Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Music Media

Record Companies Sued Over Charley Pride CD 429

DevNova writes: "This posting describes a woman in California suing Fahrenheit Entertainment, Inc. and its label Music City Records over CDs she has purchased which use a proprietary music encoding scheme that prevents them from being listened to without the user identifying themselves. These CDs won't play on standard CD players, are not encoded in the popular MP3 format, and will not play on a computer until the user enters personal information. A large part of the suit is that Fahrenheit discloses none of this information on the packaging."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Record Companies Sued Over Charley Pride CD

Comments Filter:
  • Sort of like DVDs vs. DIVX.
    • by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Friday September 07, 2001 @01:35PM (#2263990) Homepage Journal
      DIVX? I was under the impression that DIVX video discs where designed to play once or twice then fade and be unreadable. I don't recall that technology requiring any more input that a remote control.

      Charley Pride, a long time country singer, is an ironic twist for this type of suit. I suppose, once she's entered her name, address, csz, country, birthdate, drivers license, ssn and given a blood sample, she'd be rewarded with a country/blues song, such as, "Got them Invaded Privacy Blues", "Someone exploited their server and is maxin' out credit cards in my name" or "Mrs. Brown of 2348 West Cloverleaf Drive, Wooster Massachusetts, 10112, USA, who drives a green '98 Ford Explorer and has iron poor blood, you've got a lovely daughter"

  • by cheesebot ( 265313 ) <erobinso.suffolk@lib@ny@us> on Friday September 07, 2001 @01:02PM (#2263768)
    she just doesn't want anyone to know that she bought a charley pride cd.
  • by perdida ( 251676 ) <thethreatproject&yahoo,com> on Friday September 07, 2001 @01:04PM (#2263780) Homepage Journal
    i am a musician and i give away all of it. i dont sell it.

    this is the only way to keep out controls like this.

    this shit is just going to get worse, and it makes me very quiet, i feel like everyone around me is a little fascist now. i won't take an opportunity in music although it's not likely i'd get one anyway since i don't look like britney spears.

    i guess that i am willing to get sick and die and not go to a hospital, or to have my own teeth fall out because i don't have benefits, so a corporate system doesn't own me.

    in a few months my honeymoon will be over.. if i don't post anymore it means i am gone for good.

    • I share your feelings of disappointment with the system, but:

      I don't think that you necessarily have to give up on the opportunity to make any sort of income to respond to that.

      Think performances. It seems to me that a totally legitmate way to deal with this is actually encourage people to distribute your music freely (online, on cd, on tape, on whatever), and then work various jobs to make ends meet.

      In fact, I think as long as one operates like this, people who appreciate your music have no problem paying a bit of cash to see a show of some form.

      Make the Music itself free(or GPL it(can one GPL music?)). Ask people to support (in a non-exorbantant fashion) you live.

      This seems like an entirely fair system, which brings listeners closer to the artist.

      • This just reminded me of something I saw flipping through cable channels once. There was a little spot about one of those has-been 80's hair bands (I think it was Poison). It was talking about how in their early days, when they were pretty much broke, they would let fans come visit their dive and tell them to bring a pizza or something. That's how they ate until they got some cash flow. I would have to say that for folks in that situation, the more exposure you get, the better. If MP3's had been around at the time, they probably would have been all for music sharing, because music sharing = more fans = more people at your concert = more people who want to come visit you = more pizza.
    • Another idea is that you can use your recordings to promote the real product -- your ability to write, perform, and produce your own music.

      That's what I do, anyhow.

      If I happen to make a couple of bucks selling the recordings, I usually just put them back into more "marketing" expenses, anyhow.
    • i won't take an opportunity in music although it's not likely i'd get one anyway since i don't look like britney spears.

      Britney is not a musician, she is a very good looking chamber maid for the RIAA.
  • ..Nothing like waking up in the morning and keying in your social security number so you can listen to that new CD.. You're morning relief is sampled by the 'smart toilet' and sent in to the lab for analysis.. The bio-metric toaster needs a finger print confirmation to make toast for you, and a quick retinal scan to send your dreams in to 'Global Corp' .. Why remove the wiring harness ever? But we did away with Piracy! Now everybody is RICH! Hoo-Ray!

