Sony Intentionally Crashes Customers' Computers 1209
Uttles writes "According to Yahoo!, Celine Dion's latest CD will not play in computer drives. In fact: 'Should the consumer try to play Dion's CD on a PC or Macintosh, the computer likely will crash.' How is this legal?" Since Sony admits that their product is designed to cause damage to your computer system, almost anyone would likely have a good lawsuit against them. Attention Celine Dion and all musicians: crashing your fans' computers is not a good business practice. No matter what your agent says.
How fast will it be ripped? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:/me runs out to the store, buy open and return (Score:5, Insightful)
If I was the store manager I would not exept returns on this cd.
"Sorry pal you were the idot that bought Celien Deion".
Intentional Harm (Score:5, Insightful)
"Will not play on PC" != "Will damage PC" (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a warning in my car owner's manual that admits that pouring gasoline all over myself and lighting a match may cause permanent injury or death. I should sue them!
I am not a lawyer, but I don't see how a rational judge would interpret the warning label "Will not play on PC" as "If inserted into a PC, may irreversibly damage PC hardware". Sony's best bet here is to blame the CD-ROM drive manufacturers and shift the damage to their warranty. In that case, if it's a Sony drive, tough sh*t for Sony.
Sony being sued, don't think so (Score:2, Insightful)
Similar situation is like the warnings on bleach. Don't drink bleach. So by drinking it you can't sue the bleach company even if you wanted your insides sparkling clean.
What a bunch of crap (Score:3, Insightful)
Is anyone using any critical thinking? How can a particular combination of bits on a CD crash your computer, much less "cause damage to your computer"?
If your computer crashes based on a bad CD, then get a new CD-ROM drive because it's a piece of crap.
Assuming Sony is not doing anything physically wrong to the disk (like making it too thick or something absurd), there is no story here.
Re:Celine Dion, eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
warnings get sony off the hook? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about Autorun.ini? (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes you wonder, doesn't it? It'd be like Coca Cola making their drinks evaporate moments after they leave the can, that way nobody could pour the coke into a cup and sell it to somebody else.
Re:You aren't making sense (Score:1, Insightful)
Read the article before you make knee jerk posts.
According to the article: "According to a spokeswoman for Sony Music Entertainment, it is clearly stated on the front of the booklet and on the back of the jewel box that the CD "will not play on a PC or a Mac" in the language of the country in which it is sold", and then goes on to say, "Should the consumer try to play Dion's CD on a PC or Macintosh, the computer likely will crash"
There is a HUGE difference between "will not play on a PC" and "will crash your PC". Ask someone who just spent four hours working on (say) his thesis, and decided to put the CD in the drive, even if just to see if it really "would not play". "Would not play" means "nothing will happen". "Crashes your PC" means "if you hadn't saved, you've just lost a lot of work".
They claim to have sold over 10 million discs using this technology, and will have sold over 500,000 of the Celine Dion CD by the end of its first week.
Re:How fast will it be ripped? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious as to how those newer CD players which can play MP3s from a CD as well as normal CDs handle this, because surely they would need to read a CD in the same way as a CD drive in order to read the MP3s?
Re:warnings get sony off the hook? (Score:2, Insightful)
The artist really doesn't have much say-so... (Score:2, Insightful)
The artists are pretty much powerless to this sort of underhanded behaviour, or so most of them think.
the warning should read:
Attention musicians!!! Go for indie labels or produce your music yourself. Better profits, better control over YOUR work. You are not an indentured servant of the record labels!! Give your producer the finger! Go INDIE!
Re:/me runs out to the store, buy open and return (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine :
"Malboro Advisory: These cigarettes will not cause cancer!"
"Surgeon Genral's warning: these will cause cancer."
Re:/me runs out to the store, buy open and return (Score:3, Insightful)
Ask a lawyer for legal advice.
I've been waiting for this (Score:5, Insightful)
I have one of these Mini Disc Walkmans [sonystyle.com]. Along with it came this handy little kit to connect my walkman to my PC and record a cd to it.
Now with this CD from Sony Music I am unable to use my Sony PC Link to enjoy this music I have (hypothetically) purchased using my Sony MD Walkman. Hmmmm. Certainly calls into question my plans to purchase a new MD Walkman, the much more expensive MZ-900DPC [sonystyle.com] sometime this month. Or maybe I just won't purchase Sony Music titles any more.
