Slashdot Mirror
Digital Rights Management on CD's This Christmas?
McDrewbie asks: "Has anyone discovered that the new CD's found under the tree or in their stocking don't play on their brand new CD player? My father got a Brookstone Wafer-thin CD system and several new CD's. Most play fine, however several ones from Sony (with CDextra software on them) and from Columbia, either don't play or play with some crackling and popping, yet play fine on our older CD player. Did these companies decide to quietly unleash DRM on the public this holiday season? Or is this just a problem with the new player (separate from it not being DRM capable)? What are other Slashdot readers experiencing today?"
Anyone care to offer some insight as to which cd titles are doing this? ... so I can save the trouble of buying them and skip right ahead to downloading the mp3's :)
You obviously missed the question at the end of the article.
Let me quote it for you . Did these companies decide to quietly unleash DRM on the public this holiday season? Or is this just a problem with the new player (separate from it not being DRM capable)? There. See how he asks whether the problem is related to DRM or if it's an issue with his player? You jump down the writers throat for no reason. Posting it in the context of some of the replies to this article would make sense. But straight off the article itself, as if the author is some sort of dweeb is a little rich
Huge flaw in this logic.
Before I get started, let me clarify that I definitely hate DRM. I pretty much despise large record labels. So I'm not supporting them or anything, but simply sending a check to the artist is crazy.
First, where the hell are you going to send a check? Their fanclub? Do you know Timberlake's address? How about Snoop Dogg's address? How about Creed's address? Tim MCGraw? Whoever it is you listen to, you probably don't have any idea how to actually get money to them, unless they are local to you. And that's an altogether different story.
Secondly, there are TONS of people other than the artist who should be compensated. I mean, just because the CD says "Metallica", it doesnt mean that you are hearing Lars playing the drums on every track. It is very common for artists to hire studio musicians for recording sessions. Especially if they need to meet deadlines while the bassist is in rehab, or jail, or whatever. It happens, a lot, and the session players deserve a cut as well.
Aside from the actual music, there are the studio people. There's as much talent involved with skillful recording as there is with skillful playing. The cover art came from somewhere, and that person should be compensated. There are lots of people who attempt to make honest livings from the production of music and rely on CD sales for a income.
What the RIAA would have you believe is that their job is making sure the revenue gets spread out to all of these people fairly. And we all know this is a bunch of BS.
Really, the best thing to do is to support independant labels when you can. And when you can't, go MP3, Vorbis, whatever. This will (hopefully, if enough people do it) draw the talent away from the RIAA music nazis and empower the independant labels. Everyone benefits.
Many people have CD players where it won't be a problem, but would be scared away by an up-front warning. Futhermore, some people won't bother to return the CD. Together, these probably outway the expense of processing returns for Target.
It would be interesting to see if they'd show you the list if you asked.
You know, this is a good theory, but we did this. We bought 10% fewer recordings last year from the major labels. And, of course, they have used that against us as a sign that we need far MORE DRM in our lives. It couldn't be a 25% reduction in albums produced, or a ridiculous price creeping far above that set around the world, or a rising anti-RIAA sentimentality. Of course it is Napster's fault.
We can't just boycott the labels. We have to take power away from the labels and give it to the independents. How do we do this? By buying CD's from independent music labels and sharing the first 4 tracks, and refusing to share music from the major labels. Kazaa isn't just a way to avoid the distribution tax... it is a way to discover new music. We need to make sure that music is good, both in quality and in spirit. It would also be great if we could convince major artists to move away from the RIAA labels and strike it out on their own, but so long as they feel that their livelyhood is threatened I doubt that will happen. We'll have to make it happen on our own.
-C
This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future.
Indeed! If the disc won't play, it is defective. Take it back, and join the ever-growing boycott of the recording industry. When you take the disc back, demand a cash refund. Remember, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the customer is always right.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Hey Einstein? If you want to have the artists CDs and not just crappy mp3 downloads, you have to buy it from the damn store.
Most record labels aren't majors or members of the RIAA. Same goes for CD releases. Most are on independent labels or the band self-released.
I spend thousands of dollars a year on music. Shows, shirts, CD's...I spend more on music than I do on food. Not a dime goes to majors or RIAA.
And you'd think I was missing out on the 'best' stuff but I'm not. While all those major and RIAA labels are wetting their pants writing songs to conform to clearchannel standards and mastering all the dynamics out of the CD (so theirs will be louder than the competition), the independents are recording music that they like. Music which stands on it's own merits.
As a consumer of music, I have a choice of who I buy music from and why. I choose not to buy music from people who I feel are doing a disservice to musicians and our musical heritage. I actively buy great music from great bands and labels who are not evil.
The major labels are not a utility like PG&E. They are companies who live and die by convincing consumers to give them money. When I can get music which is as good or better from people who treat their musicians and customers with respect there's no reason to pay somebody who acts without ethics or morals. In fact, I feel it's wrong to reward somebody for negative behavior. Rewards are for people who do good.
So if you disagree with what the majors and the RIAA are doing and you give them money, you are a hypocrite. You are saying one thing but doing the other. We are not to blame for their behavior, but we are wrong to reward them for it.
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
consider this. someone has an older analog style (not cdrom based) reader. their player works just fine on some protected cd - TODAY.
then tomorrow their cd player breaks and they buy a new one. all of a sudden, that new player (and all other new players) refuse to play a disk that SEEMED ok before.
I find this very unnerving. if you noticed it didn't play immediately (or in 30 days) you could return it. but suppose you had it for years and then the new player didn't play it? what do you do then?
this whole thing sucks.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
The thing is, if we censor this fuck, then we're accused of being "un-American" or some shit like that.
Maybe not "un-American", since shouting down unpopular opinions seems to be in vogue here nowadays.
But really, you shouldn't censor people just for holding unpopular opinions, especially when they're not even expressing those opinions at the moment. Even a white supremacist might have something to teach you, as long as you know which topics to avoid. I might listen to a racist if he's talking about how to polish a gun or clean a deer, even though I know not to listen when the topic of race comes up.
Sometimes I hate being libertarian, we're _supposed_ to defend the rights of ignorant sister-kissing cousin-fscking inbred so-and-so's like this.
It amazes me how many people are attracted to libertarianism and yet don't understand the concepts behind it. Yeah, freedom for other people can sometimes suck, especially when they're expressing an unpopular opinion, but the censoring of unpopular opionions is the first step down a dangerous path.
And to all the people complaining about the modding up of this guy's post- the moderation applies to the post, not its author. This particular post has no offensive content that I can see. (Although I wouldn't waste mod points on it, because it really doesn't merit an "Insightful".) And the guy is at least honest about who he is. I wish all racists would announce up front who they were.