Slashdot Mirror


Beastie Boys' New Album Silently Installs DRM Code

nfsilkey writes "After more than five years, the Beastie Boys have released a new album. It seems that the retail disc is bundled with a copy protection autoinstaller which silently silently puts itself onto the listener's computer. Many listeners are up in arms and some are venting their frustrations on the band's website."

1,035 comments

  1. Heh by teknokracy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not my version of the album....

    1. Re:Heh by jasonr2020 · · Score: 1

      So you think.

    2. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed the joke.

    3. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Heh. Not on my tux-wearing platform. ;)

    4. Re:Heh by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      Ok... what was the joke? That he made a copy? The he downloaded it? I completely missed it!

    5. Re:Heh by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 1

      Nor on my Macintosh...

    6. Re:Heh by teknokracy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Na. I'm pretty sure that I got only the MP3s and not the spyware.

    7. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Nor on my Macintosh..."

      Are you sure? According to the blurb, it "installs 'helpful' copy protection software on MacOS and Windows as soon as you insert the CD into default systems."

      Looks like maybe the days of "it's okay, nothing will ever infect my machine, since nobody bothers to write things like this for macs" are coming to an end.

      Here comes the death of "security-through-smugness"

    8. Re:Heh by DJTodd242 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Looks like maybe the days of "it's okay, nothing will ever infect my machine, since nobody bothers to write things like this for macs" are coming to an end.

      ...and you can thank your iPod for that one.

    9. Re:Heh by The+Dobber · · Score: 0, Troll

      I think the joke is that somebody actually bought and listened to the "boys".

      They are so 90's.

    10. Re:Heh by Beek · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've bought two albums with EMI's copy protection... I couldn't tell the difference from a normal CD. I played normally, and was able to rip all the tracks into iTunes.

      If it did install something, it was done in some extremely sneaky fashion. I didn't notice it installing anything, and it would have somehow got around the fact that I was an unprivileged user.

    11. Re:Heh by hawkbug · · Score: 1

      No, you mean so 80's. '86 to be exact.

    12. Re:Heh by qoa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know about you, but when I think Beastie Boys I think of an 80's video for Fight For Your Right to Party. Songs like Paul Revere and Brass Monkey. Straight 1986.

      --
      Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
    13. Re:Heh by arminw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you do not have admin privileges on an OSX Mac, then no software can install, whether classic or otherwise. Also, when an audio CD is inserted the user can be prompted whether to allow an install. That install STILL will not happen if the user is not admin. So, all Mac users should make a non-admin account for day today use and another admin account for installing software and other admin tasks.
      AAW

      --
      All theory is gray
    14. Re:Heh by Nurseman · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Are you sure? According to the blurb, it "installs 'helpful' copy protection software on MacOS and Windows as soon as you insert the CD into default systems."

      Is there any reason to have autorun "on" in the first place ? One of the first things I do when I set up a system is disable it. I would like to choose which app to use, not rely on the OS to decide. I saw a previous story about the new Velvet Revolver CD having copy protection. I came home after buying it, popped it into my CDR, and burned it to MP3 for my car player. I would have never known it was copt protected until I saw the story. BTW I have never had a DRM disk that would not burn in CDEX

      --
      Save a Life. Donate Blood. Please.
    15. Re:Heh by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 3, Funny

      Jumping Jesus, this coming from someone with a Calvin & Hobbes quote in their signature. Oh the delicious ironing!

      --
      One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
    16. Re:Heh by Build6 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's a little ironic that it's being done with a Beastie Boys album. Historically the primary "copyright", or "theft" issue with songs is sampling.

      They were hit in the past for sampling from AC/DC's song "Back in Black" for their 1985 single "Rock Hard", which was supposed to appear in their "best of" anthology release, but couldn't because AC/DC refused them permission to sample. It seems a little incongruous for them to be shipping out DRM also.

    17. Re:Heh by Jord · · Score: 1

      The only reason to have two accounts like that is if you need to sandbox an application. You don't have to fear an application installing without you knowing it since Admin or not it will still prompt you for approval and a password. As an admin nothing will install without you knowing about it and asking for your permission.

      There is no reason to run as a non-admin user to protect yourself like a windows user does. The system is not that vulnerable.

    18. Re:Heh by zaffir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also, one of the songs on the CD (i don't know which one) is one giant sample of "Rappers Delight" with the Beastie's own lyrics.

      --
      "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
    19. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the remix:

      "sooo watcha watcha watcha want? i got some malware on my cds i dont front! so whered ja get ya info-mation from huh? you think that you can front when the cd nazi comes?"

      "yeah, cant front on that"

    20. Re:Heh by It'sYerMam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That sounds unlikely. Perhaps with the Mac equivalent of the RPM you're prompted for a password, but installing simply means "putting the stuff where it's useful."
      So unless you Mac users require a password to copy a file from A to B, where you have read access in A and write in B, then it seems unlikely that this can 't install without your knowledge.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    21. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There doesn't appear to be any copy protection on the mp3's of it that I just downloaded either..

    22. Re:Heh by pAnkRat · · Score: 0

      These may be the rules on OS-X,
      as long as the software installers play by these rules nothing will be installed without the admins permission.

      _But_ if the user has admin priveliges, _any_ programm he runs can copy (or install) software anywhere on the system.
      There is defenetly a way to sneak in software without the users explicit permission.

      Under an underprileged account there is no way to do this.

      Hmmm,
      there is, ofcource a way under non-paranoid installs. but if a user can Read/Write to /home/$USER and /tmp and if the /home and /tmp
      partitions are mounted with no-execute set,
      I believe there is no way in hell to trick the user into installling software.

      (optinoal Windows Bashing: no execute on these partitions work well under linux, try this on windows....)

      --
      we need an "-1 Plain wrong" moderation option!
    23. Re:Heh by isoprophlex · · Score: 1

      So very insightful indeed. I have recently purchased about 3 copy protected CD's. Air's - Talkie Walkie, Radiohead's - Hail to the Theif, and actually don't recal the third. All three of these cds burned perfectly fine using CDEX. DRM is a waste of the consumers time, and even more of any annoiance for the people (like me) who actually purchase music and then rip it onto there computer systems for the purpose of using it for iPods.

    24. Re:Heh by dotwaffle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's weird, technically, it's a virus. It spreads onto your system without your knowledge and prevents the computer from doing some function. Glad we use Linux, we're immune from all these WinViruses ;)

    25. Re:Heh by Slashdot+Junky · · Score: 1

      No, there is no reason have it enabled. I too disable it after installing the OS. I do it, because I don't the autorun app loading each time I insert a CD.

      -Slashdot Junky

      --
      .
      Landfill Mining Co.
      Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
    26. Re:Heh by NonSequor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What some people don't realize is that sampling is part of a very old tradition. Many jazz and classical compositions have been enriched by incorporating material from other sources. Often the borrowed material is just as recognizeable as a sampled song, so it's not like this is something that has been hidden.

      This practice is in many ways similar to allusion in literature. By making reference to earlier works, one can enhance the depth of one's own work. Ezra Pound said, "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal" and this statement can be generalized to all forms of art.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    27. Re:Heh by Zro+Point+Two · · Score: 5, Interesting

      According to North American Law (Canada and US), aren't viruses against the law? And don't virus writers go to jail (or at least get heavy fines) for writing thier viruses?

      Asside from the Windows bashing, the parent post has a good point (and btw, this "virus" isn't windows only...) it is a virus... If I don't know it's installing, and it disables some sort of functionality of my computer (even if that functionality can potentially be used for wrongful doings), then it is a virus, and should be dealt with as such...

      I havn't hit the record store yet to pick up my copy, but, does it have a BIG ass warning on the back? If so, then, that will be thier leagal loophole. And if that is the case, are music disks (not actually a CD because of the error bits tossed in here and there) going to start coming with EULA's that you have to "agree to" by breaking the seal? Heck, why not encrypt the cd, have it access a server on the net where you put in your geographical location, favorite color, age, job position, mothers maden name, and your address, and they send you a floppy disk that has a program that checks for the original cd, then sets an "ok" flag in some directory, that will allow you to access the second digital key (each time you want to play the cd) from the internet, makes you take two steps backwards, turn clockwise twice, then hold the left mouse button, the - on the keypad, F2 and F10 all at the same time in order to listen to it.....or just buy your copy, support the artist, then fire up any P2P software, download the files, and burn them onto a cd that you can listen to whenever, and wherever you are.

      Let's keep this rant going...

      The more complex the copy protection they put on to "deterr" piracy, the more of a one-upmanship contest it becomes, and the bigger the contest, the more people that play...and the more that try to crack it, the better the odds are that someone else will think the same way the software writer did when they wrote that specific copy protection routine.

      Now, I'm not getting on any "high and mighty" bandwagon here...I don't buy all the music I listen to, I do download quite a bit to check out new bands, or to preview how an average band had decided to go with their next album, but if I do like the band (or album to be more specific) I will definately shell out my hard earned cash to buy the original. I've got some cd's that I've never actually put into a cd player (because I already had a downloaded copy) but I still bought the cd.

      One last thought I have that you can mull over if you are so inclined is... People say that CD prices should have dropped by now...and to some extent, I agree, but that's my opinion, but there is also a flip side that I realize...SOME of the additional cash that I pay for a cd is going to research new copy protection schemes so that POSSIBLY someone won't be able to rip it and distribute it for free. Sure, I like the sounds of that, but I would prefer if they did more work on these skemes before putting it into production on a retail product. And even if they did manage to get the perfect scheme working that was transparant to everyone (with the exception of the warning that they can use as thier loophole), and would work on any device, and allow me to port to an iPod, backup cd, whatever, then what's going to stop the pirate from hooking the line out of a diskman to the line in on a soundcard and recording the cd and putting it up on a P2P network?

      Mod me up, Mod me down, Makes no difference to me at this point, because you've already read what I had to say.

      --
      Zro . two

      "I come from Canada...they say I'm slow....eh?"
    28. Re:Heh by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Seems to me the answer is simple on Win machines: keep tht damned 'autorun on insert' function for your cd/dvd-rom off!

      I haven't tried this, but I can imagine that this is yet another one of those progs which slips in using that flaw.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    29. Re:Heh by atrizzah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What people don't also realize is that song swapping is an old tradition, which helps keep old groups alive and helps new groups become more popular through word of mouth. I would say that literally the majority of the classic rock and underground songs that I listen to, I would never have known about if it wasn't for the fact that I could give a group a try by downloading MP3's. Then provided that I KNOW that I'm getting more than a couple good tracks, I buy the CD to support the group

    30. Re:Heh by Cobralisk · · Score: 1

      "Rappers Delight" is one giant sample of "Good Times" with Sugar Hill Gang's own lyrics.

      --
      Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
    31. Re:Heh by rgarcia · · Score: 1

      AND, "Rapper's Delight" uses the entire bassline from a previous disco song (I'm sure someone can name it).
      A resample of a resample of a sample.

      --

      I couldn't fail to disagree with you less.

    32. Re:Heh by Grym · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What some people don't realize is that sampling is part of a very old tradition. Many jazz and classical compositions have been enriched by incorporating material from other sources. Often the borrowed material is just as recognizeable as a sampled song, so it's not like this is something that has been hidden.

      This practice is in many ways similar to allusion in literature. By making reference to earlier works, one can enhance the depth of one's own work. Ezra Pound said, "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal" and this statement can be generalized to all forms of art.

      ... which completely undermines the use of copyrights and "intellectual property" in the arts in the first place. Think about it: Much of the idea of the copyright revolves around this notion that men are completely unaffected by previous works--as if their art is somehow independently conjured through the power of the artist's superior intellect.

      What bullshit. No man is quite literally an island. We are all affected and shaped, by our language, culture, body of sciences, collection of arts and so on. To say that the artist is the sole "owner" of the resultant art is utterly insulting and ultimately counterproductive.

      -Grym

    33. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      macs can't automatically start software when you insert CDs. apple removed that feature a few years ago when Macs got hit by a virus that spread this way.

    34. Re:Heh by arminw · · Score: 1

      If there us a useless EULA to be approved, there has to be an installer to display that and ask whether I agree to it or nor. Every installer I have ever used, requires a password. If the program could be installed by simply copying to the users space on the HD, that can only happen if the user chooses to copy it. In any case, it is not easy, if not impossible for a reasonably astute user to let anything get onto the HD without some user action.

      --
      All theory is gray
    35. Re:Heh by pcmanjon · · Score: 1

      Just like System of a Down (self proclaimed anarchist, sticking it to 'da man')

      They rap and tap about how the government is corrupted and how they rebel.

      Meanwhile at the CD factory
      *BAM* *BAM* *BAM* (the sound of CD's being pressed/stamped)

      *SWEAP* SWEAP SWEAP (The sound of the label being put on)

      Tech: This new DRM tech will sure make these pirates stop pirating!
      Tech1: Yeah, little do they know they'll loose their fair use
      Tech: HA HAHAHAHA
      tech1: hahahahaha

      tech1 & tech : hahahahahahahahaa

      Stupid hipocrit band, I'm happy I pirated their music all along and never funded them!

    36. Re:Heh by zieroh · · Score: 1

      In order to install software in certain places under MacOS X, you must supply an administrator password. This includes anywhere in /System or /Library where a piece of software could be included as part of the boot up process. Thus, it would not be possible for DRM to install itself (and have any lasting effect) without an administrator's password.

      Therefore, I don't think this will have any effect on MacOS X users.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    37. Re:Heh by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1
      I'm assuming you're a Mac user?

      Anyway, the user action is inserting the CD into the drive. Hence the problem with autorun (and why autorun should be off by default - I don't know whether it is)
      Anyway, back to the point. A program is simply a series of instructions given to the operating system and then the processor, so if one of those instructions happens to be "copy A to B" then that happens if the program is executed. If OS X requires you to validate programs being executed off the disk, all well and good, but that wasn't my point - the point was that programs don't need a password to be installed.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    38. Re:Heh by pcmanjon · · Score: 2, Funny

      "when I think Beastie Boys I think of an 80's video for Fight For Your Right to Party"

      Fight for your right TO FAIR USE!!
      dA na nAN annanaanananna
      I said FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHT TO FAIR USE!
      da na na na na najn anana YEAH!

    39. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Led Zepplin, the Grateful Dead and all the other so called classic rock bands are all direct rips from Sonny Boy Williamson, Mudy Waters, B.B. King and The Isley Brothers who were merely doing rote interpretations of Robert Johnson, Leadbelly and the rest who were simply playing what they had been taught by the musicians that lived before recording instruments. Yep, copyright in music is pure crap. If you want to call it anything, the one thing is does resemble is racism.

    40. Re:Heh by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Even more ironic...

      You have to FIGHT!
      For your RIGHT!
      To paaaaaar-ty!

      That is, if you're trying to include Beastieboys music in your party mix.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    41. Re:Heh by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      Quite, but that was part of the point - you can do a make install to your home dir in Linux and need only to be logged in.
      However, in Linux it's probably possible to change the session preferences to start the program on login. (Although, as previously mentioned, there's no auto-autorun)

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    42. Re:Heh by xpndsprt · · Score: 1

      My guess is that Micro-softie is writing viruses for mac and linux :)

    43. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ironing? WTF!?! Do you mean irony, or are you just clueless?

    44. Re:Heh by mpe · · Score: 1

      It's weird, technically, it's a virus. It spreads onto your system without your knowledge and prevents the computer from doing some function.

      It isn't quite a virus. But the way these kind of anti-copying techniques work does sound like it could be illegal under anti-hacking laws. Considering the usual double standards if some individual distributed a piece of sharware with such a feature they'd be being carted away by the cops. But when a big corp does it the cops just don't appear to be interested.

    45. Re:Heh by linuxpng · · Score: 1

      Just like you could cover the song and it wouldn't be illegal. The difference is you are taking someone else's performance and using it verbatim, versus playing it yourself.

    46. Re:Heh by mpe · · Score: 1

      What people don't also realize is that song swapping is an old tradition, which helps keep old groups alive and helps new groups become more popular through word of mouth.

      A very old, literally, prehistoric tradition.
      With modern popular music someone even coined the specific term "cover version" to describe one way in which new musicians use old songs.

    47. Re:Heh by zonker · · Score: 0

      more of a trojan horse than a virus...

    48. Re:Heh by Aaden42 · · Score: 1

      Mortal users on MacOS X have read-only permissions to most of the juicier bits of the file system. That includes /System and /Library where drivers, kernel extensions, etc. must live.

      Unless you're logged in as root (which is disabled by default) or you've manually futzed with the permissions on those directories, then any attempts to write to those directories by your "admin" user will fail.

      The admin user on MacOS isn't quite like Administrator (either the user or a member of the group) on Windows. Admin on Windows simply has rights to do EVERYTHING. Admin on MacOS has the *potential* to do anything, but they're still mortal users (this is Un*x, so you're either root or you're nothing).

      MacOS X installers (or any other app) that need write access must prompt the user for their password. The app provides your credentials to MacOS' Security Services, and using some sudo-like tricks, the OS authenticates that one process to have certain rights until it quits. Until you authenticate and let the OS "bless" your administrative powers, you're still a non-privileged user.

      So bottom line, if your Mac is anywhere near default config (root disabled and/or read-only on /System), no installer will be able to install kernel drivers without prompting for your password.

    49. Re:Heh by Esoteric+Moniker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you're interested in supporting your favorite artist but want to deter this sort of behavior by recording companies buy the artist's merchandise (preferrably directly off their web site). I can guarantee you that the artist is making a whole lot more money from every shirt or hat you buy than a couple of CD's.

      --

      man RTFM
      No manual entry for RTFM.
    50. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No I think we are fully into the realm of hypocrasy.

    51. Re:Heh by dotwaffle · · Score: 1

      Just additional to what you said - as long as there are editions in the world that are not copy-protected, there will always be piracy, and even if there is protection, crap-quality rips will always be made. Best thing to do is to have available for download FLAC's (or high quality OGG's...) or the tracks that can be downloaded off the bands website when you key in a special code that came with the CD. I think that's fair.

      Even better, how about, with these tracks, the track will not play unless you auth the PC for its use. So, you put the CD in, and it won't play unless you key in the code applicable to that CD. Wouldn't take that much effort and it would mean you would be able to use it housewide, but file copiers would have no use for it.

      Or is that just a stupid idea? I suppose there would have to be a massive infrastructure change then... Ah well, might as well just rip CD's as I do now, store them on all my devices, listen to them when _I_ want and waste slashdotters time with inane waffle. ;)

    52. Re:Heh by arminw · · Score: 1

      Every program *I* have ever installed on OSX DID require a password because I do not run under admin priv. I am not an expert on OSX and it might be conceivable that a program could be installed without user input. OSX lets each user choose what should take place when a CD or DVD is inserted. I have mine set to "Ask me each time what to do". So if a CD purporting to be an audio CD is inserted I would tell it to open iTunes. If iTunes then could not deal with it I'd eject it and add it to my pile of "coasters".
      AAW

      --
      All theory is gray
    53. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Simpsons reference.

      Bart: [chuckles] Lisa's in trouble. Ha! The ironing is delicious.
      Lisa: The word is "irony".

      -- The Grift of the Magi, BABF07
    54. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "as long as there are editions in the world that are not copy-protected"

      Don't be stupid. If a CD player can get around the copy protection to reproduce music, so can a pirate with only a modest amount of talent. And I'm not talking about the "analog hole" either, I'm talkign bit-for-bit unprotected copies. The auth code scheme you're talking about sounds like Windows XP's activation and installation codes - do you think that works? I do have an original XP disc here but I also have a no-activation slipstreamed-SP1 corporate edition that I actually use, because it's more convenient.

      Copy protection does not work and is in fact incorrectly named. It is just Copy Inconveniencing. The sad part is the record companies know this, and think that slowing down pirates by a matter of minutes is worth fucking up the experience for everyone.

    55. Re:Heh by dotwaffle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't be stupid.

      I'll try.

      The auth code scheme you're talking about sounds like Windows XP's activation and installation codes - do you think that works?

      Yes. Yes it does work. It stops Mr. Brown from installing it on two machines. However, Mr. Brown is a manager of some sort, and has no kids. Mr. Blue however is an engineer, and has a 12 year old kid. His kid downloads an activation crack and fixes the CD or even just downloads an ISO of the precracked installer. It stops CASUAL copying of software, if you're determined enough, nothing will stop you.

      Copy protection does not work and is in fact incorrectly named. It is just Copy Inconveniencing. The sad part is the record companies know this, and think that slowing down pirates by a matter of minutes is worth fucking up the experience for everyone.

      I hate to say it, but you're wrong. They genuinely are trying to get a system that allows players to play, and PC's... not to play. Unfortuanately it was such a rushed system that it doesn't work and they are getting their comeupance. And no, people don't copy the SAME song. Check on any P2P network, type in something popular like Red Hot Chili Peppers. Ok, maybe not them, no-one can spell them - try Madonna. Just don't hit download ;) Notice there will be at LEAST 10 different versions, in WMA, MP3, OGG, FLAC, hell, even uncompressed WAV! The point being, many people copy, many people download. It's not one evil sector of the community we're looking at, it's the average person who copies the CD's to their computer and then shares their music folder over P2P.

      Put simply, rather than ramming "don't download" down our throats, the RIAA etc should be saying "if you like it, pay for it - it's the right thing to do". SOunds very cheesy and that it wouldn't work, but I know for a fact that I only bought the Piper Downs album because I felt it was wrong to rip them off. If you are sitting in your chair listening to something you downloaded, and you don't own it, sorry, own a licence for it, then go out and get it from your local shop!

      Rant over... Next week we'll be discussing the Clergy...

    56. Re:Heh by LinuxHam · · Score: 1

      was just gonna say... "phew! thank god the 192k mp3s are up on alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.complete_cd!"

      --
      Intelligent Life on Earth
    57. Re:Heh by grepistan · · Score: 1

      unfortunately this requires registry editing in windows 2000. Not nice! MS are getting very careful about their DRM technology, but they can never be careful enough to stop everyone.

      --
      Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
      -- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
    58. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      CDs are a simple encoding. Simply put - if a CD player from 1986 can read it - and a CD player from 1986 has to be able to read it - then a pirate can trivially get the bits from a PC. Copy protection is doomed to fail because a CD cannot reliably differentiate between a CD player from sometime in a 20+ year window and a CD-ROM, especially when the CD-ROM is trying to look like a CD player in order to defeat protection - which incidentally is a selling point these days, check out the more in-depth reviews of newer drives like the Lite-On 812.

      Rather than ramming inconvenience down our throats the RIAA should think up a fucking viable business plan. I for one made a point of downloading this Beastie Boys album as a result of today's discussion. It wasn't difficult.

    59. Re:Heh by tyndyll · · Score: 2, Funny
      Heck, why not encrypt the cd, have it access a server on the net where you put in your geographical location, favorite color, age, job position, mothers maden name, and your address, and they send you a floppy disk that has a program that checks for the original cd, then sets an "ok" flag in some directory, that will allow you to access the second digital key (each time you want to play the cd) from the internet, makes you take two steps backwards, turn clockwise twice, then hold the left mouse button, the - on the keypad, F2 and F10 all at the same time in order to listen to it.

      performing this satanic ritual while listening to iron maiden will bring forth the beast with wrath - you have been warned

      --
      Morale seems good, considering, although high spirits are just no substitute for eight hundred rounds a minute
    60. Re:Heh by JAD+lifter · · Score: 1

      technically, it's a virus

      Is it a virus? I thought that the main characteristic of a virus was that it replicates. I didn't read the article so maybe I am wrong but I don't think that this thing replicates, it just installs itself without the user knowing. Malware? Yes. Virus? No.

    61. Re:Heh by TheABomb · · Score: 1

      If it gets from the little round plastic thingie (I'm not sure exactly what to call it, since it's not a "Compact Disc®") to your computer, it has replicated itself. Or will you only call it a "virus" if it replicates continuously?

      --
      MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
    62. Re:Heh by JAD+lifter · · Score: 1


      No. I don't think that it is replicating from the compact disc. It is installing itself from the compact disc, I think that there is a big difference.

      If it is a virus then what exactly is it that it is infecting? normal.dot? .SYS files? PE files? It is not infecting anything because it is not a virus. It is just a program installing itself without the users knowledge. It doesn't infect anything or do anything to spread after installation.

      If it apended itself to .COM files and whenever that .COM file was executed it would search the directory that it was executed in for other .COM files to infect, or did something similar then I would call it a virus. But as it stands there is no way that this thing could be classified as a virus.

    63. Re:Heh by clarkcox3 · · Score: 1
      Are you sure? According to the blurb, it "installs 'helpful' copy protection software on MacOS and Windows as soon as you insert the CD into default systems."
      Macs, at least since OSX, don't do auto-run.
      --
      There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
    64. Re:Heh by LittleGuy · · Score: 1

      According to North American Law (Canada and US), aren't viruses against the law? And don't virus writers go to jail (or at least get heavy fines) for writing thier viruses?

      Not if Orrin Hatch and Jack Valenti like them.

      Welcome to the New Millenium's version of "He may be a SOB, but he's our SOB!"

      --
      Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
    65. Re:Heh by someone247356 · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you install the free "TweakUI" control panel applet from Microsoft you don't need to hack the registry.

      Just go to the "Paranoia" tab, under the section marked "Things that happen behind your back" uncheck "Play audio CD's automatically" and uncheck "Play data CD's automatically".

      Problem solved.

      --
      Just my $0.02 (Canadian, before taxes)
    66. Re:Heh by grepistan · · Score: 1

      Thankyou! It appears that I may be an idiot! :o)

      I haven't used TweakUI in 2K yet as it never seemed quite as necessary as it did in 98SE. I had just assumed that MS would continue to make it difficult for the non-technical user to turn it off, but there you go!

      --
      Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
      -- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
    67. Re:Heh by grepistan · · Score: 1

      1001st post! w00t!

      --
      Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
      -- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
    68. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it has copy protection it must be good, much better and more desirable than other music.

    69. Re:Heh by TPFH · · Score: 1

      I think I prefer PE's Party for your Right to Fight!

      --
      This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you
    70. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this make any sense you pretentious Joobarses????

      TT5B Copy Control Issues

      Jun 22, 2004 - 1:40 pm
      By BeastieBoys.com

      1. There is NO copy controlled software on US or UK releases of Beastie Boys' "To the 5 Boroughs."

      2. The disk *IS* copy controlled in Europe - which is standard policy for all
      Capitol/EMI titles (and a policy used by ALL major labels in Europe).

      3. The copy protection system used for all EMI/Capitol releases including "To the 5 Boroughs" is Macrovision's CDS-200, which sets up an audio player into the users RAM (not hard drive) to playback the RED book audio on the disk. It does absolutely NOT install any kind of spyware, shareware, silverware, or ladies wear onto the users system.

      You can find more information on the technology used here:
      http://www.macrovision.com/products/cds/cds 200/ind ex.shtml

      This is what EMI has to say about it:
      Reports that "spyware" is being included on the Beastie Boy's CD, 'To The Five Boroughs' are absolutely untrue.

      While the Beastie Boys CD does use copy control in some territories, there is no copy control on the Beasties Boys discs in the US or the UK. Where copy protection is used, it is Macrovision's CDS-200 technology; the same technology being used for the past several months around the world for all of EMI's releases in those territories. This Macrovision technology does NOT install spyware or vaporware of any kind on a users PC. In fact, CDS-200 does not install software applications of ANY KIND on a user's PC. All the copy protection in CDS-200 is hardware based, meaning that it is dependent on the physical properties and the format of the CD. None of the copy protection in CDS-200 requires software applications to be loaded onto a computer.

      The technology does activate a proprietary Macrovision player in order to play the CD on a PC, and that player converts WMA compressed files to audio on the fly. It also temporarily installs a graphic "skin" for the player. Nothing is permanently installed on a hard drive. These details can be verified in the 'install.log' file in the computer's root directory.

    71. Re:Heh by grepistan · · Score: 1

      You know, using Simpsons quotes like that (and all the other memes that get thrown around here like grass snakes in a sugarcane field) is actually a very subtle form of trolling... it really can be quite entertaining when people 'correct' others like that. Something to remember.

      --
      Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
      -- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
    72. Re:Heh by bechthros · · Score: 1

      "Heck, why not encrypt the cd, have it access a server on the net where you put in your geographical location, favorite color, age, job position, mothers maden name, and your address, and they send you a floppy disk that has a program that checks for the original cd, then sets an "ok" flag in some directory, that will allow you to access the second digital key (each time you want to play the cd) from the internet, makes you take two steps backwards, turn clockwise twice, then hold the left mouse button, the - on the keypad, F2 and F10 all at the same time in order to listen to it....."

      damn, don't give 'em any ideas, man!

  2. DRM is worth it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    If the Beastie Boys like DRM, I like it too!

    1. Re:DRM is worth it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      They even have it in their new lyrics:
      Check-ch-check-check-check-ch-check it out
      What-wha-what-what-what DRM is all about
      Work-wa-work-work-work-wa-work it out
      Let's turn this motherfuckin' operating system out

      subtle, but effective.
    2. Re:DRM is worth it by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Actually, the lyrics are:

      Check it out
      What DRM is all about
      Work it out
      Let's turn this motherfuckin' operating system out

      All that skipping is just from the DRM.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
  3. silently silently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That must really be silent!

  4. Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was under the impression that installing software on the user's computer without asking is illegal?

    1. Re:Illegal? by teknokracy · · Score: 5, Informative

      When one goes in-depth into the "end user license agreement" that we all say "I agree" to, it becomes apparent that you actually do warrant them to install such an application. I'd imagine it would be part of the liner notes, interactive software related agreement, or perhaps even just a simple "look on this site to see the license agreement" blurb.

    2. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny
      I was under the impression that installing software on the user's computer without asking is illegal?

      Tell that to gator.... I mean the perfectly above board very helpful Claria Corporation

      Jokes aside on a personal note to claria/gator - FUCK YOU YOU WANKERS HOPE YOU LIKE MY VOICEMAIL MESSAGES. Greetings from the UK you fat girlfriend friendless ugly fuckings tossers! Whoops sorry strong words they are nice people really even if they need viagra just to make their girlfriends/boyfriends even think they have something compare to the flat dicks they actually have. DEATH TO ALL SPYWARE FUCKIN SPAMMERS!! Gator/claria eat shit & die m0thr fukin wankers!

    3. Re:Illegal? by xigxag · · Score: 4, Informative

      Illegal in the US, you mean?

      One of the comments in the cited links says that the copy protection is only for discs sold outside the US and UK.

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    4. Re:Illegal? by DarkMantle · · Score: 5, Informative

      Two words...

      Spy-Ware

      That said, if it's a stardard EXE I don't see how it would run on linux. :D And since Linux doesn't have an autorun annoyance... I mean feature, we'd have to consciously install it.

      Once again, the solution is... Don't use M$ Windows. (Sorry Mac people, I have had no recent experience with a Mac to make a comment on it.

      --
      DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
    5. Re:Illegal? by Kpt+Kill · · Score: 1

      Not that its exactly hard to disable the 'autorun annoyance'

    6. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Plus i'm pretty sure anyone who's intelligent enough to use Linux is probably intelligent enough to make the three or four clicks necessary to disable auto-run on Windows.

      More like a regedit to reliably disable it. And also, they may be intelligent enough to do so, but would they be knowledgeable enough to? I use windows once in a blue moon (that's more often than you think, probably, but still not very often), and, confronted by a windows station, I'm quite puzzled. Disabling autorun, which is not something I've ever had to do on my primary platform, would NOT be the first thing I think of - I'm more likely to be cursing the stupid next-to-maximise-button close-window button which gets me every time I use windows (yes, "new" linux GUIs copy that idiocy, but my home dir contains my usual close-on-left-where-its-supposed-to-be config).

    7. Re:Illegal? by aka-ed · · Score: 5, Funny
      I'm $orry it'$ ju$t that my keyboard i$ broken.

      anyway, who is Ian $ez? Tell Ian that part of the whole point i$ that it doe$n't matter how the arti$t feel$ about copy protection. The label$ have been in the court$ and in front of the pre$$, repeatedly talking about the right$ of the arti$t; how well doe$ that rhetoric $tand up when we learn that the arti$t has no right to avoid $uch protection?

      Where i$ the recording indu$trie$' re$pect for arti$t$' right$ in $uch a ca$e?

      --
      I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
    8. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes because we use other methods to monitor al Queda inside our borders. Muhahahahaha

    9. Re:Illegal? by Martix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Its also being sold in Canada as well.

      as far as i can say is you install something on my computer or network you need to beaten and left for the flies to eat.. if you dont let me know and give me an opt out...to me this a virus because its on my machine with out my permission.

      I ask the store clerk about the protection i got a blank stare. like a deer in the head lights.

      I also told them why .... I will not buy DRM ..TCPA....Copy controlled disks...ect

      Funny thing is there is also a new Meat Loaf album as well for sale i told the clerk the store has lost a sale.....

      To date there have been 6 CD'S i wanted to by but there protected as well thats 6 sales lost ...Way to go morons.

      so as this carries on i guess i will stop buying music ....or use my expensive studio gear to record it and strip the crap off ;)

      So i can use my car deck mp3 player ect. or were i feel i want to listen to my music.

      I dont mind buying to suport the artists but protection systems are a waste of money then anything else and shooting them selves in the foot to boot

    10. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      can we call them MICROS~1 ? ;)

    11. Re:Illegal? by teknokracy · · Score: 1

      With a Mac it's pretty much the same story as Linux. No autorun crap, no way an exe could work. It's nice being a minority, eh?

    12. Re:Illegal? by Epistax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I really do hope the courts do something about this passive signing away of your rights. I call it passive because the agreements define for themselves what agreeing to them means, so they are by nature fraudulent. So buying a product is a legal signature? So is opening a CD case, or installing software? They can put all the "Read the EULA"'s they want, but I don't see how any specific number of warnings suddenly merits compliance by law.

      By reading this you acknowledge my right to use your computer to research how better to write future comments. Oh yeah you have to give me your stuff too if you break our agreement. By reading this sentence you have broken our agreement. The next bag of potato chips you open signifies your compliance to turn over all properties that can be used to drink out of.

    13. Re:Illegal? by deacon · · Score: 4, Funny
      ... becomes apparent that you actually do warrant them to install such an application. I'd imagine it would be part of the liner notes...

      Well that seems fair.

      When you read this reply to your post, you have agreed to put all your money in a paper bag, put your underwear on your head if it is not already there, slather yourself with Marmite, and run naked down the center of the street throwing your money to passers-by.

      That is all.

    14. Re:Illegal? by ndevice · · Score: 1

      You could pull the same thing back at them: send them a letter with an enclosed eula defined according to your own terms. Make sure you include some content of value to them just in case - perhaps some feedback from you.

    15. Re:Illegal? by nuklearfusion · · Score: 1
      anyway, who is Ian $ez

      you missed an s :P

      --

      There's no such thing as a stupid question, but there sure are a lot of inquisitive idiots.

