Slashdot Mirror
Lawsuit Over Crippled Charley Pride Music Disks Settled
thumbtack writes: "In a follow up to the /. story
"Record Companies Sued Over Charley Pride CD" last fall, Boycott-RIAA
is reporting in this story
that the case has been settled with Fahrenheit Entertainment, Music City Records, and Sunncomm. They have agreed to a list of 10 items that were the basis of the lawsuit. In addition following the link to the settlement document (pdf) the plaintiffs got a little cash to pay their lawyers as well."
They have agreed to a list of 10 items that were the basis of the lawsuit.
Too bad none of those ten has to do with the fact that country music makes your ears bleed.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Left out of the main heading is that the article is spinning this as a "consumer victory" over RIAA.
Basically, consumers can get new de-protected CDs to replace their protected ones.
Yawn. They'll just try again.
I see this as the most important point:
6. Defendants shall include a warning that the Charlie Pride CD is not designed to work in DVD players or Computer CD-ROM players;
As long as they mark the cd, and people know ahead that the product will not work for them, they can protect all the cds they want to. People will just learn to avoid cds that are marked that way.
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
I'm curious as to how this might affect future lawsuits. Since it is a settlement, can this case be used as leverage against Universal or others planning the same thing?
They agreed to ten demands and even coughed up lawyer fees. Seems like one of the most powerful weapons one can use is public humiliation. If this went on, more and more of the public would learn about this.
The only problem is they're going to continue using this copy protection. How many other distributors will adopt this or similar protection schemes in the future?
I'm not afraid of falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that frightens me.
Does charley pride's label really think that a high percentage of Charley Pride's listening demographic is likely to rip, encode, and post ANYTHING to the internet?
Guvegrra?
You just know that "warning" is going to be in tiny little fine white print at the bottom of the CD mixed in with all the other text no one ever reads.
IANAL, but two points on this:
My understanding is that a settlement is _not_ an admission or wrongdoing. So while this settlement may give moral support to others, it won't give you legal leverage against a music label in the future. (the whole point of a settlement is that it's cheaper and quicker than going to court, and since no legal decision is made, no precedent is set)
Second, it's not clear how much the label can get away with if their CDs give consumers explicit warning. People will just "avoid" CDs that are hobbled? There are five music labels that control the industry, from signing artists to what gets produced and distributed to what gets played on the radio.
Courtney Love, Tom Petty and others are suing those labels on the basis that their contracts for artists are basically identical - and uniformly screw the artist. We could be looking at a parallel situation here.
Teaching, coding, coffee, revolution.
...I'm glad to see this trend started where labeling similar to software packaging is required and the companies are required to take some reponsibility and provide a kind of warentee on this disk (even if it's just 30 days). I hope that it'll convince other companies and CDs to adopt these policies and not just stick with the Charley Pride album and blindly continue ignoring the consumers.
A guy can't wish, can't he?
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
People are still stupid enough to buy it anyways. They don't read warnings simply since they are jaded by the sheer amount they get daily. Not on CD covers (besides, the RIAA would probably print it with a 2 point font) not on styrofoam coffee cups from McDonalds, not on aerosol canisters, not on ladders. Record stores will only have more unhappy customers, like the 45 year old secretary who hasn't a clue about this whole debate and buys Kenny G's greatest hits so she can listen to on her work computer, only to find out that she isn't responsible enough to do it without the permission of the RIAA.
Maybe it is good that the RIAA lost in the long run, but they are now absolved of any liability for stupid people who could potentially help our cause...
On the flipside, this may raise more awareness as to the dirty deeds of the RIAA by creating more unhappy customers.
Remember this is just a settlement, not a victory in a court of law. While it is good news, its also mostly a stalling tactic while the record companies figure out their next move. Personally, I still want to see ALL crippled (in any way) "CDs" segregated from true CDs in every place they are sold.
I think one of the vital contributing factors was that Music City Records provided the CD playing software that would track user habits - NON-ANONYMOUSLY - and use it for free marketing research.
If this had not happened would the RIAA have not lost?
10. Defendants shall include a warning that the downloadable encrypted digital music files of the songs contained on the Charlie Pride CD may only be downloaded six times."
hmm... how are they going to possibly be able to inforce this, since all downloads are anonymous?
1. Defendants shall immediately ensure that any and all Internet music file downloads and listening of the music contained or arising out of said Charlie Pride CD are always anonymous and personal identifying information including, but not limited to, e-mail address and IP addresses shall not be required nor obtained as a condition of downloading (including file downloads from sunncomm.com) or playing or listening to the CD or music files, thereby protecting consumer privacy.
