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?"
I think that DRM for a present is worse then coal.
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 :)
The Corrupted Audio CDs category at the ODP has several background stories, many from /.
Please also post any new corrupt or DRM CDs you find on that complete list, there.
(While you're at it, boycott the RIAA by buying independent CDs, instead!)
From Sony's website: CD EXTRA combines the worlds of Music and Multimedia. A traditional audio CD when placed in an audio CD player, CD EXTRA offers a free interactive multimedia experience when played in a computer's CD-ROM drive *. CD EXTRA offers the music fan a closer look at their favorite artists, with many CD EXTRAs containing exclusive content. Other CD EXTRAs contain Internet Service Provider Software which allows you to connect to the Internet.
It's not DRM, AFAIK. I've got several Sony CD EXTRA CD's that are nothing more than multisession CD's that some audio CD players simply cannot handle. However, I don't think you can get the same CD offered in both CD EXTRA and non-CD EXTRA formats, so you may be out of luck when trying to play those particular discs in those particular audio CD players; in fact, some older CD-ROM drives can't even handle 'em.
"I wonder if the RIAA realizes that they're pushing me towards MP3's when they pull shit like this."
I think Slashdot should start an event called "Music Return Day". Here's how it works: Get as many people to buy a known copy-restricted CD as possible. Then, locate a national store that'll accept returns on 'defective CDs' (Best Buy or Walmart maybe?) then, on a particular date, have everybody return that CD.
Heh imagine slashdotting Equifax.
"Derp de derp."
[i]"I think Slashdot should start an event called "Music Return Day". Here's how it works: Get as many people to buy a known copy-restricted CD as possible. Then, locate a national store that'll accept returns on 'defective CDs' (Best Buy or Walmart maybe?) then, on a particular date, have everybody return that CD.[/i]
Actually, my wife works at Target. She told me that there are several CDs with "known" issues that they'll take back and exchange for another CD with no questions asked, even though the normal exchange policy is for the same title only if opened. They are returned frequently for not working in people's players.
I don't have a list of the titles, but from what I gather its becoming more and more common. To the point that it will probably annoy the corporate buyers enough that this stuff will stop before it gets too common, IMO.
I've felt the same way about their stuff the past couple years. It looks pretty cool in the catalogs, but there is a Sharper Image store down the road and much of the stuff, up close, looks like maybe a good idea manufactured cheaply. In some cases, a stupid idea, altogether. Catalogs can sell stuff you wouldn't normally buy, because some little deception (usually a hot babe holding/using it) used to redirect your attention from it's faults.
That said... With all the crap the music industry has been doing lately, I'm less inclined to buy their products. Are they going to dismiss my few hundred $ a year, no longer spent, on music piracy? I don't even download MP3's (I haven't even had a system I could do anything with them until recently.) I'm more likely to visit the local used CD store and pick up old, pre-DRM music (which might become a hot collector's item if the current trend continues.)
Some day on eBay:
3034898724 Beatles Sgt Pepper Non DRM Current bid: $57.61
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Wow, that's so insightful!
I've never read those sentiments anywhere before. I find your completely original outlook on these matters interesting, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Keep those stunningly fresh and new ideas coming!
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
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.
Corrupt data is added to that extra session so computers will go boink when reading it. This is why that magic marker work-around worked -- it prevented the computer from reading the extra session.
Now a good way to make proper back-ups of your Audio CDs is to remove this extra session. This can be done quite easily if you are using a plextor CD-Rw because the DiscDupe software that comes with it will, when presented with an audio CD, do a bit for bit copy of the first session only. This means that the resulting backup will have the protection removed so you can excercise your home use rights and easily make more copies for the car, ogg encoding, etc.
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.
This is slightly - OT, but at least it's a real life story as to how DRM is harmful to legitimate customers.
I moved a couple of months ago. My GTA 3 disk was damaged in the move through my own carelessness. I contacted the producer of the game to find out how much a simple media exchange would cost. Want to know how much it'll cost? $18 + S&H. That's just for the disk. They can't throw a copy on the burner for me and do it for $5?
I should have backed it up. I'm not sure if I could have or not. I didn't try with this particular game, but I've had to go to rather extreme measures to back up other games I have. You'd think I'd have the right to protect my $50 investment, but obviously I don't.
I find this infurating. It's either a copyright issue or it isn't. Either I'm holding an $18 lump of plastic, or I'm holding an $.05 key to content I have licensed. They can't have it both ways.
I can't believe that these industries are legally allowed to get away with customer gouging.
It doesn't matter a whit what looks wrong to you, it's "CDs". "CD's, CEO's, UFO's" are all 100% wrong. There's no case to be made, no arguments to have, it's just plain old incorrect.
