Slashdot Mirror
Another Class Action Over Crippled Music Disks
pulaski writes "Here's a link to an interesting Baltimore Sun story. It's about the case of two Californians trying to take some major record companies to task for selling copy protected CDs. It's got the classic Cary Sherman whine but the plaintiffs apparently have some legal muscle." A similar suit was settled with the defendants agreeing to make changes in their practices.
but thugs didnt pay for the right to use the house. if i sold access for a thug to come into my house, and then throw locks on the doors and make them only use the front porch and deck... (i like my responce to that one)
From the article (the "Cary Sherman whine" referred to in the posting):
... Cary, mi amigo: The copy protections on video tapes and computer games don't cause your VCR or computer to become unusable. If they did, those industries would have exactly the same problem you're currently having. Putting a warning label saying "Be careful, this apparently innocent disc may eat your computer" isn't sufficient: it would be better to, oh, I don't know, maybe use a method that works without breaking things?
"Music creators have the right to protect their property from theft, just like owners of any other property," Sherman said. "Motion picture studios, and software and video game publishers have protected their works for years, and no one has even thought to claim that doing so was inappropriate, let alone unlawful." [said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Assn. of America]
Umm
It's a small point but I'd like to see people start using a phrase like copy crippled instead of copy protected as protected has a positive connotation.
Would it really be that hard to put a label on the disk saying that its copy protected? If they can do it with the explicit lyrics label, they can do it with this. Although, I can see it now where the artists will start suing because they can't get their cover art on the discs because there will be so many labels on the front. Back to the longbox! :-)
quod me nutrit me destruit
Well there is a distinction that needs to be made. Copy Protection is OK (witness: video games). Protection from theft is OK. Crippling a product and calling it either Copy Protection or Protection from Theft is not.
There's a line between trying to stop people from copying/stealing and selling things that don't work in equipment that should be compatible.
Dave,
You're right. It isn't encryption *at all*, it is simply messing around with the Audio CD standard so that computer-based CD players get confused or reject the corrupt CD. In short, they look like CDs, but they really aren't. They're just shiny music platters that we mistakenly assume are CDs based on our previous experiences with these things.
Peace,
Chuck
"Music creators have the right to protect their property from theft, just like owners of any other property," Sherman said.
I agree too - although I haven't heard of very many cases where the lorries full of CDs get hijacked on the way to the record stores. Perhaps the police should get involved. Copyright infringement, however, is a different story.
This case is simple and I'm glad a huge law firm finally saw the opening to cause the RIAA and assc. companies some major pain.
Deal with facts people, this case is not going to deal with Fair-Use Rights. This case will likely be based on the simply premise that the recording companies are mislabeling the things they sell and furthurmore being secretive about it from the public.
Copy-Crippled PCC's (Polycarbonate Coated Circles.. note I didn't call them CD's) are not CD's, they will not work in a large array of CD capable player devices, and might actually harm some of those devices. This case will likely set out to prove that the Recording Industry did not make a good faith effort to explain the limitations and possible dangers of their product, which misleadingly looks like all of their older, but different products. The RIAA will likely loose this lawsuit. All that remains to be seen is how much the law firm makes them pay.
Somedays I wish this country wasn't so litigious in nature, but others I figure out that its the only thing holding back huge mega-corporations from totally screwing us.
These xxAA punks are going to screw up the computer and home electronics industry. The whole idea of buying a stereo/music/computer for my personal enjoyment makes me shiver, because it might not be usable for a long time, and it might not play nice with other stuff. It's this big maze of incompatabilities that will scare people away from buying consumer electronics. Once those shiny discs stop working in one device, only working part of the time, the average consumer is going to be pissed. All they'll say is that these "things used to work fine, now I've got to get a new key or something." Suddenly my out-of-date electronics are looking really cool!
"Music creators have the right to protect their property from theft, just like owners of any other property,"
Yeah, and I have the right to put up a fence around my house to protect myself. But if I decide to cement broken glass along the top, and someone tries to get in and inevitably cuts themselves, they can sue me.
A) The case gets dismissed after a bunch of FUD from the record companies
B) They settle out of court for what is a large sum of money for these two people but a very small sum for the RIAA.
the sad truth is, it's just like the tobacco companies: they're just too big and no _real_ change will happen until some major players (i.e. states) become involved.