Don't forget Fat Chuck's list of corrupt CDs:
http://www.fatchucks.com/corruptcds/
You can scope out your CDs _before_ ordering them online, something that is otherwise difficult. If you're having trouble with a new CD in the DVD or CD-ROM drive it might be worth checking here also.
WTF are you going to sue a company based on the company breaking copyright in an untested way and then turn around and settle!!!!! now the company can just turn around and do it again!!!!!
IDIOTS!!!
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
If you notice, everything is specific to the single instance of the Charley Pride CD. Who cares? What was really needed was an agreement like this for labeling *ALL* future discs.
Given that... I don't see how this is much of a victory; a draw at best.
--Rob
and
Does this mean that If I use my 6 downloads and then sell the disc to a friend, they'll get 6 downloads, too? Or will they have bought a disc that they can't play in their computer (and they'll have no way of knowing it until after they've bought it)?
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
They settled out-of-court. No admission of wrongdoing, no court precedent, nothing. Out of whatever number of people bought the Charley Pride CD, *one* filed suit that we know of. The payoff to get her to go away was pocket change. They can keep on doing this for a long time, because until they get hammered with hundreds (or thousands) of lawsuits, or someone has the stomach to actually take the case to court, the cost to them to settle a few cases out of court is nothing. Especially if they believe their marketdroids when they are told they're losing millions to pirated CDs.
So no, this wasn't a victory for anything but the status quo.
It's interesting that the music companies would use a term which sounds like "timeshifting" (a legally protected consumer right for recording television programs) rather then just "copying".
Perhaps they are anticipating laws that would regulate moving music files around for your convenience.
I'd like to spaceshift to a warmer climate.
-Paul
"I'm nobody suspicious... That makes me sound even more suspicious, doesn't it?" - Spike (Cowboy Bebop)
I think the last time I bought a music CD was about a year ago. The last time I bought a music CD from anywhere but a used CD store, I can't remember.
Boycott the RIAA? Who needs to? I've simply and effectively removed the RIAA from my life by just not buying music. If they want to play hardball, they can play all they want. I just won't play the game.
And before I get irate comments about me stealing music, I don't download any music from any of the big name file sharing networks. The free stuff at MP3.com (well, what used to be free, haven't been there in awhile) from independent artists in the kind of music I listen to is more than enough for me. If you want Charley Pride or Metallica or whatever, go on right ahead. I've ceased to care.
It's not an original idea - Windows Media Player does reports your playlists back to Microsoft secretly if you don't stop it. Download and run ZoneAlarm, fire up a CD with Media Player, and wait for the warning.
Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off now.
why is is that google can cache a story/webpage, but the content can't be pasted as part of a ./ posting? what makes it illegal? the poster isn't claiming the statements are his, merely quoting a source as they would in a term paper or such.
'Cept I'm at the Karma Cap already, so KWh0ring won't do me a spot of good.
I posted this because I was unsure of the host's bandwidth capabilities and was under the impression that the story was new enough for Google not to have a cache of it.
As a side note, there's also a story on the settlement over at C|Net News.com.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
Look at that post you modded up as "Interesting"! It isn't interesting, it is flamebait. It is most definitely a rip on fans of country music and shouldn't have recieved any positive moderation. I personally enjoy country music and must say that I have ripped and encoded many country CDs for my own personal MP3 collection. I take great offense to people who stereotype the country music listener as in imbred appalacian who is lucky enough to own a trailer and a CD player let alone a computer! Let me be the first to stand up as a proud, intellegent, and critical listener of country music.
Just think if this was a rap cd and you said "do you really think anyone who listens to rap is smart enough to encode it on their computer", people would be all over you. Let's not trivialize the criticism of country music listeners!
Adam
While I do agree that country music is painful to the ears, I hardly condone calling Mr. Pride "Crippled" because of it.
There are already legal requirements about CD format, including a requirement that the "true name and address of the manufacturer" appear on the CD. This is in most states (here's Arizona's, look at Subsection A, 3 & 4) and in Federal law. This decision will just mean another line of fine print on the back of your CD.
>People will just "avoid" CDs that are hobbled?
? st oryID=930&newssectionID=1
You could have put 'avoid "CDs"', as they arent really CDs as far as Philips is concerned. Check out:
http://www.gramofile.co.uk/newsMainTemplate.asp
Overall, a great settlement. But, I wonder if the warnings will follow the obfuscation standards that liquor and cigarette manufacturers use. (Why the pregnant woman warning before the drunk driving warning? Surely there are more drivers than pregnant people!).
