Lawsuit Challenges Copy-protected CDs

acer123 writes "An article states that 'The five major record companies have been hit with a class-action lawsuit charging that new CDs designed to thwart Napster-style piracy are defective and should either be barred from sale or carry warning labels.'"

Comments

NOT digital quality

[Alizarin Erythrosin]

They should be required to remove that little CD-quality logo from packaging and say that it is a copy-protected CD. That way, people will know the quality may suck, and they can't listen to it in a computer.

Also, wasn't something like this reported a few days ago?

How to join?

[InterruptDescriptorT]

I purchased a CD for my mother for Mother's day that was one of the widely-reported copy-protected albums (Celine Dion, BTW). It wouldn't play on my parents' computer, which is the only player they have in the house. Is there any information on whom to contact to become part of the class action? Does one just contact the legal firm suing the record companies and inquire there? Thanks.

---
I'm tired of waltzing for pancakes. - Gwen Mezzrow

Amusing how often they prove their stupidity...

[pogle]

From article:
"...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."

This is just wrong on so many levels. One, as anyone in Usenet knows, there are a lot of trolls out there who claim its wrong, not that we listen to them.

But seriously, how many CD copy protections prevent the CD from being used on a majority of players?? I know of one game thats been almost endemic in its lack of functionality, and thats MS' Dungeon Siege. I've got 3 cd drives (32x, DVD-ROM, and CD-RW) and dungeon siege only worked with my CDRW. Thats the worst case instance I can think of for software lack of functionality due to media changes (MS has some lovely copy protection nonsense on the CDs). And there are legitimate complaints all over the place about that problem.

The majority of software is protected via regkeys and other software based methods, *not* by scratching the CD so only some players can read it. Someone want to come with me to smack this guy with an EUL printout or two? It'd be fun...

RIAA Pres did make one valid point

[Kombat]

"Music creators have the right to protect their property from theft, just like owners of any other property," [RIAA president Cary] 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."

I'm curious to hear the Slashdot community's response to Sherman's point. We cannot copy movies, even under "fair use" provisions, thanks to Macrovision (VHS) and CSS + Macrovision (DVD). While we can make backups of our software, it is harder to pirate them due to the use of software keys. This is a relatively effective, and unobtrusive protection mechanism.

But when it comes to music, it's no-holds-barred. There is absolutely zero protection on a CD to prevent unauthorized copying. Don't you agree that it is hypocritical to cry foul regarding CD copy-protection, but not the guards built into VHS and DVD works?

Why the double-standard? Why do we just accept that any VHS tape we buy will be uncopyable thanks to Macrovision (barring any specialized hardware to bypass it that's beyond the reach of the lay consumer), but we so vigorously oppose those similar protections on CDs? I can't copy my VHS tapes, even if I own them and want to make a copy to take on the road in my van, or to preserve the slowly-degrading quality inherent in repeated playing of such media. But we don't cry about it - we just accept it. Why?

Re:RIAA Pres did make one valid point

[Junta]

I personally think CSS is a badly done copy protection, I complain about it. But to differentiate the three:

DVD CSS/region coded: sucks, yes, but at least part of the standard from inception. Anything designed to play DVDs *should* play even CSS/region coded discs (provided the region matches, etc...). Copy protection does not interfere with playback for commercial systems. The peeve here is that non-sanctioned players (i.e. ogle) cannot legally read CSS discs in the US (though many ignore the law, it is still illegal). And backup is not an option for the average consumer, and backup is important.

Macrovision, unlike DVD, was a modification of Tape encoding methods. It sucks for backup purposes, but has minimal effect on playback. The technology kept confined to the relatively small world of VCRs, so the technology pretty much works as intended. Backups are made possible by 'signal enhancers' available from anywhere that remove macrovision spikes. Backups are suddenly possible and the slight video degradation is taken care of. Again, the law-abiding person suffers most from the slight picture degradation, while copiers continue, but the impact is minor.

Now CD protection is different, the worst of both worlds. CD technology has gotten to the point where many people use computers/computer based cd players to play back music and ditch the far more limited dedicated low end cd players. This is fine for the standard, but now the RIAA screws the standard so that very high end and computers no longer play back this music, and the chunk of listeners cut out by that is quite significant. Meanwhile, the ones who are determined break out sharpies, post it notes, and analog lines to copy to their hearts content. In the long run only the legit customers really get screwed, and get screwed quite significantly by this bastardized format...