Slashdot Mirror
Copy-protected CD Tops U.S. Charts
Joey Patterson writes "CNET is reporting that Velvet Revolver's new album, 'Contraband', which is protected with SunnComm's anti-copying technology, has topped the U.S. album charts. The SunnComm and BMG execs quoted in the article say that they're pleased with the apparent consumer acceptance of the anti-piracy technology, but they have been hearing questions about how people can get the copy-blocked songs from the CD onto an iPod."
It's quite probably just a case where not many people have discovered that they've been screwed-over just yet...
The anger will come soon...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Funny, I thought I saw this on BitTorrent already.....
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
They seem to have confused acceptance with ignorance.
Yeah, to really prove how much people prefer copy-protected CDs they should sell two versions, one with and one without and then they can show the world that people prefer the ease of just buying multiple copies.
Go to iTunes music store.
Buy album.
Put on iPod.
On a less pithy note, would it be that hard for EMI to make an agreement with Apple such that, if you have the CD in the drive, you can buy the iTunes version for free? Or you could always package the album with a certificate code that can be used to buy the album for free on iTunes. Both of those seem like relatively easy solutions.
And, finally, on an inquisitive note, does this software also install on OS X? Or is this a Windows only gimping?
Philip Sandifer's academic website
so basically, if you can listen to it, it will be on p2p, get used to that RIAA!!!
Hell, I'll go buy this one. These guys make good music. Plain and simple. Go pimp your 'the people want copy protection' somewhere else. People want decent music. This band delivers.
Uh, buy it on iTunes for $9.99?
As in earlier tests by BMG and SunnComm, the copy protection on the Velvet Revolver disc can be simply disabled by pushing the "Shift" key on a computer while the CD is loading, which blocks the SunnComm software from being installed. The companies say they have long been aware of the work-around but that they were not trying to create an unhackable protection.
,etc).
If the point is to make people unable to rip the music and you allow a backdoor 'knowingly' then why even bother in the first place?
"We are actively working with Apple to provide a long-term solution to this issue," a posting on SunnComm's Web site reads. "We encourage you to provide feedback to Apple, requesting they implement a solution that will enable the iPod to support other secure music formats."
Dear Apple,
Please support the latest copy-protection scheme from my favourite recording label, BMG and their current subsidiary, SunComm. Also, please compile in support for the different methods for every single other copy protection scheme espoused by every other label on every other album at Best Buy.
Also, please be prepared to update these codecs as the record labels see fit or the iPod and iTunes may no longer be compatible in an effort to keep ahead of nefarious CD pirates.
Also, please CC: this message to anybody else you know that makes CD player apps (Nullsoft, Microsoft, Roxio, Sony, etc, etc
Finally, please forget about that old 'Redbook' standard for CDs. That is old and should be cast off upon a pile of 8-Tracks, Divx discs, and CSS.
Thanks for your time.
Love, Tom
What amused me was this line "The companies say they have long been aware of the work-around but that they were not trying to create an unhackable protection."
I suppose that if they only stop the lowest common denominator from doing the unauthorized copying its good enough for them.
However the handling of the iPod issue leaves something to be desired...
You can't make up the fact that the album in #1 right now, but is the recording industry saying "if people did not accept the copy protection then the sales would be lower"? Did it ever occur to them that maybe it is just a really good album and that the people buying it are people who don't steal music anyways?
From what I understand, most people who used to buy CDs from before Mp3s were popular STILL DO. Sales are up aren't they? I personally never used to buy CDs. I would just listen to the radio. Mp3s are convienient because they are commercial free and I can play DJ, but if they didn't exist I would be listening to the radio and not buying albums. Most people I speak to feel the same way.
http://brandonbloom.name
The shift-key thing stops auto-play on Windows machines, which is how he got past it. If he hadn't, it comes up with a message saying "an upgrade needs to be installed" (because it's illegal to install software automatically without the user knowing). Pressing cancel to this also bypasses the "protection".
The company in question has moved onto a slightly more complicated version, which requires a physical crack for consecutive reads, but it's still very simple to break.