I wonder if the warning would like this:
PLAYS IN ANY CD PLAYER. TO ACCESS ADDITIONAL DIGITAL MUSIC FILES ON A COMPUTER, YOU NEED MICROSOFT WINDOWS 98 OR LATER, MICROSOFT WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER 7.0 (INCLUDED FREE ON THIS CD), AND ACCESS TO THE INTERNET (ALSO INCLUDED; TRY AOL FOR 50 HOURS FOR FREE). ACCESS WILL REQUIRE NOT MORE THAN SIX DOWNLOADS. NOT DESIGNED TO WORK IN DVD, MP3, OR COMPUTER CD-ROM PLAYERS. FOR A LIST OF KNOWN COMPATIBLITY PROBLEMS RELATED TO COMPUTERS, CD PLAYERS, AND DIGITAL MUSIC PLAYING DEVICES, PLEASE VISIT WWW.RECORDSTORE.COM/01lOI/|I\!.HTML
(Yeah, I know it's in upper case. It's meant to be hard to read. That's why liquor and cigarette labels use it...)
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
6. Defendants shall include a warning that the Charlie Pride CD is not designed to work in DVD players or Computer CD-ROM players
The first DVD players didn't have the ability to play normal audio CDs. This feature was added by manufacturers in order to set their products apart from other DVD players. A "value-added" thing.
If these copy-protected CDs become widely used in the music industry, then it won't be long before Sony, Panasonic, etc. will make players and CD-ROM drives that can read these disks. The consumer demand is too high to ignore.
Right of First Sale
4. Defendants shall not impair or limit in any manner the ability and right of consumers to lawfully sell or transfer ownership of the Charlie Pride CD to others who shall have the equal ability to download related digital music files;
What a breath of fresh air. I think this is what the music labels are really after here. Not mass piracy (ala asian copy shops) but abridging first sale rights. And the good news is that in this and the adobe vs. softman case, the courts are upholding our rights.
So now the battle shifts to hardware and standards bodies, as the content cartels will try to get through firmware what they can't achieve in the courts.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
This particular CD used the MediaCloque "Copy Protection" on it. When you inserted the CD into a CDRom drive on a Windows Machine (not a PC, a Windows Machine, it would run a program that lets you put in your personal info, and then download Mp3 copies *of the music you have sitting on the CD*. They then store your info, your IP address, etc.
Not only is this a total invasion of privacy, but it also extends the MS Monopoly, since your CD theoretically wouldn't play under Linux, MacOS, etc. It's also ridiculously stupid; if you are at home on dialup, and you want to listen to this CD on your computer, why the hell would you want to wait hours for it to download when you HAVE THE MUSIC ON THE CD?!
We can only hope these things crash & burn ASAP.
Because some people won't read the article, here are the 10 conditions:
.
Privacy
1. Defendants shall immediately ensure that any and all Internet music file downloads and listening of the music contained or arising out of said Charlie Pride CD are always anonymous and personal identifying information including, but not limited to, e-mail address and IP addresses shall not be required nor obtained as a condition of downloading (including file downloads from sunncomm.com) or playing or listening to the CD or music files, thereby protecting consumer privacy.
2. Defendants shall immediately purge all personal identifying information (including e-mail addresses and IP addresses) obtained via the music file downloading process to date.
3. Defendants shall amend their privacy policy(s) to advise consumers that all Internet file downloads of the music contained on the Charlie Pride CD are anonymous.
Right of First Sale
4. Defendants shall not impair or limit in any manner the ability and right of consumers to lawfully sell or transfer ownership of the Charlie Pride CD to others who shall have the equal ability to download related digital music files;
Return Policy
5. Defendants shall immediately begin accepting from consumers not satisfied with the Charlie Pride CD due to problems with playability on their CD player, computer CD player, or electronic or portable playing device
Platform Notices
6. Defendants shall include a warning that the Charlie Pride CD is not designed to work in DVD players or Computer CD-ROM players;
7. Defendants shall include a warning of the minimum system requirements for playing the downloadable encrypted digital music files on a computer, including Microsoft Windows 98 and above and Microsoft Windows Media Player 7.0 and above and access to the Internet;
Spaceshifting Notices
8. Defendants shall include a warning that the Charlie Pride CD and encrypted digital music file downloads are not compatible with MP3 rippers and players and are not compatible with MP3 electronic playing devices;
9. Defendants shall include a notice to visit a web page with a simple URL for an updated list of known compatibility problems related to computers. CDplayers, and digital music playing devices;
10. Defendants shall include a warning that the downloadable encrypted digital music files of the songs contained on the Charlie Pride CD may only be downloaded six times.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
The problem I see is that there is no requirement that they not label CDs that aren't copy impeded. Once they cross the magic threshold (I'd guess about 10%) they start putting the label on everything.
