playing device

    Platform Notices
    6. Defendants shall include a warning that the Charlie Pride CD is not designed to work in DVD players or Computer CD-ROM players;

    7. Defendants shall include a warning of the minimum system requirements for playing the downloadable encrypted digital music files on a computer, including Microsoft Windows 98 and above and Microsoft Windows Media Player 7.0 and above and access to the Internet;

    Spaceshifting Notices
    8. Defendants shall include a warning that the Charlie Pride CD and encrypted digital music file downloads are not compatible with MP3 rippers and players and are not compatible with MP3 electronic playing devices; .

    9. Defendants shall include a notice to visit a web page with a simple URL for an updated list of known compatibility problems related to computers. CDplayers, and digital music playing devices;

    10. Defendants shall include a warning that the downloadable encrypted digital music files of the songs contained on the Charlie Pride CD may only be downloaded six times.
  • Yeah, warning labels! They solve everything! Just look at how smoking went away once the Surgeon General ordered warnings to be placed on cigarettes!

    Seriously, anybody remember how long it was until the tobacco companies got around to (ie. were forced to) putting the warnings on a white background, making them legible? And if this is how labels about a lethal product are treated, why should we expect warning labels on music to be any better?

    Of course, the light on the end of the tunnel is that not even the warning labels were enough to keep the tobacco companies from getting their pants sued off.

Slashdot Top Deals

The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.

Close