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
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
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.
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
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?
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
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.