.sig
-- This is not a
Actually the DVD/mp3 players are the showstoppers for the records companies around here, even people without computers got one. Guess what? They'll ask people like me to download it off the net and burn it to cd for them, and give me a nifty profit on it too. That's people that wouldn't bother to steal music normally, but the record companies would be driving them off. And then they'll go crying to the politicans over all the bad people who steal their music...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Not quite. While your point about Judicial vs Legislative is true, this case involves an out of court settlement which involves neither branch. It's more like a contract.
The Plaintiffs didn't have to roll over and accept this settlement that applies only to the Charley Pride disc. The publisher of this CD could have been required to label all of their future protected discs as a part of this settlement.
The next time there is an unlabled protected disc, we'll go through this all over again.
--Rob
it won't be long before Sony, Panasonic, etc. will make players and CD-ROM drives that can read these disks.
Have you had your head in the sand?!? Sony IS the RIAA! Many years ago Sony used to make consumer electronics. They made good stuff. That's all in the past. Today, Sony makes their money from content (Sony Music, Sony Pictures, Sony Playstation titles, etc), and they build their hardware to maximize THOSE profits, at the expense of features.
Sony equipment has more cripples than any other brand. They have a string of failed product lines because the cripples and proprietary restrictions were so blatant even Joe Consumer clued on. (Memory stick mp3-player-like devices that would not actually play mp3s, but only locked-down DRM shit instead. DVD players that are SERIOUS about implementing zone cripples and output restrictions as bulletproof as possible, while no-name brands do the mininum crippling that licensing requires of them, and sometimes not even that. Minidiscs packaged with "digital" USB connection devices that were not, in fact, digital connecters, but digital to analogue converters, ensuring that any transfer to or from the minidisc was via analogue, even though both machines have digital. Not to mention the prevention/removal of digital output jacks from consumer minidisc recorders to begin with, despite them already being SCMS compliant...). I shudder to think what kind of cripples a sony-brand HDTV system is loaded with...
Sony doesn't make hardware, they make content. And they design that hardware to sell their content.
Not only will Sony not make players to play corrupted CDs (unless every other company is doing it already), they are actively funding the developement of these corruption systems and will spend buckets of $$$ to get them the court's and congress's blessings.
Know thine enemy.
Sony is not the knight in shining armour waiting to take on the labels. Sony is the labels, masquerading as its previous business as an electronics manufacturer to fool the unwary.
Don't ever buy sony products - after those failed products, they are getting very, very good at hiding the cripples. Better than we are at spotting them before purchase.
Universal can go right ahead and copy protect their CDs however they chose, and label them (or not) in whatever manner they want.
But now, armed with the precedent from this case, plaintiffs will be able to take down the labels easily. To avoid legal expenses, the labels will likely voluntarily comply.
there is nothing illegal with any of these copy protection schemes
What about misrepresentation? The user is sold a disc with the Philips Compact Disc Digital Audio logo on it, but the disc doesn't meet the Compact Disc Digital Audio standards. Fraud is a felony.
at the *most* you will get gov't imposed labelling standards and requirements.
And ad campaigns to "look for the logo" on behalf of independent labels and Compact Disc logo trademark holder Philips.
But when N*Sync releases their album with fully-labelled copy protection, do you really think it won't sell to the teen masses?
Ever heard the old joke about the three fastest forms of communication? Telephone, television, and tell-a-girl. Negative word of mouth will kill the *NSYNC franchise rápidamente.
get used to this idea - it's their IP
IP stands for "Internet Protocol" or a numeric address assigned thereunder. The notion of "intellectual property" exists nowhere in the letter of United States copyright law; Congress presumably passed the copyright act "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," not to create a new form of property.
Will I retire or break 10K?
And when there are no non-protected CDs available, will people continue to avoid them?
Name one independent label that has committed to using technical fair use restrictions on its entire music catalog.
[/me hums the Jeopardy! theme song]
Give up? None of them have. Real CDs will continue to be available; teens will just have to give up *NSYNC and a few other manufactured bands.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Yeah, warning labels! They solve everything! Just look at how smoking went away once the Surgeon General ordered warnings to be placed on cigarettes!
Seriously, anybody remember how long it was until the tobacco companies got around to (ie. were forced to) putting the warnings on a white background, making them legible? And if this is how labels about a lethal product are treated, why should we expect warning labels on music to be any better?
