Slashdot Mirror
Universal Music Prepares for Copy-Protection Complaints
tregoweth writes: "Universal Music Group is preparing for the onslaught of complaints about their copy-protected CDs. They've launched a customer support site,
which includes a FAQ ("Can I get a copy of this CD without the copy protection?"), tech support ("Why can't I copy the disc to my hard drive?", which they don't actually answer), a description of the reasons that you can get a refund (including some playback "issues" I hadn't heard about), and the fearsome legalese covering the audio player and compressed audio files included on the CD." Our previous story has more information.
...or at least your immediate needs. Phillips seems a logical choice to back at this point as a hardware vendor that can profit from the lack of copy protection. They are a company like any other and $$$ are the only language. Phillips could provide actual muscle in the corporate arena that people jumping up and down protesting could never provide. Let companies that back your "ideals" do the legwork for you, BUT, always keeps one eye one the people your fighting and the other on the people fighting for you, because umltimately, they are out for themselves too and wouldn't hesitate to throw you to the wolves too if it made them a buck.
So what happens 5 years from now when you can't find a machine running XP to save your life, and the newest version of Microsoft's OS is incompatible with my cd's player. Universal says they won't be providing updates so I've just got a coaster? Thats dissapointing...
Depends on how you define "cracked." I could take the CD, put it in my CD player, connect the optical out from that to my soundblaster card (with Optical In) and rip away. Nice digital copy. Sure, not as fast or as easy, but doable nevertheless.
As Lessig said, "just a speedbump"
No they are not. This is a blatant lie. If they didn't put messed up data on the CDs in the first place then all of these problems would go away*.
On a clear disk you can seek forever
Now, if we want to buy a Universal music CD, we have to agree to a license agreement comparable to the average MS EULA.
Many of us probably feared that the customer backlash will be softened by some heavily encrypted files and a proprietary player on each CD. For all too many people, that functionality will be good enough.
Here's to hoping that the general public will still be pissed about:
1.) Not being able to use their favorite music software
2.) Not being able to transfer to mp3 players
Of course, in a few years, we may be in the horrible situation of having the RIAA agree on a new encryption standard, and all major music players and devices will read it. However, those music devices could be forced to tie in with just one computer, or something stupid like that.
I don't share my music, but I listen to all high-bitrate mp3s and use my mp3 player often. I have already decided against purchasing a CD I would almost certainly own by now if it weren't for Universal's copy protection. Let's hope Universal's sales suffer dearly for this.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
Wouldn't it be misleading to present an audio disc in the standard jewel case, even if the CDDA sticker was not present? If trademarks and domain names can be found confusingly similar, then can the shape of a product also be found confusingly similar? UMG should be required to sell these cds in different jewel cases that make them EASILY distinguishable from the standard jewel case. The lack of sticker won't catch the attention of 99% of the buyers. There should be some other reason that the buyers will not associate this product with a real CDDA compliant cd.
This seems to be the type of story that "investigative reporters" love - warning consumers that a product might not work on all of their fancy electronics and describing work-arounds and ways to avoid the problem.
It may even be worth it to send it in as a "tip" to one of those news stations that allows them to be sent in...
One of those would get the word out fairly quickly and probably cause Universal to find some way around the potential problems quickly. Especially if the discs don't work in Macintosh computers at the time...
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Not buying the CD at all doesn't help the problem - they'll just see low sales, and attribute it to "piracy", or blame it on the artist, rather than the public not agreeing with their copy-protection.
Buying it, and returning it as defective at least gets a reason in there. You should, of course, also contact them directly to express your concern over their copy-protection interfering with your right ot listen to the music that you have purchased, and tell them that your experience will influence your future buying decisions.
That way, they'll get it from both you, and from the stores that their CDs are being returned because they are defective. THey will know that the copy-protection is the problem, and they will hear it, not just from a "consumer" (note that they never refer to their customers as "customers" - it's always "consumers"), who they don't generally listen to, but from the stores selling their products, who they just might.