Artist Suggesting Ways Around Copy Protection 548
fanboyslayer writes "Switchfoot's new album Nothing Is Sound shipped from Sony with copy protection software on the CD, much to the dismay of thousands of iPod-wielding fans. The band posted a response on their official forum apologizing for the protection and detailing ways to circumvent the protection and rip their songs to PC. Switchfoot linked to open-source program CDex's download page with instructions on disabling the autorunning protection and ripping the files to MP3. Many of Switchfoot's fans have been upset by the copy protection measures, and it's nice to know the artists seem to care about the issue."
Nice comment (Score:5, Informative)
For those too lazy to RTFA their advice is "press shift when loading the CD", and "if that's too late, burn the music back to CD and rip it again".
Respect (Score:5, Informative)
"Hello friends,
my heart is heavy with this whole copy-protection thing. Many PC users have posted problems that they have had importing the new songs (regular disc only, not the dual disc) into programs such as Itunes. Let me first say that as a musician AND as a music fan, I agree with the frustration that has been expressed. We were horrified when we first heard about the new copy-protection policy that is being implemented by most major labels, including Sony (ours), and immediately looked into all of our options for removing this from our new album. Unfortunately, this is the new policy for all new major releases from these record companies. It is heartbreaking to see our blood, sweat, and tears over the past 2 years blurred by the confusion and frustration surrounding this new technology. It is also unfortunate when bands such as ourselves, Foo Fighters, Coldplay, etc... (just a few of the new releases with copy protection) are the target of this criticism, when there is no possible way to avoid this new industry policy.
For mac users these songs should import seamlessly. We are told that itunes is coming out with a new version for PC users in early November that will be compatible with all of these new CD's but in the meantime it's frustrating for all of us. That said, there are a number of solutions (as is always the case with these types of things) for importing the CD into your itunes and ipod. We have compiled some of the easier ways below. I feel like as a band and as listeners, we've all been through a lot together over the past ten years, and we refuse to allow corporate policy to taint the family we've developed together. We deeply regret that there exists the need for any of our listeners to spend more than 30 seconds importing our music, but we're asking as friends and partners in this journey together to spend the extra 10 minutes that it takes to import these songs, which we think you'll agree to be our finest collection of songs yet. As a band, we've always been known for having the best fans in the world and I know that will continue for years to come. A month from now, I hope to be singing these songs together at a show, and the extra time spent importing the music will perhaps be forgotten, or at least forgiven. Thank you for your understanding and the continued kindness that you have always shown for five dreamers from San Diego, we love you guys,
-tim foreman"
Re:Nice comment (Score:4, Informative)
A) If you're a mac user, or you have access to a mac, or you purchased the dual disc, you should have no problems... simply import the songs the same way as you always do.
Add Tristan Prettyman to the list (Score:2, Informative)
It's a shame record companies are forcing their artists to be on the defensive about this issue. The record companies are for the protection, the consumers (especially those owning iPods or wanting to play these non-standard CDs on their computers) are against it, and the artists are left directly in the middle of the tug-of-war.
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Informative)
RTFA.
The band had no voice in the matter. Sony is their label and chose to put the protection on the disc, whether the band wanted it on or not. Switchfoot posted the info on bypassing it because it was pissing off a lot of their fans and that's not something most (read: not Metallica) bands want. In addition, they probably wanted to piss off Sony a little bit for abusing the power that labels have come to know and love.
Re:DMCA (Score:1, Informative)
Is this fucked up? Of course it is.
CDs? (Score:5, Informative)
Any small-silver-disk that includes copy-protection could not be labelled as a 'CD', and must have the fact that it has copy-protection notified to the customer.
Has this changed, or does this type of protection not break the CD Standard?
Re:RIAA Lawsuit Factor (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wow (Score:2, Informative)
If they really cared... (Score:3, Informative)
Wealth, fame, and integrity; pick two.
Albums I would buy if they weren't "protected" (Score:4, Informative)
Chemical Brothers: The Singles Double CD
Chemical Brothers: Push the Button
Fatboy Slim: Palookaville
K-OS: Joyfull Rebellion
Massive Attack: 100th Window
Massive Attack: Danny the Dog Soundtrack
A Perfect Circle: Emotive
A Perfect Circle: Thirteen Steps
Radiohead: Hail to the Theif
Royksopp: The Understanding
That is just off the top of my head. There may be more. I know I could probably circumvent the protection with a sharpie, but I prefer to not pay for something that is essentially a broken CD.
The irony of it is at 15-20 $CDN a disc, the record companies have not only helped me choose to not give them a few hundred bucks but also managed to give me more reason to "pirate" that music all with one idiotic move.
So what is it they are really trying to protect here? My wallet?
