Slashdot Mirror
Still More 'Copy Protected' CDs
maniac11 writes: "This story describes new CDs planned on being released by Universal Music Group that sport anti-copying technology. Not much in the way of actual details, but a heads up on a new plan to foil." Same price, worse product -- higher sales! Universal seems to be the first company to commit to downgrading its entire lineup over the next six months or so.
These products should absolutely be labelled as "non-compatible" with the CD standard if they in any way are not compatible with other CD usages.
This includes playing on a computer. Many of the other "copy protection" schemes make it impossible to use them on a computer of any sort. Others degrade sound quality.
If they're not clearly labelled as such, I could see lawsuits over mis-representation of the product.
INIAL, IAJAMC.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Seriously, I have bought maybe 15 cds in the past 3 years. Three of those were replacements of cds I'd have for years had been remastered, and the rest were by bands that allow me and others like me to freely record and trade their live concerts. Radiohead and U2 are two big name acts that have recently figured out that people who trade their concerts are more likely to buy their albums and attend their concerts than someone who doesn't trade.
Check out the links above, there is something for all tastes. There is plenty of music to be had for the price of your bandwidth and blank CDs.
If the industry is losing billions to copying, and they've made it impossible, we can expect to see prices fall to say $4.99, right? Or were they lying about napster....
If there's one thing this argument needs, it's a catchy label. If copy-prevention on CD's get slapped with a 'downgrade' label, it'll be dead before it gets any momentum. Joe Sixpack will NEVER stand for it and the media will have a field day demonstrating car stereos and home computers balking at the latest N'Sync CD.
We should push this rhetoric HARD.
Let's not forget about Dave Matthews Band. They had the foresight to pass on several offers from record companies because they wanted one of them to guarantee them the right to allow their fans to record concerts and swap songs. For that reason, while I have not bought a new CD in months, and don't intend to, I will make a small exception to my boycott and buy them -- assuming they don't allow copy protection to be foisted off on their CDs, in which case, I'll have to take a pass on that, too, since I almost exclusively listen to them on my box while working.
Am I bad for business? I've bought every album, some more than once because of mishap, plus their bio CD and a pair of DVDs (one was videos, one was a concert). I've also been to two of their concerts and would gladly go to another, and snap up their professionally recorded live albums eagerly.
The record companies are doing a lot more than protecting their investment. They are intentionally crippling their product in a way that infringes on your fair use rights. They have no right to do that. They are trying to control how you use their product. They have no right to do that. Heh.. not yet anyway, but watch them buy a few more laws.
The media cartel only exists because people keep fueling it and voting with their dollars
The media cartels exist because people have no other choice. Independent artists have even more difficult time getting to the top than alternative operating systems...
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
At that point, it is a matter for the courts to decide. I imagine that a small claims suit asking for about $100 for the $15 CD once or twice a month will get their attention.
Judges may or may not be concerned with the signage. In any case, it must be prominently displayed. Also, vendors cannot sell a product 'as-is' in most cases. Their is an implied warranty of merchantibility, which means that the product will work. Disclaimers can't disclaim this.
These signs (like many others posted by businesses) are their to scare off people who don't know the law and/or their rights.
So no, bringing in the laptop will not prove anything to the dumbshit manager of the store. But it might prove something to the small claims court judge.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Then just dispute the charge with your credit card company. They may not end up having to give your money back, but I guarantee they'll get tired of challenging chargebacks from their bank.
They'll get VERY tired of it, VERY quickly. The average chargeback processing fee is $20, and that's charged to the merchant regardless of whether the chargeback is upheld or not.
Whenever you write your credit card company to dispute a charge, you cost the merchant about $20 regardless of outcome.
"Hey, Mom, would you care if you can't play CDs on your computer?"
"Uh, YES, don't you remember? That's how I play all my CDs."
"Hey, Dad, would you care that you can't rip CDs to your computer?"
"Well, yes, because I copy all my CDs to MP3s so I don't need a CD changer to listen to them in sequence."
I suppose my parents may be weird though. After all, my Dad listens to country... (and he's got *all* his CDs on his computer as MP3s, but then again, he works for Digital - er, Compaq - er, HP). My Mom does some work with editting webpages, so I guess she can be considered a "technical" type.
But I know many people who I wouldn't consider a "nerd" who use their computer to play CDs straight. And they'll be mightly pissed if they can't listen to their new CDs on their $2000 laptop...
Don't forget, computers are slowly becoming "entertainment centers." My Mom basically gave up on her little CD player she used to use to play CDs and now (would) play her CDs via her CD-ROM drive -- except that she uses AudioGalaxy now. (And the incident with the CD-ROM door being stuck shut. Ignoring that...) Her computer sounds better than her small "portable stereo."