Nice of you guys to put me in a position where I have to choose between your hardware and music titles. I would have figured you would prefer me to purchase both, that's probably why you're the high paid media exective and I'm just the consumer with a love of music and a large disposable income though.
So long and thanks for all the laughs, if you need me I'll be in the Panasonic section at Circut City.
Re:Fair Use??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:warnings get sony off the hook? (Score:3, Insightful)
This society sickens me, nobody ever takes resposibility for anything, they can always blame someone for something and get away with it. My son killed several people at school and himself, wait I found these video games in his room, they must have made him do it! there's no way my son had any social or psychological problems after all I'm a good parent, and there was never any signs before this. Oh I slipped, fell and broke my leg for no apparent reason, it must be the city's fault! after all it's not my fault I can't walk. Oh I'm fat it must be all those fast food places chaing my ass to a pole in the back room and force feeding me greasy burgers. After all I'm not a gluttonous pig who doesn't get exercise and just sits around all day eating shit that would kill a horse. Fuck grow up and take some responsibility for your lives people!
Can't someone else do it? The garbage man can!
Re:Inflammatory Headline? (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you read the article? "Sony Intentionally Crashes Customers' Computers" is merely a rephrasing of what Sony actually claims:
Re:Celine Dion, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't help but think that people won't find it quite so humorous when this is done with artists that they happen to like. Now, I get the impression that most of the
Now, forget your favorite artists for a second. How many new artists will you discover if the media that it comes on is disabled like this? I bought a CD three days ago from a new band outta Jersey called Ill Niño [roadrunnerrecords.com] and it rocks. If it had copy protection, I wouldn't have bought it. Period. Lose-lose - nobody wins.
This whole concept is just plain nuckin futs, people. I suggest that you tell everyone you know that these kinds of 'products' should be avoided at all costs. Vote with your wallets and get the word out to everybody you know to do the same.
seems pretty simple to me (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with music as a business... (Score:5, Insightful)
All I have to do is download the lyrics and I could sing the song. Garage bands could easily do a nice rendition of the song that'd be worth listening to. As a matter of fact, re-mixes are quite popular out there. A lot of remixes don't even have elements of the original score in them. Sounds like a problem, doesn't it? They may be able to stop me from ripping a CD, but there's no way on Earth they could stop somebody from recording their own rendition of a song.
It seems to me that the RIAA is being rather unrealistic in their choice of products to make. I just don't see how they could expect to end all 'piracy' for good. The worst part is that they are blaming the wrong people.
For example, Eisner said that Apple was promoting piracy with their "Rip/Mix/Burn" campaign. His concern is that people will think that music is free and that they don't have to pay for it. But wait a minute, people were trading MP3's LONG before Apple was airing any commercials. If anybody thinks that music is free, its because it's played on the radio!
When the music is played on the radio, they're basically saying 'music is free, just enjoy it.'. That's part of what made it fun to go buy songs. What you were buying, then, was not the right to listen to it, but the convenience of listening to it whenever and wherever you want. CD's, at the time, were the best way to do it.
Then MP3's came along. Oopsie, the RIAA didn't stay on the ball, and now their business model that THEY CREATED is turning against them. The amusing thing is that they are playing the wrong hand to fight it. I can't believe they are actually surprised that people may think music is free. This is not a new occurance, this is what the RIAA taught them!
If they want to fight it, they need to come up with a MORE CONVENIENT solution, instead of trying to make it illegal. Underage smoking: Illegal, happens anyway. Underage drinking: Illegal, happens anwyay. Smoking pot: Illegal, happens anyway. Why on earth do they think they can stop it? What they're FAR better off doing is saying "You can buy MP3s (or a variant) from us! They're cheap, and you can download any song you want really really fast. Buy an album and get a discount."
Better yet, they'd find ways to make money through the channels people are using to get songs. What if they released an MP3 version of a song with one of the singers at the end saying 'Mention this code: JdWt when you buy the song and get $2 off the album purchase.'?
They have so many options they could use, but they chose the one where they piss EVERYBODY off. Nice.
Re:Celine Dion, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Jeez...
Not a big deal. (Score:1, Insightful)
This encourages people to pirate CDs! (Score:4, Insightful)
They think that by copy-protecting their CDs, people will no longer burn backups for the car or for their portable diskman players -- both environments where it's easy to accidentaly scratch/wreck an expensive original.
What they don't realize is that instead of buying legal CDs and making "fair use" backups for their own use, people will now find it far more attractive to simply wait until someone else either rips the disk or does an A-D conversion then makes the resulting MP3 files available on the net (through alt.binaries.music.* or one of the many P2P networks).