  • by -douggy ( 316782 ) on Friday September 07, 2001 @01:05PM (#2263787)
    But the margin is protected by the DMCA and so is to small to write the solution.
  • So, does this mean that if the cramped label somehow managed to display all of this information alongside the parental ratings and the UPC code in 1-point type, everything would be OK?
  • A little off (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sawbones ( 176430 ) on Friday September 07, 2001 @01:06PM (#2263793)
    These CDs won't play on standard CD players, are not encoded in the popular MP3 format, and will not play on a computer until the user enters personal information.

    Actually the suit says that they won't play in standard Audio CD drives in computers, not that the CD won't play in a stand alone CD player. I should hope that the music stores them selves would refuse to carry something that won't even play in a regular CD player.
    • Re:A little off (Score:3, Informative)

      by AT ( 21754 )
      True, but some high end stand alone CD players play CDs just like computer CD drivers. This means the CDs won't work in some stand alone players either. The publishers make a huge assumption about how each kind of equipment decodes the CD.

      There are published standards as to how CDs work, and this particular CD don't follow them. Period.
      • How much sound quality would be lost if one plugged the "out" on a moderatly good stereo into the "in" on a moderatly good sound card and recorded that way? The sound is going from digital to analog and back to digital, but it's never leaving the wires. As long as one made a "master" copy at full sampling rate, then made one's recordings from that, I would not think you'd loose much.

        I'm just curious, because all these protection schemes seem to leave out the idea of a direct, hardware to hardware, copy being made, once the "appoved" player has decoded the sound. Since most decent sound systems are component systems, I don't see them removing the "out" from stereos, and since more and more people are playing with amatur video editing, I don't see them getting rid of the "in" on sound cards, so all of this is really kinda futile. At least that is how it seems to me, I might be missing something.

      • Re:A little off (Score:4, Interesting)

        by bigbadwlf ( 304883 ) on Friday September 07, 2001 @02:19PM (#2264307)
        A lot of Car CD players do the same thing... presumably to help prevent skipping.
        How will the record company offering a downloadable proprietary encoding of the music help someone listen to it in their car?

        I remember reading about this when they were planning it. I'm glad to see people aren't putting up with it.
        People who listen to Charley Pride are people like my mom... people who aren't exactly in the know.
        I'm sure they were counting on getting this 'technology' rolling at the expense of these people.
  • Summary not correct (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hieronymous Coward ( 165765 ) on Friday September 07, 2001 @01:07PM (#2263794)
    The letter makes no mention of the CD not working in normal audio players. Apparently the CD will not work in CD-ROM drives, but allows the user the ability to register with the record label and download a proprietary encoding of the song to play on their computer.
    • by garcia ( 6573 ) on Friday September 07, 2001 @01:20PM (#2263888)
      not the point. It would be like having a DVD not work just b/c you are playing it in a PS2. Before this year I *rarely* used my stereo (I had nothing more than a shitty old boom-box) and I *always* used my computer to play my music CDs.

      This is my right as a consumer to use whatever device I want. Doesn't matter if I can use this device to copy it (remember? I own the CD)

      Tough noogies.
      • It may not be the point, but the Slashdot summary is clearly incorrect - this suit is about not being able to play a CD you've purchased in a CD-ROM drive, while the Slashdot summary claims it's about not being able to play a CD you've purchased at all,, either in a CD-ROM drive or a standard CD player, which is clearly not the case, as it plays in a standard CD player just fine.
      • COSUMER MY ARSE! (Score:2, Interesting)

        trying to sneak this sort of crap past consumers.

        Well there you have the *real* crux of the problem. When see your involvement in this world, and the art you appreciate, as a function of being a consumer then they have you. When you stop to realize, that you are allowing your community, your government to enforce/condone and prosecute based on these kinds of fascist-business laws (intellectual property laws in general) you are in for a very serious uphill battle.