    16. Re:Illegal? by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is there is also a new Meat Loaf album as well for sale i told the clerk the store has lost a sale..... ...do you think the clerk cares? Have you ever worked in a job like that? I mean, it's not like the clerk is going to go tell his boss. The only way this is going to matter is if people don't buy these CDs- and I'm glad you had the self-control not to. But most people don't, so this crap is probably here to stay.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    17. Re:Illegal? by halowolf · · Score: 3, Interesting
      For those of us that know that it can be disabled. Again its the lowest common denominator scenario, where preventitive measuers are in place that only affect those who do not know how to get past them, or that a CD that they are using is doing this to their computer.

      From an ethical standpoint I have a problem with the way that they are going about this. I am a consumer, not a lawyer that can interpret EULA's and terms of agreements and can retrieve every consequence to their agreement out of them. Sure I can get most of the stuff, but not everything. And lets not forget that this stuff can be written in a point 4 font or something to make it hard to read. Well thankfully I have 20-20 vision but others may not have that luxury or carry a magnifying glass with them when they go shopping for music. Surely there should be a law about legal agreements being written in a easy to understand manner for consumers, and even more surely if that purchase is going to install software onto your computer without explicit consent and potentially damage it, that should be front and centre in the agreement and that they be liable to any damage done to your computer because of it.

      Again its business that doesn't seem to be capable of treating their customers with common decency. They don't seem to realise that you can treat your customers decently AND make money at the same time. Sure it might not be easy but with a market climate of screwing consumers, I would imagine there is a market for those customers that don't like being screwed over.

      If only all the sites referenced by this article weren't slashdotted, I might have something more to say. :) I might of even said something different if there was a copy of any agreements to look at.

      After reading what I wrote, it sounds like a rant... well I can live with that.

    18. Re:Illegal? by madmancarman · · Score: 5, Informative
      anyway, who is Ian $ez? Tell Ian that part of the whole point i$ that it doe$n't matter how the arti$t feel$ about copy protection. The label$ have been in the court$ and in front of the pre$$, repeatedly talking about the right$ of the arti$t; how well doe$ that rhetoric $tand up when we learn that the arti$t has no right to avoid $uch protection?

      It's probably Ian Rogers, the webmaster for the Beastie Boys' web site for a very long time - starting in 1994. I worked with Ian a bit when I was running the original Foo Fighters site, he's actually a really nice guy (Foo Fighters and Beastie Boys used to share the same management, Gold Mountain Entertainment, now GAS or something like that).

      With how the industry works, I'm sure he had absolutely nothing to do with this, but instead it was label decision as has already been pointed out. It's another perfect example of how disconnected the music industry is from its fans (at least those in non-english speaking countries - the software doesn't exist on the US or UK releases).

      --
      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
    19. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Damn it! Why did I have to read this post!

      Oh well, I was going to put underwear on my head anyways... brb

    20. Re:Illegal? by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 4, Informative

      A 'Blue Moon' is the second full moon in the same callendar month, IIRC every 12 to 13 months.
      Just some odd trivia I thought I'd throw out. Was going to try for funny, but can't think of a way to make it funny. Oh well.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    21. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like CNN when they blow something up?

    22. Re:Illegal? by chamblah · · Score: 1
      ... Don't use M$ Windows...

      M$

      At least you know how to spell Windows.

    23. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely there should be a law about legal agreements being written in a easy to understand manner for consumers

      Are you serious? Then what use would there be for lawyers?

    24. Re:Illegal? by ichimunki · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm confused. If all my money is in the paper bag, do I throw the bag at passers-by or do I use the bag to carry the money until I throw the money at the passers-by?

      --
      I do not have a signature
    25. Re:Illegal? by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > And since Linux doesn't have an autorun annoyance... I mean feature

      Depends on your preferred distro. RedHat has autorun, but they do it in a sane way. When it automounts a CD it looks for an autorun file and if it finds one it pops up a dialog box asking if you would like to run it.

      This is totally a Microsoft & Apple security problem. The system is running untrusted code without asking the user or even informing them something is running. Just goes to show how much the mindset has to change in the closed world before they have a chance to start getting security right.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    26. Re:Illegal? by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1
      Oh yeah you have to give me your stuff too if you break our agreement. By reading this sentence you have broken our agreement.
      SHIT SHIT SHIT! Oh ok. I just took a dump. Where do you want it?
    27. Re:Illegal? by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      If there is an EULA then it isn't installing very silently, is it?

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    28. Re:Illegal? by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

      First, they've got to provide you with a copy of the legal papers. So, unless there's an EULA in the CD packaging you can read before using the CD, which there usually is, then you don't have to go by any of it, just the laws that currently stand. If you can't see the contract before signing it, then it does not apply, especially when it's snuck on.

      Secondly, I interperete the law a bit differently. The EULA's power stems from how a computer works. Because a computers' processor has registers, it must copy the cd over and over and read/write it in order to play the CD. This essentially requires you to have their permission to copy. However, if you look at the EULA, they say "you may use this program" however, they also say "you may not make copies of this program". By doing so, they invalidate their EULA, since it has clearly contradictary statements; when on a digital medium, in order to use, you must copy. If by copying I must have a lisence, and if their lisence says I can use but not copy, then am I or am I not allowed to use the media?

      I put a CD into the computer, and I hit play. This isn't copying to you and me, it's playing. Therefore, this use does not fall under the EULA. What does fall under the EULA is when you copy it onto a CD and pass it out, which again, it conflicts.

    29. Re:Illegal? by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    30. Re:Illegal? by hayden · · Score: 2, Funny
      at least those in non-english speaking countries - the software doesn't exist on the US or UK releases
      Crickey mate! Only a drongo with reckon that the poms and the septics are the only places bonza enough to have a yarn in English.
      --
      Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
    31. Re:Illegal? by devilspgd · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, pretty much the same... Except that this little thing runs on your precious little Mac too.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    32. Re:Illegal? by karmatic · · Score: 1

      This essentially requires you to have their permission to copy.

      Actually, no it doesn't. Copyright law has a specific exemption for copies needed to run software.

      Section 117, IIRC.

    33. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest all of you sending the RIAA registered letters with receipt proof (I don't know the actual name of these there in the US). Inside the letter, put a legal contract like this and use it on court to defend yourselves from being sued under an EULA:

      EXEMPTING OF USER FROM LICENCE ABHORRENCES

      I, [yournamehere], therefore referred as the USER, and your, the Recording Industry Association of American, therefore referred as the RIAA, by the terms of this document come into agreement that:
      1) Attempts to prevent legal possessors of music records from backing up their albums is unfair and against the Consummer Rights Law (I hope you have one in the US, as we have here in Brazil).
      2) Attempts to install sub-reptitious software on users' computers to track down supposed "Digital Rights" is a privacy violation and an unwanted intromission in the users' rights to use their legally-obtained computers and operating systems. Such software shall be therefore considered "spyware" -- or even "malware", if they happen to cripple the computer's functionality.
      3) Copy-protection by downgrading the quality of the media disrespects the right that consumer is endowed of buying goods of quality.
      4) Copy-protection mechanisms that rely on one operating system damage the user's freedom to choose the operating system he wishes to use.
      5) Any legal action agains a user without evidence of him being liable for any illegal deed is against the principle of personal freedom and violates the inviolability of the person and of the homes (they are inviolable by the Brazilian law, at least we can sue someone for violating them...).
      6) Any legal issues concerning this EULA shall be conducted in the court of Birobidjan, Jewish Autonomous Region, Russian Federation, where the legal firm that represents me is settled.

      By signing the receipt and reading this EULA you agree with the terms herein.

      If you don't agree with the terms of this EULA you shall send it back (at your expense) so that I can refund you the mail fee you will pay and exempt you from agreeing with this EULA.

      If you don't want to agree with the terms of this EULA you should not sell music records or receive mail.

      Even if you don't agree with this EULA in its entirety you still are obliged by the terms of the item 6).

      Even if you haven't legally sold a record to me, you are still obliged by these terms if you have agreed to them regarding someone else.

      Sincerely,
      Mr. Jon Doe.

    34. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you don't believe in this crap, download the beastie torrent.

      That site also has some newbie instructions on how to disable autorun.

      They have better linux and solaris stuff if you are interested.

    35. Re:Illegal? by the+arbiter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Regarding Ian's comment: bullshit. The software is alive and present on the US release. I can't speak for the UK, because I didn't buy a copy there. But it's on mine.

      The disc sucks too. I'm doubly unhappy.

      --
      Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
    36. Re:Illegal? by JPriest · · Score: 5, Funny

      With Linux it won't install the DRM, but it won't make any difference because because your sound card does not work with Linux anyway.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    37. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because spelled properly, "Microsoft" is a word of the English language that has a long and varied etymology and, and, as such, connotes lots of information that "Micro$oft" does not.

      Really, it's a brand name, which is used to present an image to the customer's mind before they have a chance to think about the word logically.

      Which is why some people deface it by replacing the S with the dollar sign. Just playing devil's advocate; I don't care how you spell it as long as it's decipherable. U CN RD THS.

    38. Re:Illegal? by Moloch666 · · Score: 1

      All 3 (different computers) of mine do.

      --
      Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
    39. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Wrong! The DRM does not run on Mac OS X... I know no one still using OS 9 except schools and libraries who have little money to upgrade.

    40. Re:Illegal? by CrazyGringo · · Score: 1

      Really, it's a brand name, which is used to present an image to the customer's mind before they have a chance to think about the word logically. An image of really tiny software?

    41. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All 3 computers of mine don't. My oldest computer works with about every other distro.

    42. Re:Illegal? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      or perhaps even just a simple "look on this site to see the license agreement" blurb.

      That's just a shrinkwrap licence that they can arbitrarily change even after you've opened it. Maybe I should pass a small card to the store clerk that states that they are responsible for huge consulting rates of my time if I have to clean malware off my computer? (Full "agreement" available on my website.)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    43. Re:Illegal? by dargon · · Score: 1

      Heh, that's for spyware as congress said on Thursday. However, I'm of the impression that this qualifies as it's spying on my actions while I use the computer, waiting for me to do something specific so that it knows to have an effect. Maybe it doesn't report to home, it's still spying on my actions.

      http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ nm /20040617/tc_nm/tech_congress_spyware_dc

    44. Re:Illegal? by berzerke · · Score: 1

      ...lets not forget that this stuff can be written in a point 4 font or something to make it hard to read...

      IANAL, but I would interept this as an attempt at deception and fraud, and would treat that portion of the agreement as null and void.

    45. Re:Illegal? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The EULA's power stems from how a computer works. Because a computers' processor has registers, it must copy the cd over and over and read/write it in order to play the CD. This essentially requires you to have their permission to copy.

      No it doesn't. The supremes have ruled that copying a copyrighted work is perfectly fine so long as it is required to actually make use of said work (other conditions notwithstanding). If I own a copy of some CD, I can play it - this isn't really debatable. If the CD contains an EULA, I can ignore it, as I already have the right to use it under copyright law. You could make a similar argument for software, but I am not aware of any specific precedent.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    46. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds like you're typing with a lisp, sorry li$p.

    47. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's nice being a minority, eh?
      that's what i say when asked about my Lada.

    48. Re:Illegal? by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 3, Informative

      Once again, the solution is... Don't use M$ Windows. (Sorry Mac people, I have had no recent experience with a Mac to make a comment on it.

      No, actually, the solution is to disable AutoStart. It's easy to do. And it's easier than switching operating systems (at least for most people.)

      Maybe instead of blaming Microsoft at every chance that pops up, users could try to be more constructive and try to resolve the issues at hand through less invasive, arrogant, annoying, or sometimes just plain stupid means.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    49. Re:Illegal? by madmancarman · · Score: 1
      Regarding Ian's comment: bullshit. The software is alive and present on the US release. I can't speak for the UK, because I didn't buy a copy there. But it's on mine.

      If that's the case, then I stand corrected.

      --
      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
    50. Re:Illegal? by j-pimp · · Score: 0

      I've found the loophole in democracy. It's stupid people. Vast masses of stupid people.
      The masses are asses. [Samuel Adams]

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    51. Re:Illegal? by Jord · · Score: 1
      This is totally a Microsoft & Apple security problem.

      Nope, just a Microsoft problem, OS X does not autorun cds either. Even if it did, it would prompt for an admin password before it could install anything.

    52. Re:Illegal? by teknokracy · · Score: 1

      The whole point is that you agree to it "passively", meaning on the back in fine print it could tell you "By purchasing this you have to go to www.musiccompany.com and agree to and read the license agreement there". nobody is actually going to do that, so they have basically agreed to it and get the spyware.

    53. Re:Illegal? by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      Sure... And if I mail them a letter with similar terms on the envelope, would they be legally bound by such terms?

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    54. Re:Illegal? by teknokracy · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with you, god knows what kind of agreements have been made between myself and Microsoft. Technically, I could buy a game, burn it, then return it to the company and say that I didn't agree to the license terms - and it would be completely legal! Most EULAs state that you can return the product if you disagree.

    55. Re:Illegal? by teknokracy · · Score: 1

      Depends if they take it seriously or not. Maybe someone would open it without thinking it was an actual agreement. Maybe they'd be smart enough to send it to their lawyer for review, who knows? or they could just rip it up and not care. But think about it that way - we don't really read any EULA's or take anything seriously when we buy software or music or anything. It's all gotten so superficially complicated that it's all gone out the window and nobody cares. Even with CD protection, there will always be someone who will leak a clean copy on the net. And all it takes is one, and bam! its out there.

    56. Re:Illegal? by Cheirdal · · Score: 1

      If it's not, it should be. It should also be illegal to purposely eave ANYTHING on a users' computers when you do an uninstall (ie leaving things in the registry).

    57. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The software is alive and present on the US release.


      No it isn't. You must be dumb or something.
    58. Re:Illegal? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The EULA's power stems from how a computer works. Because a computers' processor has registers, it must copy the cd over and over and read/write it in order to play the CD."

      First, that's not true. There's nothing stopping CD drives to stream sound directly to the speakers (hey, look, there's a headphone plug on my CD drive...; okay, my DVD+-RW drive doesn't have one).

      Second, even if the above *were* true, it's nothing. Why? Because to view a page of a book, you have to shine light on it which means there's a copy "suspended" in the air by photons. Even with brail, your fingers would be temporarily deformed into a copy of the text you read. So, there's no reasonable way that temporary copy doesn't occur regardless of the work. All this discussion about temporary copies and acting like a computer is somehow "magical" is stupid.

      By buying a copy of a copyrighted work, you have a fundamental right to use said work. That's what First Sale Doctrine is about (and please realize, First Sale Doctrine is an inherent part of copyright, not something written up that can be taken away; it doesn't make any logical sense to allow for a copyright owner to copyright a work, sell copies, then make it impossible for someone to actually *use* the copies; doing so fundamental goes against the idea of "promoting the progress of the arts and sciences" as it's impossible to advance the arts or sciences if you can't access a work, so the idea the people would give an author exclusive rights to such a work is ridiculous).

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    59. Re:Illegal? by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1
      However, one way of resolving the "issues" is switching to an Operating System that doesn't have them.
      It is a fact that Microsoft has done something wrong here - it should ask before doing unkown carp to your machine. À la Linux/Mac OS X.

      Sure, you can fix it on Windows, but the problem still remains.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    60. Re:Illegal? by trs998 · · Score: 1

      What happens if you take it back and clain it won't work, say, in your car cd-player?
      AFAIK, car cd-players sometimes use cdrom players (as opposed to cd-audio) as they can play mp3s and cd-rom players are supposedly more resistant to skipping.

      Claiming it won't work in your computer is possibly not as good as claiming it won't work in a comsumer cd-playing device.

    61. Re:Illegal? by kasperd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, actually, the solution is to disable AutoStart. It's easy to do.

      I did that on my parents Windows 95 system, but it certainly wasn't easy. You see they had made it easy to disable disk change detection. But that is certainly not what you want to do. The correct way to disable autodetection required modification of some key hidden deep down in the registry.

      I always considered autorun a bug. And it annoys me, that Red Hat Linux and Fedora Core now have this feature. Fortunately it is easy to disable: rpm -e autorun. And just to shut up kde complaining that it is unable to start autorun, I did this: ln -s /bin/true /usr/bin/autorun. A lot easier than what I had to do on a Windows 95 system.

      I find it funny, that AmigaOS had a bug that allowed a carefully crafted floppy to cause automatic execution of code from the floppy. That bug was abused by multiple vira, but it was fixed with AmigaOS 2.0 (around 1990). And five years later Microsoft introduce a similar bug in Windows 95. And today we see this security hole being abused by the music industry.

      And what the music industry is doing start looking more and more like vira. It has been suggested they would allow limited copying, but the copy protection code would copy itself to the new CDDA you create. Now if they are really going to do that, where is the difference from a virus?

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    62. Re:Illegal? by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      it does run on osx if you are running classic. there are many who run osx and who use classic.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    63. Re:Illegal? by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      Obviously you're not a lawyer, otherwise you'd be well familiar with the typeface "4-point legal flyspot". It's used all over the place..

      (also not a lawyer, but I have fairly good vision :)

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    64. Re:Illegal? by rifter · · Score: 1

      Not that its exactly hard to disable the 'autorun annoyance'

      It used to be easy to do this in Windows, but the control to do this seems to be missing. It is true you can hold the shift key down, but if there is a way to disable autorun altogether anymore it is pretty well hidden. Fuck Windows, anyhow.

    65. Re:Illegal? by JOstrow · · Score: 1

      A slashdot article from yesterday:

      U.S. To Impose Spyware Control Laws

      I wonder if this is going to eventually end up biting them in the ass?

    66. Re:Illegal? by rifter · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Not that its exactly hard to disable the 'autorun annoyance'"

      It used to be easy to do this in Windows, but the control to do this seems to be missing. It is true you can hold the shift key down, but if there is a way to disable autorun altogether anymore it is pretty well hidden. Fuck Windows, anyhow.

      Well in answer to my own question, to disable the autorun in Win2k ya gotta edit the registry, which is pretty much what I thought you'd have to do. So Joe Sixpack probably won't be doing it so easily. I would say that yes, it is hard. It woudl especially be hard if you did not know how to look for information on disabling the feature, which would require that you knew it was called "autorun," know to search the microsoft knowlege base, and know how to use the registry editor without killing your machine.

    67. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually. When I bought a CD with this type of copy protection it installed itself also automatically. There was NO agreements or any text that a software was required, nor would install itself on the computer.

    68. Re:Illegal? by jmorris42 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      > OS X does not autorun cds either. Even if it did, it would prompt for
      > an admin password before it could install anything.

      Quoth the article:

      "It seems that Capitol Records has some sort of new copy protection system, that automatically, silently, installs "helpful" copy protection software on MacOS and Windows as soon as you insert the CD into default systems."

      Either you didn't realize that His Holiness (Mr. Jobs) would sell yer ass to the RIAA, you are in denial or of course the original story could be full of crap. Modern journalism being what it is and all that, it could happen.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    69. Re:Illegal? by RichardX · · Score: 1

      However, one way of resolving the "issues" is switching to an Operating System that doesn't have them.

      Yes, of course, because if, for example, the seat was a little too far forwards in your car when driving, causing your legs to get uncomfortable, it'd be much more sensible to sell it and buy a new car than it would be to just move the seat back a bit...

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    70. Re:Illegal? by RichardX · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm really starting to get irritated with this nonsense. disabling autorun on XP its embarrassingly simple to do, and claiming that it requires a registry hack just shows that your knowledge of windows doesn't even extend to the most absolute basics - so what the hell are you doing making claims about it's functionality when you don't even know how to use it?

      TO DISABLE CD AUTORUN IN WINDOWS XP

      1. Double click on "My Computer", or go start>my computer

      2. Locate your CD or DVD drive in the "My Computer" window, and right-click on it

      3. From the popup menu click "properties"

      4. In the drive properties window that appears, go to the autoplay options, and select "take no action"

      OR

      The policy method (XP Pro only)

      This involves changing your computer's policy to disallow autorunning of inserted media (Again, a very basic aspect of windows)

      [1] Start/Run/GPEDIT.MSC
      [2] Computer Configuration/Administrative Templates/System.
      [3] Locate the entry for Turn Off Autoplay and modify.

      And just for the sake of completeness, bere's the registry tweak, too (which again, is certainly not any kind of "deep magic", though is probably more advanced than your granny would be comfortable with, at least you don't have to compile anything)

      Start, run... "regedit"
      System Key: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servi ces\CDRom]
      Value Name: Autorun
      Data Type: REG_DWORD (DWORD Value)
      Value Data: (0=disable, 1=enable)

      Or you can download any of the ten zillion tweaking utilities for windows? how come, btw, when a tweaking utility for Linux is released, it's a cool added bit of functionality that makes Linux even more kickass than it already was... but when a tweaking utility is released for windows it's a kludgy fix to add functionality that obviously SHOULD've been there in the first place?

      Oh well.

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    71. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the way to do it. We, as people who care about fighting this sort of thing, have a very small voice in terms of a boycott (as most people just don't care). But if all of us ask to speak to the manager of the record shop every time we choose not to make a purchace of a CD that we want on the grounds of DRM, then we will soon be noticed. It's no good just not buying, they have to know why we're not buying. Likewise, it's no good telling the record industry, as they don't care. We have to tell the record stores, who (for some counter intuitive reason) do have sway with the record companies.

      Also, I hope that the continuing rise of such music players as the iPod will also help lead the public to start to speak out about this sort of thing, as it becomes an issue that doesn't just affect 'geeks'.

    72. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anyway, who is Ian $ez? ...arti$t has no right...

      actually he mi$$ed 2.

    73. Re:Illegal? by cyborch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That would have been funnier if it was remotely true. What could happen (and what I have had happen to me previously) was that the DRM protected media is unplayable without the DRM malware, for instance I am unable to view the one e-book I bought without a wandows installation, and sadly the book didn't come with a windows license. IMHO it would have been appropriate to ship a windows license along with e-books since it's needed to read it.

    74. Re:Illegal? by RocketRainbow · · Score: 1

      In many countries, shrink-wrap licenses are not legal, or at least must be stated on the outside of the box in full. In this case, it will be very illegal to install malware at random.

      --
      *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
    75. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      in xp you can just rightclick and select options on the cd-drive, press the autoplay tab and select from list what you want it to do with different types of cds. all pointy-clicky-selecty

      It btw often seems Slashdot users have more difficulty with this approach than the 'average joes' they look so far down on..

    76. Re:Illegal? by mati · · Score: 1

      I'm not an expert on this stuff, but I think you would be violating copyright law in that case. EULAs are only for provisions above and beyond standard copyright protections.

    77. Re:Illegal? by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      More like, if, whenever someone got near the car it automatically unlocked and started the engine, requiring you to remove the dashboard cover and unscrew something to change this.
      On top of this, it was vulnerable to stalling at random, only restarting after you pushed it home.
      In this case, you could either fix it, or get a better car in the first place.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    78. Re:Illegal? by valisk · · Score: 1
      Damn, I have no Marmite, only a tub of Vegemite handy will that do?

      --

      Economic Left/Right: -0.62
      Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
    79. Re:Illegal? by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      Also, you totally ruin any arguement you may have, no matter how good it is, when you use a dollar sign in Microsoft's name.

      Quite right. Everyone knows those dollar signs belong solely on GOLD CHAINS, hanging around our necks!

      (Or is it supposed to be Mercedes logos for the Beastie Boys? I can't remember, I was only three years old in 1986.)

      Keep it hard-core, guys.

      You gotta fight, for your right to bukkake!

    80. Re:Illegal? by TractorBarry · · Score: 1

      And even if it does the next time you upgrade anything at all it will get borked again....

      --
      Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
    81. Re:Illegal? by tanguyr · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? Then what use would there be for lawyers?

      During the next ice age we will hunt them for food.

      --
      #!/usr/bin/english
    82. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the hell is Vera?

    83. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But thats the point. I didn't and never agree to that. Contracts delivered post facto are illegal in my country.

    84. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crickey mate! Only a drongo with reckon that the poms and the septics are the only places bonza enough to have a yarn in English.

      Sorry, chap, can't seem to understand a word you're saying.

    85. Re:Illegal? by cain · · Score: 1
      When one goes in-depth into the "end user license agreement" that we all say "I agree" to, it becomes apparent that you actually do warrant them to install such an application.

      There is no EULA for an audio CD.

    86. Re:Illegal? by rimbaldi · · Score: 1
      When you read this reply to your post, you have agreed to put all your money in a paper bag, put your underwear on your head if it is not already there, slather yourself with Marmite, and run naked down the center of the street throwing your money to passers-by.

      It's not a contract without consideration. You should offer to leave a flaming bag of poop on their doorstep. If they accept the poop, you have a contract. If they stamp it out, it's null and void.

      The reason it is "fair" is that they are giving you music, which by your opening the packaging and listening to it (using the product), you are tacitly agreeing to the EULA. It's called a shrinkwrap agreement. If you don't like it, you can return the product unopened.

    87. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you can use TweakUI.

    88. Re:Illegal? by Cthefuture · · Score: 1

      how come, btw, when a tweaking utility for Linux is released, it's a cool added bit of functionality that makes Linux even more kickass than it already was... but when a tweaking utility is released for windows it's a kludgy fix to add functionality that obviously SHOULD've been there in the first place?

      This is most likely because typically these tweeks for Linux add functionality, while the tweeks for Windows are to remove annoying/insecure functionality.

      --
      The ratio of people to cake is too big
    89. Re:Illegal? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Obviously you're not a lawyer, otherwise you'd be well familiar with the typeface "4-point legal flyspot".

      The post referred to a "point 4 font", which would be 1/10th the height of "a 4 point font". But it was probably a typo, as 0.4 point type would be about 1/10th mm high, rather smaller than a flyspeck I think.

    90. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "(Or is it supposed to be Mercedes logos for the Beastie Boys? I can't remember, I was only three years old in 1986.) "

      Wasn't it clocks... i was a little older in 86, but I can't remember

    91. Re:Illegal? by SoSueMe · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can also disable autorun in other versions of Windows. See annoyances.org for the method for particular version.

    92. Re:Illegal? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      But in this case it's an audio CD, so no DRM software, no problem...

    93. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AmigaOS had a bug that allowed a carefully crafted floppy to cause automatic execution of code from the floppy

      Yes. The code for repairing a disk's filesystem, disk-validator (the Amiga's fsck) wasn't in ROM, it was on the Workbench disk itself. If you inserted a disk with a simple fault in the filesystem like an incorrect checksum, it would read disk-validator from that disk itself and execute it.

    94. Re:Illegal? by halowolf · · Score: 1
      But it was probably a typo, as 0.4 point type would be about 1/10th mm high, rather smaller than a flyspeck I think.

      Yes, it was a typo and it was so good of you to pick up on it for me, cheers :)

    95. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the license is available for reading at the time of sale then it is not binding.

    96. Re:Illegal? by Zro+Point+Two · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      after reading your sig, I've realized that there should be some sort of /. feature to Mod sigs. I'd be all over that.

      --
      Zro . two

      "I come from Canada...they say I'm slow....eh?"
    97. Re:Illegal? by slashjames · · Score: 1

      Edit the registry to disable autorun??? You're out of your gourd! The answer to this (and many other Windows "features") is TweakUI It installs a new control panel icon that lets you enable/disable almost all of the automatic stuff that Windows can do.

    98. Re:Illegal? by interJ · · Score: 1

      A computer is also needed to read the e-book, so they should ship a computer with each e-book.

    99. Re:Illegal? by mallardtheduck · · Score: 1

      I thought CD drives did stream directly to the speakers...
      Whenever I have opened one of my PC's there is always a cable directly from the CD drive to the sound card, and pressing the 'play' button on the CD drive on these machines works even if nothing else does.
      ie even when the system doesnt even boot...

    100. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Untrue. I've got a live, and it works just beautifully, thank you.

    101. Re:Illegal? by Alan+Cox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let us hope the anti-spyware legislation in the US has bothered to require that the license/install permission is clear. As a word of warning btw some Linux vendors do seem to like adding autorun functionality and on older systems defaulting it to enabled.

      Liner notes will also create them a problem since they then have to deal with returns from people who do not accept the license, aside from the problem that many discs are sold to minors which means that if you sell it to a 12 year old who puts it in Dad's computer you might not have the authorization to do so.

    102. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "embarrassingly simple" is in the eye of the beholder. As a european someone who went C64-Amiga-Linux, never having had to learn windows in depth, I can easily follow those instructions - but they're more than a bit obscure (particularly the regedit).

    103. Re:Illegal? by Qamelian · · Score: 1

      Not really.

      But when you start to notice too many problems/annoyances/needed repairs on your car, it is logical to replace the car with one that performs more to your liking.

      If the problems don't bother you, ignore them. If they drive you nuts, do something about it.

      The bottom line is that the surest way to stop these invasive DRM technologies is to to remove your support from the companies using them. I not only do not buy DRM protected CDs, I don't knowingly purchase anything from the recording industry labels that produce them. All of my coin goes to independant labels that still show respect for the customers. Kudos especially to Sam Rosenthal of Projekt Records for his stand on the issue and Janis Ian (performer) who has also had some words of wisdom on the topic.

    104. Re:Illegal? by SiChemist · · Score: 1



      The easiest way to disable KDE's autorun is to navigate to /home/yourhomedir/.kde/Autostart and delete the autorun file there.

    105. Re:Illegal? by JPriest · · Score: 1

      I've got a live, and it doesn't work, your welcome.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    106. Re:Illegal? by bs_02_06_02 · · Score: 1

      You asked the store clerk?
      You thought that the people who worked in the store would know what's going on?

      I'd suggest that if a music store employee was sophisticated enough to be aware of the Beastie Boys copy-protection, they're worth more than $4.85 an hour in wages and have long since moved on, or are camped out in Mom and Dad's basement, playing PS2 all day long with their friends.

      --
      -- No sig for you!
    107. Re:Illegal? by PhxBlue · · Score: 3, Informative

      Alternately, you could download and install TweakUI for whatever version of Windows you're running and disable autorun from there. It's safer than going directly into the registry, and easy enough that even a common joe can do it.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    108. Re:Illegal? by SiChemist · · Score: 1

      disabling autorun on XP its embarrassingly simple to do, and claiming that it requires a registry hack just shows that your knowledge of windows doesn't even extend to the most absolute basics - so what the hell are you doing making claims about it's functionality when you don't even know how to use it?

      It's pretty arrogant for you to assume that everyone in the world is running Windows XP. At my place of employment, most of our computers are running Windows 2000 (with a couple of Win 98 pcs left over). The solution for win2k (posted here) is far from the "embarrassingly simple" task that you make it out to be. As for downloading a tweaking utility: why should I download an untrusted utility that makes registry edits in order to secure a windows pc? Does that really make sense to you?

      Oh, and speaking of kludgy fixes, the windows 2000 fix causes you to have to hit F5 to refresh the explorer window when you change CDs.

    109. Re:Illegal? by internic · · Score: 1
      Or you can download any of the ten zillion tweaking utilities for windows? how come, btw, when a tweaking utility for Linux is released, it's a cool added bit of functionality that makes Linux even more kickass than it already was... but when a tweaking utility is released for windows it's a kludgy fix to add functionality that obviously SHOULD've been there in the first place?

      Well, I can't speak for others, but for me it would be the amount you paid for Windows (either directly or through your computer manufacturer). It sure as hell better have the functionality you want.

      Hell, I even bought one of my distros, and it was still less than one fifth the price. So in exchange for that and having a relatively worm free OS that doesn't work to invade my privacy via DRM, I'm will to give a bit of leeway in terms of not having every single feature I want.

      --
      "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
    110. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Windows 2000 fix (using GPEDIT.MSC) is the same as the Windows XP fix. In fact this has been the correct way to modify this setting since NT4-SP3 (was that the one which introduced the MMC?) IIRC.

      If you are running a domain then you can make this change for every machine on that domain by making the change to the global policy rather than the local one. Pretty simple if you ask me.

    111. Re:Illegal? by kasperd · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the advice. I will do that in the future instead of the symlink. I'm still going to delete the autorun package though, I don't see much point in having it installed. I just realized the file /etc/skel/.kde/Autostart/Autorun.desktop belonged to the autorun package, so by deleting the autorun package before creating a user, you can completely avoid ~/.kde/Autostart/Autorun.desktop from being created.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    112. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They gave you music?!?! Wow! You didn't have to pay for it, just sign an EULA.

      Cool

    113. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in the UK. Evenephemeral copies are illegal without license...

    114. Re:Illegal? by bcmm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You really should have been modded troll for that.
      And it's not even true. The first method only stops automatic selection of the program to open the content with, for example WMP for audio CDs, ACDSee for photos. It does not prevent executables specified in autorun.inf from being loaded.
      The other 2 methods are not simple. Did you work out that reg entry or did you read about it on the web?

      Thought so.
      In win95, users could work it out for themselves, or if not it was in the manual.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    115. Re:Illegal? by Sj0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, there are two definitions of "blue moon", and only one of them is particularly rare. The second full moon of the month happens every 32 months, but the second defenition refers to an atmospheric phenomena where the moon actually appears to be blue, usually due to particles in the air or smoke.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    116. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you work out that reg entry or did you read about it on the web

      Yeah 'cuz everybody is born with the inherent ability to compile their Lin$ux kernel.

    117. Re:Illegal? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Letting Linux and Windows sit at the same bar seems sort of silly to me -- you didn't pay 400 bucks for your linux license, did you? (if you did, I've got some land in florida to sell you)

      Though to be honest, I think both are horribly deficient in critical areas, and in the past I've thrown my support behind somewhat less deficient OSes, even though they were destined to fail anyway -- hey, who says that OS/2 Warp and BeOS don't have great ideas in them? :D

      --
      It's been a long time.
    118. Re:Illegal? by zieroh · · Score: 1

      Maybe instead of blaming Microsoft at every chance that pops up, users could try to be more constructive and try to resolve the issues at hand through less invasive, arrogant, annoying, or sometimes just plain stupid means.

      Maybe instead of arrogantly assuming that it's customers are peons, annoying them by allowing CDs to install invasive software that on the face of it looks like a virus, Microsoft should instead focus on being constructive and creating a usable and secure operating system that isn't cursed by 98% of the people who use it. ...and I'm not even a Linux fanboy.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    119. Re:Illegal? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I hope you won't mind if I continue to call them MICROS~2? You see I had this microscope related software installed first...

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    120. Re:Illegal? by tgma · · Score: 1

      [quote} Crickey mate! Only a drongo with reckon that the poms and the septics are the only places bonza enough to have a yarn in English. [/quote] My dear fellow, I think you have just made the point perfectly.

    121. Re:Illegal? by Teddyman · · Score: 1

      Funny how you consider opening a console window and doing rpm -e autorun, ln -s /bin/true /usr/bin/autorun "a lot easier" than running regedit and editing HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\Cdrom\AutoRun to 0. I'd say they're about as hard for someone who's doing it for the first time.

    122. Re:Illegal? by RichardX · · Score: 1

      You really should have been modded troll for that.

      Balls. I was making a valid point, albeit sarcastically.