I for one won't buy a protected music CD -- so that would leave me with no alternative but to download an illegal MP3 copy because I need to burn a couple of spares for my own use.
I guess if I really wanted to be honest, I'd send the recording company a check for the value of the album I'd downloaded -- but chances are that they'd then prosecute me for piracy -- even though I had offered to pay anyway.
These guys couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery!
Anatomy of a Slashdot Music Story (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Story is posted noting that $company had implemented $copy_protection on the newest CD of $artist.
2. Someone points out that $copy_protection has a certain $bad_thing associated with it.
3. Users bemoan this heinous $copy_protection and associated $bad_thing.
4. Users bash $company and suggest boycott. Other users note that boycotts never work. Flamewar ensues.
5. Users bash $artist, say it wouldn't be worth ripping anyway.
6. Other users take the high moral ground about the sanctity of fair use.
7. Still other users suggest that $artist go independent. Other users defend $artist, stating that $company controls $artist.
8. There will be a smattering of posts flaming RIAA and other evil organizations.
9. Some users will suggest possible hardware/software workarounds.
10. Finally, in the background, the trolls continue on, oblivious to the actual content of the story.
There you have it, the story in a nutshell.
~Chazzf
Re:/me runs out to the store, buy open and return (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the CD logo is a Trademark, and carries the same weight as a UL or CSA Trademark. It means that this product meets all the licensing requirements of the people owning that logo. With the CD logo that means it is playable in a computer.
More importantly, even if this CD bears no logo but is placed in with other CDs that clearly do, and under a sign that says "CD -- XYZ/Various", it will be VERY difficult for the store to get themselves out of trouble with a judge. Its like having a "new car" section at a dealership and sticking a used car in that section. If you buy that car and the dealer doesn't say "Oh, we made a mistake, that isn't a new car" first then they are practicing deceptive advertising (probably a felony).
The minute that isn't true, watch out for knockoff electronics killing people that still have a CSA/UL logo in the "safety products" aisle.
>I dont think you could bring it back saying "Man it hade the little USA flag on the back. I though it was in english".
I bet you could when you point out the sign above the rack of CDs that says "English CDs". Now, if a music shop would rather label their CD section with "Shiny round music discs" than "CDs" they are welcome too. Until then, they are attempting to deceive me into purchasing a clearly inferior product.
Besides, any smart manager would realize that having someone shouting "You are selling me fake CDs that can't be played in standard equipment" would scare away more than enough business. And no, you can't just tell someone to leave and expect them to. And you can't force them out. You need to wait, and wait, and wait for the good 1/2 hour or two it takes for the police to respond to the least important of calls -- tresspassing. Or at least Cops says so.
Re:/me runs out to the store, buy open and return (Score:3, Insightful)
Hacking tool? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:maybe if this sort of CD protection worked... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just don't count on me to be the guy who buys the CD to rip it for you. :)
Re:Clone CD can copy it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:/me runs out to the store, buy open and return (Score:3, Insightful)
If you used a credit card call them up and contest the charges.
Re:warnings get sony off the hook? (Score:2, Insightful)
Disclaimers do not allow violation of the law, and last I heard, intentionally crashing computer equipment owned by others was a Denial of Service, and a terrorist action under the Patriot Act, (yea I'm a bit fuzzy there, but it sounds nice)
Re:How fast will it be ripped? (Score:2, Insightful)
I can see it now... "See, even our most advanced content protection, and people are still stealing it! We need laws to make this impossible, not just illegal, or we will be driven out of business, and then the world will be completely devoid of music/movies/etc since we won't be able to provide our invaluable services any more! Boo hoo!"
Re:Anatomy of a Slashdot Music Story (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Clone CD can copy it (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, I've now done the same thing.
Re:warnings get sony off the hook? (Score:1, Insightful)
The warning just state that it will not work and/or crash the computer.
If there are side effects after the reboot other then the lost of transient data of open and not saved documents (like hard disk corruption and stop booting) then... they are in trouble (see computer hacking laws regarding tampering with information - related to viris, hacking and as it seams, CD playing).
And yes, M$ software also suffers that problem...
Have a nice day
The artist has no say in this. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Celine Dion, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
You buy music after checking it out on a P2P network, right? I'm fine with that. I do it myself. The original poster said that he has 15GB of music, of which less than one-fifth was actually bought and paid for. That's just being dishonest.
