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
They seem to have confused acceptance with ignorance.
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
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.
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
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
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.
Sure, there will always be PIRATES out there that can get it. This protection is just to train the general population to know how far their right to use the products goes.
I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
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."
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.)
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
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.
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 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.
"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.
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?