Record Companies Sued Over Charley Pride CD

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."

Comments

That will be short-lived

[ImpactSmash]

Sort of like DVDs vs. DIVX.

Re:That will be short-lived

[ackthpt]

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"

Re:That will be short-lived

[firewort]

No, the DIVX player required a phone line and had a modem that dialed in to grant permission to play the discs.

You could pay per view as often as you liked.

Re:That will be short-lived

[guttentag]

I would like to think so, but was DIVX backed by Microsoft? According to Fahrenheit's Web site:

The company's newly designed corporate website at www.sunncomm.com will serve as a portal to consumers and permit authorized CD owners interactive access to digital rights management (DRM) files -- a technology made available as part of SunnComm's technology relationship with the Microsoft Corp.(R).

DIVX failed (fortunately) because it asked too much of consumers without providing any real benefit over DVD. If Microsoft has an interest in seeing this work, they'll bundle it with some "convenience feature" to make people think they're getting something and then use WindowsXX and the HomeStation to ensure people buy it. With Microsoft's assurance that people will buy it, what record company wouldn't jump on the bandwagon?

P.S. - I particularly like this quote from SunnComm's CEO:

"The SunnComm team sees themselves as the warriors in the fight against what has become socially acceptable larceny which takes place everyday around the world. At the same time, we create a CD that brings greater enjoyment and broadens the musical experience of the consumer."

I almost died laughing, until I realized your average K-Mart shopper would believe that BS...

of course she's suing

[cheesebot]

she just doesn't want anyone to know that she bought a charley pride cd.

let's join the underground

[perdida]

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.

Re:let's join the underground

[WhiteWolf666]

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.

Re:let's join the underground

[Zordak]

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.

Re:let's join the underground

[Rimbo]

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.

Re:let's join the underground

[Jeremi]

Another way to do it is to accept voluntary contributions

Re:let's join the underground

[kindbud]

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.

Re:let's join the underground

[colmore]

OK, guy, just because you operate one way, doesn't mean that we all have to. Niche artists, even good ones, can't tour heavily enough to really turn a profit: Good Speed you Black Emperor (Canadian, noise / instrumental act) are very good, but because of the limited audience for their genre, they make most of their (modest) income off of those who hear them on independant radio, or word-of-mouth. They simply couldn't tour well enough to cover such sparse (but enthusiastic) support.

Or what about the *Beatles* from 1966 on they basically only sold records. Their popularity became a hindrance to their artistic expression on stage, and so they redirected their efforts to the studio and made some of the best god damn music of the twentieth century.

There's nothing wrong with being a primarily live act, of course, but I'm just seeing a lot of "real artists do it MY way" in this thread that is bothering me a lot.

Well..

[PopeAlien]

..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!

I have found a way round this..

[-douggy]

But the margin is protected by the DMCA and so is to small to write the solution.

Re:I have found a way round this..

[Angel's Fall]

Fermat's Last Circumvention Device.

-j

??

[DNS-and-BIND]

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

[Sawbones]

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

[AT]

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.

Re:A little off

[bigbadwlf]

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

[Hieronymous Coward]

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.

Re:Summary not correct

[garcia]

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.

Re:Summary not correct

[Trepidity]

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.

Re:Summary not correct

[Alan]

You own the physical disk, and have the rights to listen to it. I think the issue in question is "what devices do you have the rights to listen to it on". According to what the RIAA is saying it seems you have the rights to listen to it on any "normal" CD player (home or computer or car or mobile).

According to this company you do not have the rights to listen to it on ANYTHING but a home CD player. You aren't allowed to convert it to another form to listen to it (ie: rip to mp3 to play in my car mp3 player) and you have to register with them if you want to play it on a computer CD player.

Since I got myself a MP3 CD player for my car the idea of being able to buy mp3s instead of CDs is stronger and stronger. I rarely listen to normal CDs anymore... why would I want a format where I can only fit 10-20 songs on a disk instead of 200+ songs?

I'm interested to hear if this is a windows only thing or if a linux CD player would play the CD normally?

Re:Summary not correct

[schon]

If I'm not mistaken you do not "own the CD"

You are mistaken.

When you purchase a CD, you are buying it. Period.

This is why it's legal to give it away, or to sell it to a used cd-place when you grow tired of it, or if you don't like it.

If there was some clear sign at the store that said something like "you are not buying this CD, you are licensing it, you have no rights, you are a corporate puppet." Then the argument that "you are buying the right to listen to it" might apply (and I say MIGHT, because contract law implies an agreement negotiated between two parties, and there is clearly no negotiation happening.)

Of course, if there was such a sign, I'm sure that there would be a public outcry.

Re:Summary not correct

[ackthpt]

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.

Re:Summary not correct

[tmark]

Re:Summary not correct (Score:1)
When you purchase a CD, you are buying it. Period.

The 'Period' implies there are no conditions to alleged 'ownership', seems false. You can't burn copies of the CD and resell it, for instance. So it seems to me that you do not 'own' the music on the CD.

As for your intimation that licensing agreements removes rights and leave one as a 'corporate puppet', I should point out that this would imply that the GPL removes rights as well, leaving one also as a puppet of some sort.

Re:Summary not correct

[saider]

I believe that the disc is corrupted by introducing errors into the error correcting sectors of the disk. Simple CD players simply average out the errors, but CD-ROMS require every bit to be properly reconstructed. With a fragged error correction sector, the CDROM is unable to reconstruct the data and reports an I/O error.

I'm sure someone will hack some CD firmware eventually, but until then, just put bogus information into the computer. As I write this GWBush@whitehouse.gov is gettings tons of crap because that's the address I give to all these people who ask for personal information. I also live at

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW #101,

Washington, DC 20500.

Phone number? 202-456-1414.

Re:Summary not correct

[Sethb]

Jeeze, I just put postmaster@whatever.com so that hopefully the Spam won't leave their network and clog the Internet. I bet the Postmaster@real.com is getting really sick of getting all that mail from his own company. :)

Re:Summary not correct

[bnenning]

So it seems to me that you do not 'own' the music on the CD.

Of course you don't own the music, any more than you own the text of a book. The issue is that publishers are trying to convert your purchase into a license, which they believe gives them the ability to control how you use the product, which is far more restrictive than copyright limitations.

I should point out that this would imply that the GPL removes rights as well

No. You don't have to accept the terms of the GPL in order to use GPLed software. The GPL only comes into play when you wish to redistribute the software. Under standard copyright law you can't do at all, but the GPL allows you to do so as long as you abide by certain conditions. The GPL only grants rights, it doesn't remove any.

Re:Summary not correct

[donutello]

There's a difference between what you can do legally and what you have a right to do. For example, if I allow people to walk through my front-yard to pick apples, that's something they can do. However, it does not mean that they have a right to do it. I can still deny any individual I choose to or at any time close access.

How this applies to CDs is open to debate and will ultimately be decided in court I guess. So far, we have been ABLE TO listen to CDs on our computers, etc. Whether this is a RIGHT that we obtain from purchasing a CD is an entirely different issue. I'd guess yes but I wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong.

The thing that pisses me off most about the case is that there is no warning or indication on the case that you can't do this. If it is understood that you can use a product one way, if you change that you should advertise the fact or be sued for false advertising.

Re:Summary not correct

[Alan]

Oh I understand this, and any true audiophile would mock mp3, wma, and even wav as sounding like crap. But for the average person (such as myself) a nice high bitrate (160 or 192+) mp3 sounds just fine on my car stereo. Even a bit crappier sound is outweighed for me by the ability to carry around a cd folder with 5 disks containing all my favorite music (including one labeled "stand up" which has 700 mb worth of stand up (each about 50 minutes +) which I could only fit 1 per CD on using normal CD encoding. And stand up doesn't need to be high sound quality, so the advantage outweighs any disadvantage.