        These publishing houses, *MUST* be made accountable to the public they wish to serve. They must not collude (RIAA) to abridge the rights of citizens.

        If you think that your 'voting with your dollars' will make change - forget it. This is the way the USA presently works, and it really only works if you have *LOTS AND LOTS* of dollars. Otherwise you have no rights - your rights only exist in relation to your function in the economy.

        Thats just plain wrong. The USA is a Plutocracy, and crap like this (extortion of people in the marketplace) is allowed to persist - you can forget about any 'human rights' and Really start considering yourself a consumer instead of a citizen .

        Whats my point? Please dont call yourself a "consumer", and dont call me a "consumer" when you do so you give up your power in the struggle, you accept the pretence (above) as being the frame of debate (the 'playing field' or 'perspective') to those who will justify this type of corporate action in the name of 'free markets' (etc), and you re-enforce the myriad of propaganda-enforced memes and words used in your culture. The last 15 years the USA has been bombarded with images/language and crap that tells its citizens they are 'consumers' their involvment in the world around them is embodied in the way they shop - this is a terribly impotent position. When faced with the power struggle that is described in this article, the corporate interests will *always* be served when you accept the master|corporation|king|church - slave|consumer|fife|congregation relationship.

        If you think it dosnt matter; your wrong, go read some Chomsky [zmag.org].

        • by Tim Doran ( 910 )
          Thank you, thank you, thank you!

          Along the same lines, please never allow your elected representative to refer to you as a 'taxpayer'. God, there's no term more demeaning, more belittling... I mean, what happens if I should fall on hard times? I'm no longer a taxpayer, so I no longer count?

          The word 'citizen' needs to come back into everyday parlance.
    • All attempts to bypass copy protection are supposedly illegal under the provisions of the DCMA.

      So the next question is :

      Is filing a lawsuit to stop the data collection and to stop this practice in fact a violation under the DCMA, and an illegal lawsuit?

      you know somebody is going to try to argue that point, and may even find a nitwit judge to agree.

      - - -
      Radio Free Nation [radiofreenation.com]
      an alternate news site using Slash Code
      "If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"

    • allows the user the ability to register with the record label and download a proprietary encoding of the song to play
      on their computer.

      So this shouldn't really be a big deal? I don't know, smells like a crappy twist of 'Fair Use'. I.e. the record industry dictating a fair way to use.

      Some of us don't go around totally connected all the time, when I am connected at home, it's over a pokey modem, downloading something for each CD is a major nuisance. Plus, I don't want any crap on my drive that I don't know about. Turning control of my PC over to the RIAA? How long before a worm is in there sniffing for MP3s and turning me in, eh? (yeah, it'd be illegal as hell, but everything is legal until you get caught, just figure how to use to your advantage.)

      It should be required to post this requirement of use on the CD, particularly so people can decide for themselves what they're willing to pay for.

    • If the CD carries the "compact disc - digital audio" logo which you see on most CD cases, and so does the drive, then it should work without all this crap.
  • nope, sorry. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) on Friday September 07, 2001 @01:08PM (#2263802)
    There is definitly no way that any company should be able to collect information about a person that has purchased their CD. If this was a promotional CD I could see the point but if you purchase something it becomes yours (and you are free to do w/it whatever you wish) you paid a fee to give you rights. They are invading your privacy.

    The fact that they are hiding this from view is an obvious attempt at actually selling the CDs. No one is going to buy the god damn things b/c of this crap. Hell, I hate to shop at Radio Shack b/c of the fact that they ask for my private information and seem to feel it is their god given right to have it. (No, I will NOT give them any of my info even if I purchase my items w/a CC -- this usually really irritates the clerk -- the information they need is how much the item costs, how much I paid, and that's it)

    I am sick and tired of this crap. If I don't want to be known I don't have to be. Once you buy something you own it. That's it. Their ownership of the item stops when money exchanges hands.