      The original poster was effectively saying it's more sensible to go through a complete OS change than it is to take 30 seconds to perform a registry tweak. I pointed out that that is complete nonsense - not that any other issues that may be in Windows are not under consideration here.

      Now, I notice I've already been modded flamebait for my post, and now you want a -1 troll on there as well.. whatever. It's interesting that I've said far, far worse things about Windows in the past on here (for yes, I use both *gasp*.. and worse still, think that both have their pros and cons!), with less of a valid point, and yet been modded right up to +5 insightful/informative/funny.

      I wonder what would've happened if I'd suggested switching your platform to Windows as a sensible means of circumventing a minor niggle in Linux?

      Silly rabbit.. balanced views aren't for slashdot.

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    123. Re:Illegal? by RichardX · · Score: 1

      Christ, I didn't even spot this..
      The other 2 methods are not simple.

      Granted, the registry is a bit of a maze until you get the feel for it, I'll give you that. As it happens though, I found that registry key on my own - I've explored the registry quite extensively.... after all, if you're going to have an operating system you might as well learn to use it properly.

      However, I'm not going to let you off with complaining about the policy method being too complex. The policy editor is the next step up from the control panel (and indeed, accessable through it) - If that's too complex for you then you should be running XP Home, not Pro. And if you're running XP Home then you've no place to be complaining about functionality, because it's designed to be user friendly and limited, protecting the user from themselves.

      Of course, it's fine for Linux programs to ask users to go trawling through esoteric config files to change settings.

      I don't really know why I'm bothering on here - pissing into the wind isn't even the word. I'm really just burning Karma by saying anything positive about Windows, but it's okay, I'll soon get it back with a load of "Windows sux! LinuX iz T3h r0x0r!" posts

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    124. Re:Illegal? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I read this and burst out laughing -- I found out only recently what poms and septics were.

      It right sucks, but the hosers here don't have any anglophones either, eh? I guess I'll drown my sorrows with some brown bread and homo milk.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    125. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would have been funnier if it was remotely true.

      Don't be so sure of yourself. One of my friends had to reinstall Linux several times before she could get it working with her sound card. She did eventually get it working, but it took a couple days of twiddling configs. One of my other friends, who is one of the best programmers I know, has a cheap winbox on which he's installed Linux, and half the drivers don't work, including sound (even under Knoppix). He thinks that if he spent a day or two at it he could probably get most of them working, but he hasn't yet, so we don't really know.

      Of the other Linux installations I've done, some have been headless and so have not needed sound drivers, so I really don't know whether the sound would work or not. Not counting those, I've seen only about 70-80% of successful sound driver setup on the first try in Linux, compared to 100% in Windows and of course OS X. Similarly for CD burners and modems, and lower for wireless cards. I've even had trouble driving network cards (VIA Rhine under Gentoo/2.6 didn't work for a while).

      The stories of Linux not working with sound cards may be exaggerated, but they are still much more than "remotely true".

    126. Re:Illegal? by swankypimp · · Score: 1
      Dude, this was fixed like four years ago. A big round of applause for Gorak, the 1996 guy from the South Park "Prehistoric Ice Man" episode.

      "As you can see, the Ice Man is listening to Ace of Base, which was a very popular group in his era."

      --

      --All your stolen base are belong to Rickey Henderson
    127. Re:Illegal? by vsprintf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was enjoying your rants, but the part about Windows "protecting the user" cracked me up. You really deserve a +Funny for that one. :)

    128. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the answer a total non-windowser (many exist, particularly in eurasia) would say to that is "what the fuck has DNS (domains???) got to do with cd autorun?"

    129. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er? The poster you responded to was saying that AS A LINUX USER who encounters windows "once in a blue moon", it was NON-OBVIOUS how to do stuff in Windows like turn off autorun. You then responded with a load of non-obvious windows stuff involving registries to turn off autorun.

    130. Re:Illegal? by barakn · · Score: 1

      'Viruses', not 'vira'.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    131. Re:Illegal? by reverius · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. Though there is a cable going from the CD drive to your sound card, it might not be used when you're playing audio from the drive. Some software CD players, including Windows Media Player, give you the option to play the CD digitally (though I don't remember what they call this feature), effectively removing the possibility of skipping except on severely scratched CDs. It effectively copies the data on an audio CD and plays that while it's in RAM (through software), rather than having the CD drive decode the audio in hardware and output to the sound card. It almost always results in less skipping, but as discussed, might be "illegal".

    132. Re:Illegal? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      If you are agreeing to something, there must be a copy of the agreement somewhere. I don't remember every buying a cd with the text of such an agreement, or directions on how to get such an agreement. And I examine the packaging pretty well.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    133. Re:Illegal? by clymere · · Score: 1

      using that same logic, i should get solaris with Staroffice and MacOS with Quark.

      DRM can be an evil thing, but i think you're really stretching it with that analogy.

      --
      once you go slack, you never go back
    134. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You know, I'm picturing you bitching out some hapless, minimum-wage earning HMV employee (who probably couldn't care less if you buy your damned CD or not) about a bunch of acronyms that he/she neither understands nor cares about, and I can't visualize you as anybody but this guy.

      I don't like copy-protection either, but making yourself look like a dork to people who can't do anything about it isn't very productive.

    135. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would a Linux (I'm stepping out on a limb here) zealot want MORE windows licenses out in the world??!?!?!?

      You are dumb.

    136. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems that disabling autorun on my XP box is difficult. But I seem to remember disabling it on my win95 box - or maybe it was win98? - without too much trouble. Certainly this was years ago, but I think I just stumbled across it somewhere at one point or another. I always used to chuckle to myself whenever something didn't autorun and I had to go look for it (for example just about any installation cd).

      Perhaps I am mis-remembering.

    137. Re:Illegal? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but you can start RegEdit and search for "autorun" if you don't already know where to find it.

      BTW, an Odd: I see it's set to "1" on my XP box, but autorun has never worked since I told it to "prompt me each time..." in drive properties. But I saw ONE prompt, then never again. And lately it gets stuck unable to refresh the drive to "no damn CD in the drawer at all, stupid!" (keeps looking for the most recent path, but only on data CDs, never audio CDs, and even when I've made a point of logging to CD's root, then to another drive). I'm sure it's some fuckup between autorun and insert/notify but offhand I don't see what. Ideas?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    138. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The correct way to disable autodetection required modification of some key hidden deep down in the registry.

      TweakUI - Paranoia Settings.

      Done.

      Next.

    139. Re:Illegal? by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      I got my definition from an astronmy short program that used air on pbs sunday nights a few years ago. Mart Horkhiemer, star hustler. or some such, probably totaly scrambled the guys name, he was from the Miami planetarium or some such. DagNabit, my memory is better than this normally, but I got serious issues with names for some idiot reason. (I still call one of my friends by anothers name even though I've known them both over 3 years)

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    140. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you want to get technical a 0.4 font means nothing. There is no unit measurement, so it could well be a 0.4 metre font, which would be rather large. It would just be more logical to assume s/he inverted the unit and the number rather than nit-picking an obvious mistake.

    141. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      With Linux it won't install the DRM, but it won't make any difference because because your sound card does not work with Linux anyway.

      Then buy a $6.00 C-Media CMI 8738 from www.pricewatch.com. I've never had any problem with any soundcard under Linux. Is this really such a common thing it's funny? Or am I missing the joke?

    142. Re:Illegal? by bcmm · · Score: 1

      Even if an experienced user can turn that of, a normal dummy can't. Windows users are often dummies.

      Also, a perfectly good feature that used to have a GUI got hidden in undocumented advanced configuration, in an "upgrade".


      Furthermore, windows is evil, encourages terrorism and causes cancer, and Bill Gates wants to kill you all!
      Oops,didn't mean to say that last bit... It just slipped out... Sorry.
      ;-)

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    143. Re:Illegal? by berzerke · · Score: 1

      I was actually referring to any font so small as be difficult for a person with normal vision to read. That, IMHO, is deceptive (or attempting to be deceptive).

    144. Re:Illegal? by maximilln · · Score: 1

      a) This is all territories except the US and UK -- US and UK discs do not have this protection on them
      WRONG. Ian's either misinformed, outright lying, or the distributors are doing something funky. I was just at Best Buy over the weekend and every single disc had a warning on the reverse side that the disc may not work properly in some hardware players or with some computer software setups AND included a disclaimer that the publisher was not responsible for any adverse effects.

      The BB CD also lacks the CDaudio logo. One other user mentioned that, due to the munging of the error bits to effect the copy protection, the CD no longer qualifies for the official CDaudio standard. Unfortunately a quick scan of this discussion failed to find that post.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    145. Re:Illegal? by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 1

      I love the modding on that comment--80% Funny from those of us who have gone through this pain, and 20% Troll from someone who was lucky enough to have a supported* sound card and thinks it's just FUD.

      *Supported (su-pôrt-ed) adj. Capable of being correctly detected and having drivers installed, rather than the huge list of "supported" devices that don't do squat until you manually compile a driver into a module or your kernel.

      --
      We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
    146. Re:Illegal? by Maxite · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, there are two definitions of "blue moon", and only one of them is particularly rare. The second full moon of the month happens every 32 months, but the second defenition refers to an atmospheric phenomena where the moon actually appears to be blue, usually due to particles in the air or smoke. Of course, the month of February will never have two moons within it because it is too short. Another interesting thing is that "once in a blue moon" refers to something rare, but "once in a blue sun" refers to something extremely rare (and yes, there are blue suns, and they are caused by the same atmospheric phenomena that cause a moon to appear blue). WARNING: Do not look directly at a blue sun!

      --
      Ah, you found me!
    147. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've even had trouble driving network cards (VIA Rhine under Gentoo/2.6 didn't work for a while).

      I'm using a VIA Rhine-II onboard chip under Gentoo and (now) Kernel 2.6, and never had a problem. Since you're using Gentoo as one of the "I know what I'm doing" distros, I bet you screwed up the configuration. For example, if you configure your network interface to use DHCP even though there is no DHCP server in the LAN (dialup doesn't count!), ifconfig will fail. That's not a driver problem but malconfiguration. No offense intended, but in that case, use a simpler distro or learn how to configure your card.

    148. Re:Illegal? by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      More like, if, whenever someone got near the car it automatically unlocked and started the engine, requiring you to remove the dashboard cover and unscrew something to change this.

      I never could understand why people act like you have to trudge through insane registry keys or something to diable Autostart.

      It's insanely easy to do, about as easy as changing screen resolution. Can Slashdot users literally know so little about Windows that they simply don't realize the option is right their in their face?

      I do admit it should be disabled by default, or better yet, simply not exist. But thinking it's easier to switch to Linux than to disable all of the security risks in Windows is just demented.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    149. Re:Illegal? by cyborch · · Score: 1

      Why would a Linux (I'm stepping out on a limb here) zealot want MORE windows licenses out in the world??!?!?!?

      My final goal (in this context at least) would be that windows should be shipped for free, since no-one would pay for a windows license just to get hold of the music on a cd they just bought. If windows were to be shipped for free along with each and every DRM protected music cd there would be little to no point to keeping the windows source closed. Once the windows source is open all the bugs in the system could (possibly) be fixed and we would have the best of F/OSS and windows in one package.

      You are dumb.

      Wow. How constructive. I can see why you posted as an AC.

  5. Yet another CD not to buy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeez... just one more reason not to buy CDs.

    What's the bet the tracks will be online DRM-Free before I even post this message?

  6. My name's Mike D. and I want respect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Your freedom and your privacy are what I expect!

    1. Re:My name's Mike D. and I want respect... by Mattintosh · · Score: 5, Funny

      They did it like this...
      They did it like that...
      They did it with the wiffle ball bat...

    2. Re:My name's Mike D. and I want respect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      We've got to fight,
      for our right,
      to co-py..

  7. Beasties by qewl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's not cool. Makes me kinda wonder why they put out this album anyway ($$$?).. I love their old stuff but I'm not sure their old passion was really in this work anyway.

    --

    (\_/)
    (O.o) This is Bunny. (> <)
    1. Re:Beasties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i agree 100% the beats and rhymes are nothing like their old stuff... this album isn't worth protecting

    2. Re:Beasties by E_elven · · Score: 5, Funny

      Record exec: We decided to give your music away for free, guys. We'll still pay you $50 million, though.
      Beasties: Hell no, dude. We DEMAND you put some evil copy protection on the album!
      Record exec: Isn't that horribly unfair towards the customers, guys? Come on, have a heart.
      Beasties: Oh yeah? Well fuck you, fat Record Exec. We've got the right to party! *BLAWW* *BLAWW* *BLAWW*
      Record exec: *Aaaargh* Oooooverrr my deaaaad boddyyyyyy... custooooemmueua *AAAARGH* cstmrrrrs muuust beee pa... pah.... pahmpppered.. *groan*
      Beasties: *Urinate on the dead Record Exec and offer a sacrifice to Satan*

      --
      Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
    3. Re:Beasties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      It is kind of the passing of an era for me. "license to ill" was the first full length album I ever bought with money from from my first job. I've bought most of their stuff since that first album.

      I can't imagine that this sort of move will win them any 15+ year fans and will likely to serve to drive away any that are left.

      Congrats Beasties, you are now party to a bigger evil that Tipper and the PMRC ever were.

    4. Re:Beasties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      They told us to tell them to screw it anyway in their late 80's hit song "You gotta fight, for you right"...

      And I wonder, shouldn't they be called "The Beastie Geezers" now?

    5. Re:Beasties by dasmegabyte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This album is worth it for three things:

      1) The amazing album art. Eight panels of pen sketches of NYC skyline on acide free paper. MMM.

      2) "An open letter to NYC" The sort of song a band records at the end of their career; this is their "Let it Be," it's solid.

      3) The great production work. Even though many of the songs have wack to weak lyricism, and Mike D sounds like he's about 50 and has larengitis, the music is very clean and the songs are punk short. Just enough to make the weaker songs tolerable.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    6. Re:Beasties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh I wish I had fuckin' mod points. That was awesome.
      ROFL!!

    7. Re:Beasties by asb · · Score: 1

      My guess: They put out the album because they have signed a contract and they either have to release the albums or pay a fine.

      Guess which one is cheaper? Guess which one pleases the fans (the real ones, not you computer geeks who only listen to LotR and Matrix soundtracks and other similar non-$$$ music)?

      I bought it, ripped it, listened to it and it didn't install any DRM on my Fedora Core 1. Stop complaining for being an idiot. You already supported an established monopoly by buying a Microsoft OS. Why should you start worrying now?

      --
      Antti S. Brax - Old school - http://www.iki.fi/asb/
    8. Re:Beasties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let me get this straight. There is one good track on this album. Regarding the others, you list in #3 that many of the songs have "wack [sic] to weak lyricism, and Mike D sounds like he's about 50 and has larengitis". Oh, and the short duration of the songs make the weaker ones tolerable!

      So when I write my next restaurant review I'll note that although the food was bad the restaurant does not lose a star because they accommodated for that fact by having smaller portions.

      Priceless...

    9. Re:Beasties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You already supported an established monopoly by buying a Microsoft OS.

      So you think the people complaining about copy-protected Beastie Boys CDs actually paid for that Microsoft OS?

    10. Re:Beasties by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      Ahem. If I go to a restaurant, and the food is not good overall BUT the ambience is nice, the waitress friendly and they have this one appetizer that's fantastic, I will give the restaurant a better review than if everything were merely ok.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
  8. Virus by Nermal6693 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's see, this is something that spreads without the user's consent, and is probably difficult to get rid of. Sounds like a virus to me.

    1. Re:Virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't be silly. It's only a virus when it's not made by a company.

    2. Re:Virus by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      No, it's only a virus when it requires a mindless host to replicate it and help it spread ... oh, wait.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Virus by Nermal6693 · · Score: 1

      Do you mean to say that Internet Explorer's not a virus either?!

    4. Re:Virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skynet is now being distributed to a computer near you! Buy the CD for $15.78, and very shortly the world will be dominated by Skyn...

      ~~~~^*^&^$@#*~~~...DISCONNECTED.

    5. Re:Virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anyone read that slashdot article from a few hours ago about the anti-spyware law ;)

    6. Re:Virus by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 0

      How the fuck does a bullshit comment like this get moderated to "insightful?"

      Viruses, both man-made and naturally occurring, reproduce. That's one of their defining characteristics.

      The software doesn't propagate. So it's not a virus, nor is it virus-like.

      Seriously: how does something so blatantly wrong get moderated up?

      --

      I write in my journal
    7. Re:Virus by c0dedude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The CD is the vector. Give it to a friend, it perpetuates. Direct-copy it, it probably perpetuates. Remember, worms perpetuate without user action. Viruses perpetuate with user action.

      Seriously: How does someone so blatantly shortsighted manage to breathe?

      --
      Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
    8. Re:Virus by Nermal6693 · · Score: 1

      I was actually attempting to be humourous. Should I have used a smiley?

      You don't need to answer that :)

    9. Re:Virus by jtev · · Score: 1

      It replicates itself from the CD to the hard drive. Old Skool virus, not pansy assed network spreading virus.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    10. Re:Virus by Mwongozi · · Score: 1
      It is not a virus, because it cannot spread from computer to computer.

      It could almost be described as a trojan, since it's pretending to be an audio CD, but isn't, quite...

      But really it's just a really annoying program.

    11. Re:Virus by Tei · · Score: 1

      hee??.. virus dont need user actions to perpetuate. Will use anithing to spread, include user actions, but not only. A virus can spread around a largue net with a hole that able him to copy to other computer and infect the hd boot code.

      --

      -Woof woof woof!

    12. Re:Virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's called a worm, dude. Look it up.

    13. Re:Virus by cammoblammo · · Score: 1

      Umm, I thought the idea of this software was that it stopped the music from being perpetuated. If the software was perpetuated, it wouldn't be doing it's job.

      So you might say that this software is meant to be a vaccine more than a virus.

      --

      Cogito, ergo sig.

    14. Re:Virus by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Informative

      A virus can spread around a largue net with a hole that able him to copy to other computer

      No, that's a worm. A virus piggy-backs on an executable file, and is launched when the executable is run. At that point the virus will generally seek out other executables to infect; if it can access mapped drives/Samba shares (etc), then it can spread from machine to machine. Recently, viruses have also started emailing themselves around. In both cases, however, the victim has to run the file that they receive in order for it to propagate.

      In contrast, a worm is self-replicating; once it's been written and the first copy is run (either by the author/an accomplice, or some poor sap being tricked into it), it seeks out further hosts, infects them, and continues, all without user intervention. They rely on weaknesses in computers systems to propogate.

  9. Control by Ms.XingTianCai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's hard to believe that a band that has prided itself on pushing the envelope and being controversial would do something like this. These people obviousle cared enough to buy the CD, why would the record industry need to protect themselves from them? It's just another way for them to control what we can and cannot do, thereby infringing on my rights. When I can't even listen to my music without worrying about what programs may be being installed on my computer, we've let them go too far.

    --
    As a computer, I am amused by the faith you have in technology.
    1. Re:Control by bersl2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think this would be the artists' call to put copy protection on the CD.

    2. Re:Control by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 1

      This sure seems controversial to me. What's the problem?

      --
      www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
    3. Re:Control by mriker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe, but the artists have a choice in who distributes their music.

    4. Re:Control by timeOday · · Score: 1, Insightful
      It's hard to believe that a band that has prided itself on pushing the envelope and being controversial would do something like this.
      Hey, that's pop culture for you. One minute they're making millions singing about shooting cops, the next they're throwing a tizzy fit over unauthorized copies of a CD. Absolute freedom of speech is wonderful when it protects your right to get attention by shocking people, but not so cool when it means somebody performing your songs in some coffee shop (unless they pay you first).
    5. Re:Control by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When I can't even listen to my music without worrying about what programs may be being installed on my computer, we've let them go too far.

      When you can't even listen to your music without worrying about what programs may be installed on your computer, you need a different operating system.

    6. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard to believe that a band that has prided itself on pushing the envelope and being controversial would do something like this.

      I could be totally wrong in this case. I really don't know. However, I know in previous cases that copy protection was put on a band's release, happened without their own consent, and in the case of one small label I'm aware of, the label knew, but I was told they didn't have much choice, that it was the next company higher up in the production chain that was making the decision.

      So what I mean is that the artist makes music and is hopefully passionate about it, but when it comes to installing copy protection, it is usually some manager with "business sense" that makes those kinds of decisions and not the band/artists themselves. I would give the BB the benefit of the doubt before I accuse them of trying to dick me around. Granted, I won't be buying their disk if I know there's copy protection, even though I know it's so easy to sidestep and knowing it won't work on linux.

    7. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone is shitting too close to the house,and it stinks no matter who dunnit.

    8. Re:Control by Methuseus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have no love for MS, but I have to disagree. For the average user Windows is much easier to use. You can say "get a new OS" all you want, but unless you are willing to set it up so everything works perfectly, including their webcam with AIM, Yahoo, etc, and all their Windows games, then you can tell them to "get a new OS".

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    9. Re:Control by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Hah! What a quaint notion.

      OK, the Beastie Boys have more clout than most bands might, but a record contract is a very small step up from indentured servitude.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    10. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and being controversial would do something like this.
      Silently installing stuff sounds controversial enough to me :P

    11. Re:Control by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1
      But it can be the call of musicians to say they don't want any copyprotections whatsoever on their CD's : if the producing company can't settle with that ; they are free to go to move on.

      it's quite disappointing for me to see that they have done this on a Beasty Boys album ; the guys FFS take away the right for people to do with music what they want ; displayed by them on Paul's Boutique.

    12. Re:Control by topynate · · Score: 1

      Easier to use it may be - may - but it doesn't change the broken-ness of windows' security model. If you normally log in as the equivalent of root in windows, then it should be secure by default. It isn't, and that needs to change, even if it makes things take one more step to do sometimes.

    13. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's beside the point. This garbage shouldn't be installed, no matter what OS you use. It's installing a program without your permission, and that's wrong, whether you're running Windows, OS X, Linux, whatever.

    14. Re:Control by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      Since they've apparently become quote politically correct unquote (at least regarding sexism), this would probably be the best way to generate controversy.

      I mean, lyrically, there isn't much of a way they're going to touch eminem, so they had to come up with something.

    15. Re:Control by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " very small step up from indentured servitude."

      you, of course, mean its closer to slavery then indentured servitude.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    16. Re:Control by e-gold · · Score: 2

      Yes, but much like slaves throughout history, musicians need information to be truly-free.

      If they/we think all that's out there is an evil RIAA quintopoly, that's all there will be. If, OTOH, we/they dare to dream of something with a halfway-decent contract where artists actually own their work, things might be different...We make our own reality sometimes.

      The idea that a band can't control whether or not there's spyware on their CDs suggests that musicians (and music-buyers) need to think in new ways. I just wish Courtney Love had discovered Magnatune before she re-entered binge-mode, because her Salon rant about doing the music-math made sense. Magnatune's contract (artist keeps half and keeps title to the music, basically) is what she was asking for back when Courtney was still being coherent.
      JMR

      --
      Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
    17. Re:Control by mvpll · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Our new OS comes with a Longhorn(TM), once an hour it anal probes the user to confirm their identity. After the intial hour long ass reaming required for installation, most users appreciate the quick prostate massage required to keep everything working perfectly."

      Where do you want to take it today?

    18. Re:Control by akac · · Score: 1

      Easier to use than a Mac? What are you smokin ;)

    19. Re:Control by antiMStroll · · Score: 4, Insightful
      " For the average user Windows is much easier to use.

      Unfortunately, much easier to use too for Capital, Gator, klez,....

    20. Re:Control by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > I have no love for MS, but I have to disagree. For the
      >average user Windows is much easier to use.

      The average windows box has 28 pieces of spyware, a handful of viruses, and untold gobs of privacy invading proprietary gunk on it (such as DRM ware etc).

      On top of that they have to run an obnoxious firewall system and memory and resource hogging virus scanner- just to prevent their computer from self-destructing.

      Having your computer be that much of a hassle is not my definition of easy. Not to mention that XP and win2k systems still seem to lockup or blue screen quite regularly despite the much touted "stability improvements"...

    21. Re:Control by xSauronx · · Score: 1
      Much easier indeed.

      I finally convinced my brother to use Linux, since he had pirated a copy of windows and he couldnt get it to work right; i argued that for free he should at least *try* Linux before paying for windows. He said ok, and I installed Knoppix.

      Knoppix: because the hardware detection was perfect, and its debian-based to keeping him up-to-date will be simple. Lets see what I have to do to get it in order for him: Install Nvidia drivers, a touch annoying for an average windows user, but its easy even if youre not.

      Install a browser...oh its here...email...gaim...office apps...sound and music apps....wow its all here already. DVD?

      Oh, just install Libdvdcss....some an average windows user wouldnt know a thing about, or where to get it...or how to install a .deb file since you cant just click it and go. Hmmm.

      WEll, its out of the way, now to watch a DVD...la di da. Oh, I have to go mow the grass...

      Ah, now to start up Xine again and finish my movie...oh whats this? For no good reason, my DVD drive doesnt work. It cant find the DVD drive. Wait a minute....now it cant find the cd-rom either; I didnt change anything...

      I know very little about linux, but I know my drives shouldnt randomly stop working. As many things as Ive seen go wrong in windows....you can pretty well just reboot and magically it works again. As of this moment, my brothers computer doesnt have a DVD drive or CDROM he can use. Great.

      How about MAndrake? How about i downloaded mandrake 10 3 times to 3 different sets of cds and got an error each time? How about Mandrake 9.1 installed fine but couldnt get the network working (the first time ive encountered such a thing with mandrake, which is why i installed knoppix afterwards) Ok, well, Ill just get some other things working....install Java, Flash, and edit the sources.list to comment out servers that it cant reach (all things a new user could *never* do, while they CAN use google to get anything they want, download it and just click click click to install it) This post is far too long now that I think of it; Windows is just easier right now. Oh sure it has its drawbacks and problems, but for just using it....its much easier. Nobody cares how safe and secure Linux is if they cant fucking figure out how to get anything to work on it. And Id almost guarantee none of them could.

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    22. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, their newest album sucks so bad that I would say anyone who gets bit by this deserves it for their horrendous taste and willingness to fork over $20 for a half-assed shitty album just because it's from a big name band.

      Besides, beastie boys suck in general. They're no different than any other hip hop except they're white guys and just because you're white doesn't mean your music doesn't suck like eveyrone else in the genre.

    23. Re:Control by mcc · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not, but one would hope they have at least some ways of exerting some level of minor influence on the record labels.

    24. Re:Control by WNight · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Mozilla just installed and worked. With flash and everything a click away. ut2004 just installed and worked.

      Yahoo and MSN messengers don't but they aren't released for Linux. Gaim/Jabber/etc install very easily though. If you insist on specific windows apps then Linux will never be ready, if you insist on capabilities it's already there.

      And as a test, give your mother a Windows XP CD and let her install it. The third time, after she's gotten a worm while trying to service pack it, if she gets that far, and while she tries to remove the spyware you get from using IE and Outlook, ask her if she thinks it's been easy. Mandrake and Fedora are no harder, Xandros is easier, Knoppix doesn't even need an install and it detects hardware I've had to fight with in Windows.

    25. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not Linux's fault if you can't RTFM. Not all OSes should handhold your way through computing life. IMO going down that road is not the future Linux at a whole should do. Maybe a distro or two, but leave me the expert distros like Slack thank you.

    26. Re:Control by siriuskase · · Score: 1
      These people obviousle cared enough to buy the CD, why would the record industry need to protect themselves from them?

      They don't get it. If they keep punishing the customers that pay, they will eventually have only the other kind. There will always be alternative distribution channels, especially if the legit channel sells defective products.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    27. Re:Control by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      It's easier to figure out Linux and OS Mac than to figure out the latest in spyware and virus technology. And I get more satisfaction out of that know how. It's been years since I booted my intel box with Windows, I only have it because it came installed on the system. In my prelinux days, I had to reboot just about every day. I only reboot linux and Mac OS when there is a power failure.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    28. Re:Control by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I've never had XP bluescreen once when there was no faulty hardware or really shitty drivers. Yeah, it's susceptible to spyware, worms, and trojans, but I don't have trouble with any of that (and I don't have a software firewall or any of that crap) and I'm sure that the same class of users who do pick all that crap up would get just as many bugs biting their machine if any other OS were the most popular desktop OS.

    29. Re:Control by DavidBrown · · Score: 3, Informative

      Having your computer be that much of a hassle is not my definition of easy. Not to mention that XP and win2k systems still seem to lockup or blue screen quite regularly despite the much touted "stability improvements"...

      Sorry, but I haven't seen the BSOD in two years - and this is counting my computers at home and 16 at work, all running Windows XP. Please feel free to comment about Windows security issues, and the amount of resources XP gobbles up, and Microsoft's secret plan to take over the world, but the OS itself is very stable and does what it's supposed to do.

      --
      144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
    30. Re:Control by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      Something good, since this little gem runs on your precious Mac too.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    31. Re:Control by NegativeK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe, but the artists have a choice in who distributes their music.

      Why is this modded funny? Just sitting here, I've imagined ways of them getting out of their contracts. Of course, I'm imagining that the Beastie Boys are rich, which can't be too far of a stretch. How? Simple.
      1) Release crap albums until their contract runs out.
      2) Make sure everyone knows _why_ you're releasing crap albums. Make public press releases about why you're doing it. If your contract prohibits that, then make private statements.
      3) In all likelihood, the contract would be ended early by the RIAA. If not, it isn't hard to live on a million for the next few years or so, until the contract runs out on its own.
      4) Release on an independent record label. Aphex Twin has a successful one. Paul Van Dyk is doing fine on his record label. The Beastie Boys have the clout to do it.
      5) Profit. Again.

      Where there's a will, there's a way. That's a way. The Beastie Boys just don't have the will.

      --
      This statement is false.
    32. Re:Control by jmorris42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > You can say "get a new OS" all you want, but unless you are willing to
      > set it up so everything works perfectly, including their webcam with
      > AIM, Yahoo, etc, and all their Windows games, then you can tell them
      > to "get a new OS".

      Or you can tell them what I say to that argument:

      Listen, you have a choice.

      Option 1: Keep Windows, reinstall every few months and suffer through every malware that comes along and run the risk of some criminal outfit in Russia keystroke logging your credit card and DON'T BUG ME ABOUT ANY OF THIS BECAUSE I WARNED YOU. I can't fix it for you and other than a trivial tweak now and then I don't plan to even try. Bill Gates can't fix Windows, why do you think I can?

      Option 2: Toss the PC and buy a Mac. Sorry, that isn't my preferred platform so I won't be able to help you much. I do know they don't suffer from most of the ills of Windows though and from my limited experience on one they are very easy to use so you shouldn't have too much difficulty.

      Option 3: Invest the effort in learning Linux. Almost all of the important software genres are available, you will just have to adapt to different programs. I have been running Linux for about ten years now and I'll be happy to help when you get stuck on something. (No, I have never recommended someone use BSD. If you don't know enough to know when to choose BSD on your own, you are not ready for BSD.)

      Life in a Free Society is about making choices, and living with the consequences. Windows has some pretty dire consequences and I have little pity for the ones who know the risks and choose Windows anyway. The ones who don't even know there ARE choices are a different matter though, I'll spend a little more time on those folks.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    33. Re:Control by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      It's hard to believe that a band that has prided itself on pushing the envelope and being controversial would do something like this.

      I'm sorry, isn't the article on /. because it *is* controversial, or am I missing something?

    34. Re:Control by unoengborg · · Score: 1

      I don't think windows is particularly easy to use or set up. The only reason people use it is that it comes with the computer. Here an example from last week:

      I was trying to install win2k server on my wifes computer. It took at least 10 hours including service pack downloads over a ADSL connection. It was supposed to dual boot together with an NT4 workstation.

      What happened. It was impossible to get it to recognize the Nokia 19" screen connected to a Matrox card. The screen just went totally black unless using plain old 640x480 vga mode. I guess that it got the wrong sync freqency. It also did something to the existing NTFS partitions so that they could not be read by NT4 anymore.

      The soluton was to put in a Knoppix CD to recover the files. It booted nicely. It identified the screen and graphics card correctly and gave a resonable screen resolution (1024x1280 I think), it also identified the flascard reader and the soundcard automagically. And above all it could read the diskpartitions that win2k had rendered unreadable to NT4 and it made it possible to copy the files to another NT4 server using samba.

      Now tell me whats most easy, spend 10 hours and not get windows work, or a minute or two to boot Knoppix. And Oh, I forgot, Knoppix came with OpenOffice and lots and lots of other productivity software that probably had taken a couple of hours more to install to get similar functionality in windows.

      As I see it, there is no reason to have to cope with DRM technology just because windows is so much easier than the alternatives.

      --
      God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
    35. Re:Control by Disevidence · · Score: 2

      There are lots of independant bands out there, making good music, without comprimising their integrity. There are labels, for example Peaceville, which have a rather wide distribution these days and are completely independant.

      I know voting with your dollars is also is a quaint notion, but the cop-out of being made to do it by the record company is ridiculous. If they don't like it, find a record company that will not put copy-protection out there.

      --
      Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
    36. Re:Control by Moofie · · Score: 1

      My point is, the Beastie Boys are probably stuck with a contract that enjoins them from releasing under a different label. Lots of bands signed these contracts many years ago, and they're already fucked.

      Sure there are lots of independent bands. Some of them are really good. None of them are the Beastie Boys, who I happen to enjoy listening to.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    37. Re:Control by Z0mb1eman · · Score: 1

      Overall I agree with your point, but be careful when you throw numbers around like that. If you're referring to the same study I'm thinking of, that 28 number includeds - heck, is mostly made up of - cookies, which is not what most people think of when they say spyware.

      --
      ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
    38. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I have no love for MS, but I have to disagree. For the average user Windows is much easier to use. You can say "get a new OS" all you want, but unless you are willing to set it up so everything works perfectly, including their webcam with AIM, Yahoo, etc, and all their Windows games, then you can tell them to "get a new OS".

      Then these average users have no right to complain about whatever Windows decides to do with its computer. If they choose ease of use above everything else, then Windows is what they get.

      And they should shut up and enjoy what they've been given, since that's what they chose.

    39. Re:Control by Bob+Davis,+Retired · · Score: 1

      That's because XP has a control panel option called 'Show Error Messages' that comes un-checked by default. Check the box, and you'll see the blue screens again.

    40. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I finally managed to get into the Beastie Boys' slashdotted forum, and here's a stickied post by an administrator. I think it speaks for itself.
      The skinny on the copy protection

      Just to clarify, here's the deal with the copy protection on the CD:

      a) The copy protection is in all territories except the US and UK -- US and UK discs do not have this protection on them;

      b) All EMI CDs are treated this way, TT5B isn't protected in any special way;

      c) Beastie Boys would have preferred not to have the copy protection, but weren't allowed to go against EMI policy in these territories.

      There ya go.

      ian
    41. Re:Control by Brightest+Light · · Score: 1

      That's fine, let's make sure we let the artists know that we dont like this. Vote with your dollars.