Re:Summary not correct

[GemFire]

>>>Of course you don't own the music, any more than you own the text of a book. >>>

It may come as a surprise since current propaganda says exactly the opposite, but THEY don't own the music or the text of the book either. Publication involves a sale to the PUBLIC, not individuals, but the public at large. The public owns the music - the public owns the text of a book. The producer (or their agent) owns the COPYRIGHT, nothing more.

Simple concept here, if you want to maintain ownership of the work, don't publish. If you want to sell your ownership for a copyright, which may or may not earn you income, then, by all means, publish. But don't publish and then come back and say you still own the work, because it has never worked that way and it still does not work that way. Otherwise, why would copyrights expire?

It is precisely this kind of misunderstanding of the nature of copyright that has brought us to laws such as CTEA and the DMCA. Once you realize that the public has ownership of the works and that creators only own the copyright, copy protections, like they are putting on CDs, become criminal in themselves, limiting use of something belonging to the public and the individual purchaser. Making archive copies and space-shifting copies are legal, personal copies and do not infringe upon copyright. And these are the kind of copies that will be affected. Pirates will still be able to clone copies and sell them by the millions. Hackers will find a way to decrypt them and will purposefully distribute them across the internet to as wide an audience as they can - just because they can.

The best way to battle the small-time copier (the only people this kind of protection will stop) is to lower prices. I haven't bought a CD in more than a year and a half, because I don't think any of them are worth the price.

There is a war going on here that we have, so far, been on the losing side of. Anyone who has purchased a copy protected CD should rise up and do the same thing, band together, get a class action lawsuit started. Let's end this threat before all the CD's are copy protected.

Re:Summary not correct

[terrymr]

I think the issue in question is "what devices do you have the rights to listen to it on?"

On any device displaying the "Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo which includes cd-rom drives - look on the box or in the manual for the drive - it'll be there somewhere.

Re:Summary not correct

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Otherwise, why would copyrights expire?

Hah. As if copyrights expire.

:)

Re:Summary not correct

[msaavedra]

The distiction you are trying to make between a CD-ROM drive and a "standard" cd player is fallacious. CD-ROM drives are standard players. That is, they adhere to the Redbook audio standard and carry the "Compact Disc" logo. This new CD does not adhere to any standard, as far as I know. If the packaging for the CD carries the Compact Disc logo, but does not meet the relevant standard, then it seems to me that it is being sold fraudulently. Whether it can actually be played on some standard cd players is irrelevent.

Re:Summary not correct

[Trepidity]

That may be - I'm not saying the lawsuit is without merit. I'm merely saying that the Slashdot report, which in effect said that this CD wouldn't play on any CD players - "standard" or otherwise - is incorrect. It does play in some players (most typical stereo component players and portable CD players, for example), the problem being that it doesn't play in all players.

Re:Summary not correct

[donutello]

You own the physical copy - you don't own the rights to the content on it. It's the same with books. Nothing has changed.

Re:Summary not correct

[SlippyToad]

And previously producers of that "content" (that word is as revolting to me as "consumer" and "taxpayer" are, mentioned elsewhere in this thread) only owned the RIGHT TO FIRST SALE and the right to prevent others from selling copies in their stead. They did not have the right to control who listened to it or how many people they shared it with or whether they used it in their car or on a boat or with a goat, or even whether they chose to make a personal copy for whatever use got their nads off.

The basic problem is they are attempting to assert a level of control they are not legally entitled to (or weren't before the DMCA) and in doing so they are eroding the rights of the public. We as the public (theoretically) grant them the right to profit from their creativity in return for contributing it to the public commons. This is not a "content industry." This is the promotion of useful arts and sciences for the benefit of the public.

People (ok, parasites) who have made a living off of it fail to understand that there is no moral obligation granted by us for them to make a decent living, or even a fair moonlighting wage, off of their productions. They are simply allowed the monopoly on creating and selling copies for a limited time in order to encourage more of their works. The Draconian measures now in place aren't encouraging anyone. They are discouraging people from disseminating valuable scientific and cultural information for fear of being sued into oblivion by a group of peple who have formed this bizzare expectation that they are entitled to a "revenue stream" for all eternity based on a work performed in a singular moment of time. A real musician has to go and perform music on a daily basis to get paid. But if you have a "content-protected" CD, you can perform it once and never again have to be bothered with actually doing the job you're paid to do. (For those of you firing up your "you don't know what you're talking about" flamethrowers, I am a musician who has worked in such capacity for a living before. I know exactly what kind of work it is.)

I read an article about Charley Pride and his crusade against "piracy." He had, at the writing of the article, no idea how Napster worked, or even what an MP3 was. His crusade started because he walked into a music store in his home town and saw a bunch of counterfeit CD's of his on the shelves. There's nothing defensible about selling counterfeit works. That actually takes money from the musician. There is a distinct difference between doing that and sharing it with a friend. I guarantee his CD sales will slump because of this gimmick. He will have thousands of people who get the CD, can't play it in whatever place they choose, don't really know what's wrong, and dump it in the pile of shit they don't listen to anymore. His contribution (if it can be called such) to the cultural commons will be stifled because of this and I bet ten to one odds his actual sales will suffer. It's actually pretty delicious, to me, to see how this kind of thing is totally backfiring.

Re:Summary not correct

[GemFire]

You've got it exactly right - nobody deserves compensation forever on something that took a few moments (or even a few years) to create.

Visit my website - send me an email. There's an organization starting up that needs people like you. http://www.amfcc.org

Re:Summary not correct

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

NO NO NO! Don't you start that 'blockquoTH' crap again mister. All it does is make you sound like an idiot.

Um, actually, I never stopped doing it.

And I stand proudly on my record that it is not the form but the content of my posts that make me sound like an idiot. :)

Re:Summary not correct

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

In the US they expire 70 years after the owner's death, or 95 years from publication if owned by a company.

Actually I knew that. I thought I was being transparently sarcastic -- thus the smiley -- but I guess not. Considering things like the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act (the freebie extra 20 years granted to existing copyrights because, hey, it's unthinkable that Mickey Mouse go public domain... esp. after Disney spent so much non-refundable, non-deductible money buying senators and congresspeople), it appears that perhaps nothing will ever enter the public domain again. And if something does, it seems likely to be wrapped behind "access control" mechanisms that grant an effective permament copyright to the content provider.

nope, sorry.

[garcia]

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.

Re:nope, sorry.

[Midnight Thunder]

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.

Re:nope, sorry.

[garcia]

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.

Re:nope, sorry.

[corky6921]

"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."

Ahem...

"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. :(

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

Re:nope, sorry.

[Evro]

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).

Re:nope, sorry.

[Cruciform]

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.

[garcia]

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.

Re:nope, sorry.

[Jburkholder]

>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.

Re:nope, sorry.

[Sir_Real]

I just tell them that I'm homeless...

Re:nope, sorry.

[M. Silver]

some stores insist on a phone # (Circuit City for one). Just give them 555-1212

I sort of miss the pre-broadband days when I had a dedicated modem connection. I always gave out that phone number. Let the telemarketers call all they want, it's always busy...

Re:nope, sorry.

[mgkimsal2]

how many people at the meeting? i see signs in many restaurants that say 'gratuity of 15% automatically included for parties of 6 or more', etc. Not elegant, but I usually see the warning signs.

Re:nope, sorry.

[Mr. Slippery]

Yep, some stores insist on a phone # (Circuit City for one).

I've never had a problem with telling them "I'd rather not give that out." Although one over-enthusiastic Radio Shack drone launched into a whole speech about how Tandy respects customer privacy, yada yada yada...but he sold me the damned multimeter anyway.