Don't buy the CD from the store, but go straight to the iTunes-MusicStore the album is there. (As you might probably know: Now you can listen to it on your iPod or burn a CD or listen to it on all your five computers.) http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/ viewAlbum?playlistId=14131660
Oh and yes, it's also available in the european stores.
That doesn't answer the question; how many people actually read that sticker or have any idea what it means?
If you don't care about the deliberate corruption of the well established CD standard. That's your choice.
But, if you really like the music/the band but hate the protection, then you should buy two copies. Buy one and return one. The music company will realise something wrong if the customers can boast the return rate somehow to double-digit.
If it actually installs software without asking, they deserve some kind of large lawsuit.. though I'm not sure what the damages would be... probably something similar to what we might charge virus writers with?
I bought an audio CD, and I have a fair expectation of what that means. It does NOT mean somthing that installs software silently and without asking on my pc.
So by messing with the scratch protection algorithms in most CD players, it makes the CD less durable.
Doesn't this increase the consumer's need to rip it immediately?
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
iTunes AAC (mpeg 4)
- burn it unlimited times to unlimited CD's
- back it up to HD, to CD, to DVD, to floppy, if you must
- copy it to unlimited iPod's
- copy it to unlimited PCs, play it on up to 5 simultaneously
- stream it to up to 5 machines from one Mac or PC
- hook it wirelessly with lossless audio via optical connectors to your home stereo with Airport Express
Copy-Protected Optical Media
- play it in only one place, once at a time
- scratch it once, lose it forever
- repeat after me: it is not a CD if it is not Redbook
So which one are you going to buy?
The next pasture is always greener
I find it funny reading all these outraged posts about how the disc is not valid red book, etc, etc.
The protection on this disc is very light, and will really only catch the casual user. If you know what you're doing, it's very easy to bypass.
I find this protection a breath of fresh air. It is almost as if the publisher is saying "Here. If you know enough to bypass this, presumably you understand copyright law and won't swap files." No scheme will stop a dedicated cracker, so they offer one that doesn't even try. In fact, the publishers even acknowledge it isn't a very secure scheme. Yes, their trust is probably naive, but that's their problem not mine.
See this article for a description of MediaMax.
SunnComm rips off the record companies by selling them a copy protection scheme that doesn't actually work.
The record gets passed around on all the file sharing networks and usenet newsgroups.
This free advertising results in increased sales, driving the record to number 1.
The pointy-haired bosses at the record company believe that the increased sales prove that the copy protection scheme is working and issue congratulatory press release.
I bought an audio CD, and I have a fair expectation of what that means. It does NOT mean somthing that installs software silently and without asking on my pc.
Well said. It's quite sad that they seem to be getting away with this, and that the press isn't covering it from that point of view.
If I buy a CD and it plays in my CD player, I don't care if its copy protected or not, It will be accepted as long as it works as advertised.
Its been said before but its valid every time, what seems important on Slashdot to the majority of people here isn't important to the majority of people in the real world.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
I'll keep you posted, I have yet to try it on the Linux box.
Yes, I listen to Guns N' Roses back in the late 80's and early 90's.
I talked to Duff (the bass player) when he was working with John Taylor (Duran Duran), Steve Jones (The Sex Pistols), and Matt Sorrum on Neurotic Outsiders album.
Yes I also listen to Stone Temple Pilot.
Yes, I've heard of Wasted Youth
But I am not really anticipating anything of Velvet Revolver.
The main reason I bought Velvet Revolver CD is because it was previously reported that the CD would be Copy Protected. I just want to find out if I still can rip them.
As for 200,000+ other people, they love this so called "supergroup"
Well, I ripped the whole CD on my Mac with no problems at all.
Once again, I have yet to try it on the Linux OS.
I'll find out about it tomorrow.
Simple. They want to introduce it in a very "light" fashion so consumers will get used to it, and once consumers get used to it they will put more and more harder to break/bypass copy protection on it. Then you know what? Consumers probably wont care at that point. Think of it how the government works when it introduces controversial bills that impede your freedoms like the dmca, patriot act, etc. They first introduce a "lighter" bill and pass it, then you have many more ( *cough republicans* :) people introducing harsher bills (aka patriot act II). Its mearly a control tactic because generally you accept the things the way they are once it has been around for awhile... It is really pathetic that they are even attempting this. Sadly enough it may actually work...