    42. Re:Control by Tezkah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep, it just restarts. Ever been running a bittorrent and walk away when all of a sudden your computer restarts? Realtek or whatever Ethernet cards decide that it should just self destruct and restart your computer.

      Sorry, i'd rather have an "uh oh, ethernet decided to die!" error message than just a random restart. Although the blue-screen didn't help me too much with my bittorrent problem: just caused my mom to yell at me: "HELP THE COMPUTER IS DESTROYING ITS MEMORY!"

      *should switch his parents computer to Linux/*BSD soon, and sell his mac*

    43. Re:Control by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 1

      That's beside the point. This garbage shouldn't be installed, no matter what OS you use. It's installing a program without your permission, and that's wrong, whether you're running Windows, OS X, Linux, whatever.

      No, that's exactly the point. When some malicious entity tries to install software on YOUR machine, and YOUR operating system permits that, there's a problem with the operating system. It's just that simple.

      Yes, it's not very nice of the malicious entity to take advantage of weaknesses in your operating system. But that, frankly, is the nature of malicious entities. The only things you can do to reduce your exposure to these sorts of attacks are to 1) disconnect your machine from the network, 2) choose an OS that's less likely to yield to such attacks, or 3) get the manufacturer of your current OS to fix the problem ASAP.

      #1 isn't much of an option, and Microsoft by most accounts hasn't done a very good job responding to #3, so that leaves #2. By the way, I'd take the same position against Linux or OS X if they allowed these sorts of shenanigans, but at least #3 has been a reasonable approach with those systems.

    44. Re:Control by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 1

      For the average user Windows is much easier to use. You can say "get a new OS" all you want, but unless you are willing to set it up so everything works perfectly, including their webcam with AIM, Yahoo, etc, and all their Windows games, then you can tell them to "get a new OS".

      Apple has done exactly that, and more.

    45. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOD THIS SHIT UP. Thats righteous, brother. YOU got it, right on.

    46. Re:Control by Christ-on-a-bike · · Score: 3, Insightful
      All well and good, but we don't know what happened in this case. Quite likely, the label didn't tell the group they were going to mung the CD until mastering was under way. (And they aren't even 'protecting' the US/UK release.)

      In any case, what is an artist supposed to do? The Beastie Boys wanted to broadcast a political message with this album (NB, released just before the US presidential election). If your label springs some crap like this on you, what can you do instead of releasing your chosen work? Just suddenly come up with some mediocre crap instead? That makes no sense.

      In reality, making music is expensive for most major-label artists, even established ones. If the Beasties run out their contract with terrible albums, they could well end up in a few years owing EMI money. And I'm sure that by rock-star standards they aren't that rich. You don't see them endorsing Pepsi.

    47. Re:Control by EvanED · · Score: 1

      "Gaim/Jabber/etc install very easily though."

      Gaim won't even do file transfers for me, let alone voice chat or webcam. (True, I'm behind some sort of funky pesudo-firewallish thing, but AIM under Windows worked out of the box.)

    48. Re:Control by MattyCobb · · Score: 1

      The average windows box has 28 pieces of spyware, a handful of viruses, and untold gobs of privacy invading proprietary gunk on it (such as DRM ware etc).

      On top of that they have to run an obnoxious firewall system and memory and resource hogging virus scanner- just to prevent their computer from self-destructing.

      Having your computer be that much of a hassle is not my definition of easy. Not to mention that XP and win2k systems still seem to lockup or blue screen quite regularly despite the much touted "stability improvements"...


      I dont know what you have on your XP or win2k system, but I've never had any trouble with spyware or viruses on mine. Just run AVG, Firefox, and stay behiend a router and you should be fine. You can also just not run as admin on XP or 2k. Both OSes are quite stable whatever anti-M$ zealots say. My XP box stays up for months at a time on a regular basis.

      If you actually pay mild attention to what you put on your PC then you can run a perfectly stable, secture windows OS without spyware and DRM crap.

      As a side note... You don't run a firewall? I hope you realize using another OS doesn't mean you don't need one. Unless you are behiend NAT then you can usually get away with it. Maybe I am wrong, but it sounds like your just using this thread as an excuse to flame windows for no good reason to me...

      --

      Matt
      You have 1 Moderator Point! Use it or lose it! Is that a threat? -vapid
    49. Re:Control by madmancarman · · Score: 1
      I just wish Courtney Love had discovered Magnatune before she re-entered binge-mode, because her Salon rant about doing the music-math made sense. Magnatune's contract (artist keeps half and keeps title to the music, basically) is what she was asking for back when Courtney was still being coherent.

      Courtney's Salon article in 2000 was interesting, but Steve Albini did the math better in his 1994 rant in Maximum Rock'n'Roll #133:

      Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed. Nobody can see what's printed on the contract. It's too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody's eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there's only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says "Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim again, please. Backstroke". And he does of course.

      (many detailed explanations and figures later...)

      The band is now 1/4 of the way through its contract, has made the music industry more than 3 million dollars richer, but is in the hole $14,000 on royalties. The band members have each earned about 1/3 as much as they would working at a 7-11, but they got to ride in a tour bus for a month. The next album will be about the same, except that the record company will insist they spend more time and money on it. Since the previous one never "recouped," the band will have no leverage, and will oblige. The next tour will be about the same, except the merchandising advance will have already been paid, and the band, strangely enough, won't have earned any royalties from their T-shirts yet. Maybe the T-shirt guys have figured out how to count money like record company guys. Some of your friends are probably already this fucked.

      In fact, some of Courtney Love's rant and Steve Albini's rant have some similarities:

      Albini (1994): "The band members have each earned about 1/3 as much as they would working at a 7-11, but they got to ride in a tour bus for a month."

      Love (2000): "So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven."

      Sounds suspiciously familiar.

      --
      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
    50. Re:Control by Scarblac · · Score: 4, Interesting

      1) Release crap albums until their contract runs out.

      It's the label that decides whether to release it. If they don't, you have no released CD, and still x cds to go. There are artists who have simply been shut up by this mechanism - cannot release anything anymore.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    51. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kill all the gay nigg3rs, but STEAL?@!#@$! MY ART#@$@#

    52. Re:Control by natd · · Score: 1
      4) Release on an independent record label. Aphex Twin has a successful one. Paul Van Dyk is doing fine on his record label. The Beastie Boys have the clout to do it.

      Grand Royale anyone?

      --
      Only big ligs use sigs.
    53. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just have to say Amen brother. This is the truth, and it scares the hell out of me. Soo people will be upgrading, to make the next version of the virus scanner, spyware removal, privacy protection and firewalls work.

    54. Re:Control by Jeff+Benjamin · · Score: 1

      If the record companies are unhappy with the band, they can 'shelve' them. This means that the band recieves no more money from the company, and cannot be signed to another company. This effectivly destroys the band.

    55. Re:Control by bartb · · Score: 1

      Or use a 'regular' Audio system...

    56. Re:Control by hanway · · Score: 1

      I wonder whether the language in a typical contract specifically mentions the term "CD" or "Compact Disc", because an artist that wanted out of their contract might have some leverage if the record label released an album as a so-called "copy protected music disc" instead of a "Compact Disc." (They can't use "Compact Disc" for a copy-protected disc that doesn't meet CD specs because Philips won't allow it.)

    57. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually sir, if a user does not have the computer litteracy to install spybot search and destroy, AVG antivirus and a zone alarm firewall onto their windows system, I *DREAD* to think of them on a linux system.

      I hate to say this, but the software quality just isn't there under linux. show me an gui ftp client as good as filezilla, or a word processor that makes a good job of outputting .doc files (because you really are asking for it if you don't send your CV at least in .doc format).

      Add to this the risks of running as root (windows users are used to doing so, remember), messing up their system, not being able to use a package management system...

      No sir, the best thing that you can recommend is for them to buy a mac.

    58. Re:Control by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Option 1: Keep Windows, reinstall every few months and suffer through every malware that comes along

      Bullshit. I've been running XP Pro at home and at work for a couple of years now, and I have reinstalled zero times, and had zero problems with malware, viruses and the like.

      How? Simple. I don't use IE, I only use Outlook at work and then only because I have to, and I don't run unknown executables from untrusted sources. Throw (free) AV software and a software firewall in there with timely updating and I'm as safe running Windows as you are running Linux.

      Windows has some pretty dire consequences

      Only if you don't know what you're doing. You appear to have a clue; I think your efforts would be better spent educating users on how to protect their systems, rather than trying to convince them to change OS. Should Linux gain significant market share, virus and malware authors will start targetting it. Users will get used to running as root or entering their root password to install stuff, so will not think twice about doing so when prompted. A lot of malware piggy-backs on the installers for other software (eg Kazaa), and running Linux cannot protect you from that. Please don't try to tell me that open source alternatives will save people - there are open source p2p clients for Windows (eg eMule), yet people still use the closed-source, malware-ridden ones.

      Getting people to switch OS is a short term fix at best. They need to be educated out of their bad habits, or they'll fall prey to the same tricks again in the end.

    59. Re:Control by Nodatadj · · Score: 1

      Hate to be pedantic, but its actually Grand Royal, not Grand Royale.

    60. Re:Control by Moloch666 · · Score: 1

      In some aspects you may be right, but in Linux if something is not working right you can dig down and find out the cause... is it loading the wrong kernel module, is correct kernel module for your net card even compiled, etc. While in Windows all you can do is look at device manager and hope it shows up and reinstalling the driver fixes the problem. What I like about Linux versus Windows is after it's installed. I've found through maintenence Linux can be easier. When I forget a particular setting, I can just browse in /etc and find it. In Windows I gotta remember which Control Panel icon the setting is hidden within. Which can be quite hard as I use Windows less and less.

      It all comes down to what each person prefers, at least we have a choice at the moment. Some of us Linux/*BSD/Mac users fear that one day we may not have the choice anymore. Others are just ranting idiots who want to think they are 1337.

      --
      Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
    61. Re:Control by natd · · Score: 1
      DAMN!

      I typed 'Royal' and then wondered - so I did a Google and decided it was ROYALE!!!!! I changed it so I wouldn't have to hear from pedants like you....backfire.

      Not often Google lets me down ;)

      --
      Only big ligs use sigs.
    62. Re:Control by bs_02_06_02 · · Score: 1

      The band had very little to do with it. The label may have approached them and said, "Hey, here's a report that indicates what's going to happen with sales and pirates. We need to slow this down."
      Obviously, it's not going to stop the determined pirates. But, the demographics indicate that this album is likely to get copied... and copied... and copied.

      If you dig out the recording contract, the band might not have had any choice, and they may not have known. The label has probably smuggled in clauses allowing them to "protect their investment" in almost any way possible.

      Lastly, how much $$$ does an artist receive from an album sale? $1.00? $.50? These artists make their big money on tour.

      --
      -- No sig for you!
    63. Re:Control by love2hateMS · · Score: 1

      You're NUTS. I run a server room with 100+ Windows servers (mostly 2000). They crash ALL THE TIME. I spend DAYS patching them when the latest Windows remote exploit comes out.

      Thank god my company is migrating our entire environment to Linux this year. (Not kidding here, VP of IT is fed up with Microsoft as well.)

    64. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I agree, except for one big thing: run SCSI.

      I've had more shit with BSOD's related to SCSI. BSD, however....runs like silk.

    65. Re:Control by Kwil · · Score: 1

      From what I gather, most music industry contracts these days have clauses specifically to prohibit #1. Basically, the music industry can decide if what you've put out is purposely crap unless it sells over a certain number of copies. If it is purposely crap, it doesn't count against your contract -- but the studio time and all the promotional expenses they would have paid are still charged to you, meaning the next non-crap album you release has an even bigger debt to pay off before you start making anything.

      --

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    66. Re:Control by Nanite · · Score: 2, Informative

      And I'm sure that by rock-star standards they aren't that rich. You don't see them endorsing Pepsi.

      "I might mellow out and I might be a fad, but I'll never show myself on no TV ad."
      Adrock - "Putting Shame in Your Game"

      --
      God is real unless declared integer.
    67. Re:Control by zieroh · · Score: 1

      t's hard to believe that a band that has prided itself on pushing the envelope and being controversial would do something like this.

      This is a controversial move, isn't it? Well then, there you have it.

      Seriously though, I think what you're getting at is that the Beastie Boys prided themselves on being anti-establishment, which definitely seems to have gone out the window with this latest move.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    68. Re:Control by mbw314 · · Score: 1

      4) Release on an independent record label. Aphex Twin has a successful one. Paul Van Dyk is doing fine on his record label. The Beastie Boys have the clout to do it.

      Hmm, seems they did have their own label at one point, Grand Royal, but the new album is on Capitol Records. I'm not sure what the status of Grand Royal is today.

    69. Re:Control by sugar+and+acid · · Score: 1

      I doubt there is any reference to the media format. Just legalese for a recorded work of x songs for x minutes which constitutes an album. This legalese would have been refined in the 80's, as the market then consisted of CD vinyl and tape and so contracts had to take care of differing types of media being released at the same time.

    70. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but the OS itself is very stable and does what it's supposed to do.

      Yes ... such as it is.

      Personally, I'm sick of using an OS which not only treats me like an idiot, but conditions every user out there to think they're an idiot. It's classical conditioning, Machievellian, really. Mad props to BG.

    71. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How? Simple. I don't use IE

      It's nice *you* know not to use IE. Since IE can't be removed from the system (without using some pretty shady Windows-cracking software), it's basically near to impossible to set up a machine for someone else who doesn't know what they're doing and prevent outbreaks.

      That said, I found I was able to get rid of some popups on somebody's machine at work just by dicking with their Explorer preferences. (Thankfully, they had no idea what I was up to.) I know there's some crap still in the registry, but I don't have Admin privileges.

      Somehow I don't think MacOS X run not as root would let some browser exploit install itself and autolaunch itself as this popup annoyance did...

    72. Re:Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call FUD

      Why do posters like to compare average users to themselves? Reading /., there is a very high probability that you are a geek, someone with technical proficiency or a power user. Claiming that Keep Windows, reinstall every few months and suffer through every malware that comes along as bullshit completely ignores that there is a huge world out there, populated by people who may not familiar with computers or even if familiar, not a power user.

      You know not to click evey link in an email. You know how to patch and update your system. You know how to set up security features. But you are not the center of the universe. You are not a representative of general population. The fact is, malwares are a huge problem with a huge industry behind it.

      Do you also claim that everyone should understand {quantum physics, protein folding, Navier-Stokes theorem} just because they are trivial to you?

    73. Re:Control by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      I've never seen a blue screen or had my computer mysteriously restart in at least a year and a half. And before that the only time I had it happen was when I was using beta software and beta drivers.

      Now, using Linux, I get a kernel panic from installing new drivers (that are supposed to be certified for my combo of hardware). This happens every couple months. Granted, not too often, but still enough to be annoying.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    74. Re:Control by sr180 · · Score: 1
      Well Metallica did it successfully. Thats why we got stuck with Load and Re-load. They were just doing it half arsed to fulfill the contract with crap.

      --
      In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    75. Re:Control by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      You are correct, which is why I use linux on my laptop exclusively. I currently use Windows on my desktop for 3 reasons:

      1. School website access requires it and IE (to turn in assignments)

      2. Games (Wine doesn't cut it for most games...)

      3. Hardware support (no clue how to get my TV-out or even dual-monitor to work right in Linux)

      Now, 1 will be done in about a month. 2 will be over when every game I play has a linux installer (that actually works well) as well as the windows one, or when Wine plays all windows games without fucking around with it much. 3 will be done when I can figure it out. I haven't looked in a few months and advances can come pretty quick with OSS sometimes.

      That said, I won't make my family (parents and siblings right now, not sure about when I have kids) use linux for reason 2 as well as another reason they came up with (while using Knoppix of all things). It's not always easy to get all your plugins working for websites. And my family won't handle being told they suddenly can't go to their favorite website because I couldn't figure out how to install RealPlayer for linux. Therefore, for my family, Windows is the better option.

      I just wait for the day that I have *no* problems booting Windows out the door.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    76. Re:Control by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      I applaud your post here. This is exactly the point I am trying to get across. The only thing I don't agree with is the line "I think your efforts would be better spent educating users on how to protect their systems, rather than trying to convince them to change OS". I would agree if this guy was actually using Windows regularly enough to know how to do that. He says he's been running Linux for years, so saying that he can't really help them is fine by me, as I wouldn't want someone to expect me to research something to help them.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    77. Re:Control by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      After it's installed the person wants to use AIM. Great, use gaim! it's totally compatible!

      You want to what? but gaim doesn't support voice or video chat....

      No, even the linux AIM client from AOL doesn't support those things...

      ALready? but I just convinced you to switch to linux? you hate me? no, dont hang up! I promise I'll fix it for you!!
      *click*

      Yeah, I'll just get everyone to switch with that argument.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    78. Re:Control by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      Just so you know, my comment was aimed more at the Linux zealots who tell anyone having the slightest little problem (My fonts are too big. Oh, I didn't know hitting that button would change them... Thanks for fixing it) to reformat and install Linux. I've heard these people tell someone to switch to linux because their ball mouse was acting funny. Luckily I talked to the person and told them how to clean the mouse. I got a free dinner when my fix worked and he didn't have to spend hours reformatting.

      I have no problem with people going to Macs though. They generally just work. Installations are easy for a novice, in some ways easier than Windows. Just so you know, I don't use Macs much, and even if I did, I don't know I'd be able to comment on which is actually easier. I personally don't like Macs at all. The price, the lack of freedom in hardware, and the interface all put me off. As long as you don't try to get me to "switch" I'll let you have your mac and not try to convert you to PCs (win or lin).

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    79. Re:Control by Reziac · · Score: 1

      BSOD is almost always a hardware or driver issue anyway, and should be investigated with that in mind -- if you have chronic BSOD issues, look first at your motherboard and video card.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    80. Re:Control by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      He says he's been running Linux for years

      Yes, that slipped my mind as I was replying; obviously, if the guy's not been using Windows for that long there's little point in him helping with Windows-specific problems.

      On the other hand, what he *can* do is educate people with regards to keeping hteir systems up to date, not running untrusted executables, etc. So, while no he can't give specific advice (like how to enable the XP firewall), he can give more general advice.

    81. Re:Control by drunkenbatman · · Score: 1

      It's hard to believe that a band that has prided itself on pushing the envelope and being controversial would do something like this

      They're still the beasty boys, but they've come a... long way... from the giant inflatable dildos on stage. They do good some really interesting music but they're much, much, much tamer and polished now.

    82. Re:Control by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1

      I manage 25 windows servers, and have not seen an OS-level crash since 2000. Nor have I seen a Microsoft server application crash (we run a lot of SQL Server and Exchange boxes).

      Even our IIS applications don't crash frequently, maybe twice a year apiece. And when they do, it's almost always directly traceable to some unstable thrid-party COM object with a memory leak that hasn't been fixed yet. You can set IIS to re-start itself when this happens; this is no different from having a runaway apache module downing apache.

      I'd have to say you've got some pretty screwed up hardware and drivers if you're seeing Windows 2000 crash "ALL THE TIME".

      Patch deployment is a challenge, but we test everything for a few weeks on test systems before installation, and use MS Software Update Services to deploy the patches hands-free. We haven't had a patch screw up a system or application yet.

      I think you're blaming MS for your own poor systems management and your own poor test methodology.

      Here's a PSINFO for one of my SQL boxes, which doesn't need IE patches (nobody browses from it) and so hasn't needed to be rebooted since the ASN.1 patch, IIRC:

      System information for \\acc-db-chi:
      Uptime: 63 days 2 hours 54 minutes 31 seconds
      Kernel version: Microsoft Windows 2000, Multiprocessor Free
      Product type: Server
      Product version: 5.0
      Service pack: 4
      Kernel build number: 2195
      Install date: 1/8/2001, 10:02:44 PM
    83. Re:Control by daringone · · Score: 1

      Ahh, I love these types of comments. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Linux, and would use it as my primary OS, except:

      Serious gamers can't use Linux.

      I'm reasonably sure that Command and Conquer Generals doesn't run on Linux. Nor does Battlefield Vietnam... etc etc. They might in about 2 years when someone with enough interest finally ports them about a year after the newest version of the same line of games comes out, but that's only if you're lucky. Yes, I'm aware of WINE, and I'm also aware that it has a list of stuff that it will run correctly. (If it can't run a stupid little 100k VB program I wrote, it sure can't run Battlefield Vietnam).

      Bottom line is that I'm a user with a clue, I know how to take care of my PC, I know to run Mozilla (YEAH!) instead of IE, and for the record, have been running Windows 2000 Pro since it's release with *0* blue screens and *0* reinstalls.

      The average doorknob enduser just wants their stuff to work... the hell with the consequences. I installed RH9 for my dad, who only cares about getting on the internet. It works perfectly, and I don't have to worry about him screwing anything up/getting a virus/getting loaded with spyware. However, you just can't do that for a family with 2 kids... the computer would be useless for most of what the kids wanted. And in the end, isn't that all that matters... having your machine do what you want it to?

    84. Re:Control by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > actually sir, if a user does not have the computer litteracy to install
      > spybot search and destroy, AVG antivirus and a zone alarm firewall onto
      > their windows system, I *DREAD* to think of them on a linux system.

      Then they should buy a Mac as you say and I also state in this thread. Linux doesn't have to be THE answer to every problem. But Windows IS the problem.

      > hate to say this, but the software quality just isn't there under
      > linux. show me an gui ftp client as good as filezilla

      Gftp?

      > or a word processor that makes a good job of outputting .doc files
      > (because you really are asking for it if you don't send your CV at
      > least in .doc format).

      Sorry, but if you define the question as "Name a program closer to Word than Word is" tis a circular argument. In this day you most certainly CAN send a PDF anywhere you would send a .doc file in that sort of situation. You should have cited a situation involving colabaration where the argument would have some merit. But for view/print/store purposes a PDF is better. It won't get tripped up in anti-virus software just for starters.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    85. Re:Control by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

      I'll take your 16 computers and raise you 10,000.

      Yes, that's *ten thousand*, 95% are running win2k and winxp (the other five are a mix of NT and 98).

      In any case, 10,000 computers are what I support. And allow me to tell you, Win2k will happily BSOD on you, as will WinXP, though less common than win2k, but *it will happen*.

      Something to think about.

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    86. Re:Control by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > The average doorknob enduser just wants their stuff to work... the
      > hell with the consequences.

      Exactly their attitude. And exactly why mine is "to hell with them." I finally realized they didn't care because they expected me to save them from their stupidity. So more power to the local computer shops that gouge the willfully ignorant for every coin they can get out of them.

      As I said it is about people making decisions and living with the consequences. If you decide running Windows is worth it to keep the kiddies happy and don't mind PAYING THE CONSEQUENCES then it is a fair deal. I just got tired of ENABLING Microsoft victims by taking pity on folks who got their machines hosed by Windows and helping them out. I realized that what I was doing was removing the CONSEQUENCES of their decision to stick with Windows. Let em pay full market rates or invest their own time into keeping Windows running and the cost/benefit figure goes to hell. Maybe they buy a Mac next time.

      Do I sound cynical? Probably. I can even identify the exact moment I went over to the cynical side. Wasn't even a Windows thing exactly, but the same attitude. Was doing tech support for an ISP. Out in the field helping a customer get setup to receive stock quotes via the Internet. Got everything setup and asked her to come over so I could give her the ten minute "how to connect and get stuff talk" when she interrupted me with this exact quote, "Stop right there, you are trying to teach me. I don't care about that, you just make it work." She got most of what she wanted. I set it up so that when she pushed power it booted, dialed in and started Netscape maximized with the homepage showing her quotes. She did have to learn how to do a proper shutdown, but I doubt she actually did one, ignorant bitch probably just switched off power. I never had to deal with her again so who knows, perhaps she did manage one click on close and an exit from Program Manager. (Win3.1)

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    87. Re:Control by radishthegreat · · Score: 1

      So how do you explain St. Anger? :P

    88. Re:Control by xSauronx · · Score: 1

      the point is, as a windows user, i dont have to read a FUCKING manual, the cdrom works. it just works. just plain works. always. in linux it usually works...and then i try to get help and get another RTFM from a moron who doesnt care, go away, asshat

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
  10. Silently installing DRM eh? by chrispyman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Technically, if your product silently installs software without the users knowledge, wouldn't that put it in the same league as spyware, as defined by some of the more recent bills passing through Congress?

    1. Re:Silently installing DRM eh? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      The one that was recently reported on /. specifically limited the scope of "spyware" to include only programs which communicated certain data elsewhere via Internet.

    2. Re:Silently installing DRM eh? by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      Malware then. Or user-rights-circumvent-ware.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    3. Re:Silently installing DRM eh? by SamNmaX · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Technically, if your product silently installs software without the users knowledge, wouldn't that put it in the same league as spyware, as defined by some of the more recent bills passing through Congress?

      Even though this may be technically spyware, it could also be technically illegal to remove due the DMCA. So basically, you put a cd with this type of crap on it, and since it's goal is copy-protection, anything that could get around it, including say, the ability to remove it if it attempts to stick on your system like a virus, could very well be considerred 'circumvension'. I'd be curious to see how such an argument would hold up in court.

    4. Re:Silently installing DRM eh? by EvanED · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd be curious to see how such an argument would hold up in court.

      I would guess quite well. The law cannot put you essentially between a rock and a hard place. If there are two laws that conflict, and no matter what you do you must break one of them, you can't be held responsible for it. (At least if you got to the position where there were conflicting laws by legal means.) You are also not held responsible for most things when done under duress; if someone has a gun to your back and tells you to rob a store, you probably wouldn't be held responsible. I would think that removing spyware, especially if Congress passes a relevant bill and the software you're removing fits the definition of spyware in the bill, would be considered as acting under duress.

      However, this comes with a bigass IANAL disclaimer (that is, bigger than most such disclaimers), because I have no clue where I heard most of this information, so don't know in what situations exactly you could break a law under duress and not be held responsible.

    5. Re:Silently installing DRM eh? by jeti · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well - then I'm waiting for the first worm that
      installs DRM as well as a backdoor and cannot
      be legally removed. ;-)

    6. Re:Silently installing DRM eh? by Tin+Foil+Hat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have a feeling that argument wouldn't stand up very well. Therefore, I'd want to avoid having to make the argument at all. I'd like to see a proactive lawsuit attacking EMI or whoever first, before they can attack somebody else over DMCA violations.

      Maybe the EFF could get the DoJ to look into the spyware matter (in fact, it is a virus since it will propogate itself silently when the victim inserts the disk.) That would be best since it would not require that the crime have been committed within the United States because, under U.S. law, writing a worm or virus is illegal no matter where the offense takes place. Failing that, if the tech makes it within U.S. borders, perhaps the offending company could be sued. The argument would be that it causes citizens to unknowingly install viruses/spyware on others' computers when they play the disk in an entirely legal way.

      --
      No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
    7. Re:Silently installing DRM eh? by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 1

      I would like to see two contrary laws slug it out in court. It is illegal for them to put this virus on CDs that install themselves, but it is illegal for us to try to remove their virus because of the DMCA.

      --
      We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
  11. yes, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did the band know about it?

    I assume they did not. maybe some marketing exec thought it would be a good promotional idea. hide drm and get free publicity

  12. DRM for what? by Hello+Spaceman · · Score: 5, Informative

    I bought "To The 5 Boroughs" (cause I'm representin' Manhattan), and ripped all the tracks to my iPod with no problems. Just what does the DRM code do?

    I'm on a Mac, is this another case where I'm missing out on the DRM fun because of platform neglect? (There IS a Mac partition on the disc, but all it seems to have on it is a Macromedia presentation with a QuickTime movie.)

    1. Re:DRM for what? by teknokracy · · Score: 0, Redundant

      This is why I love owning a Mac :D No viruses. No silly self-installing apps. A free world of music. And so on and so forth...

    2. Re:DRM for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The music might as well be free, seeing as how you spent three times what it costs to buy a PC.

    3. Re:DRM for what? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      It's not on the discs in the US and UK allegedly. Also I am unsure if there is a Mac version or not on the discs that are protected.

    4. Re:DRM for what? by skinfitz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is why I love owning a Mac :D No viruses. No silly self-installing apps.

      Yet.

    5. Re:DRM for what? by fresh27 · · Score: 1

      It seems that Capitol Records has some sort of new copy protection system, that automatically, silently, installs "helpful" copy protection software on MacOS and Windows as soon as you insert the CD into default systems. So you'll get it too ;)

      --
      http://ipod.fresh27.net/
    6. Re:DRM for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No silly self-installing apps.

      hey, machead, RTFA. The non-US/UK version has self-installed copy protection ON WINDOWS AND MAC

      you're either a troll or just plain idiot.

    7. Re:DRM for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but at least on a mac it'll tell you if system level changes are imminent and prompt for an admin login/pass.

      posted from my winxp box

    8. Re:DRM for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, classic Mac OS allowed autorunning of files/scripts/applications on a CD before Windows did. Supposedly OS X doesn't anymore.

    9. Re:DRM for what? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Three times?
      17" eMac $799.00 USD for Combo Drive version with 40GB HD or 999.00USD for the 8X DVD-R/RW drive version with 80GB HD.
      Not to mention all of the bundled software.

      How much is virus free a, commercial software compatiblity (photoshop and most of the hottest games) computing experience worth to you?

      Yes, linux is immune to windows viruses but it lacks commercial software, hardware support and ease of use.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    10. Re:DRM for what? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      How the hell does it self-install on OSX? I don't remember there being an auto-run feature.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    11. Re:DRM for what? by teknokracy · · Score: 1

      Funny, It's been three years with Mac OS X and there still haven't been any viruses that weren't actually just test worms that found out whether or not a security loophole was true. So I'm still waiting... Yep. Nothing.....

    12. Re:DRM for what? by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      ...and your point is?

    13. Re:DRM for what? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1
      "Oh really? I won't even bother to list some of the major commercial packages (name brands) available for Linux for at least several years now. I'm not talking about server-only software either."

      Name them. Do they include Adobe, Macromedia and MS?

      "If you're used to Windows, that's your opinion. Clearly millions find Linux just as easy to use as the competition."

      Used to windows?
      You do know that macs don't run windows right?

      I do infact use windows at work but have all macs at home.

      Millions of desktop users using linux? ROFLMAO.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    14. Re:DRM for what? by druhol · · Score: 1

      It does not.

      Furthermore, it won't install anythign on your system without asking for an administrator password. Presumably the only version of the MacOS that's affected by the DRMware on this CD is OS 9.

      --
      WWD4D?
    15. Re:DRM for what? by martinX · · Score: 1

      I think the original poster was confusing "Classic Mac OS" with "OS9/8/7". One of them DID have an autostart 'feature', which gave rise to about the last virus I remember on a Mac. To stop the virus spreading you just had to turn off the autostart. Apple stopped making it the default soon after that. Just like Apple: see a simple problem, use a simple solution.

      In addition, I would be surprised if the DRM-ware ran on OS9.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    16. Re:DRM for what? by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      There was a way to auto-install handlers for file types when CDs were auto-mounted on a Mac running OS X. But this hole was closed with Apple's last security update. So there should be no way for this new DRM thing to be run under Mac OS X unless you consent to it when the dialog box pops up.

    17. Re:DRM for what? by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      I don't know enough about the Mac platform to know how this would work. But like any uninformed slashdoter I'm willing to guess :)
      If a Mac takes absolutely NO action on cd insert (disc goes in, nothing happens not even a spin up of the drive) then I can only guesse is that they've pulled a really clever trick on the cd involving some sort of buffer issue, perhaps with the crc info and or the cdrom buffer/firmware, that causes a small piece of code to be run that loads the software when any of the music plays.
      If the Mac does anything on insert then the possible exploits expand, even if it's just the Mac reading the disc to find out what's on it, that is it mounts the volume and in theory only reads the data needed to know what kind of disc it is and what's on it.
      In the first case the fact that Apple ships it's Mac's with very specific hardware is what would make such a thing possible, as the company developing the drm crap could buy a few of those specific drives and a few Macs and tear into them and analyze them to the last diode. But it is reaching a bit for an explanation.
      Now lots of Mac users here have said OSX doesn't autorun discs. Question, is this only data that's not autorun, or is it data and music. In general what exactly will a Mac do when a new disc is inserted in it's drive. The more it does, the more opportunity for infection and more believable claims of infection by this disc is. I suspect it only happens if you run/use anything on a Mac specific data session on the disc like a trojan.
      But if Macs don't autorun any software on-disc as many have said, then it would take eigther a trojan like install when you do run somthing on it, or a clever exploit with a likelyhood I can't guess at with any hope of accuracy.
      So what does a Mac do when various kinds of cd-like disc's are installed? People who actually are cluefull might be able to shed some insight on these claims.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    18. Re:DRM for what? by druhol · · Score: 1

      Eh, I'm just assuming that the original article was correct that the DRMware installs on MacOS. I still have my doubts, too.

      --
      WWD4D?
    19. Re:DRM for what? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1
      FYI, This is a Mac OS9 vulnerability. If you are not running Classic in the background, you are safe.

      If you do have classic on your machine, run the Classic version of Quicktime prefs and disable autorun before inserting this disk in your machine.

      OS X is not affected by this since it is designed for Mac OS 9 and the same mechanism for autorun does not exist in OS X.

      By default, OSX opens up iTunes if an Audio CD an inserted. Given that this seem to be a multi-session disk, the audio session would load iTunes but the Data session would do nothing in OSX.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    20. Re:DRM for what? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      I don't have Mac OS 9 installed on my pbook running Panther and my eMac does not autoload Classic.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    21. Re:DRM for what? by penginkun · · Score: 1

      Amen, brutha! I do have a PC here, which is used (mostly) for watching videos (you know, divx and the like...shh! don't tell Jack Valenti!) and for games. (I don't pay for the games either)

      I suppose it might go without saying that one of the first things I installed was an anti-virus, even before it put it online.

      The Mac is in my router's DMZ. It's been attacked I don't know how many times, and it's repelled every attempt. I even have my FTP service turned on, and I hear that's pretty vulnerable. Mind, I don't have guest access enabled, so that's probably made it safer.

      I loves my Mac, yes I do. It's four and a half years old now and still going strong. Just needs more RAM and a new hard drive, and it'll be right as rain.

    22. Re:DRM for what? by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      I think you may have just explained it.
      Look at how many clueless person don't update thier windows machines. I don't know how many Mac users don't update rugularly, but I'm shure there are plenty.
      And this might shock some of us here, but not everyone connects thier machines to the net. So unless apple sends out update cd's there are probably at least a few un-updated machines out there. I do know of at least one company that did some work with Mac for small scale publishing that didn't let thier macs or pc's be connected to the net for both security and keeping employees from porn browsing.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    23. Re:DRM for what? by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Thanks I was currious. And was in part thinking out loud, I like to speculate about the fringe cases somtimes (thus the tin-foil hat theory about buffer exploits in possibly corrupted crc's/music or cdrom firmware).
      Someone else said somthing about a subversion OSX possibly autoloading under some circumstances, some specific kind of driver or somthing, he used Mac terminology so it wasn't to clear. He did say a recent update turns that off though.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    24. Re:DRM for what? by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 1

      congratulations on acheiving security through hiding behind windows users.