Re:nope, sorry.

[hawk]

>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!

:)

hawk

Re:nope, sorry.

[ichimunki]

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.

[bnenning]

There's very little software that once you purchase the CDROM you actually "own".

Well, that's the opinion of the publishers. My opinion is that attempts to modify the terms of an already completed sale by means of a EULA have exactly as much validity as me saying "by reading this post you agree to pay me $100". If publishers were honest, they would require all their customers to sign a contract before the sale agreeing that they give up their fair use rights.

Re:nope, sorry.

[ryanwright]

I just tell them they can't have my phone number. That usually suffices. When they insist, I say, "You know what, I don't even have a phone." I'm waiting for some snotty employee to notice the cellphone clipped to my belt and demand that number so I can really piss them off ("That's not a phone, it's a garage door opener."), but it hasn't happened yet.

Re:nope, sorry.

[Spoing]

>>I hate to shop at Radio Shack

>I feel the same way, only RS apparently doesn't do that anymore. ...

Unfortunately, they still do ask at the ones in the Wash. DC area.

Unlike even a couple years ago, they aren't nearly as insistant; "No" now works and they don't look at you like you're from Mars or give you a speach.

Re:nope, sorry.

[garcia]

this happened at the Bowling Green, OH store.

They do it, and the manager even got red in the face saying something about him not having to sell me the item or something. I hope he was just having a bad day.

No wonder no hacker has heard of this yet.

[ruebarb]

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?

Re:No wonder no hacker has heard of this yet.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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.

Charley Pride

[virg_mattes]

Chuckie is well known in his own field (blues/country, if I recall correctly). This isn't a mix CD or a giveaway, and Mr. Pride himself agreed to be the guinea pig for this CD format a while ago. I hope it costs him dearly in terms of sales.

Virg

Re:Charley Pride

[big.ears]

It probably won't cost him. Charlie Pride is a country has-been whose fan-base is a hick version of Pat Boone's. Country music has an even shorter memory than "Mainstream"--every FM station plays hits from the "70s, 80s, and today", or something like that, but about the farthest back any country radio station will go is Early Garth Brooks. I'm not criticizing the man--he was truly revolutionary (a black man in country music?), and I've seen him in concert, but Charlie's fans mainly own LPs and (8-track) tape decks--most of them don't own CD players, and even fewer own computers. So, he isn't going to be hurt by this. If anything, he will be helped, because he doesn't get played on the radio anymore, and this is giving him some publicity.

Re:Who the crap is Charley Pride?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike some artist in other music types (such as crap I mean rap) Charley Pride can perform & sing.

He can't rap worth a damn though.

CDNOW Admits to Protection

[johnstown]

CDNOW does mention the protection scheme in its synopsis of the CD. But they do call it a "ham-handed and unjustifiable response to the problem" of piracy.

Re:Who the crap is Charley Pride?

[steevo.com]

Charley Pride can perform & sing.

He can perform both kinds of music... Country AND Western!

the sneaks!

[Maditude]

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 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!

[FooDog]

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. :)

Re:the sneaks!

[csbruce]

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".

Re:the sneaks!

[eric2hill]

You're absolutely right. I bought nearly 200 CD's over the course of several years, and they were in a Case Logic 200 CD case in my car. You guessed it, the whole car got stolen, CD's and all. Last year I finally got up the nerve to throw out my empty jewel cases. A full trash-bag full of them. It wasn't easy.

If the industry is going in the direction of "no copies", then I sould be able to get free or nearly free replacement CD's for an empty jewel case. If I spent $15 per CD, that's $3000 that I got fucked out of, and the music industry just says "sorry, be more careful next time". HA! Next time? I've bought about 3 CD's. That's it. Just what I need is to be fucked out of another $3000.

Interesting to note:

[cavemanf16]

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...

[jeffy124]

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...

[smarner]

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.

Re:jury trial...

[TheGratefulNet]

tended to lean toward what they personally feel is right, not what is legally right.

this is a little-known (and usually well-hidden, if not totally non-disclosed) notion called jury nullifcation. meaning, jurys can nullify bad laws on a per-case basis.

in fact, if you are being selected for jury duty ('tested', really) and you even dare to acknowledge that you understand the issue of nullification ('I will vote my concience rather than what the law literally says') you're almost always immediately rejected (excused) from jury duty. the courts don't WANT you to think for yourself - they want you to blindly follow laws. of course the Founding Fathers felt otherwise, but we quickly disregard their views too easily these days.

I hope the jury on this trial can learn about nullifcation and follow their hearts rather than be manipulated by the sheisters^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawyers.

Re:So?

[tigrrl]

er, no. I have a CD player on my computer that is capable of playing music CDs. I like to be able to play music CDs on my computer, because I don't have a stereo in my office. If you can't stick the think in your computer CD and listen to it, it *doesn't* "work fine". That's at least half of the problem.

Law suit = DCMA violation???

[Alien54]

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
an alternate news site using Slash Code
"If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"

Re:So?

[smarner]

Geez. I hate to correct myself, but....
The disc works fine in a stand-alone cd player. The plaintiff (and CDNow) claim that the disc can't even be listened to AT ALL on a computer though. I presume this could be fixed by turning off auto-run, but who knows? Even forcing someone to take this step seems a bit over the top though.... Guess I jumped the gun a bit on my post. Sorry.

Re:It's more than just the $20

[sulli]

Seriously. I and many others rip CDs for my own use on my own computer. If it's unrippable I won't buy it, and I feel that I HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW if that is the case.

Someone needs to start a "Copy-Protected CD Blacklist" online. Cryptome perhaps?

In related news...

[Dimensio]

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.

Re:A Possible Precedence here?

[marcop]

I know I'd be able to stay away from these types of CD's.

Up until all CDs are sold with this encoding scheme. I don't see where the proprietary scheme would be ruled illegal. I think she has a case in the fact that the CDs should be marked as such. Most CDs today are playable in CD-ROM drives and consumers expect this type of compatability. I would hope the court would force the record companies to clearly indicate that the CD is not a standard CD (even if there is a means of making the CD compatible with CD-ROM drives via a codec/driver download).

Excellent

[sulli]

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.

Punitive damages

[fmaxwell]

The judge could aware punitive damages of hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is over and above the compensatory damages (which could include not only the original purchase price, but legal fees, lost wages while in court, etc.)

Besides, some lawsuits happen because someone feels that there is an injustice in the world, not out of some sense of personal greed. If you don't understand this, ask some of your Democratic friends to explain it to you.

(Not to right-wing moderators: I have 50 Karma points, so I can afford to lose two or three for being honest here.)

Re:Punitive damages

[Anonymous Coward]

Pathetic (devisive) partisan patter aside, who is going to set up a web site for this woman with an escrowed pay pal account for her legal costs? I see a lot of typing here, but generally very little action. This is obviously a case where slashdotters could mobilize for Good.

Re:Punitive damages

[fmaxwell]

You know, instead of saying all that you could just have the word 'loser' tattoed[sic] on your forehead.

Nope. I'm a winner. I have a good job, the respect of my colleagues, good friends, and sleep well at night. The reason that you hear the same argument over and over is because it is based in fact. Republicans, in general, are greedy, self-centered, give-me-a-tax-cut-and-to-hell-with-everyone-else types. They don't care about the "greater good." Just look at the efforts to drill for oil in Alaskan wilderness areas and the decision to let mega-monopoly Microsoft remain intact.

So go ahead and resort to your ad-hominem attacks. I don't take anyone who posts as "Anonymous Coward" too seriously.

