Universal to Copyprotect All CDs 887
angkor wrote in with a link to a story about how Universal Plans to
copyprotect all CDs which
will render them unplayable on Macs, DVD Players, PS2s, and some CD Players.
And it won't even stop people from ripping MP3s I bet.
Obvious solution to this (Score:5, Insightful)
Vote with your wallet. It's the only true voice you have in a capitalist society.
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:2)
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:3)
"See, we copy protected them, and the Evil Hackers(tm) copied them anyways! We need to lock down all computers! How else can we make money???"
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:5, Informative)
Funny you should mention that [wired.com].
Quoth Wired: "Jack Valenti predicts that Congress will require copy-protection controls in nearly all consumer electronic devices and PCs."
Quoth Tackhead: "Jack Valenti can take a long, hard suck on my arse."
The scary part is the article's title: "A Call to End Copyright Confusion". I don't see any confusion. I'm sure Jack isn't confused either.
Right now, ripping is legal. Distributing ripped MP3s isn't. Jack wants to make sure that ripping is also illegal, so he can sell us the same movie twice - once on DVD, and once on our PC. Just like Hilary wants to sell us the same music twice - once on copy-crippled CD, and once-per-listen on our PCs.
The other scary quote from the Wired article: "'I am openly, unabashedly in support of the government stepping in to set standards,' said Preston Padden, head of government relations for Disney."
1) Head of government relations. Nice title for your business card. That's right. Walt Disney, the cute little mouse company, has a position that might as well be called "Ambassador". No fucking wonder they get the copyrights on the Rat extended on demand. They've fucking got an embassy.
2) The word "standards", and all that implies.
I think we can see the spin for SSSCA right now. Existing copyright laws are somehow confusing. Existing copy control technologies are broken because they're not standardized across all devices. We therefore resolve the "confusion" by having the government adopt Jack and Hilary and Mickey's "standard" in all devices.
If you make hardware that doesn't meet the standard, you're guilty of making things "confusing" for the consumer, and nobody will buy your product. (And men with guns, "empowered" by the new law, will "protect the consumer" by taking your hardware off the market.)
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:5, Informative)
You missed the really scary quote from that article:
Need we say more?
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:4, Insightful)
What's so scary about that? I mean, besides the fact that it's legally accurate?
Section 107 of the copyright at, which describes the doctrine of "fair use," sets for particular instances where reproduction of a copyrighted work is "not an infringement of copyright." Specifically, reproducing some portion of a copyrighted work is not considered a violation of Section 106 of the Act (which vests exclusive rights in copyright holders to control the reproduction and distribution of their work) where, among other things, the purpose of the reproduction is for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research."
In other words, when I publish a review (i.e. criticism or commentary) of the new Britney Spears album, I can quote lyrics from the songs without infringing on the copyright in those lyrics held by the author, but can't republish those lyrics in part of my novel about a young teen pop star. I can use clips of the "Lord of the Rings" movie in a news story (i.e. news reporting) about the advances in movie technology, but I can't videotape the whole movie and give copies of it to my friends.
Granted, the concept of a "right to fair use" and fair use being a "defense against infringement" is subtle, and probably just semantics. But the doctrine of "fair use" isn't the idea that you have a right to do whatever you want with a copyrighted work, as long as you consider what you're doing to be karmically "fair."
Re:legally accurate? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that what scared the original poster with the "fair use is a defense against the charge of infringement, not a right" quotation is that, just as with your murder example, even if you shoot someone in self-defense, you still get the fun (a) arrested for shooting somone, (b) tried for murder/manslaughter, and (c) drained of your finances in the process, whether you are convicted or not.
(It also implies that the defence of fair use may legally be taken away from you, either indirectly through DMCA - which is silent on fair use per se, but since you have to violate the DMCA to get your fair-use snippet of video, you still go to jail. Or directly, by whatever they do in SSSCA.)
The industry's goal is to make "fair use" a right -- in the sense that both Bill Gates and that homeless bum down the street have the same right to sleep under a highway overpass.
The REAL reason they're doing this (Score:5, Insightful)
Good article. There's another article that might explain Universal's reasoning for adding copy-protection. (HINT: It really has little to do with piracy.)
http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,49188,00.html [wired.com]
On Tuesday, Universal Music Group becomes the first label to sell copy-protected CDs in the United States with the release of its soundtrack Fast & Furious -- More Music. This comes at a time when the recording industry is asking consumers to pay for music that can only be listened to on the PC.
The newly released CD will keep people from listening to their music on the computer, game consoles and other digital devices. If they wanted to go through the major labels to buy the same music for their computer, the only way would be to sign up for Pressplay, one of the major label subscription services, when it launches later this month.
Essentially, consumers would be required to pay once for a physical CD and once for the digital music file. The restrictions for online subscription services and physical CDs are part of a music industry-wide attempt to stop online music piracy.
Bascially, they want to move everyone into a position where they get paid everytime you "space-shift" your music. Playing your CD in CD player? Pay for it once. Playing it on the computer? Pay for it again. <begin sarcasm>After all, we've got to keep those RIAA pockets filled, don't we?<end sarcasm>
Linguistic Spin Applied (Score:3, Interesting)
are part of a music industry-wide attempt to stop online music piracy.
Gotta hand it to them for defining the language in their own terms - that wins half the battle in the sea of unwashed masses. Kind of like defining your opponents as "terrorists" and your collaborators as "freedom fighters".