RTFA. There is a sticker on the CD that its copy protected.
Does the label bother to mention that it isn't actually a CD, or are they merely relying on consumer ignorance, such as that you display in your post in calling it such?
Are the stores stocking it in their normal manner for CDs, instead of in a seperate section as they should? Not doing so could well be considered consumer fraud by the retailers, it might not be out of line to drop a line to sundry Attorney's General if such is the case.
KFG
Ya, folks have been able to rip this CD in OS X. Pop it in, load up iTunes, click import, done. :)
;) )
But hey, could always buy this album online from the ITMS (and, possibly, sprinkle a bit of PlayFair on your download
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
The music is actually good. Whoah, crazy thought, I know.
Next, they'll be claiming that the sales is actually due to the copy protection. My first instinct when reading this story was to download it and see if I liked it.
Since it's selling, it must be worth buying. Hence more people download it, like it a lot, and buy it! Wow... what a concept.
Oh, and the copy 'protection' doesn't work. Broken via any number of simple means no doubt, but the simple truth is, there are no less than FIVE torrents for the full albumn right now on my favorite tracker site.
Hehe.. funny.
Meanwhile, I've taken this whole issue a bit less seriously, especially when the there are more pressing issues to worry about going in the world today. Nobody is being killed for copyright violations (yet?).
Yes, holding down the Shift key to prevent the DRM from being auto-played and auto-installed does the trick.
And if you scroll down, you'll see literally dozens of comments from Slashdotters crowing about how easily they ripped this CD to MP3 or Ogg or ACC or whatever format suits them.
And what that means is the RIAA has won this round.
What do I mean by that? This CD is a trap, and everybody who is crowing about how easy it is to circumvent its copy-protection has fallen into the trap.
The trap consists of two parts: one, as Mr. Roadkill (731328) explains here, because circumvention is so easy there will not be any en masse returns of this CD. BMG will declare that the public doesn't mind copy-protection because there will be few complaints or returns, and its massive sales given the publicity BMG is giving to this release. And with that they've slipped in the thin edge of the wedge, begun accustomizing us to copy-protection.
But more than just copy-protection: as The-Bus (138060) demonstrates by copying the entire CD EULA, BMG will also
They're not just sipping in the DRM keys; they're slipping in a whole different legal interpretation in which to understand CDS, an interpretation that emphasizes licensing instead of purchasing.
And that's just the first part of the trap.
The second part of the trap is even more insidious: BMG has purposely used a trivially simple and already well known to be easily circumvented copy-protection in order to encourage you to circumvent it.
Why would BMG do that? So they can point out all the happy, crowing, boasting circumventors to the Congress, call all the people holding down a Shift key "hackers" (indeed SunnCom's already said they don't expect this to be "unhackable"), and thus justify legislation to made DRM mandatory. "See what those hackers did, Senator? They hack our state-of-the-art copy-protection, those evil wizarsds! That's why we must make a hardware copyright bit mandatory on all new CD and CD-ROM players!"
Every time you think you've scored a point by managing to rip this CD, all you've done is to further play yourself -- and you liberties -- into the hands of BMG and the RIAA. You're given them a precedents to point to and a spurious "threat" to whine to Congress about. Who's really winning here?
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
BTW, notice the deliberate manipulation here? They choose an album guaranteed to get high sales because the band is pieced together from two well-known bands, then claim the high sales proves copy-protection is acceptable to the consumers. (When probably it's just so feeble that it wasn't even noticed most of the time.)
You're probably right, but if BMG can on the one hand claim that the CD had massive consumer acceptance, then they can't very credibly turn around and claim that piracy hurt their sales of this album, and so they can't credibly claim that hackers out there are a threat.
But aside from that, I think your post is probably a good summary of how the RIAA sees things...
-- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
>what exactly are they're trying to accomplish?