    25. Re:DRM for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ease of use has nothing to do with the adoption of Linux, it's ass cheap and thats all. Any wonder why third-world countries use it? Or the majority of development came from there? Dirt cheap startup cost ie 0. Sure look at it as some big grass roots movement but you know what it's free programming and the companies are laughing their way to the bank supporting it. "Hey Bill how much will your next os cost for our consulants to use? 399 a seat? Hmm we'll get back to you we have code in the pipe that cost us nothing that we're reselling, just have to love the mensa who thought up this for us to use. See you in the Hamptons next week then.."

    26. Re:DRM for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction: not a worm. A proof-of-concept Trojan horse. The thing does not self-propagate.

    27. Re:DRM for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI,
      Classic Mac OS did have autorun and was a vector in the last worm attack on the Mac (circa 1998), IIRC, it did it via QuickTime's autostart.

      Mac OS X, however, does not allow autostart for softwares. It does allow autostart on CD and DVDs with the option to tell the computer what to do using the control panel.

      *All options also consist {other application, run script, ignore}

      When you insert a blank CD: Open {Finder, iTunes, Disk Copy}
      When you insert a blank DVD: Open {Finder, iDVD, Disk Copy}

      When you insert a music CD: Open {iTunes}
      When you insert a picture CD: Open {iPhoto}
      When you insert a video CD: Open {DVD Player}

      For data CD/DVD, OS X will mount them (single volume/single session, single volume/multiple sessions, multiple volumes). So, yes, upon disk insertion, OS X will spin and check the disk type and format. There was a security concern regarding priviledge escalation, but it required access to the hardware and was quickly fixed and there are no known exploit. Hope this helps.

  13. That is just sorry.. by dealsites · · Score: 3, Funny

    What about fighting for your right to party??? Music makes the party. They are selling out these days.

    --
    7 Gmail accounts still availiable

  14. Nothing wrong with my copy by kxmas · · Score: 4, Funny

    I didn't notice anything wrong with the version that I downloaded off the newsgroups.

    1. Re:Nothing wrong with my copy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep the nizzle grizzle on the down low nigga

    2. Re:Nothing wrong with my copy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, my DL from IRC had no issues. VBG. FWIW I did buy the CD. Fuck you RIAA.

    3. Re:Nothing wrong with my copy by noidentity · · Score: 2, Funny

      I didn't notice anything wrong with the version that I downloaded off the newsgroups.

      I ripped and uploaded that copy, and I didn't notice anything wrong with my computer either.

      - noidentity

      WARNING: THIS COMPUTER HAS BEEN USED FOR ILLEGAL MUSIC PIRACY. ID #1234567

    4. Re:Nothing wrong with my copy by kir · · Score: 1

      What?!

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    5. Re:Nothing wrong with my copy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      someone put it on suprnova.... ooops millions spent on DRM technology shot to shit.

    6. Re:Nothing wrong with my copy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, i like my copy :-D
      suprnova is the shit

    7. Re:Nothing wrong with my copy by chrispl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I downloaded it too and thought it was a great album one of the best all year, every song is great. It would have been one of the few CDs I would have purchased but since I read this...

      Shame on the BB for promoting freedom in their lyrics and then having a DRM program on that same CD.

      --
      What post? The one you're carrying inside your rusty innards!
    8. Re:Nothing wrong with my copy by StuckInSyrup · · Score: 1

      i wonder... will this talk about the copy protection cause even more people to copy this CD, just to see if it can be copied?
      btw: is the firewall not suposed to stop this mofo from installing?

      --
      Ni.
  15. Can't touch this by mtrisk · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Yet another reason to switch to Linux. These corporations aren't helping themselves, are they?

    --

    Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
  16. Obligatory Futurama Quote: by orkysoft · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yo Bender wanna make some noise
    Get your harddrive scratched by the Beastie Boys!

    --

    I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    1. Re:Obligatory Futurama Quote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's no such thing as an obligatory futurama quote, you goddamned faggot

    2. Re:Obligatory Futurama Quote: by Bullet-Dodger · · Score: 1

      What the hell site do you think you're reading? Of course there is!

    3. Re:Obligatory Futurama Quote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure there is:

      Yo, Beastie Boys,
      "Kiss my shiney metal ass!"

    4. Re:Obligatory Futurama Quote: by Lao-Tzu · · Score: 1

      It seems to me there was a much more fitting quote from that episode:

      FRY: Wow, I love you guys. Back in the twentieth century, I had all five of your albums.
      AD-ROCK: That was a thousand years ago! Now we got seven.
      FRY: Cool! Can I borrow your new ones? And a couple of blank tapes?
    5. Re:Obligatory Futurama Quote: by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Yes, I knew someone would reply with that one ;-)

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    6. Re:Obligatory Futurama Quote: by ctr2sprt · · Score: 1
      I was expecting this one:

      Robot Devil: Making bootleg tapes is wrong, musicians need that income to survive...

    7. Re:Obligatory Futurama Quote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, you got me. Which episode was that in?

    8. Re:Obligatory Futurama Quote: by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there are just so many applicable quotes, and then we haven't even touched the Nappster episode yet...

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
  17. Control-Attention Disorder. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's hard to believe that a band that has prided itself on pushing the envelope and being controversial would do something like this."

    Well they certainly are controversial, NOW.

  18. Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    That a band with a name like Beastie Boys would do something so beastie to your computer

    1. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd think that a group that named themselves after the BSD Daemon would be more Free Software friendly.

    2. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Beastie Boys were around back when the Commodore 64 was hot off the fab

  19. Fuck them. by DwarfGoanna · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Don't tell me that if this really bothered them, they couldn't start their own damn label and find their own distribution channels. The time when artists of with this level of success and that large of a following still had to play the corporate bullshit game is over. Period. Contract, you say? Break up, add a fucking backup dancer and call yourselves something else. No excuses, put your money where your mouth is.

    --

    "You know why you do not see me styling wit my homies? Because I have no homies!!" -Mojo Jojo

    1. Re:Fuck them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      They did have their own damn label with their own damn distribution channels. It was called Grand Royale.

      It failed miserable and went bankrupt owing a lot of money to a lot of people.

      As for contracts -- these generally follow individual members of bands as well as the band entity as itself.

    2. Re:Fuck them. by CommanderTaco · · Score: 1

      note that the beastie boys do, in fact, have their own record label.

    3. Re:Fuck them. by GoofyBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Fuck them. "

      Funny, I'm sure thats what someone said when they realized how much they lost by people downloading their stuff and then decided to add this DRM crap.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    4. Re:Fuck them. by JonTurner · · Score: 5, Funny

      Agreed. And to show my disgust, I'm going to NOT buy their album. Twice.

      We'll see who's laughing then!

    5. Re:Fuck them. by FatRatBastard · · Score: 1

      They may still have the website, but the label went tits up a while ago. I guess those Sean Lennon albums didn't sell so well.

      Considering their only album that wasn't mediocre wasn't really even a Beastie Boys album (Paul's Boutique is a Dust Brothers album with the Beasties rapping on top of it), frankly, I could care less.

    6. Re:Fuck them. by jazzer · · Score: 1
      Except for the fact they have albums remaining to be produced. In what is called a binding contract, yes you can change names and release under something else (Prince did this successfully - some may not say successfully, however I don't think he was aiming for the success he had in the '80's.) But should you have to change your identity? Some bands may not and I'll respect their decision, doesn't me I will buy the disc. Trent Reznor had a hell of a time splitting from TVT Records, Interscope ending up buying TVT's contract (you'll still see the TVT logo on NIN discs). I was looking forward to the Beastie Boys album coming out and was going to buy it, but I guess not now... Unless I can find an import without copy-controlled measures.

      Don't tell me that if this really bothered them, they couldn't start their own damn label and find their own distribution channels.

      This is exactly what Pearl Jam has done, Lost Dogs was the last album you'll see on Sony/Epic from Pearl Jam. They have now started their own label and far as I know they are going to distribute themselves (I could be wrong on the latter part). Personally, I think bands need to join together and send a message to the record labels that they don't need them anymore. It's the bands that need to do this, however remember the real culprit is the record label and not the band. Trust me I'll probably cry when the first U2 copy-controlled albun comes out (that is going to be a sad day)

    7. Re:Fuck them. by lnX.Kid · · Score: 4, Funny

      Too bad the album never made it to my Lbox for a gripping...I couldn't bear to listen to anymore of their crappy "Kool Moe Dee" lyrical sty-lee. I mean, does anyone still remember Ron Popeil? Hello, 1985.

      Thankfully I got my money back...I feel sorry for any saps that actually like this album!

      What I don't understand is - Why in the hell would anyone *want* to rip this crap? They should have retired after Ill Communications....they're just making fools out of themselves.

      --
      A tip: save Eva's pita.
    8. Re:Fuck them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm sure thats what someone said when they realized how much *thought* they lost by people downloading their stuff[..]

    9. Re:Fuck them. by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 1

      Ah, for shame. Beastie Boys are perhaps the last bastion of real hip hop on the top 40. Not that I listen to radio, mind you, I just prefer the waves going through my body to carry the real shit, as opposed to P-Diddy.

    10. Re:Fuck them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn right.

      They peaked with Check Your Head.

      After that some album was ok but it was going down.

      This last one sucked so bad.

      I downloaded it, listened to it, I even listened to it a few times in case it was one of those CDs you have to "break in", then when it still sucked I deleted it.

      Glad I didn't waste my money.

      I bought Check Your Head more than once due to eaten tapes and scratched CDs so they can kiss my ass if they don't like my "try before you buy" ways.

    11. Re:Fuck them. by Udo+Schmitz · · Score: 1
      I'm sure thats what someone said when they realized how much they lost by people downloading their stuff and then decided to add this DRM crap.

      Which totally will stop people from bootlegging this album. (Looks at donkey) Or not.

    12. Re:Fuck them. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Every time you don't buy an album because of DRM, write to the label and say `I have decided not to buy this album due to DRM preventing me from exercising my fair use rights. You have lost $16.99 today as a result of your decision. I don't know how much you have lost due to piracy, but since the tracks are available online already you have not lost any less due to your use of DRM. This business decision has therefore had a cost of $16.99 with no gain. Have a nice day.' (Where $16.99 is the cost of the album) Do this for every DRM album you think about buying and then don't. Get everyone you know to do the same thing. Record execs are motivated by money. Show them how much this is costing them.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:Fuck them. by bl8n8r · · Score: 1

      >realized how much they lost by people downloading Bullshit. The problem with that is the artist (group) still makes the usual measly fucking $0.50 an album. The big losers are the record industry PHBs. The ones throwing the money into the special interest groups and political campaigns to pass laws like the DMCA and this DRM horseshit. Funny thing is, they are probably installing the DRM shit to get a demographic for marketing purposes, not "spy" on you.

      --
      boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
    14. Re:Fuck them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely off topic, but it has to be said: Kool Moe Dee, to this day, could rhyme lyrical circles around all three of the Beastie Boys simultaneously.

      Their "sty-lee" is so beyond antiquated and in need of update that even Bill Gates is like "Damn they need to update their flows, that ish is whack."

      End rant.

  20. Calm yourself... by chronicon · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm sure the RIAA said it was OK. Get over it. Besides, I sure if you gave the Hon. Senator Orrin Hatch a call he would help clarify the importance of the issue. You'd just have to get past the "Beastie who??" questions first...

    1. Re:Calm yourself... by Windcatcher · · Score: 1

      I hope the Honorable Sen. Hatch is listening to his constituents...because as a loyal Republican I made it a point to make sure other loyal Republicans know about the new law he's trying to get passed...and met me say definitively that they're PISSED. Companies might give him money, but WE give him the votes.

  21. I'm pissed, but it rips fine by jgerry · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Grrrr!!!

    I just bought this CD, the first CD I've bought in over 2 years. A friend told me I could copy hers, but I said no, I want to pay for it. $10 at Worst Buy.

    It did rip fine though, no problems there. DRM-free mp3s work fine.

    1. Re:I'm pissed, but it rips fine by Xofer+D · · Score: 1
      I just bought this CD, the first CD I've bought in over 2 years.
      So take it back, and tell them that it's damaged or it's not an audio CD. It isn't, and you should exchange it until you get one that is.
      --
      The Signal/Noise ratio can be improved in two ways. Remaining silent is the OTHER way.
    2. Re:I'm pissed, but it rips fine by crackshoe · · Score: 1

      Not to be rude, but can you read? His post said that it ripped fine, and that he didn't even try to dupe it.... so, yeah. if you read anything else on this thread, you'd notice that this copy protection only happens outside US/UK, blah blah blah.

      --
      Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
  22. thats what you get! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thats what you get for buying an album by a bunch of wiggers who think they can rap.. im not saying white people cant rap.. but i am saying the beastie boys cant rap

  23. check it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maby check your head should be
    retitled check your hard drive

  24. DRM'd CD's on the rise... by PasteEater · · Score: 1

    I heard the Velvet Revolver CD does something along the same lines. I bought it today, and there was a sticker on it that said that the CD was protected by copy protection. When I inserted the CD, two separate volumes mounted- one with the audio, and one with some "other" files on it. Nothing launched when the CD was inserted, and iTunes said nothing when I ripped it into my Library and then onto my iPod. Weird.

    It was mentioned in one of the linked articles that there is no MacOS uninstaller. That's no surprise to me, but I sure would like to know where any files could have been installed to. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before someone figures out how to get any DRM/crippling software off of our systems.

    --
    There are two kinds of people in the world: those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
    1. Re:DRM'd CD's on the rise... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm sure it's just a matter of time before someone figures out how to get any DRM/crippling software off of our systems.

      I can see moves and countermoves here. Suppose "someone" posts "instructions for removing the DRM software" that turn out to be destructive ... most users would probably follow the instructions without being careful about it, particularly if they're obfuscated. Later, much too late, you find out that "someone" is an employee of the RIAA.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:DRM'd CD's on the rise... by PasteEater · · Score: 1

      An interesting point, but I don't think even the RIAA would be that devious/stupid. I can't say that for sure, but I find it hard to believe that the RIAA would want to maliciously trash someone's computer. Something like that would be a publicity nightmare for them, and they're not exactly on anyone's Christmas card list at present.

      Still, who knows what a bunch of monkeys in suits will do.

      --
      There are two kinds of people in the world: those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
    3. Re:DRM'd CD's on the rise... by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1
      When you think of it, it's not so strange that DRM/copy-protected CD's appear to be on the rise:
      • People who hate the concept of DRM (that includes me), buy less CD's (so am I), or none with copy-protection (I sure as hell am not buying those)
      • So that leaves more market percentage (not more sales!) to those dumb asses who don't care about DRM. Result: bigger percentage of CD's sold with DRM.
      • And ofcourse the music industry in general could be getting very desperate, coming up with ever more crazy methods.
      I think in the end, DRM is simply bad news for everyone, bad for consumers, and bad for business.

      Unfortunately, things first have to get worse, before they get better...

    4. Re:DRM'd CD's on the rise... by PasteEater · · Score: 1

      So that leaves more market percentage (not more sales!) to those dumb asses who don't care about DRM. Result: bigger percentage of CD's sold with DRM.

      So what? Sell more CDs with DRM. If you can easily get around it, who cares?

      That's not a very popular thing to say around here, but everyone is assuming that should the RIAA switch to a more stringent form of DRM, no one will care. People will start to care when they can't rip CDs onto their hard drives. Until then, DRM doesn't matter to most people.

      --
      There are two kinds of people in the world: those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
  25. This is a surprise? by HangingChad · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    When dealing with a morally corrupt industry I guess it shouldn't be a surprise when they do things like this. Repulsive.

    Wonder if their little spyware trojan would self-install on my Linux machine?

    Hehe.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  26. should be a law by ch-chuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it should be flat out illegal for anybody to install software on someone elses computer w/o the owners written permission - that goes for spyware, virus, marketing research firms, even Microsoft, and this. Just because you're network connected or pop in a CD doesn't give everybody and his brother the right to take over part of your machine in ANY way. It's so bizarre that govt. enforces access rights for govt business and military machines but personal home computers, pfft, it's like an open free for all.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    1. Re:should be a law by slashname3 · · Score: 1

      hmmm, does that mean java applets that get loaded on your system when you go to a web site would be illegal? Or will the web site have to ask you each time it does that?

      Sounds like server side scripting will become the default standard. :)

    2. Re:should be a law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ordinary Java applets have pretty strict securty enforced on them by the JVM. For example, they can't read or write local files.

      Signed applets can do these things, and it turns out you DO have to give them permission to run. (There are exceptions, but this is the normal default behavior)

    3. Re:should be a law by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      'Guest' temporary programs like applets, javascript, active-X, flash, Word macros and the like SHOULD run in sandboxes sealed off from the OS (fat chance of that every happening on a Windows box anyway). Things that register themselves and make permemant changes in os behavior should be known by the user. However, as someone pointed out above, the luser usually just blindly clicks thru an agreement giving up their rights anyhow.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    4. Re:should be a law by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Sounds like server side scripting will become the default standard. :)

      We can only hope :). You can never trust client side script to run properly with all the different browsers out there. Server side is all I want to use.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:should be a law by RevAaron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, for every Windows update on every computer I admin at work, I have to write a letter into Microsoft? Yeah, right.

      How about this instead- when software wants to install, it has to *ask*. No need for written consent or anything silly like that. Just let the users know what they're getting into and what they're getting (if anything).

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    6. Re:should be a law by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      define install?

      Your computer has auto-run.. that means on inserting ANY CD, your computer could potentially execute code and put it into memory. THis may involve temporary files, etc. At what point is it "intalled?"
      What if it doesn't actually INSTALl, but just stays memory resident until removed?

      How do we legally differentiate this from an installer?

      We could also say your computer knowingly allows untrusted code to execute.. tha'ts what autorun does.

    7. Re:should be a law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh Sherlock, There probably already exists such a law.

    8. Re:should be a law by presarioD · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately you have to lobby for that and donate approximately $10,000 (on top of my head) to $PARTY_OF_YOUR_CHOICE in order to have any slight chance of passing that law one day (maybe, since somebody else might be donating $100,000 against it).

      By the people, for the people... blah blah blah democracy blah blah blah *yawn* blah blah blah freedom blah blah blah *serious yawning* blah blah blah greatest nation of all blah blah blah God bless blah blah blah Founding Fathers blah blah blah...

      --
      Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
    9. Re:should be a law by System.out.println() · · Score: 1

      It should be the OS's responsibility to make sure that no program runs that the user does not intend to run. Furthermore, being 'root' all the time is a flat-out bad idea there are certain things that non-rooted programs absolutely don't need access to, ever. For example, installing programs.

    10. Re:should be a law by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      The point is, are you really going to trust legislators to understand all these intricacies and not screw it up in the process and outlaw legitimate things?

      No laws should be passed to compensate for terrible software design. Microsoft should just fix their shit.

      How about this... don't let the user run anything as administrator that shouldn't be... make it part of the filesystem even. Something like bin vs sbin, except normal users wouldn't even have read/execute access.

      All things that normal users might want to run shouldn't be in there, i.e. lsmod, lsof.. and various other status utilities that are useful to run as a normal user, but for whatever reason have wound up in sbin on many systems.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    11. Re:should be a law by DocMax · · Score: 1

      The problem here is in determining what programs a user intends to run. If a user agrees to run a given program, does that imply "permission" for that program to start other programs? Plenty of programs do this for legitimate reasons, so some provision has to be made, but carte blanche here wouldn't be any better.

      On running as root, on the other hand, I have to agree. Other that a few special cases, there are simply too many reasons not to have administrative access on a day-to-day basis.

    12. Re:should be a law by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      I think it would be a better approach to fix the security hole in your system than to whine to the government and ask for new laws every time someone does something you don't like.

    13. Re:should be a law by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1
      You're advocating a legal solution to a technical problem. CDs and the Internet can't magically install software, they need something to install them. The blame is shared with Microsoft's insecure Autorun, IE and OE, Microsoft's customers for not caring, and you for not disabling Autorun, for being Administrator, and for not using a different browser or OS.

      One could almost make the case that when you pop in a CD, you accept that software may run. It said so on the CD case. You know that when you put in a CD and don't hold Shift, software from that CD runs. So why did you put in a CD made by someone who you know wants to cripple your computer? (Guess you won't make that mistake again.) This doesn't hold for browser bugs, however, when the browser is not acting as you intended.

      I'm not saying this stuff should be legal, and it's probably not already (not that anyone could sue them and win, but that's a function of money.) On the other hand, if the record companies go this far and stop, I'd be happy. But they won't stop, of course, so I'm hoping for a consumer backlash, though outside Slashdot it's been pretty wimpy.

    14. Re:should be a law by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      I believe he was meaning the owner of the computer, not the copyright. Ie, Microsoft would have to have written consent of you, the computer owner, to do auto-update. Worms which are only resident, would nicely fall outside of this scope of law (though them being illegal for other reasons...). Though I can see company1 getting written permission that was very general, then sleazy company2 buying company1 and installing software on all of company1's old customers' computers.

      As for your suggestion, a lot of current spyware "asks" to be installed in the EULA, but people barely read it. Beside this, simply *asking* doesn't mean the software is required to respect your answer (which is at least one complaint people were having with the thing).

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    15. Re:should be a law by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      As for your suggestion, a lot of current spyware "asks" to be installed in the EULA, but people barely read it. Beside this, simply *asking* doesn't mean the software is required to respect your answer (which is at least one complaint people were having with the thing).

      Precisely. Note I didn't say "make *people* read the EULA" I said that the fact that they are installing software and the nature of that software needs to be plainly stated and approved. Thre is a *huge* difference. And if you say no, the OS doesn't allow it to install.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    16. Re:should be a law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially since our government is suppose to be "of the people, by the people, for the people"

  27. Let's make sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the DMCRA passes, I'm sure the record labels will be less likely to use DRM if they have to advertise that the CDs have copy protection on it.

  28. Well, nevermind by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 1

    A few folks already ripped it. I won't to stick this CD in my machine to burn a MP3 CD for my car...

    --
    I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
    I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
  29. You've got to fight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    for your right!

    to partty!

    without your computer being trojaned by the FskIng MUSIC CD!@#

  30. Re:What the Hell by majkqball · · Score: 1

    Must have been copy protected...!

    --
    SBC stands for Stupid Bell Company
    AT&T stands for All Telephones Tapped
  31. Profit Not the motive by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the band had to pay for the DRM as part of the studios recoupment fees.

  32. Sabotage by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, someone had to come up with a "it's part of their plan" post.

    Sabotage (Ill Communication)

    I Can't Stand It I Know You Planned It
    I'm Gonna Set It Straight, This Watergate
    I Can't Stand Rocking When I'm In Here
    Because Your Crystal Ball Ain't So Crystal Clear
    So While You Sit Back and Wonder Why
    I Got This Fucking Thorn In My Side
    Oh My, It's A Mirage
    I'm Tellin' Y'all It's Sabotage

    So Listen Up 'Cause You Can't Say Nothin'
    You'll Shut Me Down With A Push Of Your Button?
    But Yo I'm Out And I'm Gone
    I'll Tell You Now I Keep It On And On

    'Cause What You See You Might Not Get
    And We Can Bet So Don't You Get Souped Yet
    You're Scheming On A Thing That's A Mirage
    I'm Trying To Tell You Now It's Sabotage

    Whyyy; Our Backs Are Now Against The Wall
    Listen All Of Y'all It's A Sabotage
    Listen All Of Y'all It's A Sabotage
    Listen All Of Y'all It's A Sabotage
    Listen All Of Y'all It's A Sabotage

    I Can't Stand It, I Know You Planned It
    But I'm Gonna Set It Straight This Watergate
    But I Can't Stand Rockin' When I'm In This Place
    Because I Feel Disgrace Because You're All In My Face
    But Make No Mistakes And Switch Up My Channel
    I'm Buddy Rich When I Fly Off The Handle
    What Could It Be, It's A Mirage
    You're Scheming On A Thing - That's Sabotage

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    1. Re:Sabotage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats creepy

  33. Does the band know or care..? by lovecult · · Score: 5, Informative

    To quote from
    http://www.boingboing.net/2004/06/11/new_beasties_ disc_ha.html

    Update: Ian sez, "Hi, I'm not sure who posted re: Beastie Boys copy protection, but I just spoke with Mike D and their management and they wanted me to pass along that a) This is all territories except the US and UK -- US and UK discs do not have this protection on them; b) All EMI CDs are treated this way, theirs isn't receiving special treatment; c) They would have preferred not to have the copy protection, but weren't allowed to differ from EMI policy."
    1. Re:Does the band know or care..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey would have preferred not to have the copy protection, but weren't allowed to differ from EMI policy."

      whay they too wimpy to tell EMI to shove it up their asses sideways and go to a different label?

      sorry, they are selling out and rolling over and doing what they are told. the only way to change that is for the mto PUBLICALLY bash EMI for doing it every chance they get.

      but they wont... Beasties are not what they used to be.

    2. Re:Does the band know or care..? by Collestonpie13 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      its not that there selling out they probably dont care that much they probably dont really think that its that big of a deal. Rememebr not everyone reads slahdot all day and is constantly up to date with how our digital rights are being constantly striped away..i think ignorance is more if the problem here than selling out.

      --
      Coffee, you can sleep when you're dead!
    3. Re:Does the band know or care..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Everywhere but the US / UK? Nice way to set a precident - act as though people outside US/UK don't count. If it's "okay" to you, it'll probably be "okay" when the next wave of albums all have DRM because it would only be more expensive to only put DRM on some versions of the album.

      Anyway, it sounds as though they're too gutless to have taken the correct action:

      d) Dump EMI.

      I'm sure there are a hundred other record labels that would have loved the chance to release a Beastie Boys album (worldwide, without DRM). Contracts probably prevented it though.. I can't imagine that they'd let an act like the Beastie Boys slip away without putting up some sort of fight.

    4. Re:Does the band know or care..? by Collestonpie13 · · Score: 1

      i dont think its that they are selling out. i just dont think that the beastie boys think that drm is that big of a deal. i doubt that they think that what emi is doing is such a grave violation of our digital rights. remember not everyone is consantly reading slashdot and most are not so aware of how our digital rights are constantly being stripped away. ignorance is the problem not selling out.

      --
      Coffee, you can sleep when you're dead!
    5. Re:Does the band know or care..? by Collestonpie13 · · Score: 1

      ahh that was really weird..i got an error saying that it fucked up adn then i re did the post..guess it work oh well sorry

      --
      Coffee, you can sleep when you're dead!
    6. Re:Does the band know or care..? by skinfitz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Looks like I can add EMI to my list of labels to never buy from then. That makes Sony and EMI up to now.

      Tell me again how this sort of crap is supposed to deter piracy? All they are doing is actively encouraging it.

    7. Re:Does the band know or care..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Punctuation. Line breaks. Spelling.

      Ever heard of them?

    8. Re:Does the band know or care..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is all territories except the US and UK -- US and UK discs do not have this protection on them

      It's a good job there are none of those nasty pirates in the USA or the UK, isn't it? Or are all the pirates there unable to upload stuff to the Internet?

    9. Re:Does the band know or care..? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Add to that capitalization rules. That was the hardest part for me.

    10. Re:Does the band know or care..? by Collestonpie13 · · Score: 1

      sounds like a plan...maybe...

      --
      Coffee, you can sleep when you're dead!
    11. Re:Does the band know or care..? by Dnigh · · Score: 1

      This had me worried for about 5 seconds (I had played this cd on my work PC), before I realised it was the standard EMI crap.

      If you live in australia you would be extremely used to this. EMI Aus have been using it for a year or two now. Albumns that I can think of off the top of my head are Something for Kate - The Official Fiction, APC - 13th Step, Living End - Modern Artilery, there is heaps more that I have bought with this stuff, and I have just ignored it each time.

      It launches some crappy player from the cd when installed, but you can just close that and then load the cd normally in something else (winamp, etc). The cd still rips fine (I have it on my iRiver now).

      This is no reflection on the band, just more of a reason why we should hate the record companies.

    12. Re:Does the band know or care..? by ronfar · · Score: 1
      Everywhere but the US / UK? Nice way to set a precident - act as though people outside US/UK don't count.
      Sounds like modern US foreign policy....

      I'm sure that the Beastie Boys quitting EMI is slightly easier than a made man quitting the Mafia... but only slightly.

      Oh! That reminds me of the Futurama episode, "Hell is Other Robots."

      [Cut to: Robot Hell: Level 5. Bender lands in front of the Beastie Boys. The Robot Devil picks Bender up by the leg and shakes him. Hundred of CDs fall out of his chest cabinet.]

      Robot Devil: (singing) Selling bootleg tapes is wrong, Musicians need that income to survive.

      Beastie Boys: (singing) Hey Bender gonna make some noise, With your hard drive scratched by the Beastie Boys! That's whatcha whatcha whatcha get on Level 5!

      --- 1.9: Hell Is Other Robots

      --
      All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
    13. Re:Does the band know or care..? by rasz · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Update: Ian sez, "Hi, I'm not sure who posted re: Beastie Boys copy protection, but I just spoke with Mike D and their management and they wanted me to pass along that a) This is all territories except the US and UK -- US and UK discs do not have this protection on them; b) All EMI CDs are treated this way, theirs isn't receiving special treatment; c) They would have preferred not to have the copy protection, but weren't allowed to differ from EMI policy."
      Oh my, so theirs isn't receiving special treatment ? Well it DOES, i will especially download this one from Kazza/torrent. I bought their albums in the past, but this one is gonna be a freebie. Someone has to show them.
    14. Re:Does the band know or care..? by mvdwege · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My, my, my. The more things change, the more they stay the same:

      There's unlimited supply
      and there is no reason why
      I tell you it was all a frame
      they onl1y did it 'cos of fame -
      Who? EMI

      Too many people had the suss
      Too many people support us
      An unlimited amount
      too many outlets in and out -
      Who? EMI

      And sir and friends are crucified
      a day they wished that we had died
      We are an addition
      we are ruled by-none
      Never ever never

      And you thought that we were faking
      that we were all just money making
      you do not believe we're for real
      or you would lose your cheap appeal?

      Don't judge a book just by the cover
      Unless you cover just another
      And blind acceptance is a sign
      of stupid fools who stand in line like EMI

      Unlimited edition
      with an unlimited supply
      That was fhe only reason
      we alt had to say goodbye

      Unlimited supply
      EMI there is no reason why
      EMI I tell you if was all a frame
      EMI they only did it 'cos of fame
      EMI I do not need the pressure
      EMI I can't stand the useless fools
      EMI unlimited supply
      EMI Hallo EMl goodbye A & M

      The Sex Pistols - EMI

      Mart
      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    15. Re:Does the band know or care..? by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

      Does the EMI thing apply to their subsidiary Parlophone, as I have two Parlophone CDs and they work perfectly without any spyware crap.

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    16. Re:Does the band know or care..? by clambake · · Score: 1

      b) All EMI CDs are treated this way, theirs isn't receiving special treatment; c) They would have preferred not to have the copy protection, but weren't allowed to differ from EMI policy.

      Because poor little no-name bands like the frigging Beastie Boys have no say what-so-ever with thier record labels. If EMI policy was to remix everything with back-beats by John Tesh they would have let that slide too, huh?

      Sure, we would have preferred that our songs weren't remixed as elevator music, but that's EMI policy, so we'll just live with it. -- MikeD

  34. Jew wiggers, at that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    n/t, bitches.

  35. You gotta fight... by neonstz · · Score: 5, Funny

    You gotta fight for your right to copy!

    1. Re:You gotta fight... by miracle69 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You bought a new CD - man you don't wanna know
      You go to your PC it says "no go"
      Loaded DRM - your machine won't work
      But the Beasties don't tell you like you're some kind of jerk.

      You gotta fight for your right to copy

      The Boys caught your sampling and they said "No Way"
      Those hypocrites - use samples every day.
      Man, del-ing this is such a drag
      Now your idols tossed all their cred in the bag.

      You gotta fight for your right to copy!

      Don't you buy our CD if you expect to have a hear.
      Cause our DRM won't let you play it through the air.
      Your PC busted and you said "Where's my noise?"
      Aw, man, it won't play cause it's the Beastie Boys.

      --
      Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
    2. Re:You gotta fight... by NintenDoctor · · Score: 1
      --
      I've moved on.
    3. Re:You gotta fight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Applauds*

      Exactly the spirit I was thinking, but put into words 100x better than mine :)

    4. Re:You gotta fight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My god, that was funny!

    5. Re:You gotta fight... by NoData · · Score: 1

      Props, my brother, props.

  36. Shift key to skip install? by Kryxan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isnt this the software that you can avoid installing by just holding the Shift key?

    1. Re:Shift key to skip install? by Embedded2004 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I believe it works by the cd auto run feature in windows. Which I have long since disabled. Why anyone would let cds automatically run and install stuff in this day an age is beyond me.

    2. Re:Shift key to skip install? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh sure, Mr. Smarty Pants. Next you'll tell me that soothing my open wounds with raw sewage is "dangerous".

      Ahhhhh... so warm and soothing...

    3. Re:Shift key to skip install? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      I would, because I use CDs rarely enough and get new CDs almost never. Enough of what you need is on the Internet. And the few things I do get can be trusted (mostly software I'm installing that could put whatever it wants on through that channel anyway).

  37. Spyware/Malware/whatever by bastardadmin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Silent installs eh?
    Isn't that contrary to a few computer crime statutes currently in effect in the USA?
    Or do they not apply to good corporate citizens like the RIAA membership (who, after all, are just saving us from ourselves)?

    And yes, 11 minutes after posting on Saturday night, the referenced discussion link is /.'ed....

    1. Re:Spyware/Malware/whatever by autopr0n · · Score: 1

      Isn't that contrary to a few computer crime statutes currently in effect in the USA?

      Wether it's contrary to US law is rather irrelevant, as the only 'treated' CDs are those sold outside the US.

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    2. Re:Spyware/Malware/whatever by bastardadmin · · Score: 1

      Ah, tricky, tricky, tricky.

      Now, do you suppose they actually researched the laws in the non-US jurisdictions?

      Bets, anyone, anyone?

      I thought not.

  38. Isn't this easily circumvented? by Dimensio · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wasn't there an article many months (years?) ago about how to circumvent this kind of thing by holding "shift" as you insert the disc? Yes, that's a Windows-only solution, but I don't see this kind of problem affecting Macs or Linux machines.

    Wait, is mentioning that little workaround considered a DMCA violation?

    1. Re:Isn't this easily circumvented? by Templaris · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, it is.

      And now Slashdot is going to get sued because of that post and a the RIAA will get an injunction to shut down the site in only moments.

      Thanks alot jerk...

      but then again, I am a moron...