Imagine how this would go over if the language were altered to read:
This doublespeak is continued with phrases like "Digital Rights Management" that IMHO is more accurately depicated as "Content Use Restriction". Suffice it to say, you'll never see the daily newspapers and national media outlets use any terms except those generated by their owners.
This is all to be expected, though, as evidenced by how he term "hacker" has acquired a strange foreboding and malevolence in the popular media, whereas the technically adept, those most like to "hack", know the difference between a hacker and a cracker.
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:3, Interesting)
So, it now becomes worthwhile for the RIAA to make examples of a few people in an attempt to scare everyone away.
I had initially thought that this was a complete misunderstanding of what copy protection can do. Used to be copy protection was semi-effective against people who had to trade physical media (diskettes.) However, when you're talking about medialess copies (downloads) none of this applies. One technical guy makes an MP3 (which you can always do from the analog output if you have to), and everyone on Gnutella does an expotential expansion of the number of copies.
However, I now think the first scenario I mentioned is much more likely.
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:4, Insightful)
And do you know who that will be blamed on? Right. It's the fault of the nasty internet pirates! So, we need even more protections.
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:5, Informative)
I've made my call to the Federal Trade Commission. Have you?
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:5, Interesting)
Obligatory Warning (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, don't buy and return from the indy and/or mom-and-pop shops. Buy and return from Circuit City, Amazon.com, Wal-Mart, etc. (The bonus with buying from Amazon is that if they don't identify the offending CD, you might be able to get them charged with mail fraud)
Re:Obligatory Warning (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, if the mom-and-pop stores really cared about their customers, and were really worthy of the support taht you people always want to throw at them, they'd save themselves the trouble and NOT STOCK THE CDS YOU'RE GOING TO RETURN. By selling those cds they are just as guilty as any store, if you're going ot be mad at HMV for selling defective disks and helping the record industry, you've got to angry towards the mom-and-pops as well.
You're either for the copy protection, or you're against it.
Re:Obligatory Warning (Score:3, Interesting)
Two reasons:
I. On principle. Because generally, the mom-and-pop shops are owned by people who are motivated by something else than pure profit. They're mostly music fans who're trying to make a living working with something they love. Ever seen the movie "High Fidelity"?
It's a lot like Wendell Berry's description of old-school farmers vs agribusiness:
"Though my father had left the farm and become a lawyer, though he had become in a sense more than a farmer, there was also a sense in which he refused to become less. In addition to, and in spite of, all else that he had become, he remained a farmer. Alongside the knowledge and abilities by which he functioned in courthouses and offices... he kept the farmer's passion that sees beyond the market values into the intricacy and beauty of the lives of things.... to him, crops and animals were not only to be sold, but to be studied, understood, and admired for their own sakes..."
II. It will be more effective if you do it with a larger chain. They can absorb more loses, but they can also complain louder than mom and pop shops.
This isn't to say you shouldn't return a CD that you bought from a mom/pop shop if it IS defective or you can't use it how you'd like. You should. Just don't go INTENDING to the that. Save that for the Media Plays, the Wherehouses, the Sam Goodys, and yes, even Tower Records.
Re:Obligatory Warning (Score:4, Interesting)
You make three incorrect assumptions:
I work for Amazon.com and hurting a retailer like us does not effect higher ups like Jeff Bezos, it effects people like me, the lower level owners of the company. My stock is not worth much, so when you damage the company your not hurting someone who owns a million or so shares of stock that they bought at 25 cents or less, your hurting people like me who own a few thousand where the buying and selling price is very narrow. If I sell stock, I do not get much, or worse yet, my buying price is above the market price!
The second flaw is that everyone who works at a large company is evil does not care about customers and thus desires to be hurt. Most employees of large companies care alot about the customer and thier experiences with thier company. Alot of the large companies spend lots of money and time figuring out how to make the shopping experience better and more enjoyable.
Third, you make the assumption that Mom and Pop stores are not motivated by pure profit. Mom and Pop places are just as motivated by profit as any large company, they just do it on a smaller scale. In the free market, all persons who own a business are motivated by pure profit, if they are not, they quickly go out of business.
Re:Obligatory Warning (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone needs to turn a profit from business, but that doesn't mean they are in business only for the profit. Many people I've talked with personally (including a number of record shop owners) derive utility from the work they're doing. They do it because they derive satisfaction from doing the work or providing the service, and are content with making a living at it. Let me reiterate: they have a motive -- other than profit -- for doing what they do.
I have noticed that mom/pop/indie store owners tend to be more knowledgeable (breadth and depth) and passionate about music than their Media Play counterparts. Sure, they're there to sell something and keep the roof over their heads. But they're also there -- instead of getting their MCSE and getting paid double working in IT -- because they're doing work that's in line with their personal mission. In the process, they usually end up providing better service to customers.
I'm not saying that every small shop is that way. They seem to tend to be, though. And conversely, I'm not saying everyone who works at a large corp is evil...but, I feel like I get poorer service at Media Play and Sam Goody and the like. My theory is that once a corp becomes large and public, the obligation to the (often absentee) owners becomes almost purely that of investment. In our current system, most of the owners are simply looking for a good place to invest their money which will get a good return. They're abstracted away from the operations and mission of the company, and often don't have any interest in the product at all. Just return on investment. Those who make policy decisions high up in the company are thus only affected by financial pressures, and thus customer service and product quality only means something to them in terms of costs and returns.