    Fuck that.
    • If it is really important to the guy, then ask him to put in his own info ;) BTW If you phone radio-shack you can get yourself taken off their mailing-list.
      • yep, but if I refuse to even give them the information I don't have to go play fuck-around lay-around to get off the list. There is absolutely NO reason that they need that information when I go in there to buy a pair of wire-strippers and a bag of butt-connectors.

        No company has the right to invade someone's privacy and send them shit unless the customer wants it. If they asked, "Excuse me sir, would you like to be added to our mailing list for future product information." I would be more likely to say yes than if they do what they currently do, "What's your last name? What's your first name? May I have your home phone number? May I have your address?"

        I feel it is VERY rude to be asked personal information when buying something.
      • >BTW If you phone radio-shack you can get yourself taken off
        >their mailing-list.

        what? and give up the free beach balls and flashlights? Noooooooo!



    • Re:nope, sorry. (Score:3, Informative)

      by corky6921 ( 240602 )

      "There is definitly no way that any company should be able to collect information about a person that has purchased their CD. If this was a promotional CD I could see the point but if you purchase something it becomes yours (and you are free to do w/it whatever you wish) you paid a fee to give you rights. They are invading your privacy."


      "There is definitely no way that any company should be able to collect information about a person that has purchased their software. If this was demoware I could see the point but if you purchase something it becomes yours (and you are free to do w/it whatever you wish) you paid a fee to give you rights. They are invading your privacy."

      Damn. :( [cnet.com]

      So will CDs come with end-user license agreements now?

    • Re:nope, sorry. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Evro ( 18923 )
      Once you buy something you own it. That's it. Their ownership of the item stops when money exchanges hands.
      So I guess you've never heard of software licensing? There's very little software that once you purchase the CDROM you actually "own". When's the last time you bought an MS product and actually had rights to use it however you like? What's to stop the music industry from moving to a "licensing" model as well? They're all just bits, after all.

      That'll go over well. "Oh, you haven't paid your Led Zeppelin subscription fee, all your CDs will no longer work." See: DIVX (the old one).
      • I don't purchase software from MS so I wouldn't know.

        AFAIAC if I buy something and I want to resell it, there is little MS can do to stop me. I paid for the CD, it is mine. Tough if Billy doesn't like it.
      • Actually, there's very little precedent other than consumer willingness to obey that supports the notion that software purchased in a package is "licensed" rather than purchased. Sure, there's a label, and yes, copyright still applies, but if I buy a box containing software, I'd be glad to assert my right to resell it in its entirety or backup the disk. I didn't sign any contract, and as far as I know, tearing a sticker is not yet a legally binding authorization.

        I mean, if I accidentally tear the cover off of my book, does that mean I can't sell it because there are a lot of books now that include a note that it is likely than coverless books are "stolen" (because tearing the cover off is how bookstores get credit for overstocks)? If I can find a buyer, that is a perfectly legitimate sale. Same with software-- as long as I'm not keeping a copy of it for myself.

        This doesn't prevent software makers from implementing techniques like "phone home" to prevent more than one user from ever using a given serial number. But that's a different issue.
    • Re:nope, sorry. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Cruciform ( 42896 )
      I worked at one of those god awful hellholes for 3 months, and they had just implemented the name collection enforcement there... in other words our managers told us if we didn't get the names and addresses of 80% of all transactions we'd be fired.
      As much as I'd like to get the phone number and address of the cute co-ed who came in to buy a cell phone battery, I'd refrain from asking women for their info. Especially after one freaks out in the store asking if you want the information so you can follow her home or stalk her.
      So I got pink slipped.
      Best thing that coulda happened :)
    • Re:nope, sorry. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Jburkholder ( 28127 )
      >I hate to shop at Radio Shack

      I feel the same way, only RS apparently doesn't do that anymore. I needed a couple of d-sub connector kits to build a cable (hacking my bros TiVo) and went into the local RS. I was really surprised when the clerk added up the parts, asked me for the total, gave me the change, bag and receipt without asking for even a zip-code.

      I asked him about it... he said they don't do that anymore - too many people were walking out instead of buying stuff.