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
I've been too lazy to hold shift so I just disabled autoplay:
Win95/98/ME get to properties of the drive uncheck auto insert notification
Win2000/XP run gpedit.msc Administrative Templates - System - Disable Auto play-enabled
Re:Nice comment (Score:5, Informative)
You are thinking inside the box. The simple fact is MS doesn't own the Phillips Compact Disk standard. MS is trying to sell a format that they do own. Seen any secure WMA files lately? They simply haven't gotten the labels to bite yet because too many players in cars and such still won't play the format.
Does anybody know if the CD contains the Compact Disk logo? So far I have avoided the copy protected disks simply by not buying any CD without the Compact Disk logo as registered by Phillips. I wouldn't want any DMCA liability that the band advocates by defeating a protection mechanism.
Re:NOBODY WANTS IT (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How stupid are Sony? (Score:2, Informative)
Sure, nobody involved in the making, promoting or distribution of the music gets a dime of it, but what the fuck do I care? The pushers of music don't get a fuck about me except as something to suck cash from. So why should I give a shit about them? And, luckily, I don't.
Maybe I'll go to hell for it. I don't really care. I still buy CDs from really good indie bands who deserve it. But you're fucked if you think I'm going to stick $16 in the hands of some assholes still profiting off of music from an artist dead long ago.
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
(bold emphasis mine) Except we all know that's not actually the truth. Sony still gets the money, and the copyright. Cue the href to the now-five-years-old Courtney Love [salon.com] article for more information.
Sadly, unless you're Fugazi, you're not likely to be heard by many people unless you sell out. Something about the world just not being a fair place or some such...
Re:CDs? (Score:4, Informative)
It's just a shame these discs don't have to be clearly labelled by law as not being "real" audio CD's. I basically don't buy CD's any more because it's a crapshoot as to whether you get a real disc or not.
Re:CDs? (Score:4, Informative)
All of which, given the title, is going to make it somwehat ironic if Texas' upcoming CD entitled "Red Book" [amazon.co.uk] includes any form of copy protection...
Re:One up for Linux and Alt OSes!!! (Score:2, Informative)
Back in the days of 2.4 kernels, you had to muck about with SCSI emulation,
For some discs, you might need a drive of 12X or slower speed. This is because older, slower drives seem not to read all TOCs as soon as the disc is inserted; so are immune to "protection" methods involving bogus TOC entries.
I once bought a copy-protected "CD" {Macrovision / Cactus CDS 200} just for the h4x0r challenge, and was so disappointed when it came through without problems that I have not even bothered to listen to it.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Informative)
In your country perhaps, but not in mine. We have no fair use rights, we can't even back up an audio or video CD/DVD to preserve the original from physical damage.
Re:Nice comment (Score:4, Informative)
There are a lot of rumors and reports about terrible copy protection in Vista, whether it's this or allowing only 'approved' monitors and the simplest solution is to switch to Linux. Unfortunately I still need Windows, and there's no way my wife would ever consider Linux at the moment so if copy protection gets too bad the best solution is to have a separate Linux box and do the rip/burn there. I can say for certain that I have no need to upgrade to Vista now, but when I do buy a new PC I'm sure it'll be on there.
My current setup would be a decent linux box, good enough for web browsing, listening to music, and ripping CDs. Then all I would need to do is set up a shared drive on the windows machine that I could access across my home network. Am I right to assume that Linux can read NTFS but not write?
Re:CDs? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nice comment (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, that's correct. Though you can read and write to an NTFS drive across a Windows network using Linux.
Re:Nice comment (Score:5, Informative)
The good news is that they're becoming less common - I've seen some very unwelcome uses of CDS here in the UK (including a jazz CD) but most new CDs I've seen from EMI/subsidiaries, the biggest users of CDS previously, have been protection-free; and new issues of some of the previously protected CDs, like Blur's Think Tank, have been CP-free. Which is certainly a good thing.
As for the Switchfoot protection, this is almost certainly the pain-in-the-ass SunnCOMM MediaMax system as seen on a lot of Sony USA albums. It's basically a legal trojan - it will install its Windows service even if you decline the licensing agreement (illegal in the UK under the Computer Misuse Act, which may be why we haven't seen many MediaMax CDs outside the States; they usually turn up as either CDS or unprotected instead.) It may be a good idea not to load the CD as Administrator, as well as turning off autorun.
Since it's a service, it's removable from the Computer Management services screen and from a hard to find link on he SunnCOMM website, but it has an obscure name - "SbcpHid" according to the CD3 analysis here [princeton.edu], although I suspect they've either changed it now or added a partner (can't find any info to suggest otherwise). Can't someone sue them?
Re:Nice comment (Score:5, Informative)
This almost certainly falls under various US anti-spyware laws. It *probably* falls under good old 18 USC 1030 [usdoj.gov] as well. The reason why spyware and other trojans don't is the nominal "authorization" of the EULA. If it installs even when you specifically decline that authorization, that should be a violation of law. Granted that the odds of any DA choosing to go after media companies for this is... poor.