My stock is not worth much, so when you damage the company your not hurting someone who owns a million or so shares of stock that they bought at 25 cents or less, your hurting people like me
First off, no one is trying to hurt amazon or the retailers, but....
Any action that people could take which would make an appreciable impact on stock prices in the way you describe would be noticed by the ceo, the board, and investors at large. Some of these people may have got in when the getting was cheap, but a lot of them didn't, and furthermore, they have large enough investments in the company that a fluctuation of a quarter can gain/lose them millions in some cases.
Anyway, back to the point. No one is trying to hurt the retailer, but rather punish the publisher. The large retailers have much more clout with the publishers. Returning lots of CDs to Amazon won't hurt them -- they have the clout and motivation to write it off to the manufacturer/publisher. Thus, returning lots of CDs to Amazon is much more likely to hurt universal than returning them to Crandall Records in Orem Utah.
Your argument is pure crap.
While I realize this is not an uncommon mode of discourse/rhetoric on slashdot, avoiding statements like this will actually give you more credibility and respect. Try actually refuting my arguments next time.
Universal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:4, Informative)
Picture this scenario:
The artist is in hock to the record company for a few hundred thousand dollars. This is typical, and pretty lowball, actually. The way the artists gets out of debt to the company is through royalty rates: Out of the sale price of the CD you've bought at Tower, Tower gets a cut, the distributor (possibly a shell company owned by the record company) gets a cut, leaving the wholesale price for the record company. Let's say that's $10, just to keep the numbers easy.
The songwriter must get paid, by law. Last I checked, it was
The rest of the musicians in the band get $0; they don't get paid until they are out of debt to the record company. Out of the $10 wholesale, they get say 6%, and the hundreds of thousands they owe the record company are made up out of this 6%, not the wholesale price of the CD.
The record producer gets paid by the company. He probably has a 15% cut of albums shipped. So he gets $1.50 for the CD whether you bought it or not, just because it's at the store. So the company is down $1.50 per cd for the producer, right? Nope. That expense goes to the artist to be recouped from their royalty rate.
The artist also gets to pay for packaging out of royalties. This is an absurd amount, like $1.50 - $2.00, more than I pay to do it myself in my room, and way more than an independant would pay a pressing factory. There's also a deduction for breakage that's around 1%, I believe. Also, the 6% they get is not actually 6%, since the record companies even in this day and age consider CDs to be 'expirimental media', and they pay about 1/2% less on CD sales. Let's say they bump this figure up to 1% because of this radical new anti-pirate technology.
So, along comes you, returning your shitty copy protected CD to Tower.
Scenario 1: Tower puts it in its cut bin. Record Company gets paid, producer gets paid, distributor gets paid, Tower gets paid, albeit at a lower rate than normal. Songwriter does not get paid, royalties on sale are not credited to band.
Scenario 2: Let's say Universal refunds the wholesale price to Tower and to the distributor. First, the distributor is probably Universal itself, so the difference between the wholesale and the distributor's price is still in Universal's hands, but written off as a loss to be deducted from the band's royalties. Universal is now in posession of a number of "defective" CD's. They could:
This is the kind of creative accounting that goes on in the record industry. I guarantee that the copy protection WILL be used to justify paying artists a lower royalty rate on the front end, and to further reduce payment to them on the back end. That's just how they work...
Even better (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:3, Interesting)
Better solution: Buy them and return them.
Better still: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, for every Slashdot reader (Score:5, Informative)
SPREAD THE WORD. Evangelize at your local record store. Bring it up in conversation. Dangle CDs from your car mirrors and prepare a 10-second explanation that you can deliver at stoplights. Tell your aunt blabbermouth, make sure she's got the facts straight, then let gossipnet take over.
I meant the outside mirrors, so it attracts atten (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:2, Insightful)
--
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:5, Insightful)
Won't this just increase piracy?
Think about it. If I want to hear Twisted Wet Noodle's lastest single "Geriatric Cheerleader" and I can't play it on over half the devices in my house, guess where I'm gonna turn?
MP3's are becoming the only way to play on all forms of players (including DVDs).
Do all companies have this kind of disrespect for their customers? I really hope not.
Re:Obvious solution to this (Score:2, Interesting)
If everybody does it, they might think it's a revolution.
heck no (Score:5, Informative)
1.) The thing is labeled as CD Digital Audio (CDDA), which is in violation of logo, because in order to be CDDA, it must be red-book compliant, (or whatever book it is), and this copy protected CD is most definately NOT compliant.
2.) The CD is "defective" because it is labeled as CDDA, but does not play in a CDDA compliant player, ie my DVD player, my computer, etc etc.
Re:heck no (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking as someone who ran a record store for eight years, my prediction is that at some point in the next year Universal and the other labels involved in this scam will do two things:
1) They'll stop accepting returns on all copy-protected CDs. If you don't like it, go pound sand. Sony stopped accepting returns on opened CDs several years back because they felt that their production methods had improved to the point where genuinely defective CDs represented a "statistically insignificant" percentage of their output. The reality from where I was standing was that Sony's defective CDs were coming in at about the same clip as always; Sony just didn't want to deal with them.
2) Universal (and other companies involved in similar practices) will either a) ignore the CDDA red-book standards and dare them to just try and do something about it, b) bail on the CDDA and create their own in-house red-book standards, or c) lobby the people in charge of the CDDA standards to change the red book.
One or both of these things will happen, but labels will not accept an unlimited number of returns forever, particularly if they start seeing large quantities of CDs coming back to them.