Re:Punitive damages

[(H)elix1]

Nope. I'm a winner. I have a good job, the respect of my colleagues, good friends, and sleep well at night. The reason that you hear the same argument over and over is because it is based in fact. Republicans, in general, are greedy, self-centered, give-me-a-tax-cut-and-to-hell-with-everyone-else types. They don't care about the "greater good."

OK, I'll bite as a non-AC....

You probably don't make enough to care yet. Would you say 75-100K is a lot of cash? Lets say your wife works, and makes about the same. Do you know where that puts you in the tax scale? Do you know where that fits statistically in the US? When they talk about tax breaks that help the top 2-3%, it may surprise you to find out who is in there.

Here is my beef. Lets say you make 50K and I make 200K. Its not like we both pay a 35% tax here, I would pay a higher percentage in addition to paying on more money. God forbid I ask to pay the same tax rate as you. Illusions of the "rich" (and I use that term loosely) being able to shelter all their income does not work for those of us in the .05-3% of the curve. Fine then, as once you start to hit the point where every break everyone else gets is "prorated" and the sliding scale makes it harder and harder to grow, then preach to me about tax cuts for the rich.

As for the greater good, you know what? I think the government does a crappy job of doling out support. I chose my charities based on what they give back to the community - looking for a return of investment in the form of people helped/money committed. I suspect you can count the really good government programs on one hand - I could not think of any examples, while I can think of several non-profits locally that do a fantastic job.

Mind you, this is not a personal slam.... just a difference of opinion.

Re:Punitive damages

[bnenning]

Republicans, in general, are greedy, self-centered, give-me-a-tax-cut-and-to-hell-with-everyone-else types.

So a worker wanting to keep what he has earned is "greedy", while you wanting to forcibly take his earnings is not. Thanks for the clarification.

Just look at the efforts to drill for oil in Alaskan wilderness areas and the decision to let mega-monopoly Microsoft remain intact.

Using 2000 acres out of 15 million in ANWR for access to potentially huge oil reserves sounds good to me, especially since previous drilling in Alaska has shown it can be done with minimal environmental impact. And the DOJ did not drop the Microsoft case, they are attempting to have remedies applied more quickly than would be possible if they continued to pursue a breakup. You should try incorporating facts and logic into your arguments sometime, although I realize this can be difficult if you're a liberal.

Re:Punitive damages

[Pig Hogger]

As for the greater good, you know what? I think the government does a crappy job of doling out support. I chose my charities based on what they give back to the community - looking for a return of investment in the form of people helped/money committed. I suspect you can count the really good government programs on one hand - I could not think of any examples, while I can think of several non-profits locally that do a fantastic job.

The problem with charities is that they only take care of the "popular" causes, whereas a welfare State takes care of ALL causes, regardless of what the silent majority thinks.

Re:Punitive damages

[fmaxwell]

You probably don't make enough to care yet.

I make enough that some of my income is taxed at 36% -- next to the highest bracket.

Would you say 75-100K is a lot of cash?

Cash? Yes. Investment? No.

When they talk about tax breaks that help the top 2-3%, it may surprise you to find out who is in there.

I may well be. I know that I will get a big chunk of money back as a result of the Bush tax cut. But what is good for me personally in the short term is not necessarily what is good for the country in the long term.

It doesn't take any moral fortitude to say "I want to pay less tax." I like to think that I have enough to say that I'm paying a fair amount.

I suspect you can count the really good government programs on one hand

The government does more with tax dollars than just charity. Tax dollars pay for everything from NASA to the Peace Corps to the military. Much of the money that goes to those programs then "trickles down" to the private sector, with contracts going to many private sector firms that employ countless U.S. citizens. Cutting back on the government's paycheck (by cutting taxes) does more than put the screws to welfare recipients.

Re:Punitive damages

[fmaxwell]

So a worker wanting to keep what he has earned is "greedy", while you wanting to forcibly take his earnings is not.

This may come as a huge shock to you, but I don't take anyone's taxes. I pay taxes. The only difference between you and me is that I view it as my duty as an American to pay my fair share.

Using 2000 acres out of 15 million in ANWR for access to potentially huge oil reserves

According to the DOE, the best estimate for the "huge" oil reserves is 10.3 billion barrels. Sounds like a lot, doesn't it? Well, it's 5% of the total recoverable oil in the lower 48 states. Big deal. And when would we see significant production from it? 13 years from now if we gave the go-ahead today. So we could reap benefits from this in the year 2014.

sounds good to me, especially since previous drilling in Alaska has shown it can be done with minimal environmental impact.

Like the Exxon Valdez has shown? It's not like we can just hit "rewind" if the oil company optimists are wrong. Rather than sucking every last drop of oil out of the Earth, how about going for greater fuel economy? Why do we need to run pipelines through pristine wilderness areas so that soccer moms can drive around in Ford Behemoth SUVs? Let the gas prices rise and people will start driving cars that make sense.

And the DOJ did not drop the Microsoft case

I never said that they did. I said "the decision to let mega-monopoly Microsoft remain intact." Which part of that did you not comprehend?

You should try incorporating facts and logic into your arguments sometime, although I realize this can be difficult if you're a liberal.

It must be even tougher for you since you appear to be functionally illiterate (see Microsoft comments) and apparently knew nothing of the DOE report that gave the facts on the Bush-proposed ANWR oil drilling.

Re:Punitive damages

[fmaxwell]

Serial killers depersonalize their victims before they kill them.

Kind of funny coming from someone who posted as Anonymous Coward, isn't it?

Re:Punitive damages

[(H)elix1]

I make enough that some of my income is taxed at 36% -- next to the highest bracket.

That put you somewhere around $160-290K then (marriage assumption here, never looked at a single person's rate) for taxable income. Some of your income is at 36%, some probably dodged the capital gains bullet by holding the stock for twelve months. Fiscally responsible in my book, but why not sell before then and treat it like income? Because it cost you an extra 15% or so in taxes to sell early? Did you itemize? Anyhow, I guess my point is this: You feel your tax burden, after optimization, is fair - that does not really put you in a position to say those who are carrying more of the burden feel it is fair, however. Its not a moral question, it's a political one. I would be tempted to say my money is better spent on paying employees and running a business directly, than running it through many government filters before it reaches the masses. Granted, I have a civic responsibility as you, but my willingness to take more risks that happened to work out should not correlate to such a burden.

Personally, I think our country would be much better off learning fiscal responsibility rather than just "making more". As a country, one of the larger swords hanging over our head is the national debt. Imagine the money we waste in interest going to NASA, etc.

I don't think increasing my children's allowance if they were acting irresponsible is a good idea. The same goes for a company's budget. Wish the same applied to our government.

AYR

[ImaLamer]

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...

[Masem]

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.

Re:Nice suit, but...

[daviddennis]

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?

D

Re:Not a bad idea...

[zerocool^]

thank god not everyone listens to tool, rage against the machine.

This is why i listen to punk music. What does tool charge for concert tickets? Like 50 bucks. That's rediculous. I just can't bring myself to believe that someone who says "we do it for the fans" and charges that for tickets is serious.

For the most part, punk bands understand if you download their stuff off of Morpheus and listen to it. Usually people that become fans cause of shows and bootleg'd music will buy the CD's to support the band. There's certainly none of this copy protected bullshit.

Check on prices for punk shows - hardly ever more than $20. In fact, one weekend i saw Less than Jake/ New found glory/ the teen idols/ anti-flag 3 times for less than 50 bucks. These people are serious about doing it for the fans - LTJ is broke as shit. That's the kind of music i want - people who do it for the love of the show, who tour 250+ dates a year, who sell CD's for $5 at shows. Its raw culture.

I, too, am a musician. My band recorded our CD, burned 1000 copies of it ourselves, and gave it away for free. I don't want your money. I just want you to like our music.