This is just another shot across the bow. Ideally Joe and Jane consumer should be thinking thusly, "They sued all those people! Our CDs now have protection! Uninstall that damn eMule right now!"
All the record companies have to do is get x amount of sympathy going and the P2P gravy train will go further underground. As Joe and Jane opt-out (perhaps they don't want to get sued or perhaps they're sick of 'subsidizing' those who don't pay by dealing with DRM) out of P2P there goes another node and a strict lesson to their kids, "I better not find any P2P software on there." And then this meme travels to the water cooler, "You believe this? I gotta use this stupid Sunncomm player because of all the thieves out there!"
Then the average P2P enthusiast isn't seen as a harmless overzealous yet poor music fan, but as a criminal who is making your life hard. They then hate them and blame them for the reactions of the RIAA. Heck, they may even buy DRM on purpose so they don't get "stolen goods" on their computer or as a 'moral' action.
In other words they want you to understand that they're serious about copy protection infringement and want you to feel bad about it. Once you sympathize with them, they win.
I'll let the reader decide whether its best to let them win or not.
Holy hell!!!
Are you going to tell me that I have to get rid of my keyboard because it has a SHIFT key on it?! After all, according to the DMCA, it's a circumvention device and is therefore illegal!!! oh well...i guess i better get used to not having a shift key...the other day i realized that the caps-lock was no longer useful since i don't write in cobol. i guess that was premature since now i can't have a shift key... bastards11111111
They are trying to slowly shift in copy-protection.
First they start with high-sale cds, then once more and more cd's are becoming copy-protected because theres a "workaround", its becoming more accepted in the industry and the general public at large is unaware, they change to a harder to hack format, labelling it as an upgrade.
They firstly have to prove "customer acceptance" and thats where a this very basic and easily surpassed protection comes in to play.
I would venture it will also be written on new band contracts someday that you agree to release your songs only on copy-protection cds. If it hasn't already started.
In true civil desobedience fashion, the proper way to make decision makers understand that they are wasting their time is to:
1- purchase the CD
2- Optional: rip & copy it
3- return it and get a refund because it doesn't play on your equipment.
(2) is optional. The proper and law-abiding way is to not rip that CD.
If the return rate goes to around 10% or so I think the message will be pretty clear.
And what about those of us who don't want the undesirable degradation in quality from going digital -> analog -> digital?
Nyo nyo, the Neko Boy has spoken.
What really SHITS me is that the parent comment is plagiarised word for word from here:
http://cfdr.eu.org/issues/cd/
without attribution to the original author (who incidentally is 'Jim Peters'), then modded up to be 'Interesting'.
Perhaps there should be a PLAGIARISED moderation section, with a link to the original article.
Whenever the topic of Music and CDs the natural progression of the discussion eventually leads to a few posts of fair use, yet this poster has not used 'fair use' with the copying of the text (almost ironic).
This is NOT the best sig in the world, but this IS a tribute to the best sig in the world.
Okay, I'm completely boggled now . . . what exactly are they're trying to accomplish?
A foot in the door, buddy.
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
I think you could also look at it as them shooting themselvs in the foot..
As it is, people who are willing to pay for CDs are still buying them because they know they can rip them despite the copy protection. If the RIAA sees this acceptance as a green light to go through with more stringent copy protection, this chunk of people might start to not buy the abulms they would have otherwise bought and resort to piracy, a higher level of it than if they had non copy protected CDs. The variable factor as to wether or not this would have any effect is how big that chunk of the population is. Hopefully it would have enough influence to affect some change.
My pet theory is that the reason all DRM schemes are so hopelessly weak is that whenever the music industry confronts a competent programmer with the request to build a DRM scheme, he immediately throws up his hands and says it's impossible to do properly. The only people who will attempt the assignment are those who are too incompetent to understand that the schemes can't work.
Or hit record once and get the whole CD, then chop it up into individual songs to save time.