No more universal CD's for me (Score:2)
Re:No more universal CD's for me (Score:2, Interesting)
This can't possibly float...too many people in too many offices around the world pop in a cd to listen while sitting in a cubicle for 8 hours.
Either that, or mp3 will become even more popular....the only way to listen to music on a computer!
Re:Listening to music at work is unprofessional (Score:2)
I wish you would grow a brain, growing up has nothing to do with anything.
Re:Listening to music at work is unprofessional (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not posting this for you or any of slashdot's need to see this info. This is strictly so that the Hilary Rosen RIAA-bot can see these numbers, understand why I'm so fucking upset with all this new copy-protection crap that goes completely against the consumer's wishes (the "customer is always right" no longer applies I guess), and formally state that I will not buy any Universal CD's with copy-protection on them, until it has been removed, or until an easy plugin for a computer program is made that circumvents the copy-protection completely. (I'm sure there are such plugins, I just haven't had the need to go find them for music CD's up until now).
P.S. I forgot to mention that one CD copy I have of my favorite group, the 77's, has been an out-of-print CD for some time now ("Pray Naked"). I burned a copy from a friend who still had it because my original copy was stolen from my car about 5 years ago. I would still pay upwards of $25 for a good condition original CD w/ Jewel case, but alas, it's a hard to find item, even on Ebay. Now you tell me, do I sound like I'm trying to get every CD I have for free, or maybe I just don't like paying for shitty NSync and Britney Spears drivel, and would rather try-before-I-buy?
Oh yes, and while you're at it, Hilary, why not cut out the kickback system you have in place with all the radio stations? I hear so much boring, repetitive music from uninspiring bands on the radio stations in this town that it's just silly. It's no wonder I get most of my interesting music over the internet in so-called 'pirated' mp3 form.
Re:Listening to music at work is unprofessional (Score:3, Offtopic)
I know this a troll, but I have to respond, if only to make the relevant counterpoint. I do listen to music at work. I have (nearly) my entire CD collection encoded as MP3s on one of my computers (the dual G4) at work, and set into a half dozen playlists. There's the debugging playlist, the speedhacking playlist, the algorithm design playlist, the interface design playlist, the asm hacking playlist, and the paced hacking playlist. Yes, they do pace me correctly for each of the above tasks. Yes, the speedhacking playlist is mostly speed metal and german techno. I'm severely ADD, non hyperactive, and even medicated, I can't focus without the music. I don't have it on when interfacing with customers or coworkers, but it effectively doubles my productivity having the music pumping through my headphones into my hindbrain. And believe me, I do not have a no-brains-required job. And I don't exactly look unprofessional when prospective customers are around. The headphones are discreet, and my desk is clean except for the four monitors, phone, soda, kleenex, and whatever papers, books, or notepads I am currently using. I wear professional clothes when customers are in town, and casual elsetimes. I'm currently working as a coder, damnit, not a salesman! As for nerf guns, no thanks. I paddle canoes in my spare time, and wouldn't mind getting the crew out on a paintball field on weekends, if so many of them didn't have young children, but this is no foozeball office. So why does it have a half dozen (out of sixteen) geeks with music pumping into their brains? Well, we're a genius heavy company, and there's a high correlation between intelligence and input/impulse driven thought... it's often looked to as the neurological basis of epiphany, among other things... so with a high intelligence crew, I'd say a pro-music policy is a good thing.
Fortunately, a most of the best stuff out there, for what I use it for, is not distributed by Universal and Co.
If it's 1s and 0s (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If it's 1s and 0s (Score:4, Insightful)
Even easier math to code up would be to play the audio to an analog channel and feed that back into the sound-in plug on your computer. If you are hyper-concerned about fidelity you can copy it four or five times and blend the copies together using an averaging algorithm (the composite stream is more likely to be accurate to the original than any of the instance streams).
Of course, none of this will protect you from the low quality of the original content, and frankly I think it's ironic that in order to protect the copying of a high quality digital stream they are basically degrading the quality of the signal. If I wanted a degraded signal I'd go back to tapes and vinyl (and please, no audiofile flames about sound range and that stuff, okay?).
I suppose I've just violated the DMCA by providing fairly vague instructions on how to circumvent this so-called protection (as in racket) device.
Well.. (Score:2)
A load of bull. (Score:2, Insightful)
well shit (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to pay for my music, but I'm not going to buy a product I can't use!
Oh well, I don't like the music industry anyway... I've been listening to more non-mainstream music...
Re:well shit (Score:3, Insightful)
But, apparently, the record companies are forcing me to download MP3s only from now on. I'd rather have the higher sound quality found in a CD, and the nice cover and booklets, but oh well, I'm being forced into this.
This will stop people Ripping Mp3's... (Score:5, Interesting)
If anything, any time I see a post on Usenet of Mp3's from a CD that is supposedly copy protected, the poster usually takes great pains to brag discuss the fact that he was able to rip despite copy protection.
Really, I think that even the record industry didn't expect the various copy protections to really work. What they're doing is building an easily hackable content protection system so that they can prosecute MP3 traders under the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.
Blame everyone but recording artists (Score:2, Funny)
Why don't they just do what every other failure in the past 3 months has done and blame "the tragic events of 9/11"?
I don't understand something... (Score:4, Insightful)
But if I play it on a Sony CDROM drive in my computer, it's bad?
First, how *exactly* does it know? As my dad used to say, "A laser is just a laser".