Of course, the light on the end of the tunnel is that not even the warning labels were enough to keep the tobacco companies from getting their pants sued off.
I wouldn't say what they make is crap - the problem is that they deliberately cripple what it can do. I would say they are extremely good at making stuff - part of the legacy of their roots, but there is not a consumer electronics manufacturer out there as dedicated to crippling their products as Sony is, and Sony is getting good at concealing their cripples.
An amp is not relevant to content - it does not record content, it does not play content, it is an in-between for devices that deal with content. As such, sure, it probably is safe to buy a home-theatre amp from Sony - they'll make a kick-ass amp. But buy the devices that plug into the amp that Do deal with content, that's getting riskier...
I own a couple of ultra-small minidisc recorders also. They were part of what put me off Sony. The actual minidisc tech is fabulous. The cripples and propritary crap is not. And since Sony owns the format, competitors have to license it under Sony's terms.
Your digital connection is only allowed by Sony after mp3 players and the like were looking to imminently kill the minidisc format in the marketplace, due to fast music transfer and other features Sony prohibited in their hardware. Seriously - the format faltered and for a short time it looked like it would die forever, because Sony wouldn't allow the features that genuine product manufacturers would, and mp3 players were taking their marketshare.
That the marketplace eventually forced Sony to relax a cripple doesn't change the point that they crippled it in the first place. And that, when it became apparent that this wasn't cutting the mustard any longer, they tried to disguise an analogue audio transfer as a direct computer connection (when a direct connection would have been cheaper hardware!) is even more damning yet.
There will be hardware divisions of Sony reletively unaffected by the shift in priority, but anything to do with digital content - run! Run away while you still can!
BTw, regarding the minidiscs. I upgraded to a 6gig MP3 recorder and player that fits into my jeans pocket comfortably. (Then I replaced its laptop HDD for a 30 gig drive). And that was the end of Sony in my life. Haven't bought a sony product since. I'll not have them spend my hard-earned* dollars on funding new ways to corrupt audio CDs.
:)
:)
The mp3 player is a little bigger than a small minidisc, and a fair bit heavier (thus less able to survive drops...), but a hell of a lot better.
Digital input AND output. No cripples. SCMS has a work-around. Realtime recording via digital, analogue, or built-in mic (which is a piece of crap, but it's there
Hook it up to the digital port of your Sony amp and you'll get better sound than from a minidisc.
No matter where I am, no matter which mood, the exact song I want to listen to is in my pocket. Custom playlists, no changing discs, no carrying additional discs. Amazing.
(Well, I thought so. I've been addicted to it for months now
Why am I saying this? Because I found minidisc so good compared to the other options that I put up with Sony's crap. But now there is a new option, and it kicks minidisc. So I don't have to put up with sony anymore. And so if there is anyone out there like - this is for you - You don't have to put up with Sony anymore!
Yay!
:-)
Laserdisc was niche because of the price of the player's perhaps, which were $100 or so more than a VCR back then (on up to THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS for the top of the line ones). Honestly I think the side-flipping thing was more of a deterrent. A good player would flip sides FOR you, but if the movie was over 2 hours you still had to change discs once because you got a max 2 hours per platter. No getting around that disc swap without a $3000 2-drawer Pioneer Elite player!
The price of the media more than made up for a couple hundred bucks extra for the player, though. Consider the movie situation at the end of the 80's.
- Die Hard on VHS for $100
- Die Hard on laser for $50
- RoboCop on VHS for $100
- RoboCop on laser for $30
It seems crazy now, but once the idea of OWNING a shrink-wrapped VHS movie was absurd; movies were for renting, silly rabbit! If you wanted to BUY a movie, you paid the same $100 that the video store did, or you waited for a video store to sell a worn-out copy. (Even that didn't happen a lot then as I recall, because the rental biz was smaller and they would get in a FEW tapes, not 50 when a new title came out. They tended to keep what they first got.)
You didn't have to buy a lot of movies to make a laserdisc player a good deal. If you were into movies, anyway. And nearly EVERY US movie was available in the format. Many of them had exotic collector'e editions with the deleted scenes and stuff we take for granted on DVDs now.
It was in this climate that laserdiscs flourished. OK, flourished is an exaggeration. It was definitely a niche. They never got huge, but they were big enough that every movie came out on laser, there were scads of players to choose from, and every city had a few specialty retailers to support the format.
We laser jocks were enjoying near-DVD quality movies at comparatively bargain prices over a decade ago. So I have to post this same rant every time someone slights the format, in your case due to a misunderstanding of the price factor.
Now to await the flames and mods!