      Seems like it took a loooong time for them to figure that one out.
  • by ruebarb ( 114845 ) <colorache@hotm a i l .com> on Friday September 07, 2001 @01:09PM (#2263810)
    They're probably using this as a test for the RIAA...and they knew no hacker would try to break it cause no hacker would ever want to.

    I can hear the sales committee to RIAA 6 months later.."See, our propritary technology hasn't been cracked - it's safe to implement for all CD sales...

    Two weeks later...teenage munchkins find out they can't listen to Limp Bisquit and break the encoding...end of story.

    Funny as hell...why Charley Pride? Covering Jim Reeves, no less?
    • Actually, it may be better that it's a low-key country artist with a fairly mature listener base ... Courts are probably going to be a lot friendlier to a middle-aged Charly Pride fan than to a teenage Limp Bizkit fan. Let the grown-ups fight these battles; ultimately the kids will also benefit.
  • by johnstown ( 471249 ) on Friday September 07, 2001 @01:13PM (#2263832)
    CDNOW does mention the protection scheme in its synopsis [cdnow.com] of the CD. But they do call it a "ham-handed and unjustifiable response to the problem" of piracy.
    • Perhaps CDNOW could add a "Copy-Protected?" field in the searchable database. Then we could all de-select it (like some de-select Katz) and know that the CDs we buy are, in fact, real.
  • the sneaks! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Maditude ( 473526 ) on Friday September 07, 2001 @01:14PM (#2263841)
    This suit should be interesting to follow...
    "A large part of the suit is that Fahrenheit discloses none of this information on the packaging."

    My wife just bought a cd (arg! I can't remember the artist name, Toby sumthin-or-other, your basic country crapola [metal rules, imho]). Anyways, there was NO indication anywhere on the cd that it was copy-protected, but it absolutely could not be backed-up with ezcd (she likes the security and convenience of having copied-cd's for use in the car, and leaving the original at the house). After a couple of tries, I moved on to attempting to just rip the tracks to .wav files, which I would burn later -- not all of the tracks could be ripped, and the ones that DID, were full of static noise. Luckily, CloneCD [www.elby.de] didn't have any trouble at all.

    My point (having wandered a bit away from the original topic), is that more than one record company seems to be trying to sneak this sort of crap past consumers.
    • Re:the sneaks! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by FooDog ( 68645 ) on Friday September 07, 2001 @01:36PM (#2264001) Journal
      Now this is a damn good point! I've had my car broken into TWICE and had some miscreant make off with all of my original, fully paid for, not burned off the computer CD's. After that I started making copies of every CD I BOUGHT (If anyone from the RIAA is reading this, please make special note of that last word. Here, I'll even spell it out real slow so you can understand it: B-O-U-G-H-T....) so that I could put the copies in my car. If they got stolen, I just make new ones. If someone breaks into my HOUSE and makes off with the originals, well, I probably have bigger problems. :)
    • Just return it.

      If the clerk asks what is wrong, you tell them your only cd player is your computer cdrom and your cd program can't play it. If they press further, you prefer a cdplayer program with a buffer and the music is noisy and distorted with it turned on.

      People go out of your way to test the unmutilated status of audio cd's you buy. If it won't rip, it is broken, return it.

      Just because people listen to country dosn't mean we shouldn't stand up for them. :)

    • Because if so, you have just commited a serious crime. One that is punishable by heavy duty jail time. By linking to a web site which distributed circumvention technology, you are just as guilty as the criminals who are distributing the circumvention tech. At least according to the precedent set in the 2600 lawsuit.
    • Re:the sneaks! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by csbruce ( 39509 )
      A web site should be set up, like "fuckedcd.org" or something, that maintains a registry of copy-protected CDs, so that consumers can find out what albums they should avoid buying. Maybe it could be called "fuckedrecordcompany.com".
  • by cavemanf16 ( 303184 ) on Friday September 07, 2001 @01:17PM (#2263858) Homepage Journal
    It is our [the lawfirm in the article] view that Fahrenheit and Music City do not disclose the privacy intrusion and other limitations with specificity on the CD container since it would likely hurt sales.