Prepare for massive consumer backlash. Even if people don't want to ever "rip, mix, and burn" (thank you Apple 'Dont Steal Music' Computer) they want to listen to their CDs when and where they want to.
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:3, Informative)
The standards are referred to as (I believe) "red book" for audio and "purple book" (or perhaps orange?) for CD-ROMS. Could be vice versa...
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:4, Funny)
Gee, wasn't one of the reasons that CD was pushed over vinyl was "superior audio quality" and "less noise"?
Oh well...
It works like this.... (Score:3, Informative)
Higher end CD players as well as CD-ROM drives, actually perform some type of Error Correction as it reads the data. A CD-ROM does this, because it must read the data correctly, or its useless as data storage. High end CD players do this, to correct for scractches, dust, etc etc.
Copy-protected CD's have deliberate errors in the error correction, so that the CD-ROM drive and high end CD-Players will think it just read unrecoverable errors.
Problem with Line-In (Score:2)
At this point, I'm tempted to get a Sony Mini-Disc player and record with it. Since my stereo CD player uses digital output and the MD recorder using digital input, I won't be losing as much.
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:3, Funny)
"Used" to say? As in famous last words?
Dad: "It's perfectly safe, son -- a laser is just a laser and
Son: "Dad?"
To quote, the REAL problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
There you have it, instead of letting true musical diversity create authentic, viable fan bases, the music industry has locked itself into the failing practice of top-down music manufacturing...reminiscent of a Soviet state capitalism that never worked either.
Maybe one day when a free market for music exists again, people will care.
Re:To quote, the REAL problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
I liked this terror-scenario from the article:
Speaking for myself, I don't want to keep the kids from copying the bubble-gum stuff and throwing it all around the school. I want the market for that to dry up, because the whole concept of a manufactured youth-culture is destructive to society as a whole and it deserves to be destroyed.Re:To quote, the REAL problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
Amen brother.
It's degraded to the point that our corporate-centric society is practically breeding American youth like cattle, both in the market of culture and the market of ideas.
Obey.
Work.
Consume.
Breed.
"Underground" music is now mainstream... (Score:3, Insightful)
While there's a big market for Britney Spears, there's another big market for "underground" music.
Thier sound or trite messages still doesn't distinguish the Backstreet Boys or Incubus from being a bunch of monkey boys who perform when you shove a quarter in thier ass.
It's all the same crap, targeted at a wide demographic of people and children, sending out the same old shit message, "Image is everything... Cultural, Political, Moral, Whatever..." (Note: Image refers to more than just external appearances. Include behavioral nuances and all elements of "culture")
What I do agree with is that these same people hawking Britney Spears have way too much influence on people. Hence, My opinions on fair use...
reminds me of drug laws (Score:2)
Violatino of the Red Book Standard? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like ground for a class action lawsuit once they start to arrive.
if they'll buy me a stereo for my office (Score:2)
Hey, here's an idea; list some bands CDs you won't buy if this happens. Note their record label. Compile a list - hell, just start listing them here!
Only when they see the kind of negative impact this will have on their sales will they abandon these silly strategies for boxing us out of owning music.
Unintended Consequences (Score:3, Interesting)
Buy it, open it, return it. (Score:5, Insightful)
What idiots... we long ago ceased being "customers" to them, now they just expect us to roll over and play dead. Forget that.
``They've been testing this in Europe and they're experiencing less than a 1 percent return rate from consumers. It really has turned out to be nothing,'' said Jerry Kamiler, TransWorld Entertainment's division merchandise manger. ``If we get the same results here, as I imagine we would, I don't think it's going to manifest itself into a consumer problem.''
Frustrating. (Score:2)
It'll be interesting to see if this gets covered by mainstream press much.
Meanwhile, this topic has been absolutely battered here on Slashdot.
Blank CD's outsell recorded ones (Score:2, Insightful)
Use their best weapon against them (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I am fed up with this charade and I would like to end it once and for all. I have the paperwork in front of me to take Universal Records to small claims court to recover the purchase price of the CD. Since Universal is not based in my area, it will be very expensive for them to send their high-priced lawyers to my county to deal with the charges. And, worst case, I will lose the cost of the CD (and best case, I will get a refund on the CD and make a political statement at the same time).
I strongly encourage all of you to do the same thing: buy whatever CDs you want, and sue the record labels if they are copy protected. Even if most of the cases get thrown out, it will be *very* expensive for the labels to take any sort of action against the thousands of individuals who are suing them.
The RIAA has been able to manipulate the legal system into standing up for their rights. Why shouldn't we do the same thing back to them?
~wally
This works quite well (Score:5, Interesting)
So, this could be a very effective strategy for dealing with record companies. With hundreds of lawsuits coming from different directions, they won't bother appearing in court and they will lose every case - making copy protection economically infeasible.
-sting3r
Re:Use their best weapon against them (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, Best Buy can now sue the distributor, essentially under the same grounds. (and it keeps going up the food chain from there).
But you have no cause of action directly with Universal. Only with Best Buy. It's kinda like Windows Refund Day: no cause with M$, but with the seller of the product.
Re:Use their best weapon against them (Score:3, Informative)
It's called an implied warranty of merchantability (see Uniform Commercial Code section 2-314) [cornell.edu].
I take no position on whether "you win" or not, but that's what it's called.