~S
Personally, I feel that there will ALWAYS be a way to circumvent CD protections. So, as a relatively bright guy with extensive knowledge of computing and active in the software/CD piracy scene, I'm not gonna worry about it. Let the RIAA and MPAA feel that they are successful as people are still buying CDs and living by DRM laws. I will sit quietly here in the corner and circumvent their protections and rip their music and DVDs for my personal pleasure. I'm not even scared of hardware designed for DRM. There will always be a market for hardware that bypasses the protections and it will be available.
Basically, anything that can be built by a man, can be unbuilt by another. So no worries here.
What is your penile percentile?
This strongly suggests that the "protection" exists solely to undermine legitimate personal use. There is no possible anti-piracy use for preventing only half (?) of your users from format-shifting. They know as well as we do that there will be the same amount of internet piracy of the album whether it has this protection or not.
THEREFORE, it's time to entertain theories as to what their real motive is. The two that spring to mind are:
Ultimately they're clawing for all the mindshare they can get, because they only really exist as long as you believe in them.
It's tragic. Laugh.
I suppose that if they only stop the lowest common denominator from doing the unauthorized copying its good enough for them.
However the handling of the iPod issue leaves something to be desired...
Maybe they should suggest people look for the files on KaZaA instead of ripping from their legally purchased CD?
Promote Sensitivity on Slashdot, make me your friend.
"this cd needs to install an upgrade to function"?
Exactly what does it "upgrade"?
Its like receiving a email "I love you, click this link".
"I will upgrade your computer - just click ok!"
Good way to fool innocent computer illiterates though.
[any spelling mistakes came from the internet(tm)]
// instant - "I for one welcome our new Decaff Coffee-Flavoured-Coffee Overlords"
Sorry, but anyone running Windows who doesn't have AutoPlay disabled for removable media is just asking for trouble.
well, if i was going to pay for it, i'd take the Copy-Protected Optical Media and bypass the copy protection - half price with free postage from any of the nice websites i know. it's lossless music i can do what i want with and a physical product that lasts and has $ value. no i'm not trolling, but i don't think that was +4 insightful. not for me and i'm sure plenty of others anyway.
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
I have professional music production gear (Layla 8in/10out). Playing a CD and recording it on my gear would give as good a sound as a digital rip. The only hassle is it takes much longer to rip, compress the files, then title them. I'd still do it to have my music in unemcumbered digital form, but I'd rather avoid such measures and CD's when possible. But as stated, it only takes 1 person like me to tip the apple cart over and all their stupid protections are as vapour in the air.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
...if you buy it, it's copy protected. jesus.
no wait.. it actually should say that, because that's all it is. i haven't seen the exact message, but if it's not clear & honest these companies should be taken to court for lying to people. this is the kind of thing that really gets on my tits. there has to be a law that covers this in most 1st world countries?!
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
"But more than just copy-protection: as The-Bus (138060) demonstrates by copying the entire CD EULA, BMG will also slip in DRM keys "personalized" .... "
Surely, the whole claim behind these EULAs is that you can change the terms AFTER the sale, if the contract gives you the option of returning the product for a full refund.
The refund is suposed to make it comparable to a sale.
This BMG contract says "if you don't agree, don't play it" not "if you don't agree return it for a full refund".
So they're not even putting a pretence of making this legal.
No, the sheeple will contentedly line up to have their pockets raped, provided they can instantly have the latest 30 seconds of digital clipping noise and shiny video. If they had spines, the RIAA wouldn't have succeeded with screwing everyone to the tune of $10-12 profit (or more) on every CD they paid a whopping $1.25 to manufacture and package.
If getting ripped off for an 80% profit margin wasn't enough to wake the sheeple up, why would you think they'll raise a stink about DRM?
Most of them are even uneducated enough to think it's a problem with their "old" CD player, and will spend even more money fixing a "problem" that never was.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
And what about those of us who don't want the undesirable degradation in quality from going digital -> analog -> digital?
1. mp3 is a lossy format there would be no noticable loss encoding it for a portable mp3 player, and playing it back on headphones.
2. IANAL, but copyright law has always allowed one copy for backup purposes.
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
I always have to laugh when I hear people say this. Betcha you couldn't tell the difference if no one told you. Truth is in our society, you're lucky to survive your childhood with your hearing intact above 15KHz, and it only gets worse with age.