You can keep your rage against the machine, tool, korn, limp bizkit, incubus, whatever.

no dollar amount given

[jeffy124]

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.

Why isn't Charlie Pride suing?

[jcr]

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.

-jcr

Re:Why isn't Charlie Pride suing?

[Greyfox]

From what I've heard, he wanted his CD to have this protection on it, being of the opinion that fans should not be allowed to steal his music and share it on the internet. I'm pretty sure he was the one who said that in an interview (If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.)

Re:Why isn't Charlie Pride suing?

[SlippyToad]

Charley Pride doesn't have the first idea of what Napster, the Internet, or digital music mean. He's on this crusade because he walked into a music store in his home town, the proprieter of which he knew, and found counterfeit copies of his CD on the shelves. That was legitimately piracy and legitimately took money from his pocket by selling something manufactured by someone else instead of the thing manufactured for him.

In the article I read he explicitly stated that he didn't know nuthin' bout no napster, but if it was anti-piracy it was OK with him. He's an ignorant tool, and deserves what he's going to get, which is a gigantic black eye in the public. Kind of like what another country-western, er, "performer" by name of Garth Brooks got when he whined that people were stealing money from him by selling used copies of his CD's. That thing between my thumb and forefinger? It's not the world's smallest violin, playing your bleeding-heart anthem. It's just a fuckin' booger.

Labels, who needs them?

[ImaLamer]

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?

What you can and cannot do

[mr_vauxhall]

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

[fobbman]

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

[blazin]

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?

Re:Easily fixed

[2nd Post!]

What happens when the manager pops the CD into a player and it doesn't work? As an example, many DVD player drives are stock EIDE drives with new faceplates. If, for example, the box the manager pops the CD into is, say, a DVD 5.1 boombox thing... it may not work after all.

Re:Easily fixed

[Nightpaw]

Maybe if you wore a different disguise every day?

Like this?

Re:Easily fixed

[fobbman]

Actually I was thinking that after the second trip bringing in a laptop would be great here. Preferrably one that has Linux running on it. Then you can offer to play any other CD in the store (they tend to have open CD's that they play on the local stereo system). Betcha they work. Heck, install Mandrake 8 and they'd likely not even notice that it was a Linux box.

Also, is it such a waste of part of your day when you aren't the one being jailed for a month and a half? Sure, he's out on bail now but he's trapped in the "Land of the Free" until he runs through the legal mess that is the US Justice System.

Consider it your duty as a pissed-off geek.

Re:Easily fixed

[Svartalf]

Cost of the gas: $0.50 (I'm being liberal here...)
Cost of the CD: $17.00 (Avg. Price)
Cost to repeat: $0.50 (x2,3,4,5...)

Value of annoying the hell out of the retailer and the media people: Priceless

Re:How dare she!

[sensate_mass]

Deep irony.

plutocracy (pl-tkr-s)
n. pl. plutocracies
Government by the wealthy.
A wealthy class that controls a government.
A government or state in which the wealthy rule.

Oh, never mind.

No surprise

[igiveup]

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.

The Most Challenging Thing...

[FFFish]

...in this lawsuit was, I'm sure, working up the gumption to admit that she actually bought a Charley Pride album. Shudder.

Misunderstanding

[virg_mattes]

> it makes me a touch ill that included in the lawsuit is
> the fact that the encoded version of the CD is NOT mp3.

This is a bit of an overextension of what was said. The gist of the suit (on this point) is that due to the fact that the CD is unplayable in a computer's CD-ROM drive, they decided to provide encoded files that the purchaser can download to listen to on the PC (a good thing). However, their encoding on those audio files is proprietary (a bad thing, since they can't be used on a personal MP3 player) and they require entry of much personal information to get the files (a very bad thing) and they don't bother to tell anyone about this issue before they buy the CD (a very, very bad thing). She's not insisting that the company make the files available in MP3 format. They are (by the wording of the suit) allowed to do just what they did. The reason for her suit is that they didn't notify her that they were doing any of it, and because of it she was unable to make an informed decision about whether she wanted to buy the CD in the first place.

Virg

Re:Suing for what?

[Skapare]

Return it and tell the manager that the contents inside do not match the label on the outside, and demand that you be given contents that exactly matches the label on the outside, i.e. something that plays normally.

Re:Sony et al will now be more careful

[kilgore_47]

Whatever format this CD uses, I can't see Sony etc scrambling to follow this. Joe User is at least more receptive to privacy concerns than intellectual property issues.

Sony is in an interesting position, because they are a record company AND make a line of portable mp3 players.

Formats like the one mentioned in this article are inherently incompatible with mp3 players. Sony, being a large record label, seems to be placing bets on both sides of the free music battle.
(yes, I realize you can use a sony mp3 player to play music you paid for.... but you and me and sony all know that playing mp3's off the net is a big appeal for consumers)

Don't own the CD?

[pq]

If I'm not mistaken you do not "own the CD" but purchased the right to listen to it on an audio device.

Really?
Think of this: if you went to the record store and told them that you dropped and broke your CD, here are the pieces and the receipts, and could they please replace it - do you think they'd give you a new CD? Or would they laugh you out of the store? Suddenly, it looks like you bought something physical after all, and not the license to listen to the music on the CD, doesn't it...?

Re:Don't own the CD?

[brianvan]

Well... depending on the store... they might actually. Some stores have deals like that, and some might just take the broken CD and ship it back to the manufacturer as a mark-out even if they don't have a deal like that. But, it's not a standard thing, and certainly not required...

But that's aside from the point.

Specifically, the record label should be the ones providing free replacement copies if they want to argue "license" over "physical purchase". Or at least it would help them out in their theoretical argument. But they don't offer any warranties on physical media, yet they also want to have complete control over what you do with it. They may be able to, yet I can also see a certain angle: someone should very closely examine the fine print on CD sleeves and see whether or not providing a replacement disc in place of a worn/damaged one is a necessary part of complying with the license. Because, if not, it is the part of the burden of the record company to comply with the license if the terms are stated so strictly. In that case, you have a separate lawsuit against the record company - a giant, multibillion-dollar class action suit involving millions of consumers - covering breach of contract for nearly every broken CD on the face of the planet that the recording industry will not replace.

And on top of that, some CDs don't have this kind of info visible upon sale - you must break shrink wrap to see these terms. That's another consumer loophole... shouldn't have to comply to any license that isn't stated in clear terms BEFORE purchase, as that constitutes fraud.

(As if we didn't know charging $20 for a factory produced CD was fraud anyway)

Re:Don't own the CD?

[Klaruz]

It used to be you could replace defective media if you shipped it back to them. I had done it in the past with floppy disk. That was many years ago though, I don't know how it is nowadays, the last media I bought was a copy of redhat 3 or something from a cheap cdrom place for like $2. It wasn't scratched...

Don't be so close-minded

[daviddennis]

I'm a right-wing nut (libertarian, actually), but I agree with the principles behind this suit. If the company implies that you can download music from the CD, you should be able to and without restrictions.

Right-wing nuts believe in honesty in business, and that's what this case amounts to.

D

Re:Don't be so close-minded

[fmaxwell]

Right-wing nuts believe in honesty in business, and that's what this case amounts to.

That's admirable, but left-wing nuts like me believe that consumers have rights. We believe that "fair use" is a consumer right. If I buy a Charley Pride CD (or a music CD), I have a right to record it in MP3 format to listen on my computer and my Riovolt. If I just want to pop it into my CD-ROM drive and listen to it, I have a right to do so. I don't think that a record company saying "we have made it impossible for you to exercise your fair use rights" is acceptable.