Re:Use their best weapon against them (Score:5, Informative)
:-)
history repeats itself (Score:2)
Unless the protection scheme's strength comes from the laws of science/nature (e.g. RSA) I think any scheme will be broken with enough time and CPUs applied to it.
Re:history repeats itself (Score:5, Interesting)
What we're witnessing is a rat backed into a corner. RIAA recognises that its days are numbered, and it's doing every goddamn thing it can to fight its way out of the corner.
It's beyond mere music piracy. They could live with piracy: they always have.
It's to the point where they can see that artists are going to go independent. And so they're desperately trying to invent a reason for artists to stay with them. "Music protection" seems to be the salespitch they've chosen.
But they're doomed anyway.
Artists don't need the megaexpensive recording studios. These days, most anyone can set up a decent studio for a relatively small investment.
Artists don't need the megaexpensive advertising. These days, anyone can gain popularity via web media. Fansites, mailing lists, word of mouth: it's worked before, it's working now, and it's hella cheaper than MTV.
Artists don't need the distribution chain. They can post to the web. As soon as a good payment system comes along, where the artist can be paid directly and receives most of that payment, the distribution chain is toast.
And artists have recently begun to discover that they can sell out concerts via the net. There's no need to for the megapop media orgy that the old-style companies provided. Word of mouth is doing it.
The writing is on the wall: as soon as the one hiccup is removed -- paying the artists directly, cheaply -- the RIAA is dead. Their *only* hope is to convince artists that music theft is more harmful than the music mafia.
Re:history repeats itself (Score:3, Insightful)
Artists don't need the megaexpensive recording studios. These days, most anyone can set up a decent studio for a relatively small investment.
Artists don't need the megaexpensive advertising. These days, anyone can gain popularity via web media. Fansites, mailing lists, word of mouth: it's worked before, it's working now, and it's hella cheaper than MTV.
Artists don't need the distribution chain. They can post to the web. As soon as a good payment system comes along, where the artist can be paid directly and receives most of that payment, the distribution chain is toast.
The industry is fighting everything you talk about here because they see a new dawn for them: TOTAL control of media.
To totally control access to a system, you have to control the whole damn thing, input to output, re their SSSCA, CPRM, DMCA, LMNOP or whatever the initiative will be. That means that you will need a license just to input. If by law, you use THEIR tools, you'll have to PAY to buy a license to publish. After all, the industry will control this. If the industry doesn't want what you're pushing, you get no license.
If you don't have a license, and it's illegal to go around their system, well, you have no independent artists. It's that simple. RIAA and MPAA win.
Make it cost them (Score:2)
Please... (Score:2)
> Some blame the sour economy. Others point to lackluster sales of hotly anticipated new releases from artists like Mariah Carey and Macy Gray, and the glut of look-alike, sound-alike boy bands.
Someone please tell me that was intended as sarcasm. The only reason I've even heard of Mariah Carey is because Jay Leno spent two solid weeks ridiculing her overhyped movie.
And what could be more hotly anticipated than a new release from one of a glut of look-alike, sound-alike boy bands?
It depends on how many MP3s are first-gen (Score:2, Insightful)
So the real question is, right now, what % of CDs are first-generation rips? Since we all know that any CD like this can be ripped (even if with a loss of quality from going the DAC/ADC in the sound card), they will be ripped. And then they'll be traded. So who cares?
The other interesting question is whether something like cdparanoia (which, from what I've heard, rips these CDs) can be considered a circumvention device even though it existed independently of (and before) the copy-protection being circumvented. I presume this would guarantee that it had "substantial non-infringing use" or whatever the standard is that they measure it by, but I dunno.
Universal *will* honor refunds (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article:
Universal told retailers that it would honor refunds on all returned discs -- even for CDs that have been opened.
This is great news. If you believe copy-protected discs are wrong, just buy one, open it, and return. In fact, buy 50 of them, open them all, then return them. If enough people do this, maybe Universal will get the message.
If you want to be even more eeeeeeeeevil, you could open it, rip it via line out, post the ripped tracks to newsgroups, then return it.
They asked for it.
--
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Refundable hacking? (Score:2)
Sounds good to me.
But you wait, Wal-mart and others will start advertising that it won't work on all those devices and that once opened, cannot be returned just because it doesn't work on known hardware.
Maybe the music sucks! (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the quality of the music that's being released? Did Universal, BMG, Sony, et al ever stop to wonder if part of the problem is that they're churning out bands that are carbon copies of each other? Do we really need more "boy bands" or breathy, heartbroken beauty queens? It's just like TV...as soon as Survivor became a hit, every network had to have a clone...but now that the market is saturated, ratings are terrible.
Oh, and what about the economy? I'll bet that if you're one of the million or so high tech workers who doesn't have a job anymore, buying the latest Brittany Spears CD is probably way down on your list, below, say groceries!
Piracy is always an easy card to play, and not just for the music industry. It's a whole lot easier it blame some kid with a ripper, a burner and a fast Internet connection for destroying their market than it is to realize that the industry itself, by churning out disc after disc of bubble gum flavored dreck, is killing itself.
-h-
Re:Maybe the music sucks! (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it jsut me, or is this in fact the networks doing precisely what they are trying to prevent -- they say loudly "your unrestrained copying will destroy quality and drive prices through the floor by saturating the market." Meanwhile, they copy each other and thereby destroy quality, drive prices through the floor, and saturate the market.
The difference is, I can actually see the deleterious effects of their piracy.