    Wow, who would've thunk it?! Copyright control and protection mechanisms might hurt sales? While completely unrevolutionary to anyone who has actually USED Napster or other file sharing P2P networks, I'm sure this will just be an extraordinary revolution to Hillary Rosen and her cronies. Don't want to screw yourselves out of a bunch of extra profits? - just screw the customer out of their legally provided rights...

  • jury trial... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jeffy124 ( 453342 ) on Friday September 07, 2001 @01:18PM (#2263862) Homepage Journal
    I noticed at the very end of the complaint that a jury trial is requested. This is good because if that request is granted, it will mean that regular Joes and Janes will be the ones deciding this case, and juries have traditionnally tended to lean toward what they personally feel is right, not what is legally right.

    Natuarally the defendants will do everything hty can to block a jury and have just the judge.
    • Re:jury trial... (Score:2, Informative)

      by smarner ( 212673 )
      This will never go to a jury. There are no readily apparent major issues of disputed fact - - the questions are all legal. In that case, the matter is unlikely to even go to trial. Assuming no settlement is reached, the case will likely be decided -- by a judge -- at the summary judgment stage.
  • by Dimensio ( 311070 ) <darkstar@noSpam.iglou.com> on Friday September 07, 2001 @01:25PM (#2263915)
    Fahrenheit Entertainment, Sunncomm and the RIAA have announced a lawsuit filed against Ira Rothken of The Rothken Law Firm and his unnamed client for attempted circumvention of a copy protection device. Attorneys for the plantiff claim that by attempting to use litigation to remove a copy protection method the defendant is effectively circumventing that method and thus in violation of the DMCA. They also argue that if their clients were forced to identify products protected by this device it would weaken the effectiveness of the device and could ultimately lead to circumvention; therefore the defendant should be liable for contributory circumvention of a copy protection device.

    The RIAA was not available for comment, but the FBI has raided the offices of The Rothken Law Firm on a sealed warrant in search of evidence.
  • AYR (Score:3, Funny)

    by ImaLamer ( 260199 ) <john.lamarNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday September 07, 2001 @01:28PM (#2263944) Homepage Journal
    RIAA: All your rights after you bought this cd are belong to us.

    Fahrenheit: Someone set us up the worst idea ever.

    Consumer: Main screen turn on [then enter my SS#, then my DOB, then my mothers maiden name, then my biometric information]

    RIAA Again: Gentelman... all your standards are belong to no one

    -=Nothing useful to post, just want to let you know=-

    Actually I 99.9% agree with the case against napster and I can't believe I'm downloading unsaid music videos now, but this is out of control.

    Trying to kill the mp3 format because of P2P is like trying to kill .jpg because of pr0n pics are being traded.

    Lets all switch to our own formats that only our own computers can read... fu** everyone! Like Bush said yesterday, scared people build walls, confident people tear them down [not his line, of course]
  • Nice suit, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Masem ( 1171 ) on Friday September 07, 2001 @01:29PM (#2263951)
    If you take a look at the last few lines of the linked article, and most the suit, in fact, it talks about how this is all falling under deceptive practices for not labelling the CD package as containing a non-standard CD format or having a privacy notice on the CD.

    I'm worried that all the recording companies will do is add in the fine print at the bottom of the back side cover that says something like "This CD is protected by the use of the FairUseSucks System and may not play on computers without entering personal information. Please visit www.weownj00.com for our privacy policy; opening of this package indicates your agreement to this policy". Bingo, they have just gotten out of a lawsuit.

    At this point, one would then need to envoke the infamous time-shifting case to fight back for fair use.

    • But then you would simply not buy the CD, thus saving yourself considerable heartache.

      I think the suit has an excellent point - you were told that you could download it, and you couldn't. Easy case; they win.

      But, as someone else said, what damages do you get? $14.99?

  • by jeffy124 ( 453342 ) on Friday September 07, 2001 @01:32PM (#2263974) Homepage Journal
    I noticed the complaint letter doesnt list a dollar amount for damages. This is good because the defendants wont be able to offer a cash settlement very easily, like in many other cases. The woman here wants them to fix the problems for the better of the public and doesnt appear to want money in return.