Unless I completely misunderstood you and your argument is actually that copying music and giving nothing at all to the artist is morally better than buying the music and giving something (admittedly, a small amount) to the artist. In which case, you're deluding yourself.
Sony is or isn't liable? (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW. Why put copy protection on this disc? Really, honestly, how many people who actively participate in file sharing (ripping, encoding, and sharing) are going to listen to Celine Dion? I was under the impression that most P2P users were somewhere in the age bracket of 15-30, and male..I may be mistaken, but that's my understanding from following all this..
So why then? I'm guessing that this is an attempt by the RIAA to say, "Look! Copy Protection works! There are 'x' number of copies of Celine floating around the net. Without Copy Protection there would be many more. If we compare it to the latest Nickleback album, you see that copy protection works! This is why Senator Holling's bill is genius! " This is the argument that the RIAA will take to Congress in order to get the SSSCA passed.
Go and buy this disc. Rip it in ANY manner. Make it the MOST shared disc EVER. GIVE copies away to all who WOULD have bought it. Return it to the store. Repeat.
Of course, this would probably end up being the argument then: "See! We NEED Hardware Copy Protection! We tried to keep them from this disc and they broke the protection!"
The answer, then, is to not buy OR listen to music from the RIAA. Explore unsigned bands! THINK! Has your life improved because of Creed's newest album? Where would you be if you had never heard it? If the RIAA sells nothing, and has no pirate to rail against, where are they? Gone. And, you are also helping out artists who deserve your attention, and are not part of the Media Industry.
Gaaarrrr! I'm gettin a beer.
Re:warnings get sony off the hook? (Score:3, Insightful)
Paying for something is having the _right_ to use it without discrimination.
Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Insightful)
No it dosn't. In theory a good encoder could reproduce, bit for bit (or extremly close) the mp3 file at the first stage, in other words it dosn't have to throw away anything because all of the data would fit into a compressed format.
Sony Shooting themselves in the feet (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, they are making a product that is LESS useful than what you can get on the net. So, if I want to hear artist X on my PC, I can't. I am forced to go to the net to download an 'unauthorised copy'.
This copy has greater utility than the Sony offering. I can copy it, burn it to CD that will play on my PC, or my CD player, play with it, share it etc etc
This is a form of madness. They are creating demand for P2P networks and filesharing with this policy.
Re:Celine Dion, eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
The Consumer Society (Score:5, Insightful)
Very true, although I think it might be even bigger than that. It's not just the business model that the RIAA created, it's the model that all of society has created for us. It's like that one (great)
The problem is that the model has totally backfired here. We've been programmed to consume so much that we're all doing it far too well for them now. We can consume and consume and consume all we want now without them acting as our (drug) dealers. We're not taught to buy our stuff, we're taught to devour it. Hence, no one sees any problem with not buying CD's because we've been taught that the purpose is not to buy as much as we can, but to have as much as we can. This is why people fill up their hard drives with MP3's and movies and why my roomate has cases and cases full of burned CD's.
I think this also explains why companies are more focused on regaining control than on increasing sales. Rather than add extras to the CD's to make them worth buying, or dropping the price, they try to regain control of access. It's stemming consumption at will that matters. Before it was good enough to control what bands got promoted via radio. Then it was MTV. Now it's bigger than that. Because people can download whatever they can make their own playlists. Granted, a lot of it is the stuff that the record companies are pushing heavily, but a lot of it is stuff they wouldn't expect, like older favorites that aren't the flavor of the month. Suddenly radio and MTV doesn't hold as much sway any more, and their control is weakened. At the end of the day, this is what it's about. It's not so much about profit in itself, but about control, because control guarantees profit.
We've all been trained too well, including the RIAA themselves. We've all been brainwashed in to consuming everything. The RIAA has been brainwashed the same way, which is why they're so focused on the control aspect. Finding ways to increase sales would suit them better than what they're doing. Unfortunately, I doubt they'll see the light until someone stands up and shows it to them with a spreadsheet and a stock quote.
Re:Celine Dion, eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not inherently immoral to get something for nothing. Every time you inhale, you're getting air for nothing... and nobody considers breathing to be immoral.
Look at it this way: if computers, the Internet, mp3 players, etc had been invented 5,000 years ago, and were available/affordable to anyone who wanted one... if everyone in the world had had the ability to send and receive digital information to everyone else since time immemorial, would there even be the concept of copyright infringment? Quite the contrary, I think -- instead, the right to copy files would be protected as a 'natural God-given right'.