--G
Re:Maybe the music sucks! (Score:3)
Please. Go back and look at the Top 40 charts from 1991, 1981, 1971, and 1961. Half the songs have ALWAYS looked like clones to a segment of the population.
Britney Spears and N'Sync are popular because a large number of people who buy CDs like them, period.
Those of us who think they suck are also the most likely to think the entire record industry sucks, and refuse to buy CDs.
Good 'ole Hillary (Score:3, Funny)
Will someone please show this lady an episode of MTV Cribs?
new doublespeak: # of blank CDs vs. music CDs (Score:3, Interesting)
In Germany alone, one survey by market researcher GfK found that blank CD sales jumped 129 percent this year. Purchases of pre-recorded music dropped 2.2 percent in the same period.
What a bizarre and useless statistic. What's the point? I can't even begin to comprehend. Okay, for one thing, CDRs are much cheaper than CDs. The popularity of CDRs is rising, while pre-recorded music has been around for decades. Another thing, how do they know what people record on them, or if they've recorded on them at all? I've got stacks of blank CDRs to back up files. If I make a music CD it's from music that I bought on a regular CD.
I think they ought to compare the sale of bread to the sale of pre-recorded CDs. I bet they will find a real "disturbing trend".
Re:new doublespeak: # of blank CDs vs. music CDs (Score:4, Funny)
129% of blank CD's = 2.2% of music CD sales. With some basic math we therefore conclude an additional 2560% rise in blank CD sales will reduce music CD sales to ZERO. COOL! If we really want to wipe out the RIAA, all we have to do is all go out and buy a buttload of blank CD's!
-
Sony (Score:3, Informative)
IANAL, but wouldn't that open them up to some sort of legal action, since they also sell some of the devices that get broken by this?
Record Labels UNDERNEATH Universal Music Group (Score:5, Informative)
Just saying you won't buy from Universal isn't enough. Here's the list I found:
A&M Records
Decca Record Company
Deutsche Grammophon
Geffen Records
Interscope Rercords
Island Def Jam Music Group
Jimmy and Doug's Farmclub.com
MCA Nashville
MCA Records
Mercury Records
Motown Records
Phillips
Polydor
Universal Records
Verve Music Group
I also went through their list of artists, and saw a shocking number of artists that I either currenly own CD's from, or want to purchase some or all from their discography.
My next quest is to find landmail addresses for all the record labels *and* the Universal Music Group, plus the RIAA, as well as the artists of UMG's that I listen to, and start writing a lot of letters stating my disappointment at what they're planning to do, and how it stands to completely wreck my ability to purchase and enjoy their music.
I don't have a "regular CD player". Not _one_. The CD player in my car is based on CD-Rom drive technology. I listen to my music on my computer, or I pipe the audio out straight to the stereo and listen on the big speakers. I listen to my headphones at work while I do my design documents, and that's to MP3's I ripped from CD's that I purchased.
Frankly, their decision sucks if they want me to keep purchasing music from their group. Simple as that.
They're trying to kill the medium (Score:3, Interesting)
By making CD's that don't always play, they will turn people against CDs as a whole. It's looks like a standard FUD tactic.
Soon they'll introduce a 'better' medium with more capacity, other hype, and a player that is under industry control, like DVD without the security hole.
It's all a waste, people seem to like MP3's just fine. I don't like the quality myself, but I have no problem with the quality of sampled analog. A standard quality MP3 is no worse when ripped from analog than from a cdda track, and it's just a tiny bit more work.
They can kill CD's, and they will, but they can't kill the LINE OUT jack!
How to rip any music CD (Score:3, Interesting)
What you'll need are the following two pieces of hardware: a stand-alone cd player with digital output (either coax or optical), and a sound card, such as the Audigy Plantinum, that supports digital input.
With those two items, it is very easy to just hit play and record to make a perfect digital copy of the CD. End of story.
If you don't like the rules, stop playing the game (Score:4, Insightful)
So a label has announced that it will cripple all of its CDs... Did they announce that they will be cutting their prices in half to make up for the decreased functionality? I doubt it. So now all Universal CDs are effectively more expensive because you get less for the same price. Where do these guys learn their economics, from drug dealers? Get people hooked on the "good" stuff, then cut down on the amount of actual product they get for their money...
The simple solution, as others have pointed out, is not to buy the crap. More than that though, don't buy anyone else's crap either. Don't buy any CDs, DVDs, e-books, etc. Don't go to movies, don't rent movies, don't order pay-per-view, don't subscribe to premium cable channels, or possibly even cable itself. Don't buy anything because of ads on TV, radio, or billboards, in magazines, etc. Cut back on consumer electronics purchases, buy only used books, don't go to sporting events. If you do buy anything, only buy it when it is so cheap that someone must be taking a loss somewhere. The only way to change things is to get the entire entertainment industry to rethink its business model. Otherwise, we will keep getting less value.
If that is too drastic a step for you, then return the CDs right after you buy them:
Universal told retailers that it would honor refunds on all returned discs -- even for CDs that have been opened.
We're in this mess because the entertainment industry is driven by maximization of profits through decreasing value and not by delivering quality products at reasonable prices. Through marketing and legislation, they have fought to preserve this flawed model, which will succeed as long as people remain mindless drones who buy anything someone is trying to sell them. Yes, I realize that there really is no hope...
go look on morpheus... they're all there! (Score:5, Funny)
I then hopped on Morpheus (musiccity.com) and typed in the name of the album that was copy protected....
guess what?!
All the ones that I tried are there. So what does that tell you Mr. RIAA....?