The arts are different than any other consumer product. If, for example, the music of The Goo Goo Dolls speaks to you, you cannot just flick a mental switch and decide to switch to The Backstreet Boys if the record company starts copy-protecting Goo Goo Dolls CDs. If you want to buy the latest Madonna album, it's not like you can choose to purchase it from the record company that you like best. You have to buy it from AOL/Time Warner. Period. Because of this exclusivity, record companies need to be controlled like what they are -- monopolies.

Back to the question of truth in advertising, if it does not follow the standards for a Compact Disc, why are they calling it a Compact Disc and using the Philips/Sony CD trademark?

To the Audiophiles out there:

[DrgnDancer]

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:To the Audiophiles out there:

[Anml4ixoye]

You are right. That is why eventually the sound coming out will be encoded all the way to the speakers. Even then, the way around that would be to stick a microphone to the speaker (just like old times...). There is no way to completely control the music, no matter how much the Music Industry would like to think so.

Re:To the Audiophiles out there:

[DrgnDancer]

You are right. That is why eventually the sound coming out will be encoded all the way to the speakers.
Even then, the way around that would be to stick a microphone to the speaker (just like old times...).

I don't think this would be possible, or at any rate, if it happened, "legacy" equipment will be around for a long time. People buy new players, but recievers don't change much. My dad still has his CD Player plugged into the same reciever he used to have his reel to reel plugged into. You can convince people to go buy the new $format player, but they want to be able to plug it into their existing component system. There are digital recievers now, and digital outs on CD player (as someone else pointed out), but most people (at least most of my dad's firends, and they all have compent stereos... most of my friends don't) still have analog only recievers, and will be resistant to buying new ones. Since you can't encrypt analog, there is plenty of cable for the music to flow down in unencrypted form. I wonder about the digital outs on CD players though. Someone else mentioned them, and that seems like it would make a perfect copy, but I wonder if it be affected by the copy protection scheme. I don't think it would be affected by this scheme. So that would be a better solution for this one. For that matter the digital out from a DVD player to a TV would have the same capablilities for "protected" DVD's. I winder if this post is a violation of the DMCA?

It's broken return it. Keep your reciepts.

[Odinson]

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. :)

This just stinks

[wardomon]

The only person in the world that bought the CD is suing. That's gonna drive the cost of his next recording up.

A better solution

[Wesley Felter]

Use a CD player with digital out and a sound card with digital input.

compact disc - digital audio logo

[Barbarian]

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.

This could make a nice country song

[TheRealKennRoss]

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

COSUMER MY ARSE!

[SubtleNuance]

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.

Re:COSUMER MY ARSE!

[Tim Doran]

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.

I hope you're not an American

[BeBoxer]

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.

It doesn't matter...

[ConceptJunkie]

What if a computer CD-ROM drive is the only means you have of playing an audio CD? Is it then your fault that you cannot use your purchased CD?

Re:It doesn't matter...

[Trepidity]

No, which is why there is a lawsuit here. What all you slashbots cannot seem to comprehend with your substandard reading comprehension is that I am not taking the RIAA's side here - I'm merely pointing out that Slashdot misrepresented the nature of the CDs. They do not play in CD-ROM drives, which is the problem here, and the sole problem. The Slashdot story claimed that they do not play in standard CD players either, which is false, as they do play in standard CD players.

This does not mean that I think them not playing in CD-ROM drives is ok.

Re:It doesn't matter...

[ConceptJunkie]

Slashdot mispresented the story, sure. They usually do. I take that as a given. Slashdot may have good standards but they are like the Weely World News with their headlines.

However, a CD-ROM drive _is_ a standard CD player. It supports the Red Book standard. Before you accuse others of substandard reading comprehension maybe you'd better get your definitions straight.

Hmm..

[mad_clown]

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.

Re:Not a bad idea...

[SubtleNuance]

You can keep your rage against the machine, tool, korn, limp bizkit, incubus, whatever.Common now - i think you are unjustly lumping RATM with these pissants for no good reason. Rage is a Revolutionary band, both socially and politically - they are hardly limp bizkxjkajzquick

otherwise - i completely agree with your take on punk, the ethos you describe and commend your altrusim... maybe we'll see you in Washington later this month...

Package warnings

[bigdavex]

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.

Re:Package warnings

[fobbman]

Wow, so those folks who listen to this CD may incur long distance or ISP charges just so they can listen to it on their computer at home? And they'd have to do the same thing for their computer at work, assuming that they didn't have a removable media to copy them to for work.

I've got an office full of folks who listen to audio CD's on their computers at work. We're fine with that, but if the listening of CD's at work on the PC means that my network is going to become slower and slower while they download the music files then we may have to put a stop to it. That won't make them very happy.

Neither would the fact that they cannot install this proprietary file player for this proprietary music format cuz I've got program installations impossible in their security group. Hmmm...that could mean a lot of pissed of geriatrics in the office.

Re:Package warnings

[TheGratefulNet]

This product is protected with SunComm's MediaCloq

they misspelled it. they meant to say MediaHog.

Re:Package warnings

[AintTooProudToBeg]

To listen to this cd:

1. Purchase a modem or ethernet card.

2. Have everyone in your home discontinue any phone conversations
-or-
Purchase a second phone line
-or-
Purchase cable modem/DSL service

3. Sign up for internet access. For your convienence, AOL will be installed automatically. All you need is a credit card.

4. Install MediaCloQ(TM) - This will send your personal information to us using secure proprietary technology written in Visual Basic by the CEO's nephew.
http://www.record-lable.com/register.asp?Name=Jo e+ Smith&Address=123+Main+St

5. Enjoy!

Re:Package warnings

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

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

So....is there a warning somewhere that you need Windows (and/or MacOS?)

Re:Package warnings

[isorox]

Doesnt work on a mac (according to cdnow). What if you don have autorun enabled in windows (is that still an option?), have dos, windows 3.1 etc.

Whatif you dont have a motherboard and just have power to the cdrom drive and the play button on the front?

Re:Not a bad idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

We tend to ascribe to the bands themselves a lot of behavior that is beyond their control. Tool doesn't charge you $50 and collect every cent of it. Tickmaster charges you that money, pays a royalty to the venue, the tour organizer, and somebody has to pay for event staff, parking management, promotions, security, set-up, take-down - concerts get expensive when you've got an army of guys that put together and take down an oft-elaborate stage three times a week.

I'd be willing to bet that the portion of that $50 winds up in the bank account of the artist(s) is pretty low. Hell they don't even get that much off CD sales (I mean, let's not kid ourselves, a lot of these guys are rolling in it, but the real financial winner is always the label).

One of the problems with capitalism in a largely ignorant and illiterate (in sense of "well-read" not in the sense of "can-read") society is that the controlling interests (record industry, movie industry, publishers, etc) will only produce a work if they can profit from it. This means that great but unpopular art never sees the light of day. It also means that most music of any genre is mass-produced and canned so it'll appeal to as many people as possible.

The reason why every pop star looks like Britney Spears, ever Boy band looks like N'Sync, every Goth band wears the same clothes, every rap band uses the same spasmodic gestures, and every Limp Bizkit out there is full of attitude.

They're selling an image to people who desperately want to be associated with a specific social group. And these people are willing to pay $50 to be seen at a Tool concert, and loudly announce that they were there.

Which means the self-described "true" fans who just like the music kind of get screwed, but oh well. It's hard to take any musical artist seriously who sucks up to MTV. MTV is a classic example of a completely vapid construct whose sole purpose is to increase record sales and manufacture image.

I've completely lost my point in my ranting and raving here. I guess my point is that you have to be careful when you throw a dollar figure out. Those aren't arbitrary numbers. There are standard profit margins in almost any industry, adjusted for supply and demand. If they can sell out the concert by selling tickets for $50, why would they charge less? It wouldn't sell out for, say, $150. A little calculus and you know what the "perfect" price to charge is to maximize profits.