The idea that Joe may dictate what Sue does, with her own equipment, in the privacy of her own home, is merely an artifact, a historical accident, that will fade away as digital communications become as natural as breathing. Certainly unrestricted digital copying can give content creators the short end of the stick under the current system, but the current system is also an artifact of the now-obsolete physical/industrial model of content distribution. It too will fade away, and (presumably) be replaced with another system, one that better reflects the new realities.
Some of the trouble with "theft" (Score:3, Insightful)
Although I disagree with the use of the propaganda term [gnu.org] "piracy", this summary from a footnote in the landmark Diamond Rio case, the case that opened the door for portable MP3 players, is otherwise agreeable:
To which I'd also add that even if one were to pay for the music CD, it's not clear that one would pay the publisher for it. There are venues to legally obtain the music CD without paying the publisher (public libraries and any second-hand sale) in which case multiple people can listen to the music as the music licensee but only result in one sale for the publisher. Your burger example doesn't help eludicate understanding of copyright at all. A burger cook working for someone else doesn't hold a copyright on the burgers.
Too simple; simplistic, really. I'm not sure what you mean by the "result" of your thoughts, but your thoughts are not copyrightable, copyright law in the US only protects certain expression of ideas. How much control you have over that expression is not anywhere near as simple as you have made it out to be (your burger scenario, for example, would not allow me to do as I wished with the burger; sometimes there are patents that can interfere with your ability to legally distribute a work copyrighted to you). You should find the book I recommended earlier (ISBN: 0-8147-8806-8). It will painlessly get you up to speed in understanding copyright. I found it a worthwhile read and I hope you do too.
Re:Jogging, not cars (Score:2, Insightful)
eh, 20*log(2^16) = 96.3 dB
Look up "noise shaping" on Google to see how
Do not use Google, but calculator and brain (sometimes they do better job than pigeons...)
Sad times.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I listen occasionally listen to real audio CDs on the following devices:
I have never used Napster (or similar services) as I think it's morally wrong and illegal. However, if I can't go out, buy an audio CD, rip it and listen to it then I consider myself forced into using one of these means to acquire the music I want.
I have absolutely no qualms with paying $20 for a CD. I always get my money out of it, provided the disc doesn't suck. Frankly, at the rate we buy CDs I don't even mind occasionally paying for a dud. I will, however, refuse to buy something I can't use.
End of story.
As has been reported ad nauseum, this does absolutely nothing to curb illegal copying of these songs. All it does is anger good customers. If I, a paying, legal customer, am going to be treated like a criminal, I may as well act the part.
So, here's my ultimatum to the recording industry: Stop this ridiculous behaviour or I will cease to be a customer. As soon as I buy a CD that I actually want (sorry Celine) and can no longer rip and listen to in MP3 form I will cease buying CDs at all and will start making use of one of these napster/kazaa/limewire type services. I don't want to do this. I still think it's illegal, I still think it's wrong, but I think that punishing all customers for the sake of a few, who will pirate anyway, is worse, not to mention a dangerous precedent. I won't stand for it.
If the record industry won't play fair neither will I. I know I'm only one person, I realize that the recording industry probably doesn't care about me, but I buy about 30 CDs a year. That's $600 they lose from me. Pretty insignificant in the big scheme, but it's all I can do. I will continue to listen to the music I want in the form I want.
Thank Sony to not let me play "any" CD ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Thank you Sony, I buy every CD that comes out in Europe and thank you Sony, really thank you, so I do not have to listen to Celine Dion
(not).
Re:Where is th right? (Score:2, Insightful)
Additionally, your logic in the last paragraph is ridiculous. An artist expecting to get paid for their recorded music is akin to me expecting to get paid by my employer well after I quit, simply because theyre still using a piece of software I coded for them. The initial production of the work is worth something, economically speaking, and thats what I got paid for. Each subsequent use or copy is not.
Re:Where is th right? (Score:3, Insightful)
You make the classic conceptual error all the napster types make, in confusing the recording with the music itself. I suppose this is to be expected from a crowd that by and large don't value creativity.
Of course the recording itself is infinitely reproducible, but the music is not. It takes time and effort to write, produce and record another piece of music.
The initial production of the work is worth something, economically speaking, and that's what I got paid for. Each subsequent use or copy is not.
They are getting paid for the original work. The amount they get paid depends on the number of copies sold, because this is what is used to determine the economic value of that work.