False figures again (Score:3, Insightful)
This year in the US, the sale of matchs went up 57% indicating that teenage smoking is up over 200%.
For those that didn't get my example. How does that percent of blank CD sales mean anything as far as "pre-made CD" sales goes. People use blank CDs for all sorts of things. I have friends who make backups of there applications on CD once a day, 7 days a week. So, a spool of CD-Rs can go pretty quickly.
Back to the article. This is a difficault thing to stop, even telling retailers you won't be shopping there for the holidays doesn't work as expected. There are still a ton of dumb people out there that will buy an "approved CD player" if need be. Its only a matter of time until someone figures out a way to rip from theses.
How will computer hardware vendors handle this one. Think of the number of returns over something this simple. Personally, to make a point. I would force them to accept the return and give me my money back.
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
Re:Unreturnable (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless you RECEIVED it as a GIFT. DUH.
Re:Hi read the article (Score:3, Informative)
Yes they will. Please read down to paragraph 5 before posting, thanks.
"Universal Music is the most aggressive in its anti-piracy efforts, saying that all of its CDs will be copy-protected by mid-2002."
Re:Hi read the article (Score:3, Interesting)
Any next-term strategy characterized by the word 'saying' is far from living up to the word "plans". They're announcing that they're introducing one copy protected CD into the American market, so you could legitimately claim that they plan to release one. They've announced a press release 'saying' that by 2002 all their CD's will be copy protected - though they don't specify the method, or whether it will be anything like their trial balloon. I would at best characterize that as a "trial balloon", or maybe an "announcement", maybe even a "threat". But a plan? Considering that they don't even have artists on board, characterizing that remark as corporate strategy in my mind falls way short of the mark.
Perhaps I should have rambled on more when originally posting, without assuming this was obvious. Trusting the recording industry to actually do anything but what they've announced they're doing at the moment is not a habit I've been able to form.
But that wouldn't have given you an excuse to flame me, and honestly I think we could all deal with some more of that.
Re:Hi read the article (Score:3, Informative)
What part of "Universal Music is the most aggressive in its anti-piracy efforts, saying that all of its CDs will be copy-protected by mid-2002." do you not understand?
That is a dirrect quote from the article that you claimed to have read.
Read the article yourself (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Read the article! (Score:2)
Re:Go to Coconuts TODAY.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The indie music store makes nearly 100% of its money from selling music, and they typically have much better/wider selections than big corporate stores. If they end up losing a lot to ship it all back to their supplier, they might not be able to swallow the loss, even if it is eventually refunded. I'm all for pissing off the music companies, but don't screw your local music stores at the same time.
Eric
Re:Refund idea probably not that effective (Score:3, Informative)
A company with a sufficiently large number of returns has to set up a reverse supply chain. This can mean new computer systems, managers, re-packaging equipment, procedures, lawyers etc. It costs a fortune, and even worse can take up valuable senior management time which cuts down their ability to react in the marketplace.
Therefore most companies don't bother. They take the return as a loss and/or sell returned product at a mark-down price. Plus there's the additional store and supply chain staff needed to physically handle the returns and issue refunds.
Believe me, returns hurt the bottom line either way.
Example: One retailer I worked at reckoned they lost 40-50% of the sale price for every item returned. This was more than their margin, so they most certainly made a loss. I don't think this is untypical.
Basically, if retailers started seeing a significant number of return on copy-protected CDs, they would start to worry, and start to ask questions. Their buyers (the reccord companiesw customers, remember?) will most certainly take action if their boss tells them to "sort out this returns problem with Universal CDs".
Basically, I think the returns option could work if you manabged to add a few percentage points to the return rate. Difficult given the number of sheep out there, but if enough people were willing to put the effort in......
Re:Then it ain't a CD (Score:3, Informative)
ISRC codes are increasingly necessary to get a song on the radio in ANY circumstances- some stations won't even deal with you unless you have ISRC codes. It's also possible to take the audio and the ISRC code, and produce a degenerated copy of the audio that has the ISRC codes, normally not part of the audio stream at all, watermarked into it. This is not only for 'tape off the radio' controls, but also to automate royalty calculations- it's being pioneered in Japan, who are well ahead of the curve on this. Europe has followed and the USA will follow, and you won't be able to deal with radio at all without ISRC codes.
Here's the interesting part: ISRC codes are an ISO standard, not some record industry ploy. In the USA, the RIAA administers them- and you have to go through the RIAA to get an ISRC identification for your record label- but they do not charge for this, or demand an affiliation with an RIAA label.
I know, because I have an ISRC code for 'Airwindows' records. It is 'WA5'. I gave my home address on the form, and under 'distribution' I put 'Ampcast'. The guy at the RIAA I talked to, Marquette Mathis, was quite friendly. He wondered what 'Ampcast' was, and I explained it was an online burn-to-order hosting service that was able to handle true Red Book audio, hence my need for an ISRC code. He wondered if I knew how to use an ISRC code, and I replied "yeah, it's the Q subcode" which instantly told him I knew what it was. Now I just have to produce some CD masters in Jam (which I'm getting for Xmas!) and keep a good record (on paper, not just computer) of exactly which codes went to which individual songs- and if I can ever get my music 'on the air' in this new world of automated RIAA royalty payment, I will have tapped into THEIR mechanisms for royalties- and I'm the contact person for Airwindows.
There's life for indies and the underground in the old Red Book Audio CD format yet...