And I doubt Tool or any other band has anything to do with determining that figure. They're on contracts. Their job is to play their part, play their instruments, sing their songs, and let the accountants handle the money.

Name: Cash Customer

[UnknownSoldier]

> 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.

So don't give it. When they ask for your name, reply with: Cash Customer
Address:

Kind of like applying the anonymous coward concept from /. in the real world.

Question...

[Greyfox]

Is your band's music on the internet? If so, where? If not, why not? I'm a bit curious, since it doesn't seem that too many "amateur" bands are posting their music this way and having them do so would be a good argument against the all-out attack on the mp3 format.

RIGHT to drive

[UnknownSoldier]

We DO have the RIGHT to TRAVEL.

http://www.ptialaska.net/~swampy/interest/travel_2 .html

You can find more links via google : q=right+to+travel

When you "buy" software, you are actually purchasing the license, aka permission, to use it.
Similiarly, if you have a "driver's license" that means you DO NOT own your car.

Funny, but you're giving the sharks ideas!

[Svartalf]

I'm sure someone will be twisted enough to try that tack- and you're going to be sorry you mentioned it even in jest!

Re:Stupid lawsuit

[bnenning]

Moreover there is likely no representation that the CD will play on a computer 'anonymously'.

If it's sold as a standard CD, then that is a representation that it will play on her computer CD player without any additional requirements. Unless the limitations are clearly disclosed on the package, the manufacturer is knowingly making false claims about their product.

Re:So?

[glitch!]

Read between the lines. The cd works fine if you just want to listen to the tunes.

A couple years ago, I bought a used Who CD. I should expect to play it and listen to the music, right? Well, it turns out that there were some scratches, and while most of the tracks were playable, one was not.

The reason that the "standard" CDs have error correction is so that it can tolerate a few minor scratches and still play. Without it, I might not have been able to play any of the songs... And this is the problem - these copy protection nuts want to render this feature useless.

Another interesting possibility is that if the error correction data is reduced, minor scratches or other wear and tear will increase the number of sales to people replacing CDs. I'm sure the recording industry enjoyed the vinyl era where they could depend on albums wearing out, and getting repeat sales due to the limited lifetime "feature". This trick with CDs may be a step back to the "good old days".

But that leaves it open for people to NOT buy...

[Svartalf]

All they need to do is be "burnt" once (and there's a LOT of people out there now with PC's using them as CD players (at work and home)) and they'll look for the warning label- just like I and many others do for Aspartame.

They'll see a drop of something like 10-30%, possibly more, probably real quick on their sales if they did that; and that's why they're not even putting it on the packaging in the first place.

file swapping

[csbruce]

In other news, song swapping reached a record high level on the Internet in August as 3.05-billion files 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.

Re:So?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Unfortunately?!

Fortunately it won't play in newer CD players is how I would put it.

That is one thing that could really kill off this form of copy "protection" (fair use restriction).

I don't think the makers of high end audio equipment are going to just want to roll over and take it. Same with those that make car CD players (which are often CD-ROM based to avoid skipping - even when driving fast over rough terrain).

If it only affects "geeks" and those that do "unconventional" fair use (e.g. MP3s for portable players), it could succeed.

If it hoses over people seen as "conventional" and uses seen as such, such as high-end audiophiles, it is more likely to fail.

DVD players not supported? Oh that's smart!

[Svartalf]

Considering that the consumer appliance vendors are now selling quite a few home entertainment system solutions that have ONLY a DVD player for playing movies OR music. Those CD's are going to rebound real quick because of that oversight.

Paypal?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Paypal? I saw a site that asked for a donation with Paypal. I was inclined to contribute, but Paypal wanted SO MUCH personal irrelevent information (well beyond what is needed/customarily used for credit card transactions) and wanted to set up a permanent account that was linked my credit card info and I just said forget it. I was willing to do a one time thing. I didn't want personal info andmy credit card info all stored in one place, long term, with a company I have no reason to trust (my default is to DIStrust companies until proven otherwise).

Anway, it is ironic to mention paypal, considering that part of this case involves the privacy aspects of having to turn over personal info to play a song on a PC. Just as Paypal requires you to give them lots of info they hold on to, just to donate $25 to someone.

Companies playing both sides of the fence.

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

IBM and Intel both support Linux, but also support fair-use restriction technologies (which subject one to the DMCA) that hurt Linux.

It's about making this painful to the media people

[Svartalf]

Doing an end-run around the Manager popping the CD into a player problem is easy, as someone pointed out earlier- bring a laptop with a good CD or state that you are using the CD playback on your DVD player and insist that he test it on several of those. In most cases, the manager will pull the stuff in a heartbeat if it's not proplerly and prominently (No fine print will go here on that) labeled "Only Audio Player Use" because they don't want to mess with the hassles of customer returns on the product- it eats into his store's margins severely. They will then be bargain binned and/or returned (Usually the latter) at that point.

The problem with the having to waste part of a day to screw this scheme up is not a problem unless you actually LIKE them telling you how and when you're going to listen to the copy of the music that you've bought. It's only a problem if you don't care what they do to you. Standing up against BS of this kind is never convienent. Standing up to things like the this crap, DMCA and UCITA has it's price- if you don't value your freedoms enough to be put out for a little bit, then you don't deserve them.

Re:Possible ruling

[Enry]

It also would set a precedent for getting your money back for *any* CD like this, which will cost the RIAA members more than $17.99 per CD in the end.

The issues

[Ungrounded Lightning]

So far, we have been ABLE TO listen to CDs on our computers, etc. Whether this is a RIGHT that we obtain from purchasing a CD is an entirely different issue.

The fact that you have been able to use CDs in this way up until now creates the expectation that this particular new CD (from the same manufacturer) can also be used in this way. The labeling does not do anything to correct the impression.

So the CD violates the "implied warranty of servicibility and fitness" - for the purpose SHE intended when she bought it - and is thus a defective product. Because this was done deliberately, the company has DELIBERATELY shipped a defective product. There's lots of nice stuff in consumer law and case-law about that. B-)

Further, if they put the CD logo on the case (I don't know if they did) it is being advertised as conforming to the Red Book standard - which it obviously does not if the error correction code is not correct. That would be false advertising as well.

Could get VERY interesting.

(IANAL)

Thanks for the laugh :)

[jesser]

see subject

Don't Listen to Corp Music

[LionKimbro]

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.

Re:Don't Listen to Corp Music

[LionKimbro]

What I was noting was that it was kind of funny to hear people complaining about a relatively small corporate trap, when they are already caught in a larger one.

It's good that you like Good Music, and I must confess to having enjoyed Genesis (Lamb), Jean Michelle Jarre, and others who were working under a terrible system. (I also listen to the Grateful Dead, who were waaay ahead of their times, allowing free taping and copying at their concerts.)

But I have to wonder: Is the music we hear on the radio really good? I've observed that people will buy whatever they believe everyone else is buying, regardless of quality. That is, what's played on the stations, and advertised on our city walls. And I notice that artists aren't getting paid what they should, and that we're paying too much for CD's, and that the people holding the music rights are holding on to it for longer than their fair share.

I think it's all a game, and I feel that I owe it to those artists who weren't magically picked for plastering, to find their music, and to promote it. It's easy enough to do, that I think I should do it. And so I do.

Look at the Good Music that you have in your CD rack.

What percentage of it is corporation-backed pop?

I can't tell you what to think or feel, but I'm personally inclined to reach out to other artists, especially after having seen what their lives are like- the ones that are just as brilliant, but weren't picked and turned into icons.

Re:Stupid lawsuit

[ryanwright]

Moreover there is likely no representation that the CD will play on a computer 'anonymously'.