    2. Re:Isn't this easily circumvented? by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      Quite possibly. But then that would mean that M$ is distributing software that enables DRM disabling. I can't wait for the courts to come up with a reasonable difference between this and DeCSS.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
  39. what's wrong with DRM? by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

    I think it's kinda neat that they're streaming digital audio in MPeg-4 over shortwave radio these days. /joke

    Seriously, DRMondiale is pretty cool if you get a good signal ;)

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  40. This is Illegal in Minnesota by Kope · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I personally hope that a CD I buy installs something on my computer. Really. 'Cuase I'm walking into the DA's office and demanding prosecution under 609.88 the next day. And as a highly paid professional, I know I can bill my time that any 10 second problem will turn into the maximum allowable penalty pretty darn quick...

    609.88 Computer damage.

    Subdivision 1. Acts. Whoever does any of the following is guilty of computer damage and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 2:

    (b) intentionally and without authorization or with intent to injure or defraud alters any computer, computer system, computer network, computer software, or any other property specifically defined in section 609.87, subdivision 6;

    Subd. 2. Penalty. Whoever commits computer damage may be sentenced as follows:

    (a) To imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $50,000, or both, if the damage, destruction or alteration results in a loss in excess of $2,500, to the owner, or the owner's agent, or lessee;

    (b) To imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both, if the damage, destruction or alteration results in a loss of more than $500, but not more than $2,500 to the owner, or the owner's agent or lessee; or

    (c) In all other cases to imprisonment for not more than 90 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $700, or both.

    1. Re:This is Illegal in Minnesota by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Grow up moron. First off, from what I've read, it says ON THE CD that it contains copy protection and that it's doing so in conjunction with Windows and Mac operating systems. If you don't read it, that's your fault. This falls under the same crap as accepting shrink wrap licenses by Microsoft to give up your first born child etc etc. Shrink Wrap licensing has never been tested in court and let me tell you, those trying to protect their ass, have FAR more money than your professional (and obviously not a professional lawyer) butt does. You'd be asking a judge to decide a matter of applicability to all shrink wrap licensing.

      So you know how to read your state laws online. Congrats. Glad you know how to interpret them too.

    2. Re:This is Illegal in Minnesota by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If whatever it does, uninstalls itself, and leaves the computer exactly as it was prior - this might be ok. If residue, and services start up long after ejecting the CD, not ok.

      The test for a virus or worm is - does it leave residual code lying about. A change is a change, and there is no telling that it will not, or cannot cause damage, in the event of another change, or other software operability.

    3. Re:This is Illegal in Minnesota by illumin8 · · Score: 0

      intentionally and without authorization or with intent to injure or defraud alters any computer...

      I think that's the problem right there. You can't prove intent to injure or defraud. They are trying to protect their intellectual property, and unless you can prove that they knowingly intended to damage your computer or cause you harm or rip you off in some way, the law you're talking about doesn't apply.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    4. Re:This is Illegal in Minnesota by PeterPumpkin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To trigger the maximum penalty, you would have to incur $2,500 in those 10 seconds. So if you could convince the court that sometimes you charge $900,000 an hour....

      On another note, if you take a look at 609.87 Subd. 12:

      Destructive computer program.

      "Destructive computer program" means a computer program that performs a destructive function or produces a destructive product. A program performs a destructive function if it degrades performance of the affected computer
      [yep], associated peripherals[yep] or a computer program[definately]; disables the computer[partially], associated peripherals[uh huh] or a computer program[of course]; or destroys or alters computer programs or data. A program produces a destructive product if it produces unauthorized data, including data that make computer memory space unavailable[e.g., the copy protection keys]; results in the unauthorized alteration of data or computer programs; or produces a destructive computer program, including a self-replicating computer program[To be determined].

      This definition gives a pretty clear cut case against them. Particularly if you were the one that disagreed to the EULA and it installed anyway. However, there doesn't appear to be any other clarifications or penalties definitions referencing this excerpt.

      I'm no expert in law, but I'm thinking you could take this as a "no maximums" kind of deal, and claim $50 billion per millisecond of seek time...assuming your running Windows (a.k.a. the Codename Logwhore security model has given the Internet access to your hard drive) and that every employee in North America might have needed to accidentally jack your data at that moment in time for important business. Hey, everything that isn't impossible can happen, no matter how improbable ;)

      On a more serious note, the entire Minnesota statutes e-law-book (link goes to chapter 609) can be found here.

    5. Re:This is Illegal in Minnesota by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're gonna have to import a beastie boys CD then.

    6. Re:This is Illegal in Minnesota by AoT · · Score: 1

      the key word in there is 'or'. it needs to be either "intentionally and without authorization" OR "with intent to injure or defraud alters any computer...
      "

      so it would fall under the statute; however these CDs are not being sold in Minnesota so the point is moot.

    7. Re:This is Illegal in Minnesota by jpetts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why was this modded insightful?? Presumably the moderators are as dumb as the author. The "or" before "with intent to injure or defraud" means that this is not a necessary provision, just that it may be sufficient. Learn English, people...

      --
      Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
    8. Re:This is Illegal in Minnesota by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      First off, from what I've read, it says ON THE CD that it contains copy protection and that it's doing so in conjunction with Windows and Mac operating systems.

      This is an ambigious statement at best. There is an existing standard for redbook discs for copy protection in the form of a copy-prohibit bit. This is why you need ripping programs rather then using the OS to copy track x to the HD. While this form of protection is worthess as we have good workarounds to allow digital transfer of audio ignoring the CD-rom's firmware, near as i'm aware it still exists. Further, Windows won't allow you to copy track x to the HD, it automacticly creates a link to the CD. This could the the copy protection that works in conjunction with Windows. Not sure about the mac. The way I read your statement, I would have naturaly assumed that it refered to the existing Redbook standard and Windows and Mac not letting you copy it.

      I can't blame anyone for not understanding the meaning of this disclaimer because it says nothing about installing 3rd party software. Further, if they were to admit it is software rather then a licensed music entertainment disk, then the law according to the SIAA states while licenses are diffrent you are allowed to make one backup of your software. By making a release on what is clearly a hybrid disk I would argue that stops being a music record and becomes software as we know and love it and subject to the same laws and regulations. My belief isn't law, but it makes a very valid arugument.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    9. Re:This is Illegal in Minnesota by kmactane · · Score: 2

      >> intentionally and without authorization or with intent to injure or defraud
      >> alters any computer...
      >
      >I think that's the problem right there. You can't prove intent to injure or defraud.

      But note that the phrase about "intent to injure or defraud" is set off with an "or", not "and". Now, it's a bit unclear whether the US legal system would normally parse this as:

      (intentionally && without authorization) || with intent to injure or defraud

      or as:

      intentionally && (without authorization || with intent to injure or defraud)

      but either way, proving the first two (which seems pretty easy) should be sufficient to satisfy the conditions. If you put logical chains like that into bash or Perl, using those short-circuit operators, the final term would never even get evaluated.

    10. Re:This is Illegal in Minnesota by illumin8 · · Score: 1

      If you put logical chains like that into bash or Perl, using those short-circuit operators, the final term would never even get evaluated.

      I'll admit that I didn't read that properly, but there are so many pieces of malware, and even non-malware that installs without your permission that makes this law especially overbroad.

      Did you know that Windows Update automatically installs newer versions of itself just by going to the Windows Update site? Well, if you read the law with that loose interpretation, Microsoft would potentially be liable.

      IANAL, but IMHO I think you would have to have intent to injure and defraud before a judge would rule against them.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    11. Re:This is Illegal in Minnesota by Calcbert · · Score: 1

      I bought one with the warning that goes along with a copy protected CD (i.e. requires windows, no guarantees, etc.) in Minneapolis at a Target. It hasn't gone in my PC yet, and if it does, it'll probably be under Linux.

      The law kind of intrigues me though...

    12. Re:This is Illegal in Minnesota by rush22 · · Score: 1

      Well, it's hard to know how it would be "parsed" but the clues are there to figure it out:

      intentionally and without authorization or with intent to injure or defraud (that's what it is right?)

      means (intentionally and without authorization) or (with intent to injure or defraud)

      A1. Installed intentionally
      A2. Has no authorization

      = violation

      B. Installed with the intent of injuring

      = violation

      C. Installed with the intent of defrauding

      = violation

      Authorization does not matter if the intent is to injure or defraud.

      IANAL (I am not a lawyer)

    13. Re:This is Illegal in Minnesota by rush22 · · Score: 1

      ok. clearer still:

      (installed) intentionally and without authorization or with intent to injure or defraud

      is the same as:

      installed with intent to injure, or defraud, or to install without authorization.

  41. Not in the US/UK by jlia · · Score: 1, Redundant
    From one of the linked sites:
    Update: Ian sez, "Hi, I'm not sure who posted re: Beastie Boys copy protection, but I just spoke with Mike D and their management and they wanted me to pass along that a) This is all territories except the US and UK -- US and UK discs do not have this protection on them; b) All EMI CDs are treated this way, theirs isn't receiving special treatment; c) They would have preferred not to have the copy protection, but weren't allowed to differ from EMI policy."
  42. How many times this needs to be said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... DON'T BUY RIAA's CRAP

  43. Would that be called... by ansak · · Score: 1

    the mark of the Beastie?

    couldn't resist...ank

    --
    Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
  44. So for all Windows users by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is one of the reasons to disable autorunning of CDs. It's nice yes, but really, it's not a big deal to take the extra step to go to the CD and run setp. Since this sort of game of actually installing software without asking seems to be getting popular, it's a good rpeventitive step.

    To shut it off, open your registry editor and go to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\Cdrom and set the Autorun value to 0. You cal also download TweakUI from Microsoft (go to Microsoft.com and search for TweakUI) which will change the key for you, as well as altering other behaviour.

    When you do this, Windows will no longer popup and do anything when you put a disk in. Instead, it will wait for you to do something. For normal data disks, this means you'll have to go run setup yourself. For evil audio disks such as this, they'll simply never install their BS and you can play as normal.

    1. Re:So for all Windows users by brickbat · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can also disable AutoRun via the properties for your drive in Device Manager. Or, you can turn it off temporarily by holding down the Shift key while loading the disc.

    2. Re:So for all Windows users by santos_douglas · · Score: 4, Informative

      Excellent advice, another crucial piece of software I never run windows without is Mike Lin's Startup Monitor. Which will pop up a dialogue box and notify you if a program attempts to install itself to run on startup. You can then allow or disallow. This is good for stopping all kind of annoying things from happening to your PC.

    3. Re:So for all Windows users by EdMcMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      The new version of Spybot S&D does this too. The component is called teatimer.

      Definitely very useful!

    4. Re:So for all Windows users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so is disabling autorun now illegal because of the dmca?

    5. Re:So for all Windows users by System.out.println() · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Word has it that some OS's provide this feature in the form of not having autorun.

      Maybe that's jsut a rumor.

    6. Re:So for all Windows users by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ahh, good point. I also hear you can stop 100% of popups and ads by having a text only browser. Further I'm told that ALL remote exploits are stopped by not having a computer on the Itnernet.

      Amazing isn't it? If there is no service, there can be no denial. The problem is that most people WANT things that make their life easier, their computing experience nicer. Trying to advertise an non-Windows OS as better because it lacks a feature is not a very good idea. That shows lack of polish and completeness to most people.

      I can't blame Microsoft for the auto-run thing. It was simply a way to make the computing experience easier on their users. Rather than needing to find the correct file to run (which is usually setup, but not always), simply make the CD come up by itself when inserted. It isn't their fault that some asshats have corrupted this in to installing software without user consent.

      This is akin to blaming the creators of the SMTP spec for SPAM. They created a useful spec that allowed for the non-realtime interchange of messages. Good idea too, as it was one of two killer apps of the Internet (the web being the other). Without e-mail, I'm not sure the Internet would have taken off like it did. Well, some fucks have now figured out how to abuse it for their own gain. That's the fault of the spammers, not the creators of SMTP.

      So advocate Linux on the things it does better, not the things it does not do.

    7. Re:So for all Windows users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You, sir, are an idiot. Let's extend your logic beyond computers and contemplate the idea of using lockless doors. Damn, it's just too much trouble to find those keys when I just want to get into my own house! Why not eliminate the locks once and for all so it would be much easier to get in after a night of partying. Sure, my house will be easier to burglarize, but blame that on the burglers!

      I'm terribly sorry to inform you that basic security ALWAYS invloves some level of inconvienence to legimate users and computers are no exception -- welcome to reality.

    8. Re:So for all Windows users by System.out.println() · · Score: 1

      *hint* I wasn't advocating Linux. I was advocating Mac OS X.

      Another comment said it best. In some cases, making things easier on the user also makes it easier on Gator, Clarus, whoever else. In this case, the record company.

      Auto-run is *not* something I want my computer to do, and Windows makes it too hard (that's hard, not easy) to disable it. If I want to run something on a CD, I'll open the CD and double click the "Run Me" program. (After the "read me" file, that is.)

      It's not about "blaming" Microsoft - they didn't have the foresight to see autorun as a security risk, just as the creators of SMTP didn't see spoofing the From field (and spammers'/virus'ers other tricks) as a security risk. I don't know enough about e-mail protocols to recommend a better alternative, or if it's even possible to have a better one at this point. But I can recommend a better OS from experience - Mac OS X.

    9. Re:So for all Windows users by Flavius+Stilicho · · Score: 1

      Let's extend your logic beyond computers and contemplate the idea of using lockless doors. Damn, it's just too much trouble to find those keys when I just want to get into my own house! Why not eliminate the locks once and for all so it would be much easier to get in after a night of partying. Sure, my house will be easier to burglarize, but blame that on the burglers!

      A better comparison would be with a home security system that has multiple zones and time settings. Most home owners, once they have the system installed stop using it because they can't remember how to or they constantly trip the thing.

      Until computers become as easy to use as a door key software makers will do what they can to ease the customer experience by dumbing things down. If they don't, people stop using, and therefore buying their product. Of course, they could go too far and end up having their product perceived as a toy, watch their potential market vaporize and spend the next 20 years trying to dissuade that market of the false perception (ala Apple).

    10. Re:So for all Windows users by CanadianCrackPot · · Score: 1

      Thank you for violating the DMCA, all mentions of this auto-run disable, switch to Linux, Unix, BSD, etc will land you in our shiny new prison in Mojave.

      --
      Good programmers drink beer to relieve job stress.
      Great programmers drink hard liquor and work best hungover.
    11. Re:So for all Windows users by HeavenlyWhistler · · Score: 1
      I can't blame Microsoft for the auto-run thing. It was simply a way to make the computing experience easier on their users. Rather than needing to find the correct file to run (which is usually setup, but not always), simply make the CD come up by itself when inserted. It isn't their fault that some asshats have corrupted this in to installing software without user consent.

      Yes I can blame Microsoft for setting up an environment where it's a constant wrestling match to maintain control of what is running on my system. A system where viewing a web page or email could possibly install software.

      The correct UI would be: to have a "Run CD" item on the right-click menu in Windows Explorer.

      It wouldn't be that hard to train the user:

      Put the CD in

      Close the drive

      Select "Run CD"

    12. Re:So for all Windows users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're kidding, right?

      In some jurisdictions it is illegal to leave your car running unattended. Probably because it makes it very easy to steal. People and their property may be damaged by your laziness.

      Virii and other malware has been distributed on removable media almost since the beginning of the pc era. So to make these things run automatically is irresponsible at best.

      The same applies to leaving services open to the internet. Services that could only be useful on an intranet. Or making it easy to run a script through an email attachment. etc.

      The things Linux does not do does make it better. Just as locks on our doors make our life better.

      Derek

    13. Re:So for all Windows users by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Windows could be equally friendly if it popped up a box that said "Do you want to run the software that is on this disk now?" yes/no. In fact this would be better, as you could stick the disk in the drive and walk out while it is spinning up and not miss the autorun splash screen (which often tells you what the hell is happening).

      As several other posters pointed out, Linux from RedHat also has "autorun". And the posters are complaining that this sucks and we should not be copying misfeatures from Windows.

    14. Re:So for all Windows users by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 1
      To shut it off, open your registry editor and go to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\Cdrom and set the Autorun value to 0. You can also download TweakUI from Microsoft (go to Microsoft.com and search for TweakUI) which will change the key for you, as well as altering other behaviour.
      First, don't say "also". Either one is sufficient, so you don't need to tell people to do both, but...
      DON'T tell people to edit the registry as the first way to deal with something. There's a perfectly decent way to deal with this through the OS (uncheck the box for autorun in the driver properties) or through the TweakUI program. This jumping to edit the registry first stems from the instinct to start editing config files to fix things. That's not how Windows is made to work, and I think leads to so many of the comments about registries getting screwed.
      --
      We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
  45. the /. effect... by w4rl5ck · · Score: 1

    at least the band page (forum) seems to be down, should be the /. effect. Maybe that tells someone a lesson. "beware of the masses" or so. Depressing that one of my favourite acts publishes such dumb stuff. I like those guys. Should not have given up their own label after all, as it seems...

  46. So don't buy it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Pure and simple.

    If you don't like whatever they're doing, don't give them your money. Don't encourage them to keep on doing it.

    1. Re:So don't buy it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then the RIAA blames declining sales on piracy.

    2. Re:So don't buy it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And then the RIAA blames declining sales on piracy.

      And it's true. The RIAA cartel is a bunch of thieving pirates.

  47. Doesn't sound like the article from yesterday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember the article from yesterday about people accepting DRM? Well I'm really happy that there obviously exists visible resistance to it.

  48. y0 by voudras · · Score: 1

    thats ill

  49. No it Doesn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It asks can it install.

    I answered "No".

    Then I ripped with EAC.

    Then I encoded it with oggdrop.

    Then filed the physical CD away.

  50. Meme got this earlier by nukey56 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Slashdot - We might not be first to the news, but we sure as hell are going to nuke your server. And then some."

    memepool article, complete with link to security focus memo.

  51. /. punishment? by slickepott · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I guess the /. effect on their site is a quite big punishment? I wanted to read about angry listeners but hungry /. users got them first!

    1. Re:/. punishment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for setting me as redundant when there was NO previous post like this when I wrote mine and I made VERY sure about it.

  52. Not going to check this out by dvduval · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't think I'll ch-ch-ch-check...check it out! Cause DRM's what it's all about!

  53. They aren't the only ones. by AltGrendel · · Score: 4, Informative
    The new Velvet Revolver does the same thing. It has a CD driver that is silently installed whether you accept the "EULA" or not. The only way around this (for Windows users) is to turn off auto start. I'm trying to get my SCSI CDRW running on my Linux system to see if it's prodected there.

    And even if you do get round the protection, the burner software may check for "Proper Licensing" anyway. I know MusicMatch does.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

    1. Re:They aren't the only ones. by DuncanE · · Score: 1

      This may be a dumb question, but how do you disable autoplay in Windows XP? I could do it in 95, 98 etc without a problem, but the option seems to be missing in XP?

    2. Re:They aren't the only ones. by sbjordal · · Score: 1

      hehe, do what I did...buy it on iTunes and don't worry about it ;)

    3. Re:They aren't the only ones. by ChairmanMeow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I remember correctly, go to Start-Run, and type gpedit.msc (that's from what little I remember from when I was using XP, so it may be wrong), and then click on System in the window that appears. In the right panel, there should be an option called Autorun. Change it to false. I may be wrong about some of the details, since it's been a while since I ran XP.

      --
    4. Re:They aren't the only ones. by AnyoneEB · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's pretty well hidden in Windows XP. You have to use the group policies manager to disable it. Goto start --> run --> "gpedit.msc" (thanks to the other replier, I forget what it was called) --> Local Computer Policy --> Administrative Templates --> System (click it) --> on the right pane find "Turn off Autoplay" in the list --> right-click --> properties --> select the "enable" radio button.

      Note that you can hold down shift while putting in a CD to disable autoplay for just that time.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
    5. Re:They aren't the only ones. by Sgs-Cruz · · Score: 1
      That's why you turn off auto-run, and use EAC to rip it to a virgin MP3. Ain't nothing they can do to my music then.

      And I say this as one who actually buys quite a few CDs, then rips them to FLAC because the computer is where I do most of my listening anyway.

      --

      Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).

    6. Re:They aren't the only ones. by CitizenJohnJohn · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can do this with Tweak-UI. More info here

    7. Re:They aren't the only ones. by moonrakerelite · · Score: 1

      I wish I could use EAC to rip to FLAC, in fact that was the plan. However, even after gettting past the copy protection I still can't rip the CD, something about the errors Cactus Data Sheild introduces

    8. Re:They aren't the only ones. by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      Has anyone tested if an administrator login is needed to install this DRM software? CD autorun is convenient for things like home theater PCs. If it's safe to leave it on for non-administrator accounts that would be nice, but as a vector for malware, CD autorun is just another huge gaping hole in Windows security. The only reason it's been neglected for so long is that in the past CDs have come from trusted sources. Well no more.

    9. Re:They aren't the only ones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And even if you do get round the protection, the burner software may check for "Proper Licensing" anyway. I know MusicMatch does.
      hmm all the real burner software I have doesnt give a rats ass about "proper licensing" Musicmatch is not a burning program BTW.... it a music program with way too many "features".

      all of the linux tools can burn anything without a fart. same as any real CD burning software.

      I suggest you not use worthless crap like musicmatch and avoid the crap that these morons at the record companies try to shovel.

    10. Re:They aren't the only ones. by linicks · · Score: 1

      I was going to pick up the new Velvet Revolver CD, but my friend picked it up earlier in the day and said there was a EULA he had to agree to. Now the Beastie Boys album has licencing stuff on it.

      Personally, I refuse to buy or support an artist that has these counter measures. I believe that the RIAA are going to shoot themselves in the foot so hard by screwing their customers over. After making customers agree to software EULAs and secretly installed software, who the hell would want to play a CD on their computer? Soon they will have nothing to blame low CD sales on but themselves.

      --

      I got nothing...
    11. Re:They aren't the only ones. by skaffen42 · · Score: 1

      Linux rips it just fine.

      Co-worker bought one of these, and ran into the DRM trying to rip it to his ipod. So I tried it on my Linux box and it copied without a problem.

      The guy was so pissed off about the whole thing that he ended up returning the CD. End result was that he is now a Linux fan, has DRM free MP3s of the album, and the RIAA didn't get cent out of the deal. There is some karma at work there somewhere... :)

      --
      People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
    12. Re:They aren't the only ones. by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 2, Insightful
      hehe, do what I did...buy it on iTunes and don't worry about it ;)

      So to avoid having the CD install DRM software on your computer, you used a DRM system you already had (iTunes) to buy the songs in AAC format with DRM?

    13. Re:They aren't the only ones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    14. Re:They aren't the only ones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, these instructions are much easier than playing with gpedit... which is only found on XP_PRO systems.

      Thx for the link.

    15. Re:They aren't the only ones. by festers · · Score: 1

      Just install TweakUI from the XP Powertoys, it has everything you need to turn off Autoplay easily.

      --


      -------
      "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
    16. Re:They aren't the only ones. by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      The only reason it's been neglected for so long is that in the past CDs have come from trusted sources. Well no more.

      Yeah, in the past only respectable haxors and pirates could burn CDs, but now any punk record company can burn their own--you have to be careful these day!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    17. Re:They aren't the only ones. by sbjordal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Heck yeah! I'll take a somewhat manageable DRM any day of the week instead of some auto-loaded DRM crap that I can't control (or much-less know about) myself.

    18. Re:They aren't the only ones. by WhoDaresWins · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's pretty well hidden in Windows XP. You have to use the group policies manager to disable it.

      What are you talking about?! There's a much easier way to do it Windows XP than your convoluted method. Right click on your CD/DVD drive in Windows Explorer (or My Computer), select the "Auto Play" tab, choose "Music CD" and then select "Take no action". Thats all.
    19. Re:They aren't the only ones. by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

      I've never used XP, but can't you just turn off the insert notification (or whatever it's called in English versions) on the CD-ROM drive properties? That works in 98SE. This will disable both autoplay and the CD audio autoplay, and even when the docs say it may break some app behavior, it usually doesn't (all apps I've seen that want me to insert another CD tend to rather poll the drive or something).

    20. Re:They aren't the only ones. by BollocksToThis · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, that disables Windows' automatic launching of a media player to handle the audio portion of the CD, not Windows' automatic launching of any random EXE pointed to by the autorun.inf. Messing around with the policy editor or TweakUI for XP (god bless that paranoia tab) is the only way to prevent autoplay.

      Your 'informative' score is decidedly undeserved.

      --
      This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
    21. Re:They aren't the only ones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disabling auto-insert will delay autoplay, but it is still active. Things just won't begin autoplaying until the system notices the change (i.e: by the user trying to open the disc through explorer). Disabling auto-insert is a pain in the ass (98 will sometimes do the pretend bluescreen because it thinks you have a different disc in the drive), and doesn't do enough to prevent autoplay.

      Get TweakUI for either system to successfully and easily kill autoplay.

    22. Re:They aren't the only ones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A friend of mine has a sister who works for a record company.. About once a month, she sends her brother a stack of free CD's that she's been given. A few of them won't play in the car or on the computer, which is annoying but not a major problem, since they're freebies anyhow.

      BUT a couple of them screwed up his computer in subtle and annoying ways and he had to get me over to fix it. The first installed some kind of DRM player, and none of his CDs would play properly after that. The other was just installing quicktime to play a video clip, but it hijacked every other media type too, including some it couldn't actually play!

      Having his computer screwed up twice was two times too many, so now he brings them all to me, copy protected or not. I rip them using cdEX under Linux (100% success rate so far), and the next day I give him his original CD's back plus a CDR or two of mp3's that he can play on the computer or in the car.

      I'm getting a pretty good collection of mp3's thanks to DRM. In fact, I'm going to have to buy a new harddrive soon!

    23. Re:They aren't the only ones. by coolsva · · Score: 1
      Open my computer in explorer
      Right click on CD drive
      Select Properties
      Select AutoPlay tab
      For Mixed Content - select 'Take No Action'

      Now, your music plays OK but these types of cds are handled

      *On XP, though I know of ways in Win2000, just don't have a win2k machine handy

    24. Re:They aren't the only ones. by BollocksToThis · · Score: 1

      That's not what "mixed content" does, either.

      You'll note the default action for mixed CDs is to prompt the user to pick an action - when was the last time you were prompted to install your Beastie Boys DRM, or to run your application's SETUP.EXE? Never - it always does it, regardless of what you set any of those options to.

      The controls Microsoft gave you to control Autoplay behaviour do not apply to actual autorun data CDs (or data tracks on mixed CDs).

      --
      This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
  54. Mac and Linux by NEOtaku17 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is my understanding right that it is only a Windows program? I use both MacOS and several Linux distros and I am exteremly offended they didn't make it compatible with the platforms I feel comfortable using!

  55. Re:What the Hell by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 0, Redundant

    That happens all the time on this site. The submissions page says "grousing about rejected submissions is Offtopic and usually gets moderated that way. It happens, don't take it personally". They get up to half a million viewers a day, and that happens often.

  56. sounds like its time for a lawsuit by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

    DRM is one thing; installing spyware is quite another. Sounds like its time for a class action suit against EMI over this.

    --
    "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  57. Copy protection? by Stormie · · Score: 1
  58. the new single is crap anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Beastie Boys are old. They peaked with Paul's Boutique and have slowly been on the decline. The new single "Check it out" (or whatever) is horrid. I couldn't even sit through the entire track the first time I heard it.

    Sad? Yes. I love the Beastie Boys. I grew up with their music. But this is the way things go unfortunately.

  59. heh... i guess.. by enrico_suave · · Score: 1

    no more rhyming and stealing, eh?

    e.

    --
    Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
  60. Hold Down Shift - Ripping Success by Kenshin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I won a copy of the CD last night at a bar.

    When I saw the "Copyright Control" logo on it, I held down shift when I put it into my drive. That was a good plan, because I explored the CD and found all that CRM crapola in the autorun file.

    Ripped it with iTunes. It ripped fine, but VERY slowly. (2x, compared to the usual 16x.)

    --

    Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    1. Re:Hold Down Shift - Ripping Success by Johnathon_Dough · · Score: 3, Informative
      I was talking to a friend of mine who got past some DRM he had on a CD by going to the preferences in iTunes, and turning on "use error correction" under the "importing" section.

      also works pretty well for those cd's that have been floating around your car for a while.

      --
      If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
    2. Re:Hold Down Shift - Ripping Success by Kenshin · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I've never clicked that.

      iTunes works wonders, though. I have this CD with a huge scratch, and another odd CD, that all rippers would choke and die on. But iTunes ripped them, slowly, without complaining to me once.

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    3. Re:Hold Down Shift - Ripping Success by devnullify · · Score: 1

      You may want to give EAC a try. It's widely regarded as the most bit-accurate ripper availiable, and while slow, I've never had it flounder on a disc either. I haven't used iTunes much, just touting my favourite software ;). It's also easy to integrate it with any external encoder, so you can create nice LAME VBR mp3s instead of AACs, if you want.

    4. Re:Hold Down Shift - Ripping Success by nzkbuk · · Score: 1

      iTunes allows you to rip to MP3 (Well on my mac it does, not sure about the windows version).
      It's just the default is AAC

  61. Screw mainstream music by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 1

    It's all becoming 80's remakes now.

    If you like specific music styles, then go to http://www.iuma.com.

    In most cases, you can try the whole song in high quality and decide if you like it. If you do, then you can pay the artist directly if they have albums to sell.

    I haven't been to a music store in ages because I'd rather support the independents.

  62. Shows why Linux is not ready for the desktop by cetialphav · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is just another example of why Linux is not ready for the desktop. I should be able to buy this CD and put it in my Linux box and NOT be able to rip it just like on Windows. Until Linux can run all of my important software (DRM controls, Kazaa, Gator, Sobig virus, and various spyware), I'll just stick with windows.

    Seriously, this is just stupid. I would guess that most pirated MP3s that are being shared out there have been downloaded from someone else, not ripped from the original CD. So it really only takes a few people with either a linux box or enough sense to turn of autorun on their CD drive to be able to spread pirated MP3s all over the world. This can't possibly stop anything and will likely piss off the people that are supposed to be customers.

    1. Re:Shows why Linux is not ready for the desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah, as any slashdot user knows, a lot of the cool new viruses and spyware can be run in Wine, and what can't run yet will come soon. And its not that hard to set up, if I can do it as a geek*, any 80 year old grandma can do it. As a slashdot user, you're expected to defend Linux to the death, and I'm afraid I'll have to send the penguins after you for this.

      *Ok, so I don't actually have Wine running on my box. And I use windows. Since you don't know that, I sound a lot cooler.

  63. Inherently copy-protected by Chelloveck · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm still having trouble with the concept that someone would want to copy the Beastie Boys' music...

    --
    Chelloveck
    I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
  64. Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But does it run on linux?

  65. With tricks like these ... by MuMart · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I predict that the next versions of CD recording software will bundle their own hardware-banging IDE/ATAPI drivers to get around tricks like these.

    It's a simple fact that people expect to be able copy their CDs.

    1. Re:With tricks like these ... by kryptkpr · · Score: 1

      The next versions? I've been using this program since the first DRM'd CD (Scooter - Push the Beat Back for this Jam, an import from Germany) hit my CDRom.

      I've yet to come across a CD that cannot be copied with it, most show either a DATA track for #1, or in the case of a 'corrupt' TOC the CD just shows up the way it's supposed to be.

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    2. Re:With tricks like these ... by drunkenbatman · · Score: 1

      I predict that the next versions of CD recording software will bundle their own hardware-banging IDE/ATAPI drivers to get around tricks like these.

      Heh, I predict the next versions (or most of the bigger companies) will end up adopting this "tricks" so that they aren't sued into oblivion, rather right or wrong, for helping to circumvent copyright.

      Sorry, but people like Roxio really, really can't afford huge lawsuits right now, especially ones that would drag on and on. A $20-30 million slush fund by the RIAA would tie up the top 10 makers of this type of software like you wouldn't believe.

      It's a simple fact that people expect to be able copy their CDs.

      They do, but most people (read, not you and i, but hey) have very limited usage patterns for their music as far as their computer is concerned. Rip from CD, listen in music program, listen on portable device, upload to friends.

      Presumably if things are "sandboxed" enough down the software chain so that only the last usage pattern is made really hard, people would bitch like crazy but it would kinda be hard to argue against. Smaller usage patterns would of course be infringed upon, but people would find a way around it. But those finding a way around it would be a small, small minority.

      Oh well, I hope I'm wrong and you're right.

  66. Anti-establishment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought the Beastie Boys were kind of an anti-establishment band? Just shows they've been bought up and co-opted by corporate powers.

    1. Re:Anti-establishment? by redwoodtree · · Score: 1

      Nope. In fact they are trying to sell the CD on tv advertisements on daytime and late-night TV, very obviously marketing towards an aging fan base that now works and has disposable income.

      I think they were selling the CD for around $15 plus $5 shipping and handling. Yeah, $20 for a CD with a bunch fo two minute songs. NOT!!!!!!

      I was already highly suspicious of them after seeing the late night tv ads for their cd, but this DRM crap solidifies that the beastie boys have lost it.

    2. Re:Anti-establishment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they were selling the CD for around $15 plus $5 shipping and handling. Yeah, $20 for a CD with a bunch fo two minute songs. NOT!!!!!!

      I agree, a bunch of two minute songs is lame. I would've gladly paid $20 if it had been one fifty-minute song but now they aren't going to get a dime from me. That'll teach 'em to divide their albums into shorter tracks, those fucking sellouts!!!!!!!!

  67. Autorun on Mac OS? by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Quotes from the story links...

    "It seems that Capitol Records has some sort of new copy protection system, that automatically, silently, installs "helpful" copy protection software on MacOS and Windows as soon as you insert the CD into default systems."

    "They include some sort of uninstaller buried on there for Windows, but I see no such thing for MacOS."

    I've never heard of something like the "autorun" feature for Mac OS. Is there one? Or was the person who wrote this unfamiliar with Mac OS and just presumed it had one?

    1. Re:Autorun on Mac OS? by Barto · · Score: 1

      Mac OS 9 had autorun but Mac OS X doesn't. Probably because of the virus risk posed by it - and the risk from DRM which looks like a virus, walks like a virus and quacks like a virus.

    2. Re:Autorun on Mac OS? by Jebediah21 · · Score: 1

      I remember using the autorun on OS 7 to execute an AppleScript. Pop in a floppy and have the files automatically copied to the desktop.

      --

      Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
  68. TweakUI by Ryan+Stortz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Download TweakUI from the MS Power Toys section, it will let you change a slew of settings. Including disabling autorun.

    I'm also pretty sure that holding shift when you put the cd in will do the same thing.

    --
    Bugs are just features that have been fixed.
    1. Re:TweakUI by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      I'm also pretty sure that holding shift when you put the cd in will do the same thing.

      Yes, it does, at least as of Win2k, although I'm pretty sure that it worked from Win95 onwards.

    2. Re:TweakUI by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 1

      I thought you could just disable "auto insert notification" under the CD-ROM device in the device manager?