So you are listening to symphonies? Classical music CDs are probablably not protected.
Most of the copy protected shiat is teen pop, so sound quality doesn't matter much. Even the original master tapes sound like crap. I wouldn't worry much about signal degradation.
and what really SHITS me is the fact that you said you'd only take a return if the customer was nice. I really hope you don't mean to say your store intentionally screws over a customer just because you don't like them.
You might as well claim that RIAA CONVICTED a bunch of kids of STEALING MUSIC, when in fact they settled copyright infringment suits.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
That is a simple answer. Like most simple answers, it is insufficient. Having bought the CD, I am allowed, under fair use, to copy it. So, your answer, while simple, is incorrect.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Funny thing these copy protected CD's - they don't play on my DJ setup. Which means that I can't play them, despite the fact that the clubs I spin in all pay their ASCAP and BMI fees to allow me to do so. Usually these are mainstream records that I'd want to play because the crowd likes them (my own tastes are indie label and rarely DRM protected).
But the real loser, as usual, is the artist - their music isn't being played in the club so no public performance royalty, and their CD is returned so no points or mechanicals. (If you buy lots of records, stores are fairly cool about believing you when you need to make a return.) So the artist makess no money and loses out on a promotional opportunity to boot (i.e. "Hey DJ, what was that song you just played...?")
"The SunnComm and BMG execs quoted in the article say that they're pleased with the apparent consumer acceptance of the anti-piracy technology, but they have been hearing questions about how people can get the copy-blocked songs from the CD onto an iPod."
This should tell them that the people buying the CDs probably don't realize what it is that they are buying and are going to be pissed when they find out.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I have not purchased a CD in many years. When the RIAA can stop being greedy I will return to buying music. Why are CD's still $10+? I can go to walmart and buy a DVD for $5.50. Movies cost much more to make than a CD. Lower the price of CD's and I will come back to CD's. As for online music, those cost too much too. Why should I pay $15.00 for 15 songs, the CD costs less, and with a cd I have a hard copy. Make the per song price cheap and make good music and people will download lots of music. Why priate music if you can get it cheap? As for copy protection of the songs, it is more of a pain to paying customers than pirates. So forget the copy protection in songs.
So, can you sue the band or the record company for attempting to install a virus on your computer? Actually, isn't that a criminal offence? Scott Weiland's used to being in jail isn't he?
Step 1: Bring up the subject of DRM, and suggest making it a standard way of copy protecting music. The techno-crowd gets in an uproar.
Step 2: Let it quiet down.
Step 3: Bring up the idea of specially made CDs, and suggest making it a standard. The techno-crowd gets pissy.
Step 4: Let it quiet down.
Step 5: Tag a 'hot new artist's' CD with an easily circumventable protection scheme. The techno-crowd gets slightly upset, but chuckles at the ineptitude of the massive RIAA.
Step 6: Make it standard. The techno-crowd complains, but follows with its trend of complaining only to the techno-crowd.
Step 7: Between driver updates, firmware updates, windows upgrades and media upgrades remove the 'easily circumventable' part. The fact that CDs have 'always had some sort of copy protection' removes ANY legal barrier the RIAA may have had. Who would oppose making the existing copy protection work better? Only the pirates, that's who.
Step 8?
Profit.
I'm probably missing a few more reasons here too but the point is they aren't always as obvious as we would think.
;)
I can think of an obvious one: Making money by selling flawed technology to CEOs who don't understand it.
Don't assume omniscience on the part of the music industry execs. You may think they're big fish, but there are smaller and smarter fish ready to scavenge from their kills.
Somwhere, somebody has made a lot of money from selling copy protection software, whether it works or not.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Even with the new CD protection, it is still trivial to copy the contents of CDs.
One simply needs to connect the "analog" output of their CD player to a recording device (PC w/soundcard) and the protection can be circumvented.
As long as we are allowed to hear the music, it will always be copied.
There is no way of preventing music piracy short of bolting headphones to peoples heads!