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Ah. A member of the 'because I say so' school of grammatical thought. I can respect that.
Presumably you said that to your english teacher when he told you to put a capital letter after a full stop.
There are no two ways about it, "CD's" means "of the CD" or "belonging to the CD". "CDs" is the plural of "CD".
SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
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.
Yeah, I'm going to have to call shenanigans on this. I have never heard of pressed CD's with a lower track width causing a higher rate of errors. And that's all it would be if this happened, a higher error rate causing the CD player to interpolate more samples. These errors would show up on a good ripping program such as EAC, reading in secure mode. It doesn't seem likely that the pressing process could produce a lower quality CD given a bunch of bytes.. it's not like the pressing machine secretly switches bits on and off. So maybe a longer CD has a higher chance of unreadable frames, although I've never heard of this. But to say that the pressing process creates a CD where the bytes of data on the CD do not equal the bytes on the master, is ridiculous.
Lucius, if it's true you're in recording you're in a unique position to prove/disprove this theory. Just take the master of a track, at 44/16/stereo. Then get a pristine, pressed CD containing that track. Rip it with a good program and a good CD drive, then do a comparison on the files. Except for the very beginning and end of the tracks, they should be identical. Audiophiles will tell you ridiculous things, it doesn't surprise me that someone out there thinks a CD is 'more than just bytes.' I mean, you'll meet people who say that the quality of your DIGITAL audio cable matters - as if a cheap 3 ft piece of fiber will somehow lose bytes, but an expensive 3 ft piece of fiber will get all those bytes there intact. These are the same jokers who buy the CDs that are pressed with gold.
If you went into the store to buy shampoo and dumped it on your head and it was shoe polish, would you take it or sue the ^&^*(tards? If they kept selling shoe polish labeled as shampoo? Over and over and over again? If you went into the store and bought a can of corn and opened it up and it had rat parts in it instead of corn, would you sue, or just take YOUR time and go back and get a 'real' can of corn, knowing that half the cans on the shelf labeled corn that looked like cans of corn were in reality canned rat?
The deal is these stores, and their corporate/cartel/monopolist bosses, want cowed sheepish brainwashed consumers, they want you to only grumble, maybe a few people exchange the defective products, they don't want to make the hard decisions that follow ethics, they want to skate the cheapest way they can. Suing some humongous corporation is HARD, suing a place local and a named individual for an exact specific crime is a lot easier and cheaper, and if thousands of people did it this crap would stop tomorrow.
Sam with spammers, in the states where spam is now illegal-WHY aren't there thousands of lawsuits? I'll tell ya why, it's because 99% of people are sheep, easily cowed, don't want to "rock the boat", scared, think their single efforts won't matter, just content to bitch about things but nothing else-whatever, all excuses really for not taking personal indignation and getting shafted right back to the shafter and getting your day in court. If your cause is righteous, you at least have a chance, never even trying means you'll keep getting shafted, which just further emboldens the badguys to keep ripping people off and pulling more and more scams.
If it was me with this particular issue, I'd tell that store manager (get their full name and job title) ONE TIME to stop selling crippled "counterfeit cd look-a-likes" that aren't "cds", that unless they are removed or labeled and displayed and stocked completely separately from REAL cd's PROMINENTLY six ways to sunday with BIG SIGNS that they AREN'T cd's and WON'T play in most normal cd players that you intend to sue HIM in local court personally,that you will file an official police report, then follow through if they keep ripping people off. Getting ripped off the first time is his fault, twice is "your" fault because "anyone you" puts up with it, generally and non specifically speaking.
i dont know what crack they smoke where you work, but...
;)
Track widths do not vary with CDs so you can stuff more on. Hence there is no such "narrow track width" problem with CD. however, this *does* apply to vinyl, and is one of the main culprits of poor vinyl quality over the last 15 years.
I've not heard of any "thin allyplate" problems with CDs, however using thin, low quality material has been a problem for sound quality for vinyl. some believe this was intentional on the labels' part to get people to switch formats.
also, having worked in the music business myself, i'm happy to say that i've never encountered an instance where the producers don't get a test pressing.
methinks your record exec may not be the only cokehead.
fross
The way to end DRM is simple: find someone more powerful than the RIAA.
And the only one more powerful than the RIAA in this country... is Wal-Mart.
Get a few thousand geeks to buy copy protected CDs, and then demand a return at the same time because they are defective. If you get Wal-Mart annoyed enough, they'll throw their weight around and make changes.
Ever wonder why many DVDs at Wal-Mart are fullscreen instead of widescreen? Because enough rednecks returned their DVDs and whined "'cos they didn't fill up mah dam screen!"
Here's how they put it in their court filing.
That's clear enough.
They ask that if you've found a defective CD, report it to them by clicking here.