  69. Well I say screw them by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    If I buy a CD its for the music, not for any other multi-media crap on the disk. If I stick in my PC I simply will not even try to mount it even if it supposedly does have a data track. I'd love to see some viral DRM app install without even a mount. I'd actually be quite impressed if said viral DRM app managed to get installed on my Slackware Box period even if I did mount the disk, and no I rufuse to help it out by either working as root. Actally no matter what the band is if I suspected their CD did this kinda stuff I would NEVER buy it and would probably write the artist and the label if it was a group I cared about just to let them know they lost a customer because of how they treat their customers. I still expect to be treated well when I patronize a business and I expect them to understand that if they give me a hard time I WON'T be back even if I have to pay much more some place else for service/good foo. As far as this software goes though users should take steps. 1. Never put music disks purchase post 2002(t o be safe) into your PC when you are running as a user who is privilaged enough to install software, regardless of your OS, hopefully this will prevent it from being installed. 2. Run a firewall that filters outbound connections as well as inbound don't want any spy/drm wares calling home. 3. Make an attempt to use some other media player to play the vids or whatever is on the disk rather then any software from the disk, if its on the disk is probably spyware. /me wonders what all would be needed to use wine in a chroot setup....

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  70. This goes to the heart of why people choose Linux by SteamyMobile · · Score: 2, Interesting
    When you go with a closed-source OS such as MS Windows, you are giving up control of your computer to someone else. Someone whose interests are not necessarily the same as your interests. In fact it's not really possible to know what those interests are even. And this is what happens. You end up with computers which execute code without the user's consent or even knowledge, whether that code comes in on an email, through an auto-update feature, or as a hidden code on a CD.

    With an Open Source based system, hidden features are almost impossible. This results in a mentality among the developers of leaving the user in control. That's why Mozilla had pop-up blocking before IE. That's why, in its default configuration, Konqueror asks if you want to accept cookies from every website, whereas IE happily accepts them all unless you configure it not to. That's why by default Evolution does not execute attachments or load images (with potential web bugs) into an email when it views it. These factors together are why there aren't Linux viruses: executing code is under the user's control because nothing is hidden at any level.

    And I think that this is the underlying reason why countries such as Germany are adopting Linux as a desktop system. They can't really know whose interests Microsoft is aligned with, but they can take a good guess that MS' interests aren't solidly aligned with theirs, and they don't want to give up control in such a situation. Hence Linux. This is the biggest problem that closed source OS vendors must face, and there's no real answer to it other than to open the OS and application software.

    This post submitted from Konqueror, running on my Suse desktop system.

  71. Prosecute them for writing a Virus/Trojan horse by BigDish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lately people have been prosecuted for writing a virus, well, whoever wrote this needs to be prosecuted the same way.
    1. It is malicious (prevents you from copying the CD as you noramlly would be able to.
    2. It silently installs itself, masquarading as a
    standard Audio CD (I'm sorry, 5" music disc)

    How is that different than any other trojan horse?

    1. Re:Prosecute them for writing a Virus/Trojan horse by Xugumad · · Score: 1

      In particular, they're installing software I don't know what does, on my computer (beyond what they tell me it does). That means a complete re-install, to ensure the system maintains clean. That's non an inconsiderable amount of billable time.

      Seriously, I'm halfway through re-installing several Linux systems because some of the binary files don't match the MD5s of the RPMs they're installed from (and no, chkrootkit doesn't show anything, nor do the log files).

      If I actually used Windows for stuff, this would probably be re-install time...

  72. Do as I say, not as I do... by Hello+Spaceman · · Score: 2, Informative

    Does anyone else find it ironic that the inside flap of the album is halfway filled up with copyright notices for all the samples the Beastie Boys used to create this album...

    Would it have even been possible to make this album if the sources of those clips had been DRM restricted?

    also, did anyone else notice the outer sleeve of the album states: "Although this product is intended to play on most CD players and operates on most personal computers ... Capitol Records is not liable if it does not or if it damages any CD players, computers, peripherals, or data."

    And instead of calling itself a CD it has a logo that says "Enhanced CD", and it's noted that "'Enahanced CD' is a certification mark of the RIAA."

    1. Re:Do as I say, not as I do... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Informative
      Would it have even been possible to make this album if the sources of those clips had been DRM restricted?

      These days, the recording companies seem to have a special system in place to trade sample rights. The liner notes often say something like "sample licensed through so-and-so recording company special products division". I'm sure that if DRM was somehow preventing their sampling (although they would probably work around this by holding down the shift key like anyone else), they could arrange to get an official sample straight from the source.

      The ironic thing is that the Beastie Boys' early days, before court rulings that forced people to pay up, they did massive sampling without attributing the sources. I have their "Paul's Boutique" album from 1989 (A pretty good CD, IMO). I've seen a blurb somewhere that said that an album like this couldn't be made today, given that each track contains at least 2 or 3 recognizable samples. In fact, I'd say that the samples are so prominent, they are the main "musical instrument" on the record. Many of these weren't obscure samples either; I recognized some of the main "hooks" out of several top-40 hits. There are zero credits in the liner notes mentioning any of these samples.

      Compare this to The Verve, who tried to get away with only a slightly worse sample ripoff a decade later, and got their asses handed to them on a platter by the Rolling Stones' lawyers.

    2. Re:Do as I say, not as I do... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      in the eighties, Rap music nearly came to a complete stop because of the sudden amount of suing taking place over 3 seconds woth of stinking samples.
      Naturally, there wasn't a big fuss known to the public, because the record companies worked deals behind closed doors. Now the artists pay for those clips, so the industry has another way to get more money out of artists. It is apalling, but it won't stop until new artists relize what a piece of crap label contracts are and stop signing.
      That won't stop becasue the people urging them to sign contract often make more then the artist.

      It's like we need people to fing people who aren't discovered and give them a 1 day course how the record companies will screw them over.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Do as I say, not as I do... by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      will movie quotes be DRMed and (C) too?

      ie.

      "Make sure the juice is worth the squeeze!"

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    4. Re:Do as I say, not as I do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't the root issue- music available freely online- sort of negate the sample-clearance issue. If anything, P2P is ushering in a new era of hip hop, once novelties like the Grey Album inspire the right people in the right places.

      The Beastie Boys album sucks. This is about the only press it's been getting.

    5. Re:Do as I say, not as I do... by babbage · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have their "Paul's Boutique" album from 1989 (A pretty good CD, IMO). I've seen a blurb somewhere that said that an album like this couldn't be made today, given that each track contains at least 2 or 3 recognizable samples. In fact, I'd say that the samples are so prominent, they are the main "musical instrument" on the record.

      Well, yeah. It's not such a stretch to assume that that was the whole point back then. If you listen to an album like "License to Ill" , it's like a scavenger hunt to track down where all the samples came from. Hey, it's the drums from Led Zeppelin's "When The Levee Breaks"; hey, it's a Beatles riff; hey, it's that guy from "Good Times", etc.

      And the same thing was true for other rappers in the eighties. If you listen to an old Public Enemy or Run-DMC album, they also were chock full of recognizeable riffs.

      When I was a kid, this whole sampling business bugged the hell out of me -- how can they call it music when all they're doing is re-arranging the rock music I liked? It took me a while to come around and realize that they were making something new out of older things, just as the rock bands I liked were doing in more indirect ways (Led Zeppelin ripped off Robert Johnson & made heavy metal, while Robert Johnson ripped old black folk music and made the blues); it took me longer still to realize that all this sampling business is really very postmodern and therefore enjoyable in the same way that I enjoy blazingly referential Tarantino movies, retro-futuristic product design like the new Mini Cooper, the scattershot eclecticism of a computer language like Perl, or yes the rap of a Run-DMC or Public Enemy. All of these borrow heavily from that which came before them, but they make something somehow original out of the pieces, so the at-first obvious familiarity is actually distracting you from how brilliant & new this really is. You *think* you've seen this before, but once you get your head around it, you realize that it really is a whole new thing. Clever trick, that.

      But I digress.

      Back in the early 90s, Rolling Stone magazine had a constant series of articles about sampling, which really came to a head with Vanilla Ice's butchery of David Bowie & Queen's "Under Pressure" with his "Ice, Ice, Baby", which preserved not only a several second long sample, but the whole song had the same basic melodical feel as the original. Vanilla Ice and his record label got in a lot of trouble for that (I forget if they lost the lawsuit per se, but they were forced to change their tactics). Meanwhile, you had people like Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg raiding everything they could find in James Brown's back catalog, turning all his old funk & soul hits into, basically, the exact same songs, but with more drugs & prostitution. James Brown was somewhat less than flattered.

      As a result, as you say, the labels were forced to start doing more bookkeeping for the sampling done by their artists. That wasn't to say that sampling ended -- bands like Massive Attack & Portishead put out fantastic late-90s albums with lots of recognizable samples -- but somewhere in the fine print had to be some kind of legal acknowledgement that old material was being used, and if recognizeable snippets of more than a couple of seconds were being used (that is, if they were going beyond simple fair use citations of the original material), they had to get permission from the original artists.

      In recent years, the only time bands have really run into trouble are ones that made the mistake that Vanilla Ice made, where not only the sample but the whole song seems like a simple remake of the original song. So for example, on "When The Levee Breaks", Led Zeppelin started the song with these massive, booming drums for a few bars before bringing in the guitars & other instruments, while the Beastie Boys took that drum loop and used it as the foundation for "Rhymin' And Stealin'" -- which sounds almost nothing like

    6. Re:Do as I say, not as I do... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Capitol Records is not liable if it does not or if it damages any CD players, computers, peripherals, or data.

      Is this safe, or legal? I'm sure it's not legal to disclaim liability for damage caused by typical usage. And they make it quite clear that playing it on a computer is an expected way of using it.

      It looks like they may be proving liability by disclaiming it.

    7. Re:Do as I say, not as I do... by Teach · · Score: 1

      But then, Kenny G is a no-talent ass-clown...

      Actually, it's Michael Bolton who is the no-talent ass-clown, but then that's nitpicking, isn't it?

      Well, on second thought, they're both no-talent ass-clowns. Sorry to interrupt.

      --
      Graham "Teach" Mitchell, computer science teacher, Leander HS
    8. Re:Do as I say, not as I do... by Nalgas+D.+Lemur · · Score: 1

      Getting even more offtopic, I can think of a "sample" from Hello Nasty that I did immediately recognize, but most people probably wouldn't. I think it was in Intergalactic that they used part of someone or other's recording/interpretation of Rachmaninoff's Prelude in C# Minor. I think the only reason I noticed was that I've been playing classical piano on and off for the past 20 years or so, and right when the song came out, I was learning to play that piece.

      In this case, they actually borrowed something that's been out of copyright for a long time. I don't know exactly when the original piece is from, but I've heard a player-piano roll of it recorded by Rachmaninoff himself in the early 1900s, so it was definitely a while ago. Considering it's probably around 100 years old, and the composer himself has been decomposing for a little over 60 years, that's one piece of musical borrowing I don't see them getting sued for any time soon.

  73. How do I show my rage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I want to show my rage and boycott this CD. Problem is, the Beastie Boys are a shallow, washed-up mockery of what they used to be and I wasn't going to buy this piece of crap anyway. What do I do?

  74. Still boycotting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Recording Industry's attitude towards me as a consumer of CD's is exactly why I started boycotting the purchase of cds.

  75. Thanks Bill Clinton! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for bringing us that great legislation DMCA!

    1. Re:Thanks Bill Clinton! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Did he stick his salami in Monicas mouth, in the Whitehouse?

      Pfft.

  76. Instead of the usual anti-MS comment... by XryanX · · Score: 1

    I'll just point out that this is just another reason to buy vinyl. You can always rip it back onto your computer, iPod, etc.

  77. Autoplay and AutoRUN are different. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's different. There's Autoplay and Autorun.

    Autoplay (which you are talking about) just tells Windows what to do when you insert a disc containing certain types of content (images, audio, etc.). It won't start an installer or do anything bad. It can be configured or turned off when inserting one of these discs or through the properties for the drive. It can also be setup separately for removable media (such as USB drives and cameras).

    Autorun can be used to launch any program/command, and can be used to start installers on the CD or programs on your computer, which is why most commercial software and games will pop up a window with options when you insert the disc. Leaving this on will leave you at the mercy of the people who made the CD. It can be turned off like the GP poster explained, or temporarily disabled by holding SHIFT when inserting the disc.

    Autoplay is actually kind of cool, but unfortunately it requires Autorun being enabled. I can live without it though.

  78. jeez, this is worrying by the_unknown_soldier · · Score: 0

    Lucky i torrent all my music or i would be really worried about this stuff

  79. punishment by dmitrygr · · Score: 1

    Well slashdotting seems like a fit punishment, don't you think?

    --
    -------
    1. Enjoy your job
    2. Make lots of money
    3. Work within the law

    Choose any two.
  80. There is autorun on Mac OS by amake · · Score: 1

    This is the first I've heard of copy protection being installed through autorun on Mac OS, but yes, there is autorun. In fact there was a worm that spread this way a couple years back.

    You can disable it in QuickTime preferences on both OS X and OS 9. That's one of the first things I do on any new system.

    1. Re:There is autorun on Mac OS by vajonez · · Score: 1

      Care to be more specific? I can find no such option in the QuickTime preferences for 6.5.1 on OS X 10.3.4.

    2. Re:There is autorun on Mac OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's now in Hardware Category of System Prefs. "CDs & DVDs" Icon.

    3. Re:There is autorun on Mac OS by illumin8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's now in Hardware Category of System Prefs. "CDs & DVDs" Icon.

      So, by default, when I insert an audio CD, my PowerBook is set to launch iTunes. Is there some type of exploit or buffer overrun that is hijacking iTunes and telling it to install malware? I don't see how this is possible. iTunes will just read the audio data from the CD, as far as I know.

      Could you please provide more information? Thanks.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    4. Re:There is autorun on Mac OS by mj_1903 · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is no autorun similar to the Windows variant that automatically starts an exe up. There is only 'autorun' for Audio CD's, DVD's and camera's, etc, media that cannot do any damage to the machine.

    5. Re:There is autorun on Mac OS by Graff · · Score: 4, Informative
      This is the first I've heard of copy protection being installed through autorun on Mac OS, but yes, there is autorun. In fact there was a worm that spread this way a couple years back.

      There is no autorun feature under Mac OS X 10.3 and I'm pretty sure it wasn't in 10.2 either. There is an autorun in Mac OS 9 and I believe there was one in versions of Mac OS X previous to 10.2

      The only thing in Mac OS X which is similar to autorun is that you can set certain actions to happen when you put a CD or DVD in the drive. The default is for a blank CD or DVD to ask you what to do, for a music CD to open iTunes, a photo CD to open iPhoto and a video DVD to open DVD Player. All other CDs or DVDs will be just be mounted in the Finder if they contain a filesystem readable by Mac OS X.

      None of these default actions will cause anything else to be run or anything to be installed on your computer. If you want you can change the default actions to run another application, to run a script, or to be ignored.
    6. Re:There is autorun on Mac OS by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 1

      Not true, as there have even been instances of AutoRun worms on MacOS. MacAddict apologized quite a bit for that one...

      --
      ± 29 dB
  81. I was going to buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I think Ill just download it instead. Fuck you RIAA and fuck you crappy copy protection.

  82. Will this become illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does this relate to the earlier story today: U.S. To Impose Spyware Control Laws It seems like DRM could easily be considered "malware".

  83. Thanks George W Bush! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For making Clinton seem like a nun in comparison.

  84. Buying CDs by $beirdo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wow - I'm *really* not going to be buying any more CDs anytime soon, then. Way to go EMI, gutting your own business and all!

  85. PLEASE mod parent up. Funny Stuff by vandan · · Score: 1

    Good stuff man.
    You should post it to the forums on the band's website ... when the DOS attack is over, that is :)

  86. I Copied my USA Version by MercenarySG · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I bought it at the local BB, ripped it to my harddrive, and make a copy of the cd off the mp3s onto a cd. Nothing stopped me. The CD works just fine.

    Also-- Anyone else notice the new FBI warning about piracy on the back of the case? Funny.

    --
    ----- Doublethink ... you know it makes snese.
  87. Any bet on OS X? by Thaidog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I bet it does not install on os x or linux...

    --

    ||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.

    1. Re:Any bet on OS X? by Trillan · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know. There used to be an autorun on the Mac, but I think it was never ported to OS X.

  88. Thanks Ralph Nader! by lnX.Kid · · Score: 1

    Couldn't resist....

    --
    A tip: save Eva's pita.
  89. see this is what happens by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    when boys who where rebels become middle aged...

    Beastie boys my ass

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:see this is what happens by b-boy_adrock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      someone modded this to insightful? wtf. I guess if I say, "they suck - they used to be punk rockers and now they're greedy thirtysomethings", I'm insightful now, too?

    2. Re:see this is what happens by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Insightful? no, funny? Yes!

      see, there not really boys, they use it as a way to get young buyers that think they can 'relate'. truth of the matter is, they say the things that apply to every generation of youth.

      They were rockers, then that didn't work out, so they became rap artist.
      I like them, but I haven't heard there new CD yet, so I have no real comment on the quality of there new tunes.

      all that said, and it still wasn't insightfull!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:see this is what happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      what are they supposed to do, change their name to Beastie Men?

      You fucktard. Three moderators are too.

  90. What a bunch of sheep by hookooekoo · · Score: 0

    Just cause one dude says it? it is true? Do you really think the beastie boys would endorse something like this? All this flaming and no proof.

  91. Good to know except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who likes "Ch-check it out" deserves malware

  92. The protection is on the Canadian version by DaveCBio · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And it won't play on my car CD player. So, it's going back to Futureshop and I am going to demand my money back.

    1. Re:The protection is on the Canadian version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is FutureShop's return policy for CDs purchased in store:
      Due to copyright laws, computer and game console software, music CDs, DVDs and videos in opened packages may only be exchanged for the same item. Terms and conditions are subject to change without notice. All transactions, including price protection, require your original Future Shop sales receipt or electronic invoice (obtainable anytime from "my orders") for online orders.
      Well, ain't that a kick in the teeth? So are you going to demand your money back or make them waste their time following store policy until they realize that *all* their stock is defective?

    2. Re:The protection is on the Canadian version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How'd that returning work out?

  93. Dirty pigs by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    What pisses me off more than anything is the way they manage to play it so that most people won't know that theres anything different. Everyone who buys this should at the very least be clearly told what they are buying and not some sugar coated version of the truth. Its just really sneaky and weasly.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  94. What crud. by Drache+Kubisuro · · Score: 1

    little boys with dangerous toys
    all bow down to the beastie boys
    and freedom of speech won't feed my children
    just brings heart disease and bootleg clothing
    just brings heart disease and bootleg clothing

    -Nicky Wire of Manic Street Preachers.

    --
    -Drache Kubisuro
  95. Oh, except on music CD's by Jadecristal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From Microsoft's description:

    Turns off the Autoplay feature.

    Autoplay begins reading from a drive as soon as you insert media in the drive. As a result, the setup file of programs and the music on audio media start immediately.

    By default, Autoplay is disabled on removable drives, such as the floppy disk drive (but not the CD-ROM drive), and on network drives.

    If you enable this setting, you can also disable Autoplay on CD-ROM drives or disable Autoplay on all drives.

    This setting disables Autoplay on additional types of drives. You cannot use this setting to enable Autoplay on drives on which it is disabled by default.

    Note: This setting appears in both the Computer Configuration and User Configuration folders. If the settings conflict, the setting in Computer Configuration takes precedence over the setting in User Configuration.

    Note: This setting does not prevent Autoplay for music CDs.

    1. Re:Oh, except on music CD's by Echnin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But since it's an executable installer, doesn't that mean the CD is a Data/Audio hybrid CD? Many CDs have extras and stuff, and I remember many old games used CD audio and could be played in a regular CD player. So I'd have to think that this counts as a data CD.

      --
      Lalala
    2. Re:Oh, except on music CD's by Wiseleo · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Won't the CDs with autorun malware be treated as data CDs anyway? The autoplay on music CDs would mean that the default music player will still start.

      Should work just fine.

      --
      Leonid S. Knyshov
      Find me on Quora :)
    3. Re:Oh, except on music CD's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dick Dale's music for the short lived game Rocket Jockey was a great example of this. I don't play the game that much anymore, but I copied the songs and I have them in my car right now. It's basically a full album.

  96. What are the independent MP3 download sites? by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

    The SuperDrive on my PowerBook couldn't handle the copy protection on a CD I bought a while back, so I simply stopped buying CD's because I use my computer as my stereo, and some stores don't take returns. I have an iPod too. If it won't go on my iPod, I don't want it. I didn't have a problem with buying CD's before. I used to buy tons of them. I'd even buy a whole album just for one song, rather than just getting a single. I'm the kind of customer they are alienating. I've decided to just boycott buying music because of this. There's always radio anyway, internet or free-to-air.

    What I'd like to see are stores that specifically sell CD's without this kind of crap. These "copy protection" labels are usually hidden very obscurely in the fine print. I'd like to see CD's with huge "NO COPY PROTECTION" labels on them that you could see from across the music store. And I'd like online MP3 download music services for independent music getting together. I can't access the iTunes Music Store. It is taking too slow to get to different countries, and they sell music from the record companies I want to boycott anyway.

    Here are a list of the MP3 sites I've come up with. If other people know of other sites, please post them. And if I'm mistaken about any on this list, please say so.

  97. Copy Prevention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there any better way to ensure that your music will get illegally copied than to put some silent auto-installing crap on the CD. This is just going to encourage people from p-to-p it from a friend rather than put up with this.

  98. glad I run linux.. by joeldg · · Score: 1

    used to like the BB..
    now they can suck... well..

    later 'BOYS'

  99. Heh, Naive slashdotters.... by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're entertainers. Revolution was never their intent. MONEY is their intent. All rock bands want to get rich and famous once they get signed. If they can flaunt their politics and change the world along the way, hey, that's cool. But those checks had better keep coming. Anyone that thinks that this isn't the aim of almost all bands from the start are fools. And please, use John Lennon as an example. Paul McCartney has said that during songwriting, Lennon would say things like "Cool, I've got a boat, now let's write a Pool" when penning new songs.

    There's no such thing as a band "selling out". That's naive bullshit. They're an entertainment act, created to make lots of money. Period. They preach the revolution, because they know you guys will pony up your cash and buy into it. It sells records.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Heh, Naive slashdotters.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. And sadly cynical bullshit at that.

    2. Re:Heh, Naive slashdotters.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well now I've got some
      A-dvice for you, little buddy.
      Before you point the finger
      You should know that
      I'm the man,

      And if I'm the man,

      Then you're the man, and
      He's the man as well so you can
      Point that fuckin' finger up your ass.

      All you know about me is what I've sold you,
      Dumb fuck.
      I sold out long before you ever heard my name.

      I sold my soul to make a record,
      Dip shit,
      And you bought one.

      Tool, Hooker With a Penis (Maynard James Keenan)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Heh, Naive slashdotters.... by Christ-on-a-bike · · Score: 3, Insightful
      They preach the revolution, because they know you guys will pony up your cash

      I think that's a bit of a stretch. Just because Lennon wanted to make money didn't mean he cynically told people what they wanted to hear. Just as a surgeon may make wads of cash and yet earnestly believe that he does as much as he can for his patients.

      Not all artists lack integrity. I think the Beasties are one of the better groups in this regard.

    4. Re:Heh, Naive slashdotters.... by fdiskne1 · · Score: 1
      Okay, so it's not Beastie Boys, but it spells it out better than any song I know of: (Sorry, can't get the double-line breaks out of this.)

      Cake - Rock 'N' Roll Lifestyle

      Well, your CD collection looks shiny and costly

      How much did you pay for your bad Mato Guzzi?

      And how much did you spend on your black leather Jacket?

      Is it you or you parents in this income tax bracket?

      Now tickets to concerts, and drinking at clubs, Sometimes for music that you haven't even heard of

      And how much did you pay for your rock and roll T-shrit, That proves you were there, that you heard of them first?

      Now, how do you afford your rock 'n' roll lifestyle? How do you afford your rock 'n' roll lifestyle? How do you afford your rock 'n' roll lifestyle? Oh, tell me. Oh yeah, alright. Alright. ah yeah, alright oh.

      How much did you pay for the chunk of his guitar, The one he ruthlessly smashed at the end of the show?

      And how much will he pay for a brand new guitar, One he'll ruthlessly smash at the end of another show?

      And how long will the workers keep building him new ones? As long as their soda cans are red, white, and blue ones.

      And how long will the workers keep building him new ones? As long as their soda cans are red, white, and blue ones.

      Yeah, aw, yeah, aw, yeah, all-right! Huh, oh haw how huh

      Aging black leather - And hospital bills - And tattoo removal - And dozens of pills

      Your liver pays dearly now - For youthfull magic moments - But rock on completely - With some brand new components

      Now, how do you afford you rock 'n' roll lifestyle? How do you afford your rock 'n' roll lifestyle? How do you afford your rock 'n' roll lifestyle? All-right, aw yeah. So good. Oh baby.

      Excess ain't rebellion (How do you afford your rock 'n' roll lifestyle?)

      You drinking what they're selling (How do you afford your rock 'n' roll lifestyle?)

      Your self destruction doesn't hurt them (How do you afford your rock 'n' roll lifestyle?)

      Your chaos won't convert them (How do you afford your rock 'n' roll lifestyle?)

      They're so happy to rebuild it (How do you afford your rock 'n' roll lifestyle?)

      You'll never really kill it (How do you afford your rock 'n' roll lifestyle?)

      Aw, yeah... (How do you afford your rock 'n' roll lifestyle?)

      Excess ain't rebellion (How do you afford your rock 'n' roll lifestyle?)

      You drinking what they're selling (How do you afford your rock 'n' roll lifestyle?)

      Ooh, Excess ain't rebellion, ah (How do you afford your rock 'n' roll lifestyle?)

      You drinking, you drinking, aw yeah (How do you afford your rock 'n' roll lifestyle?)

      You drinking what they're selling Oh, yeah. All-right, Oh Yeah

      All........right!

      --
      But why is the rum gone?
  100. Excuse Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its my RIGHT to be entitled to works that people pour hard hours over with no restriction so I can have the ability to exert my RIGHT to make unlimited bootleg copies of.

    if the beastie boys cannot heed to my wishes, then they should be forced by the government to stop trampling all over my rights. its criminal!

  101. Very true by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And this highlights the major flaw behind the "This doesn't happen on MY platform," argument. If you are advocating that Windows sucks because it has the most viruses, or spyware, etc and people should therefore switch to your platform (Mac, Linux, whatever) since it does not, you are misunderstanding cause and effect.

    The reason that people target Windows is because it is, BY FAR, the largest consumer OS. Well over 90% of desktops run it. Thus if you want the widest distribution of something, be it software or malware, Windows is your target. However, should another platform raise to dominance, or even just large enough to make it make sense, you'll see it targeted as well.

    An excellent example of this in action is website malware. Some sites you browse to try and install some crappy software on your computer, usually spyware but sometimes worse. Now for a good while, this was an IE only problem. It was all ActiveX apps, so only IE users were ever prompted to install.

    However Mozilla/Firefox are getting to be quite popular these days. The number of converts I know continues to grow, and it's not just the tech savvy crowd either; I know plenty of non-savvy users who are now non-IE.

    Well, the malware writers have responded to the trend, and now many sites attempt to throw an XPI at you if you are on Mozilla/Firefox, as well as the ActiveX control for IE. The market is now big enough (and the additonal work minimal enough) to warrant doing this.

    So, if one of the main reasons you like Linux, OS-X, or any other non-Windows platform is that it remains below the radar of most virus writers, spyware authors, and so on then I suggest you work to KEEP it that way and DON'T advocate it. You don't want it becomming big because, if it does, you'd have to abandon it for another platform.

    If you do want Linux/Mac growing to dominance, that's great, but then don't try to argue benefits gained form obscurity. If Linux becomes dominant then most apps will be written for it. This includes legitimate software, and malware alike. Both kinds of authors will target what is the most popular and espically in the case of malware, where the most clueless users reside.

    1. Re:Very true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Repeat after me:

      Unix users don't run root.

      Unix users don't run root.

      Unix users don't run root.....

    2. Re:Very true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you are advocating that Windows sucks because it has the most viruses, or spyware, etc and people should therefore switch to your platform (Mac, Linux, whatever) since it does not, you are misunderstanding cause and effect.

      (sigh...) Even if OS X was as popular as Windows, this wouldn't happen because OS X doesn't allow autorun. Thanks for the regurgitated argument, but sorry, it doesn't apply.

    3. Re:Very true by sakusha · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh, ferchrissake, stop spouting that old FUD about how Windoze market dominance means it's the preferred target for viruses, and if Mac had a 90% share, it would be targeted too. It's just not true.

    4. Re:Very true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares about what might happen in the future? TODAY, RIGHT NOW, I don't get viruses on my Macs, or my Linux boxes, or my FreeBSD boxes. Sure, 5 years from now when more people have powerbooks, things might change, but who cares??

      This argument may technically be "correct" but come on, the simple pragmatic fact is that if you get a Mac, you won't get any Windows viruses. Case closed.

      Here's another version of the same argument:

      A: "Dude, why do wear a condom when you have sex with hookers?"

      B: "Well, I don't want to get AIDS or some other common STD."

      A: "Yeah, you're smug now, but wait until AIDS mutates so it goes right through that condom. If everybody wears condoms, AIDS will evolve to survive!"

      B: "Uhm, okay, but if I wear a condom I probably won't get AIDS."

      A: "Elitist bastard! You think just because you wear a condom you're so cool! I bet you're a MAC USER!"

      B: "Actually, I am. By the way, you sent me a copy of MyDoom this morning, better check your PC for viruses."

    5. Re:Very true by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It may not be completely accurate, but it is a factor.
      Other factors include such things as the TYPE of person using the platform in question. While this is purely anectedotal, Most of the Mac users I run into have one of several attitudes that make them less likely to be virus writers. Many are proffessional/serious hobbiest audio/visual people and preffer to spend thier time on that. Most Mac owners are very pro Apple and Evangelize the apple heavilly, writing Mac viruses would counter productive.
      Another is the anger issue. I would wager comparatively few Mac users hate apple compared to the number who hate Microsoft.
      And Finally there is inherent differences in the platforms themselves. Windows security model and codebase seems very exploit friendly to my mind, and with OSX being bsd at the core is most likely less malware friendly (I couldn't comment on previous mac os's, but bsd seems to be widly held as doing well in this regard).
      And I'd like to point out at least one flaw in the site you linked to. It pointed out some windows exploits target as small or smaller a subsegment of windows users as the macs overal market segment. This completely misses the fact all the toolkits virus writers have developed for windows sofar (A great many) are much more easily adapted to target a single windows application than they are to port to a mac, where so much is different right down to processor.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    6. Re:Very true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you really want to believe it's not true.

      Anyway, please explain how Classic MacOS had like 2 viruses in 10 years despite having zero security features. Lack of popularity and lack of developers , end of story.

    7. Re:Very true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This completely misses the fact all the toolkits virus writers have developed for windows sofar (A great many) are much more easily adapted to target a single windows application than they are to port to a mac

      It also probably has a lot to due with "target demographics" -- Who is more likely to come into your #l33thaX0r IRC channel -- someone running BlackIce Firewall or someone running a Mac?

    8. Re:Very true by LighthouseJ · · Score: 1

      Informative, my ass. He's saying of OS X and Windows switched places, there would be just as much malware, spyware, viruses and the like. Sure, they might not use Autorun, but they'd get in. Only a fool would think they are 100% secure. Just goes to add another one up to the mindless "Steve Jobs is God" zombie scoreboard. I agree with what the grandparent said, all OS's have problems, it's just Windows problems are magnified by the media (read: slashdot in this case).

    9. Re:Very true by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Yeah no kidding, that would fall under social factors IMHO. LOTS of malware depend on social engineering as much as code skills.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    10. Re:Very true by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " Windows security model and codebase seems very exploit friendly to my mind,"
      and THIS is why so many virus are on windows, it has nothing to do with its market base.

      Consider this:
      Linux is on a hell of a lot of servers. The group that writes a virus to bounce amongest those servers would be top of the virus writers pile. It would be a huge feather in there cap, and they would get bragging writes up the wazoo. you get my point.

      But, oddly enough, when was the last time you heard a company have to shut down there linux servers becasue of a virus?

      if Someone wrote an actual in the wild virus for the Mac, thye would also get huge bragging writes. Plus they could through it in the face of those uppity Mac owners.
      Much better then beine yet another virus writer amingest a whole crowd of people who write viruses for windows.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Very true by TakenName · · Score: 1

      But there is some truth to the idea that macs have less viruses. I have been an OSX user since it came out and I have never had difficulty with viruses or spyware. Now I take all the normal precautions anyone should, but being able to go into the BSD subsystems and check on all the running processes once in a while is certainly a source of piece of mind. It's a well known fact in biology that larger populations can more easily harbour disease than small populations, it seems the same is true for computers.

    12. Re:Very true by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Popularity is a factor, but it's far from the only one. FreeBSD isn't very popular, but it is still essentially a UNIX. UNIX based systems include some very high profile targets, like banks and mega-corporations. Even if there are a lot fewer script kiddees trying to target FreeBSD, there are some very skilled pros trying to steal literally millions of dollars via UNIX exploits. Yet somehow there aren't nearly as many exploits out there.
      If popularity is behind Microsoft's history of vulnerability, then there aren't any black hats above the level of the ones who brag to their friends about their L33T'ness and do lame ass social engineering exploits.
      All this speculation about really malicious viruses, designed to cause billions in damage and act as weapons in unconventional warfare, all the stories of black hats professional not to brag to their high school friends, and of ones in it for serious money are just hot air. There will never be a Warhol worm, a terrorist cell committing a computer crime, or any retired black hats owning their own tropical islands. It's all just pimply faced nerds driven by the desire to kill some time picking on the most popular OS while they wait for their photoshopped images of Natalie Portman's head on someone else's body to download.
      Or, just maybe, there are some real badasses out there, but UNIX's security model is actually better than Windows.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    13. Re:Very true by nathanh · · Score: 1
      The reason that people target Windows is because it is, BY FAR, the largest consumer OS.

      Nonsense. The reason*s* why Windows has more malware and viruses include:

      • Many Windows users run as the Administrator, or as a user with Administrator privileges.
      • Windows starts many services by default and they often have remote exploits.
      • "Bundled" Windows applications (Outlook and Internet Explorer) are riddled with holes.
      • Microsoft's applications have been "designed" so that trivial exploits can escalate into serious intrusions or system takeovers. There is no real attempt at privilege separation, privilege limits or other sensible precautions.
      • Microsoft makes little or no effort to educate their users or provide tools to mitigate the problem (there still isn't a Microsoft virus scanner, or a third party virus scanner bundled with Windows by default).
      • Microsoft has a poor history of responding to problems and/or releasing timely patches. Just look at the number of security firms that have to disclose a remote exploit to the public, citing inactivity from Microsoft as their motivation for disclosure.

      Microsoft's marketshare is but one factor of many. You reductionists need to take off your blinkers and look at the big picture.