My sister (who is definately not a tech-type at all) uses her computer to play CDs - which, considering she only uses it for homework any other time should tell you something. (Although she has a "real" CD-player now she uses instead. It's a portable CD-player with headphones which is the real selling point.)
Many people who own a computer - a growing portion of the population - especially in the "pop music" set - end up playing CDs through it. Sometimes it's because the computer is in a separate room from the stereo and they want to listen to music while doing homework. Sometimes it's because they want to rip the 2-CD set and listen straight through them without swapping disks.
Legal digital music is becoming a way of life for the "younger" generation. Go through practically any college and you'll find that most of the music pumping these days is either a mix CD or straight MP3s being played through a high-fi stereo system. (With more colleges requiring computers, college students stick with the tool that works - if we can't spend $500 on a stereo, we'll use the $1000 computer we had to get instead...) It may not be near 50% of music listeners yet, but it's at least 10% - which is a lot of listeners to potentially permentantly alienate.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
I only used Napster (and other such MP3 services and so forth) to aquire music that was impossible to find in stores, thus buy, or to download music from artists that had said they supported their fans sharing music in that manner.
Last year I spent >$200 on CDs. The RIAA certainly made money off of me. However, now the RIAA wants to curtail my ability of fair use? Naturally, I'll be less inclined to buy CDs I can't use in all of my players. Not to mention that I consider these CDs that are "protected" to be defective. Of course, I might be inclined to buy again if I can have a tool to bypass their schemes (which will more than likely be illegal under the DMCA).
Case in point. I don't want to buy CDs that are defective (either intentionally or not). RIAA is losing my business by curtailing my ability to listen to my CD in the format I choose.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
It stands to reason that the biggest enemy of these non-standard CDs has to be the consumer electronics industry. They've seen a huge sales of burners, players, software, blanks, labels and all the other paraphernalia that goes with the make-your-own-CD revolution.
Limiting or preventing ripping of CDs seems like a real threat to not just Johnny Digital's passtime but of those in the electronics industry whose livlihood relies on consumers legitimately being able to rip CDs.
How soon until they fire back with firmware upgrades or other hardware hacks that overcome the copy protection gimmicks? And how will the music industry respond when this stuff is sold with the claim "Now compatible with new CDS!"?
The pathetic thing is that I can rip those tracks to HDD, then burn them to CD instead of making a full copy of the CD, and it will play! So much for copy "protection."
As an audio purist ever in search of better sound quality, the very idea of purposely degrading my signal source with digital fingerprints and copy protection is just pushing me to buy fewer and fewer CDs. I am not willing to pay for damaged goods, and I can't see how messing with my audio source can be viewed as anything but damaging.
As to piracy, I own a grand total of one pirated CD -- a copy of Willie Dixon's "Gingerale Afternoon" that I haven't been able to find anywhere in over 5 years. (At least not for a sane price -- there are a couple online shops that are willing to sell me a copy for $27+shipping.)
There are another 5-10 CDs that I'd pirate for the same reason, but I can't even find someone who owns an original, much less a place to buy those albums.
On the downside, my reduced purchases have absolutely no impact on the big labels as most of my purchases are from much smaller studios like Blind Pig Records. Odds are these smaller companies don't have the volume to invest in so-called copy-protection technologies, but if they farm out the AD conversion and manufacture to bigger companies I'll end up having to skip their products as well.
For those using the so-called CD player in their computer, if you actually cared about the music you'd spring for a CD portable regardless of the copy protection issue. The players built into a computer have so much signal interference and low-quality chip amps that they just aren't worth listening to!
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
If CDs were copy protected, would most people rip them by attaching their CD players to sound cards? Probably not. And not because of the quality, but because of the effort required. Consider this:
Ripping a CD to MP3s involves: (a) fetching track names automatically from freedb, (b) reading the audio off the CD (much faster than playing it) into separate files and (c) making MP3/ogg files.
Ripping a recording from line in involves (a) recording the whole damned thing at real time, (b) cutting it into separate tracks (no track info, remember), (c) hand-naming the files and making playlists. Takes a lot longer and requires more effort. I've done it once for a live recording from a MiniDisc, and it's not something I'd want to do for every CD I wish to listen to on my computer.
Of course, the payoff for going to this Herculean effort would be the kudos you get from all the mp3 l33ch3z when you upload it for the taking. So, in effect, copy-protected CDs would punish honest home-rippers and encourage file-sharing mp3 d00dz.