    Reminds of a case several years ago when families were suing automakers for problems with airbags killing loved ones. People were suing for tremendoesly large cash settlements, and getting them, but the airbag problems were going unchecked, as newer cars still had the same problem. One man (who himself was a lawyer) lost his wife in an accident because of the airbag in one of those newer vehicles. He sued, but emphasized that settlement would only be reached if the auto makers fixed the airbag problems and refused cash settlements. The judge ruled in his favor and ordered the automaker to repair the problem.
  • The real damage here, is that being done to his reputation among his listeners.

    Not that I was likely to do so anyway, but knowing that his recent CD's are broken would give me a strong inclination not to buy them.

  • We are all saying that the disc wasn't labeled correctly to show the end user that it was fu**ed, but what about the Audio Compact Disc Label?

    The label that all CDs carry if they are using the standard shouldn't be on this disc.

    This isn't an audio CD if it doesn't play in my car, dvd player, sega dreamcast, etc.

    So, does it have that label? And if it does can't philips (or sony?) sue them?

  • by mr_vauxhall ( 516713 ) on Friday September 07, 2001 @01:40PM (#2264046)
    CDNOW says: One non-musical caveat: The CD is copy-protected, and cannot be played by anything but a standard audio player. If you wish to use your computer to listen to the music that you purchased on CD, you'll have to go to the website of the company providing the protection technology and download, one at a time, Windows Media file versions of the 15 tracks (and if you own a Mac, you're simply out of luck). Intellectual property holders have legitimate concerns about piracy these days, but this is a ham-handed and unjustifiable response to the problem So it will play on a standard audio CD player. How long before CD-Drive manufacturers add a "pure audio" mode to drives?
  • Easily fixed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fobbman ( 131816 ) on Friday September 07, 2001 @01:41PM (#2264053) Homepage
    Day One

    "Hi, I bought this CD yesterday but cannot get it to play on my PC at home. The other CD I bought yesterday plays fine, so this must be defective. Can I get a replacement?"

    Day Two

    "Hi, I got this replacement for a CD that wouldn't play on my PC yesterday and this one seems bad, too. Might be a bad production run of CD's. Can I try another?"

    Rinse well, repeat as necessary until all CD's of that recording are sent back to label marked "defective".
    • Re:Easily fixed (Score:2, Insightful)

      by blazin ( 119416 )
      It's a nice thought, but I don't think it would work past the 3rd CD. If you are coming in every day to return the same CD, the sales clerks are going to start remembering you and pretty soon the manager is involved. They take your "broken" CD over to the shelves of CD players and pop it in a random CD-audio play and amazingly your broken CD works. Now the manager is telling you that it must be your CD player that is broken.

      You can insist that everything else you own works great on it, but alas, he's shown you the one in your hand works perfectly, so it _MUST_ be your CD player that is to blame. Trying to explain anything about how a CD-ROM drive is different than a Disc Man to a mega-chain manager is a futile attempt at best.

      Plus there's the whole problem with having to waste a part of every day to drive to the store and wait in the lines to explain that once again your CD doesn't work.

      Maybe if you wore a different disguise every day?
  • No surprise (Score:2, Insightful)

    by igiveup ( 267632 )
    Is anyone posting really surprised by this? It is a logical extension of requiring registration for software.

    Next will come registering DVD movies. Then web-enabled devices such as game stations. Eventually anything with a microchip and the potential of connecting to a network will require registration.

    Imagine registering your web-enable toaster before getting your toasted Pop-Tarts.