You mean 'at all'. The CD won't play in a computer, period. The registration is to allow you to download the song in Windows Media format, not to allow the CD to play. As for no representation, you don't think the CD logo on the disc qualifies as representation? This indicates that the CD complies with the red book standard, which should be playable in any drive that can read said standard. Since it won't, it's technically broken.

Keep in mind that this lawsuit is about disclosure, not money. She's not trying to win a million bucks here.

If you're going to put out a CD that does not comply with the standards, you have an obligation to warn consumers. I would be pissed if I bought a CD that didn't play in my CD-ROM, my car, etc. (car stereos that read MP3s are technically CD-ROM drives and will not read these "encrypted" discs, either. Many higher end home CD players also have CD-ROM drives in them and will not read the discs).

Re:But, one thing to consider

[Wesley Felter]

AFAIK, US copyright law does not care how a copy is made. If you keep it to yourself, it's legal; if you share it, it's illegal.

Re:Suing for what?

[ryanwright]

Again, she's not suing for money. She's suing to force the company to disclose what they are doing. The idea is to get this information out to the public, so the average Joe will know before purchasing the disc that it won't play in his PC. This is a great way to start a public backlash; enough MP3 players have been sold that the general public would throw a fit if they were unable to convert their legally purchased discs into MP3s. The problem right now is most people have no idea this is going on.

Re:Sony et al will now be more careful

[Noer]

>>yes, I realize you can use a sony mp3 player to play music you paid for...

but not if that music is protected on CD with this sort of copy protection! This has nothing to do with playing mp3s off the net, and everything to do with being unable to rip to mp3 in the first place.

Problems with this suit??

[Tabercil]

Okay... I've looked over this and have a concern about the strength of this suit...

We look at the post at politechbot and it says that "Fahrenheit and Music City never disclosed on the shrink-wrap of certain "impaired" CD(s) that consumers couldn't listen to music on their computers anonymously". Yet there is a statement on the outside plus further info on the inside(as mentioned by bigdavex) though neither spot mentions logging as being required. There IS at least some warning...

The Politechbot post says that it "will not work on standard audio CD players found on millions of personal computers", yet the warning on the outside says that "(i)t is designed to play in stardard Audio CD players only"...

Politechbot says that "electronic music files made available for download pursuant to purchase of its CD are proprietary in nature, that such electronic music files will not work on portable MP3 players". The warning on the outside says that "(l)icensed copies of all music on this CD are available for downloading." There is no statement that the files in question are MP3 format.

While I'm still attempting to bend my mind around the PDF file of the actual suit (lawyerese is not the same as English IMOBO), my concern is that there may have been sufficient errors made by the filing attorney to have his case been fatally flawed from the start. What is to prevent the defendant from failing to have the suit dismissed at the start, and by following through to the end, achieving a favorable precedent for this technology?

The existance of a precendent (which all lawyers just love) makes it that much harder to fight this technology since any future suits against it will see the defendants simply standing up and saying "Your Honor, we have a precedant saying X, this suit is sifficiently similar as to be covered by X, we would like it to be summarily dismissed."

Is there a lawyer out there who can put my fears to rest??

Re:A Possible Precedence here?

[foxwitt]

No.

The whole point is that you can't rip a CD like this with ease on a computer. It has corrupted data that will sour your rip. When playing a CD, your computer or CD player averages the data, and you don't notice the corrupted bit, but when you play the ripped version digitally, you no longer average data, so the rip doesn't play correctly. The only way to make an mp3 of it is to take the analog input from a player and convert that to digital before encoding.

AACB:::Re:Don't Listen to Corp Music

[Sebastopol]

Go to MP3.com

Even MP3 is not pure, read this. I like Fabrik Nos (listening to RantRadio.com), and SteveE makes some good points.

PREMIUM ARTIST SERVICE. That's just bullshit!

Someday, Barnaby.

(Equity Lord? The Diamond Age?)

Re:AACB:::Re:Don't Listen to Corp Music

[LionKimbro]

Yep; Diamond Age. I think Neal was drawing a connection between old style Feudalism, and modern equity holders.

Under Feudalism, a Lord (of a piece of land...) had a bunch of peasants who worked it. They got a miniscule fraction of the harvest, and a little hovel to live in. The equity lord took the rest. A certain amount was paid up the hierarchy, to the lord's superiors.

Not all that different than the way we do things here in the US.

I think Neal observed that, and decided to put that observation into his book.

Enough!

[Kris_J]

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.

Radio Shack wannabe

[kindbud]

I haven't been asked for my personal info at the shack for some time now, but there's a computer store chain in Las Vegas that tried to. I told the clerk he didn't need my address and phone number, and he replied "Well what if there's a problem with the card?" and I said the little card authorizer gizmo will tell him if there is, and no other merchants ever ask me for that information. He disappeared into the back room for a moment, and returned with the news that his manager had approved the sale without collecting the personal info. I said fine, then he tried to make a lame joke, "You're not a criminal, are you?" and I replied, laughing, "No, I am not. Nor am I a customer of yours." And I put down the cable I was going to buy, and put my card back in my wallet.

"But I was just joking!" he said, as I headed for the door. "Yeah I know, but it wasn't funny."

I like to think I made an impression on the PFY running the checkout, but I doubt it.

Re:Fuck you.

[Rimbo]

Actually, perdida, although this AC probably needs to be hit over the head with a cluestick, the AC's right to challenge your point of view. But the point he should have made wasn't just random insults but rather that you seem to have gone too far.

Take this statement for example: "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."

There is something in how this is worded that jumps out at me. It's that you don't really believe that everyone around you is a little fascist. It's that you feel that way. And that implies to me that you don't really think things are only going to get worse, either.

I understand how you feel, because I've been there myself. There is a simple way out: History. Read your history.

The stuff going on with the RIAA has countless precedents. You know what? None of it stood then, either. There's nothing about this time around that's going to make it significantly different. From banned books during the Renaissance to the CDA just a few years ago, these things just don't survive for very long. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it; rather, we should be heartened by the fact that our hard work to fight it will pay off.

This person suing the record companies is doing a very good thing, not just for herself and other music lovers, but for artists like you and me.

fascism

[perdida]

Actually, the fascism comment comes from my thoughts on things that are not necessarily related to the music biz.

However, the mentality that permits more and more of this sort of thing does lead to fascism in my opinion.

This is a deeply held belief and that's why I jumped out at the AC. More politely phrased disagreement I tend to reply to..

The demand that the user identify himself or herself is a little checkpoint, especially when computers are connected to the Internet and the cd can't be played on a cd player.

If this propagates, a known criminal on the run can't listen to his own music collection if it might tip off the police. Or a pirate might get fined off his or her credit card or debit account, like the speeders in the rental car.

The more checkpoints we accept in our daily lives, whether they exist on a computer or at a "sobriety checkpoint," the more fascism we are tolerating in our lives. People who go along with this unthinkingly are at least collaborating with the fascists, because they are a security risk to people who think outside the increasingly tiny legal box.

It's a long conceptual jump from typing your name in to listen to music, to going along with a national ID card/chip. But it's a jump that can happen overnight.

More Misunderstanding

[virg_mattes]

Oh, fer cryin' out loud, I never said, nor even implied, that !=MP3 is bad and MP3 is good, and I don't want any legal precedent for the particular format for online offerings. That was the point I told the original poster that he/she missed. I couldn't care less what format they offer as long as they say they're doing it. More to the point, I'd rather they just didn't fsck with the CD in the first place, so if I care to I can rip whatever format I please. I don't rip CDs to MP3 to begin with, because I'm an audiophile, but if I went out and bought an MP3 player and then found that a particular CD couldn't be converted to that format (and the company didn't tell me that up front) I'd have a right to be bent out of shape.

Virg