Re:Nice comment (Score:2, Informative)
Mac OS X will automatically open a Finder window upon mounting read-only media (and usually network volumes as well), but no code is executed.
Not sayin' it's good or bad, just sayin'.
-Foo
Re:Wow (Score:1, Informative)
Run a free software OS and free software on that. (Score:3, Informative)
There's nothing to stop the harm as long as you run non-free software. The reason spyware, adware, and such can work is that nobody but the proprietor can inspect, share, and modify the program. This means that nobody else can distribute an improved version without the annoying or malicious parts of the program.
So, even if one runs a free software operating system and runs non-free software on top of that, one is not safe from the harm of malicious software. The solution is to run a free software OS and run nothing but free software on top of that.
As for DRM, the EFF has pointed out how DRM is already being leveraged against users [eff.org]. Fighting this will require more organization around the idea that one's customers don't deserve to be treated so shabbily.
Re:Nice comment (Score:3, Informative)
And no I am not Catholic.
And it shows in your post. You've just outlined the Protestant position on the problem of "justification". RC doctrine is not precisely antithetial to this doctrine, in that it agrees that salvation is by grace (e.g. that it is not a human right but a gift). However, RC theology goes on to a number of other concepts such as the redemptive value of suffering, the increase of grace through merit,or the loss thereof through mortal sin, which amount in affect to the ability to increase the probability of salvation or to lose it altogther via works.
So, neither you nor the poster got it exactly right.
In any case, I think the point of who is more meritorious is somewhat irrelevant. It is possible to use people through the pretext of serving them, or to serve people while engaging with them commercially. Even if materially you sacrifice for the material benefit of another, it is quite possible to exploit them in other ways, for example for social status, for ego gratification, or, as in the case the poster posited, for the purpose of ensuring ones' salvation. It should be noted that there is in RC theology no merit in an action that is intended for the selfish purpose of personal salvation.
At least in my opinion, the fundamental issue is recognizing the humanity of other people and responding to it appropriately. If you have a commercial relationship with somebody, it does not, or at least should not, preclude this.
Re:Nice comment (Score:3, Informative)
Mac OS X does not support automatic execution on mount.
Returning broken CDs (in the UK) (Score:2, Informative)
If something that a reasonable person would interpret as being a CD that ought to work (and that hasn't specifically been pointed out to you before you bought it; something a reasonable person would expect, like being in a big box marked "SCRATCHED CDs - 25p"; obscure labelling on the back that it ought to play, but might not, won't do) was bought by or for you, and won't play in your CD player (any of your CD players or anything that ought to play audio CDs, regardless of whether or not it plays in the shop's CD player), it can be returned, in a complete, reasonably as received state, opened or unopened, to the retailer for refund, repair or replacement, at YOUR option under the terms of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended), Section 14, (2B) (a): a failure to meet the "fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied".
You have a reasonable expectation; you buy an audio CD, or something that substantially appears to be one, it should play in things that play audio CDs. If it doesn't, you can take it back to the shop, regardless of whether or not it's been opened (how are you supposed to know if it plays without opening it? Psychic CD player?), within a "reasonable period" of time (exact limits are deliberately not rigidly defined, could be 28 days up to 6 years), and get a refund.
You don't have to accept a replacement in lieu, and they can't refuse to give you a refund if you demand one.
The shop does have to accept returns of opened CDs, if they are faulty and weren't marked specifically as faulty, or won't play.
If the shop is inclined to push it, you may need to prove it won't play; if it really won't play, this shouldn't be a problem. Bring the player along, and some working CDs to demonstrate your player isn't at fault. And remember, it might play in the shop but that doesn't prove it doesn't play in yours. (This may be awkward in some cases, but don't let that put you off, it's not £18.99 worth of awkward, and that damn CD was.)
You can demand a refund in cash. The shop can offer vouchers or a credit note, but if you demand, can't refuse to give you your cash back.
The shop is liable, not the manufacturer/distributor; that's the shop's problem to sort out, in the return channel (and they don't want to have to, which is why they really don't want to have people knowing widely about this and quoting at them).
In fact, you don't even need a store receipt; it would not be unreasonable for the shop to want some proof of purchase, but any proof of purchase will do (credit card receipt, bank statement showing transaction, cheque stub).
If the shop flat out refuses to offer you a full refund in cash, threaten to call the local Trading Standards. If they still refuse, make the call to the Citizens Advice Bureau, and follow up in Trading Standards. You can make a claim in a Small Claims Court if you feel inclined to push it, and this is very cheap and does not require a solicitor.
If even one person did this in a substantial minority of stores, distributors would no longer distribute protected discs in this territory. It wouldn't be worth the bloody hassle.
Limited user != full lockdown (was Re:Nice comment (Score:3, Informative)