  • by FFFish ( 7567 ) on Friday September 07, 2001 @01:45PM (#2264084) Homepage
    ...in this lawsuit was, I'm sure, working up the gumption to admit that she actually bought a Charley Pride album. Shudder.
  • The only person in the world that bought the CD is suing. That's gonna drive the cost of his next recording up.
  • My CD-ROM tray is empty, a victim of a broken record in-dus-try

    I bought Charlie Prides latest, but it wasn't like a regular C-D

    The wrappin said nothin' about this copyright protection scheme

    oh, this is worse than my wife leavin' me

  • I've seen alot of posts saying "Alright! The average Joe is finally becoming aware of copyright abuses!" which may or may not be true in this case. When the problem finally affected her personally, she took matters into her own hands. Kudos to her in either case, because the more things like this happen, the more challenged the legitimacy(*cough*) of the DMCA becomes. Now we gotta wait till the next Britney Spears CD or the next Limp Bizkit CD gets this copy protection crap on it, because then we'll see some REAL outcry... maybe that's why the chose Charley Pride: his CD would be a good test-case without angering a large segment of the demographic.
  • Package warnings (Score:5, Informative)

    by bigdavex ( 155746 ) on Friday September 07, 2001 @02:33PM (#2264380)
    For the interested, the outside packaging of "A Tribute to Jim Reeves" says this:
    This audio CD is protected by SunnComm MediaCloQ (TM) version 1.0.

    It is designed to play in stardard Audio CD players only and is not intended for use in DVD players.
    Licensed copies of all music on this CD are available for downloading.
    Simply insert CD into your computer to begin.
    On the inside, there's an insert that says this:
    Thank you for purchasing Charley Pride's "A tribute to Jim Reeves." This product is protected with SunComm's MediaCloq (TM) Digital Content Cloaking Technology designed to prevent unauthorized duplication or distribution of Digital Original(TM) audio files. To listen to "A Tribute to Jim Reeves" on your computer,

    1. Log on to the internet.
    2. Once you have established your connection, insert cd
    3. MediaCloQ (TM) will do the rest.
  • file swapping (Score:3, Interesting)

    by csbruce ( 39509 ) on Friday September 07, 2001 @02:54PM (#2264511)
    In other news, song swapping reached a record high level on the Internet in August as 3.05-billion files [cnn.com]were swapped using various systems. The peak for the "Napster era" was 2.79-billion files, but, of course, the RIAA took care of that problem.
  • by LionKimbro ( 200000 ) on Friday September 07, 2001 @04:02PM (#2264800) Homepage

    Let me get this straight:

    1. A bunch of Equity Lords find some artist. They pay the artist a little bit of money ("Someone's recognized my talent!").
    2. Then they pay some money to a brainwashing company ("Marketting consultants").
    3. The brainwashing company indirectly pay money to radio stations to get their songs played. More recently, the brainwashing companies have been flooding the period just before a movie plays.
    4. You hear a whole spectrum of music, and talk with your friends about what you are all seeing and hearing on that spectrum.
    5. The Equity Lords have CD's and paraphanalia for you to buy, so that you can express your opinions about what is seen and heard.

    Now lately, they've added a new twist: They collect information on you when you try to play your CD.

    And then you claim to be deceived.

    If it's just now that you think you are being deceived, and that the only issue to you is that your CD has some sort of odd protection on it, I'd think that you were more deeply deceived than you think.

    Listen to free music. Go to MP3.com, or one of the other various music sites, and download good music. It'll take some sifting, but you'll find it; it's all there.

    Learn about propaganda. Learn how it touches your mind. Then steer the hell clear of it! Otherwise, expect more messes like the one you find yourself in.

  • Enough! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kris_J ( 10111 ) on Friday September 07, 2001 @06:48PM (#2265595) Homepage Journal
    That's it. Enjoying new music purchased from retail stores is now officially "too hard". My new music experiences are now limited to MP3.com and secondhand music stores.

    Buying a nice CD at the local music place, possibly listening to it at home (I currently use a Sega Mega CD as a CD player), or listening to it at work (I just bung the CD in a CDROM drive and expect it to start playing), or maybe listening to it on the go (I have an MP3 player that plugs into the bottom of my Ericsson T28) should not be a battle between me and the music companies. If you want to lock down your music, fine, just don't expect me to bother trying to play it. Thus, don't expect me to buy it.

Truth is free, but information costs.