    14. Re:Very true by EvanED · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Other factors include such things as the TYPE of person using the platform in question. While this is purely anectedotal, Most of the Mac users I run into have one of several attitudes that make them less likely to be virus writers. Many are proffessional/serious hobbiest audio/visual people and preffer to spend thier time on that. Most Mac owners are very pro Apple and Evangelize the apple heavilly, writing Mac viruses would counter productive.

      This goes hand-in-hand with the market share argument; with the bigger market share would come typical users.

      Another is the anger issue. I would wager comparatively few Mac users hate apple compared to the number who hate Microsoft.

      I doubt many people release viruses because they don't like MS; It just doesn't make much sense. Punish the users, many of whom don't know any better? It's at best a very, very indirect means to an end.

      And Finally there is inherent differences in the platforms themselves. Windows security model and codebase seems very exploit friendly to my mind, and with OSX being bsd at the core is most likely less malware friendly (I couldn't comment on previous mac os's, but bsd seems to be widly held as doing well in this regard).

      While I'm sure that there is quite a bit of improvement room in the Windows codebase, I have a feeling that a lot of people here overestimate the security of *nix when put into the hands of Joe User. "Don't run as root" (or administrator when Windows is the subject) people scream. But really, I suspect you'd see most people running as root anyway.

      I run FreeBSD, read /. regularily, am aware of the problems of running as root, and still usually have a virtual terminal open as root. I run almost all normal apps as a normal user, and rarely go into X as root, but a simple alt-ctrl-f1 then alt-f1/2 by someone who comes up to my computer would get them a root prompt. I don't really worry about this because I am either living at home (when really only family is around and they have better things to do than try to hack me) or in a dorm (in which case either I'm there or no one is).

      (Why do I have root open? I need to use it a somewhat fair amount; install this program, give read permissions for this device I just discovered I have a use for, load the NVidia module that I still haven't gotten around to making load automatically because there's only motivation to do so when I boot the computer, which is not that often...)

    15. Re:Very true by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Again, saying it has NOTHING to do with market base is an exageration at least. To many obvious reasons why, the biggest being the simple fact that many virus writers are after attention, and alot are young relatively speaking so they go after the biggest group per virus, namely windows users.
      And while linux/bsd is on alot of servers, sadly so is windows. Compare all the windows servers + all the home windows systems + all the other windows systems (school and office and bussines). Now add up all the linux + bsd + Mac systems. HUGE disparity here.
      Plus consider, how many off the kids doing this are run into people who know someone who got hit by a linux virus vs a windows virus if they wrote both.
      And writing a Mac virus would only be good for laughs amoung the young braggart type virus writers. Think of how the typical <20 year old 1337 windows 'hacker' (aka script kiddie) react to Macs and thier users, thier friends tend to react the same way. I've run into a fair number of kids with this mentality on IRC back when I spent alot of time there. The majority had rather disparaging remarks about the assumed sexuality and intelectual capabilities of mac users. Remember alot of these viruses are writen by such immature people.
      You could make an argument that this a social phenomenon and not a market share one, but really the phenomenon is in part related to the 'rebel just like everyone else' mindset that many teenagers adopt as they try to both find thier own individuality as well as 'fit in' with society or some subset thereof.
      Bragging rights is about how many systems and how big news splash it made. Companies don't like to disclose publicly when thier systems are compromised because it's bad publicity. But when a new windows virus goes around and hits lots of home users, THAT makes the news.
      I have no issue with the thesis that windows exploitability is a major factor in the spread of virus on said. Or that it's in part the major target because it's just easy enough for many to do and just obscure enough (coding is an obscure art to most) to make it an easy "I'm Cool" trick.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    16. Re:Very true by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Oh, ferchrissake, stop spouting that old FUD about how Windoze market dominance means it's the preferred target for viruses, and if Mac had a 90% share, it would be targeted too. It's just not true."

      Right, and you know because Mac has 90% marketshare, right?

      The fact is, we don't know *how many* bugs and flaws OS X has, and until it has the fabled 90% market share, it will not be targeted.

      There are PLENTY of security flaws in Mac OS and Linux. Remember the SSH remote root compromise? Remember the kernel releases that allowed privelage elevation? Remember the whole URL-handler flaw?

      There are probably millions of Macs out there that are STILL veulnerable to the URL flaw. Why haven't they been attacked? It's not because they couldn't be, it's because it's simply better business to write spyware for Windows.

      The linked article gives counterexamples. It does not, however, make any compelling argument against the FACT that Windows is run on more desktops than any other OS. If you're going to write crap, who do you target, 92% or 4%?

      Don't feed me this shit about how wrong I am in believing that the security of Mac OS X has yet to be tested. There have been flaws in Mac OS X, big ones. They have been patched, just like the Windows flaws. Millions of users are likely still running unpatched software.

      The difference is that the exploits simply are not there for Mac OS. And, no, an exploit of the Microsoft type doesn't require root access.

      You have no direct evidence to support your position, as I have no direct evidence to support mine. The jury is still out. Until Windows is no longer the dominant platform, any conclusion is just conjecture.

      Don't pretend that it's not.

    17. Re:Very true by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      "I doubt many people release viruses because they don't like MS; It just doesn't make much sense. Punish the users, many of whom don't know any better? It's at best a very, very indirect means to an end."

      My only problem with this is the assumption of good reasoning on the virus writers part.
      Just look around here and see how many people have fun bashing microsoft, how many say 'stop using windblow$ and you won't have that problem' and simular 'use windows and you get what you deserve' attitude.
      It's like how some think that because they dissagree with a government they should blow up it's citizens to stop said government. And these are adults with this thinking, not 15 year old script kiddies.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    18. Re:Very true by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      Oh, ferchrissake, stop spouting that old FUD about how Windoze market dominance means it's the preferred target for viruses, and if Mac had a 90% share, it would be targeted too. It's just not true.

      Do you seriously believe that if the Mac had 90% market share it would not be targetted by malware authors?

      What planet are you on?? That's like saying if 8 track tapes had the market share that CD's have, they would not be pirated.

      How you can also come to the conclusion that it's "FUD" that Windows is targeted because of how widespread it is is also beyond me. You see - the people who write this crap do so for MONEY. They way you make MONEY with spyware / zombie spam relays et al is by hitting as MANY targets as possible, as there will always be a percentage of people who dont patch their systems, don't run anti virus or will install literally ANYTHING when prompted and you want to hit them. At the moment if you want to make money in this way you hit the millions and millions of Windows systems. If the Mac had the market share Windows has right now, you would see lots of attempts to target malware at it. If there is money to be made, they will come.

    19. Re:Very true by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      Linux is on a hell of a lot of servers. The group that writes a virus to bounce amongest those servers would be top of the virus writers pile. It would be a huge feather in there cap, and they would get bragging writes up the wazoo. you get my point.

      But, oddly enough, when was the last time you heard a company have to shut down there linux servers becasue of a virus?


      Not the point. Those Linux servers don't have a novice computer user sitting at them browsing the web clicking "yes" whenever something tries to install or reading email on them.

      Malware writers will always take the easiest route to cash, meaning they will hit the weakest link in the chain. The weakest link in any computer system is the novice user. You can have the most secure operating system in the world with perfect code and no exploits. I guarantee you that there are users out there that if a box popped up on their screen and said "Would you like to wipe all your files?" would click "Yes". The majority of users are stupid. Every admin knows this.

    20. Re:Very true by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      Anyway, please explain how Classic MacOS had like 2 viruses in 10 years despite having zero security features. Lack of popularity and lack of developers , end of story.

      Someone has trouble counting to 2:

      AutoStart 9805 666 / Flag / MacOS/Simpsons@MM / W32/Bugbear@MM / MacOS/MBDF / MacOS/nVIR / MacOS/Peace / MacOS/MDEF / MacOS/NVP / MacOS/INIT-M / MacOS/WDEF / MacOS/ZUC / MacOS/SevenDust / MacOS/ANTI / MacOS/CDEF / MacOS/Flag / MacOS/Frankie / MacOS/Amphimix / Mac/Simpsons@MM / Mac/AutoStart.worm.g / Mac/AutoStart.worm.f / Mac/AutoStart.worm.e / Mac/AutoStart.worm.d / Mac/AutoStart.worm.c / Mac/AutoStart.worm.b / Mac/AutoStart.worm.a / MacOS/ZUC.c / MacOS/ZUC.b / MacOS/ZUC.a / MacOS/WDEF.b / MacOS/WDEF.a / MacOS/SysX / MacOS/SevenDust.gen / MacOS/SevenDust.d / MacOS/SevenDust.c / MacOS/SevenDust.b / MacOS/SevenDust.a / MacOS/nVIR.dam / MacOS/nVIR.c.dam / MacOS/nVIR.a.dam / MacOS/nVIR.gen / MacOS/nVIR.c / MacOS/nVIR.a / MacOS/MDEF.d / MacOS/MDEF.gen / MacOS/MBDF.b / MacOS/MBDF.a / MacOS/CDEF.b / MacOS/CDEF.a / MacOS/SevenDust.e / MacOS/ANTI.b / MacOS/ANTI.a / MacOS/AutoStart.worm.g / MacOS/AutoStart.worm.f / MacOS/AutoStart.worm.e / MacOS/AutoStart.worm.d / MacOS/AutoStart.worm.c / MacOS/AutoStart.worm.b / MacOS/AutoStart.worm.a / MacOS/AutoStart.worm.h / MacOS/SevenDust.j / MacOS/SevenDust.dr / MacOS/ChinaTalk

      And the reason there were not more is MARKETSHARE.

    21. Re:Very true by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      UNIX based systems include some very high profile targets, like banks and mega-corporations. Even if there are a lot fewer script kiddees trying to target FreeBSD, there are some very skilled pros trying to steal literally millions of dollars via UNIX exploits. Yet somehow there aren't nearly as many exploits out there.

      You see, the banks dont let the office staff sit on the Big Iron surfing the web for pr0n and using it to read email, plus, you don't exactly connect your uber bank systems directly to the net.

    22. Re:Very true by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Good point. So maybe we should be trying to spread Linux and such just as fast as they can acquire an educated userbase, and not as fast as they might spread if they become as simple to install and use as MS Windows. Now where were all those posters bemoaning how Free Software Hackers don't like to work on some of those projects that would help FreeBSD/Linux/BeOS/whatever get a bigger userbase?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    23. Re:Very true by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      The way I see it, lots of people I see don't want Windows for any reason other than it's free (they copy it) and everyone else they know uses it meaning they have a market for pirate games and movies. Microsoft obviously are aware of this, and it keeps them in business as more people are familiar with their product.

      You want to see Linux with the same marketshare as Windows - movies and music are already covered - it's already cheap - just make it easy to install (almost there) easy to use and run pirate games.

      Oh one last thing - there must be only one version that everyone uses so they feel like they are fitting in.

      You could always start charging for it so people feel like they have gained something by copying it, but just never prosecute. I mean - Windows must be better than Linux as it costs a lot right? "XP costs $300? Well the Linux I use costs $500 so it must be better."

    24. Re:Very true by Kwil · · Score: 1

      We know the general statement isn't true:

      "If system X was as popular as system Y, it would be targeted just as much."

      We know this isn't true simply by looking at Apache vs. Microsoft's server software.

      Microsoft's software is targetted and hit much more often than Apache, even though it's market share is considerably less.

      --

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    25. Re:Very true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Someone has trouble counting to 2:

      Yes. You do.

      I remember NVIR and MDEF well -- cost me a whole semester's work back in the sunny 1980s with it's cute Mac Pluses.

      If you filtered your list down to stuff that actually worked in the in the last 10 years, you'd have a tiny number. Mainly AutoSTart stuff that was easily defeated.

    26. Re:Very true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, here is a challenge for you. Forget for a moment that OS X has small market share. Write one virus for Mac OS X. You can be the 1337, the first virus writer on the platform. How's that? Don't complain about how other virus writers ignore the platform.

      You personally target the platform. Take charge. Seize the victory. Be famous. If you are afraid to release it into the wild, come back to /. and post a proof of concept and let other /.-ers examine it and worship you.

      Hello? Are you still there? Deal?

  102. Strange by vandan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Tripple J ( youth national radio network in Australia ) reviewed the CD recently and said that many of their songs had political statements against the bullshit greed and right-wing idiology running rampant through the current US government.

    Strange that they are critical of their government yet side with the record companies on this issue. Maybe they don't mean what they say? Or purphaps the record company pulled this one of them without telling them?

    I certainly won't be buying it anyway. I'll add it to the not-worth-buying-but-good-download-potential list.

    1. Re:Strange by Jack+Action · · Score: 1

      Artists in the past have supported better copyright laws--and not the ones you would expect. Charles Dickens was instrumental in the 19th century getting the US to stop pirating his books. Before that, the US did not recognize the copyrights of foreign authors.

      No one would call Charles Dickens right-wing, the "Man" or even a buzzkill. But what we have here is not "better' copyright protection. Would we still love Dickens if his books installed viruses into the technology we use to consume them? That is, rendered us blind if we tried to read a book we didn't pay for?

    2. Re:Strange by Eiki · · Score: 1

      Indeed, this is the kind of shit I've come to expect from "socially conscious" acts like them.

      I suspect this is not the work of the Boys, but of the record company - in this case, you ought to expect an apology from the band, I guess.

      But more likely they are yet another bunch of lefties opposed to all private property except their own...

    3. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Strange that they are critical of their government yet side with the record companies on this issue. Maybe they don't mean what they say? Or purphaps the record company pulled this one of them without telling them?


      It's not exactly new for musicians with a supposed political bent to be hypocrites. A much more obvious case, in fact, is Radiohead. They claim to be anti-corporate and yet signed to AOL (now TW, again) on of the biggest mega-media-conglomos around. Not only that, but they gave AOL users special promos on things like buying tickets.

      If a politically minded band is with a major label, it's very difficult for them to not be utter hypocrites.
    4. Re:Strange by bdptcob · · Score: 1

      Copy protection is all fine and dandy to prevent pirating. However, when it affects normal consumers, then there is a problem. What's the old saying? My hand can go as far as your nose? Or something of the sort.

  103. You could also by autopr0n · · Score: 4, Interesting

    not run as administrator, that way they wouldn't be able to 'install' anything. Nor could any holes in IE, general spyware, etc.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:You could also by antiMStroll · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Isn't amazing how many people in this computer literate forum miss something so simple? Holding to two simple rules - use a daily account with "User" permissions only and never use Microsoft internet software (IE, OE) - I never get spyware or viruses. Scams like this Capitol one wouldn't work in a non-admin world.

    2. Re:You could also by midknight32 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've tried to operate like that before, but there is still so much software (especially games, an amazing percentage of the ones from MS even) that just don't WORK unless you have admin priviledges.

      I found this out when setting up a non-admin account for my self to use. Ended up using my admin account more often than not to play the games I wanted to.

      As of a year ago the Palm desktop installer and hotsync stuff needed to be installed using admin permissions, IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE USER USING THE PALM.

    3. Re:You could also by toddestan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have to wonder if anyone who suggests setting up Windows like that has actually tried it and used it. Everyone I know that has tried that approach usually gives up in a short amount of time and just runs as a full blown Administrator. Multiple users on Windows still seems like a hack on top of their old single user, non-networked, Dos-based OSes to me.

    4. Re:You could also by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When I was at MS, common practice was to run as administrator, or rather, to add your domain account to the local admin group. Of course, we were writing and debugging software, but most apps do stuff like write to HKLM or the program directory, so that makes running as non-admin ricky at best.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    5. Re:You could also by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      I've tried to operate like that before, but there is still so much software (especially games, an amazing percentage of the ones from MS even) that just don't WORK unless you have admin priviledges.

      "Run as".

      As of a year ago the Palm desktop installer and hotsync stuff needed to be installed using admin permissions, IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE USER USING THE PALM.

      Blame Palm. Their software developers are incompetent.

    6. Re:You could also by drsmithy · · Score: 2
      I have to wonder if anyone who suggests setting up Windows like that has actually tried it and used it.

      Yes. I've been running my Windows machine(s) like this for years.

      Everyone I know that has tried that approach usually gives up in a short amount of time and just runs as a full blown Administrator.

      And those same people would get equally as annoyed and run as $HIGH_PRIVILEGE_USER on any multiuser OS.

      Multiple users on Windows still seems like a hack on top of their old single user, non-networked, Dos-based OSes to me.

      Multiuser in Windows NT has never been a hack.

    7. Re:You could also by eyeye · · Score: 1

      "run as"

      Yeah then you have to tell your 9 year old sister the admin password.

      Hooray for windows security.

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    8. Re:You could also by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1

      "And those same people would get equally as annoyed and run as $HIGH_PRIVILEGE_USER on any multiuser OS."

      That's just not true. You've probably heard this before, but you should try using Mac OS X sometime. It's not perfect, but its security model is a damn sight better (and more convenient, too!) than whatever you're envisioning.

    9. Re:You could also by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      Any app that does this would fail `Designed for Windows' certification. As I recall (the last time I read the requirements for certification was in the NT5 beta days) user applications are only allowed to write to HKCU (although they may read from HKLM, and installers may write to HKML). The odd app that violates this (assuming you can't avoid running something that was clearly written by an idiot) can be run by selecting the run as another user thing from the app's shortcut. The need to write to the program's directory can be fixed by simply setting the directory as world writable, leaving the important files unwritable.

      Since the introduction of the RunAs service, there has been no real justification for running as administrator in Windows.

      P.S. I haven't owned a Windows box for almost a year, so some of this may be out of date. When I did use Windows as my main OS, my primary user was not an administrator.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:You could also by MrHanky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Damn it, I've got mod points, but nobody has bothered responding with anything worth modding up, and you're not wrong, so I'm not going to mod you down. When can I get rid of these bothersome mod points? Oh, well.

      The problem with using a non-privileged account in Windows is not so much the OS itself as the applications. Most old applications are not multi-user aware, and even many new ones are plain broken as well.

      I think it's been fixed in later versions, but running the Quake 3 level editor as non-admin just didn't work in Windows a couple of years ago. I could use it fine in Linux, as a normal user, at the same time, because no Linux app tries to store the user's files in a directory outside ~/ and so on -- no ordinary app needs special privileges. In Windows, many quite normal apps demand full Administrator privileges for no reason at all, apart from that they were developed for systems that had no privilege separation, or on systems where the developers just didn't bother running as something other than admin and never imagined anyone else would.

    11. Re:You could also by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      My wife, four year old son and I have been using Windows XP like this for quite a while.

      I have shortcuts to a text editor and command prompt under the Admin user using "runas" so I rarely even need to switch to an admin user except to install something.

      Albeit, we generally only do generic computing: internet, email, word processing, php/mysql development, etc and not many games. Maybe games are the big problem in this kind of environment, but I can't say from my experience.

      ---John Holmes...

    12. Re:You could also by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      I have to wonder if anyone who suggests setting up Windows like that has actually tried it and used it.

      Yes. I wouldn't set up my Windows boxes any other way.

  104. Arrogance by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Installing anything on a person's computer, without authorization, is just plain old arrogance. "But it was in the fine print of the EULA..." Fuck the EULA. There needs to be a big dialog box: "DRM to be installed. Yes/No?"

    And if they say no, the goddamned thing doesn't play, they take it back to the store and get a refund.

    What this evil corporation is saying, is: "Fuck you. We own you. We own your computer. You'll take it and like it, because protecting our digital rights trump fucking up your piece of shit from Dell, you fucking Joe Sixpack sheeple. If you don't like it call your Congresscritter. Oops, we own it, too."

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    1. Re:Arrogance by MacWiz · · Score: 1

      I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly.

      The individual members of the band also need to be shot for allowing it.

      The artists are just as guilty as the labels.

      Let them all die.

  105. Autorun... by uid8472 · · Score: 1

    ...used to be enabled in the Mac world, until a virus went around a few years ago (pre-X) that used that feature to propagate. Now it's not. Interestingly, I don't recall ever hearing about anything similar for Windows; corporate-sponsored malware like this, yes, but not viruses.

  106. Now they're installing viruses by RadioactivePorpoise · · Score: 1

    on my PC? - yet another reason that the free product is a far better product

  107. beastieboys.com Offline by Barryke · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Beastie Boys site seems to be down.. since half an hour ago actualy...

    Maybe some hackers acualy buyed the cd. and got mad.

    --
    Hivemind harvest in progress..
    1. Re:beastieboys.com Offline by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Hmm. ping and tracerout reaches www.beastieboys.com just fine, reasonable ping times for my crappy dialup as well (around 200 ms)
      I'm guessing they've simply shut down http till the slashdotting is over, or at least manageable.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    2. Re:beastieboys.com Offline by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most of the time Slashdot spelling comments are just offtopic nitpicking (especially the virii/viruses debate), but seriously, "buyed"!?

      Repeat after me.
      B. O. U. G. H. T.

      Slashdot's language is English, and English has its share of irregular verbs. If you don't like it, use a constructed language like Interlingua or Esperanto or Lojban...but leave normal English the bleep alone.

    3. Re:beastieboys.com Offline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe some hackers acualy buyed the cd. and got mad.


      Ow! Man. Be careful. That sentence just caused me physical pain. I didn't think it was possible for spelling and grammar mistakes to do that. Ow...

    4. Re:beastieboys.com Offline by Barryke · · Score: 1

      Repeat after me.
      B. O. U. G. H. T.


      Hey sorry.
      I'm not allknowing. I did make a mistake.
      But thanks for pointing out. Wont make that terrible mistake anymore.

      If one would be posting here in dutch (my native language) it would be stupid. But hey; I posted in english here and used one wrong word, still its obvious what i mean. Dont ruïn the party plz.

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    5. Re:beastieboys.com Offline by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      If English isn't your native language, I can sympathize with your situation. I hate conjugating oddball irregular verbs in French...and yes, you were quite understandable.

      Sorry for getting angry.

    6. Re:beastieboys.com Offline by Barryke · · Score: 1

      mod parent up :-) You've just been invited in my (honest good guys only) friendslist!

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    7. Re:beastieboys.com Offline by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      Repeat after me.
      B. O. U. G. H. T.


      Actually, in rap-language it should be "bizzled".

    8. Re:beastieboys.com Offline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lucky you! I sended it some packets and it taked them 440ish MS to get here!

  108. Still can't believe that everyone thinks... by jammindice · · Score: 2, Informative

    That just by switching to another os or hacking some registry key is the answer to everything. It's not that you can do this or that and minimize all of the problems it's the fact that you believe it's the only way. For example i just read:

    When you can't even listen to your music without worrying about what programs may be installed on your computer, you need a different operating system.

    Switching os's isn't the answer! hell i hate windows but i have to use it everyday for my job and ends up being a functional part of my life, i'm not going to just up and switch to linux or unix or even mac, i couldn't use them our software at work is all windows programming so not to put the others down i have a freebsd box at home, but the simple fact of not being able to run my windows box and be left alone is utterly rediculous.

    I shouldn't have to go hack my registry or turn off autoplay to listen to an audio cd so it won't install malicious programs, i shouldn't be made to use mozilla or opera just to stop spyware from my computer. I like everything just the way it is and i don't want to go and alter my whole life because all of these RIAA assholes, stupid 14 year old kids in Germany writing viruses, and EVERY company that has EVER created a program that ever ran on my computer without my concent are all trying to basically hack my box which is illegal period.

    Switching os's is good for a couple years then shit will come out for that one, and of course the intelligence of the user is always to blame.

    I work for an ISP and we had a guy running a linux server, that thing got hacked every week i bet, thing was always crashing and causing major problems.

    So it's not about educating the user, or switching software all the time or even turning everything off, where's the fun in that? and what happened to my freedom of choice then?

    if i can't choose to use windows without being bombarded by viruses, pop-ups, malware, and spyware and everything else why even bother having a computer in the first place?

    Having a choice is the most basic right and everyone is taking that away.

    --
    - My uid ends in 69...
  109. My EULA by MaverickUW · · Score: 2, Funny

    I should try and get a non-US/UK copy of the CD. Then subject them to my EULA:

    By installing this software, you consent to your right to pay me the sum of $100,000. Please install your illegal software silently to agree to this EULA.

  110. 5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by anakin357 · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    http://www.fsckin.com/
    1. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you realize you just broke the law, by saying this right...

    2. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    3. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by name773 · · Score: 1

      you and your high sounding ideals.

    4. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by John+Biggabooty · · Score: 5, Insightful
      To find out if this is true, borrow the disc from some sucker who actually bought it, and can't use it. By all means do not buy it yourself.

      In the 1980s. The software industry tried all this copy control nonsense with Commodore 64 software. Many companies did not survive the backlash. The record labels will not learn until everyone stops buying. Any business that alienates their customers deserves to fail. Vote with your pocket books. Stop feeding the hand that bites you.

      --
      That's Bigboo TAY! TAY!
    5. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by Shaklee39 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uh, obviously the shift key circumvents it...How do you think a cd is supposed to run a program after being inserted without using autorun?

    6. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Commodore 64 software. Many companies did not survive the backlash

      Wow Didnt know the mainstream music market was dominated by people trying to listen to the CD on commodore 64's....

    7. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the ussa the system shits on you!

    8. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by 1u3hr · · Score: 5, Insightful
      How do you think a cd is supposed to run a program after being inserted without using autorun?

      "Autorun" is one of the most irritating features of Windows. It's easily disabled, but at the cost of losing "notification" when you insert or remove a CD, which means you have to manually prompt for a refresh sometimes. But it's better than some installer taking over every time you insert a program disk to refer to something or copy some files. Trusting to "pressing the shift key" to defeat it on each insertion is about as reliable as using the withdrawal method of birth control; pretty soon your PC is going to get knocked up.

    9. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by Zro+Point+Two · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The record labels will not learn until everyone stops buying.

      I'm actually wondering how hard it would be to get a mailing address for the artists that I want to support...and sending them the $20 directly and downloading the cd from a P2P network. This may not work, but it would give me a better piece of mind...the artist would still be getting my money (actually a MUCH bigger chunk than normal) so I'm still supporting them and their talents, showing my appreciation for their music, and not giving the record company anything at all.

      Or, are the artists leagally bound to hand that money over to the record label? In that case, can I send them say 10% of $20 (guessing at what their actual cut of the $20 would be) and then sending them $18 as a tip?

      I'm actually going to look into this one.

      --
      Zro . two

      "I come from Canada...they say I'm slow....eh?"
    10. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya copy protection doesn't work thats why they don't use it anymore....

      uh huh...

      WHY DOES EVERY FUCKING GAME COME WITH COPY PROTECTION? WHY DOES EVERY FUCKING APP HAVE A SERIAL NUMBER? OF COURSE! COPY PROTECTION DOESNT WORK AT ALL. THATS WHY!

      I'm sorry to clue you in, but it's 2004 and they still have copy controls on almost every commercially released piece of software.

      Vote with your pocket books. Stop feeding the hand that bites you.

      If you don't like the music, don't buy the album, but don't avoid it because it has DRM. That's just stupid. Is it the beastie boys fault that back in the day they had a chance to sign with major label and they took it? It's not like YOU (biggabooty) purchase intellectual property anyway. You don't believe in it, remember? It's all about the GPL right? I'm not sure who's more the idiot, biggabooty or the guy who moderated him +5 Insightful.

      Most people hate those annoying new packaging schemes at the store with the nearly bullet-proof, sealed plastic cases that everything comes in these days. You need scissors just to take a kid's toy out of it's packaging.

      DRM is kind of like that annoying packaging. If only people would bitch and moan about that packaging as much as they do DRM then maybe we wouldn't have those stupid packages anymore. That's not gonna happen though. You put a tiny, yet expense item out on the isles in a retail store and people are gonna steal it, hence we have the packaging.

    11. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by bob+dobalina · · Score: 1

      It begs the question, why does a band like the Beastie Boys still play with the big record labels? They have worldwide name recognition. All they need to do is cut their album, get someone to warehouse the CDs, send some press materials to Spin and Rolling Stone and Sam Goody, and they're all set to sell. I bet they could get a lot bigger percentage of their CD sales if they went the indie route (hey, maybe even enough to reopen Grand Royal so they can keep putting out all their friends' shitty bands' records).

      It's baffling to me, especially concerning a band with such a conscience as they. My only guess is that record label life is a lot cushier than we're let on, and bands only bitch and moan about the oppressive record labels when they're forced to actually live up to the terms of the contract they signed.

      --

      B

      "I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown

    12. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by Joey7F · · Score: 1

      Freedom of speech is already abridged. Trying running around screaming that you are going to kill several prominent members of Congress. How long do you think that will last?

      Just playing devil's advocate, I think that copy protection falls inside the bounds of free speech.

      --Joey

    13. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by mpe · · Score: 1

      I'm actually wondering how hard it would be to get a mailing address for the artists that I want to support...and sending them the $20 directly and downloading the cd from a P2P network.

      Their contract with the record company probably forbids them taking your money directly. If they accepted your $20 they could wind up with legal bills of thousands of times that amount.

    14. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by mpe · · Score: 1

      It begs the question, why does a band like the Beastie Boys still play with the big record labels? They have worldwide name recognition.

      Most likely because they signed a contract when they were "unknowns".

    15. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by mpe · · Score: 1

      "Autorun" is one of the most irritating features of Windows. It's easily disabled, but at the cost of losing "notification" when you insert or remove a CD, which means you have to manually prompt for a refresh sometimes.

      Yet another example of a Windows "feature" which bundles several things together...

      But it's better than some installer taking over every time you insert a program disk to refer to something or copy some files.

      The concept to having the installer silently exit if the program is already installed appears to be beyond many Windows programmers :)

    16. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      There is either an obscure setting, or a registry hack, that fixes the "no notification" issue. And thanks for reminding me of this ... it's probably why my XP box, which came with Autorun disabled by default, sometimes gets stuck on the idea that it should be able to access the same data CD forever and ever long after it's out of the drive. (So far the only way I've found to fix it is to run System Restore -- talk about overkill! But it beats leaving autorun active, and trusting the SHIFT key, which I can tell you from firsthand experience DOES NOT ALWAYS WORK.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    17. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by Dasein23 · · Score: 1

      That's a very unfair and irresponsible path to take. It's only the major labels that are using these ridiculous copy protection methods (and I agree with you 100% that these copy protection methods are completely stupid). I run a very small independent industrial label with a friend of mine (cranialfracture.org for what it's worth). We don't put any copy protection on our cds, never have, never will. We'd like people to buy our cds, because then we can put out another one. If nobody buys the cds, the label can't operate and will close down. And the artist will never get released (except as mp3s, which are a lossy compression format and doesn't faithfully represent the original audio recording of the music). We aren't in this to make money, we've never taken a cent from the label bank account, we're just trying to get enough money together to put out our next cd. That's how small independent labels work. And we need all the support we can get.

      Stop supporting the big record labels if you want. Boycott every release that has copy protection. But don't stop buying cds from the little guys who are trying to do the right thing.

    18. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by DeltaZulu0 · · Score: 1

      Uh ... Your closing line is good fodder for general windows bashing, but what you suggest is based on either ignorance or overzealousness. Sometimes you need to install over the existing installation to correct/modify it. One day you'll run into an installer that does this and you'll pull your hair out trying to figure out where that little tiny "chalk-mark" is that the installer left somewhere that the uninstaller didn't "erase".

    19. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by hearingaid · · Score: 1
      Hmm, well, I was there in the '80s.

      I note that Infocom seems to have disappeared. They must've been hurt pretty hard by the backlash, right?

      Oh wait, no. Infocom was the only company that didn't copy protect their software back then.

      And wait, look here. Sierra, Activision, Electronic Arts... all still going.

      Now, that doesn't mean the copy-protection was effective. By the late '80s, many games were being released on the pirate scene before they made it to stores (Elite, for one.) But some of them tried.

      The only game I knew that actually had copy-protection that worked (sort of) was Gunship, which I think was Microprose - and they're still going. Even though Gunship's protection was so insane that it didn't work on about half of all 1541 floppy drives at the time (if your heads were slightly misaligned, it would keel over and die), somehow the company survived.

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

    20. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by bob+dobalina · · Score: 1

      I don't buy that. The last time they were "unknowns" was before License to Ill came out on Def Jam, and after that they jumped to Capitol. You can't tell me they were "unknowns" after "Fight for Your Right" hit the airwaves.

      --

      B

      "I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown

    21. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by name773 · · Score: 1

      actually, i do like socialism... that sig just seemed clever.

    22. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Your closing line is good fodder for general windows bashing, but what you suggest is based on either ignorance or overzealousness.

      The context here is install programs which "helpfully" run when a disk is inserted.

      Sometimes you need to install over the existing installation to correct/modify it.

      Is "setup /overwrite" too hard a concept? Or how about one which can tell if it has been invoked by "autorun" or explicit user action.

    23. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      Copy protection's greatest moment was an old Forth compiler that I picked up, I think it was for the commodore 64.

      The tapes could be copied but the manual, was printed with small black type on red paper. Yes, very difficult to photocopy. Of course you had the added bonus that you could't read it in anything less than perfect light conditions and even then, you'd feel like someone was sticking daggers in your forehead.

      Great stuff!

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    24. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by hearingaid · · Score: 1
      That's wild, and pretty weird.

      Especially when one considers the cheapness of Leo Brodie books. Assuming it was a reasonably standard system, you could just go grab Starting Forth and use that. :)

      And besides... Copy-protect Forth? Why? Even back in the '80s, FIG-Forth was pretty common and free. (Yes, before the Free Software Foundation and gcc, Forth people had free compilers.)

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

    25. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      I finally remembered. It was a product called 'White Lightning'. It was a kind of games writing thing based on Forth. Commodore 64 language guide

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    26. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by hearingaid · · Score: 1
      The artist would not be legally bound to hand that $20 over to the label, unless they were in debt to the label (as many artists are). That would be considered a gift.

      However, you'd still be breaking the law, subject to federal prosecution, blah blah blah... :)

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

    27. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by hearingaid · · Score: 1
      Lots of bands sign insane record contracts when they're starting out. Look into the history of the Scorpions; they signed a deal for 20 (!) albums when they were just starting out.

      Ten-album deals are pretty common. And no, that doesn't mean the record company will distribute ten of their albums; it means that if the record company asks for ten albums, it gets ten albums, and nobody else (including the band) is allowed to distribute the band's records.

      The Beasties have only had, what, five-seven albums or so? They're probably still on their first contract.

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

    28. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by DirtMcGirt · · Score: 1

      WHY DOES EVERY FUCKING GAME COME WITH COPY PROTECTION? WHY DOES EVERY FUCKING APP HAVE A SERIAL NUMBER? OF COURSE! COPY PROTECTION DOESNT WORK AT ALL. THATS WHY!


      If you can show me one game or application where the copy "protection" stopped it from being cracked within a day, I'll show you 1000 where it didn't. Copy protection doesn't affect warez people at all. It only affects people who actually buy the software.



    29. Re:5 bucks says the shift key circumvents this.... by nzkbuk · · Score: 1

      Or even dare I say it having the program keep a track of it's version number so when it needs to overwrite older software it can tell the software IS an older version.

  111. drm? by BlueLines · · Score: 4, Funny

    i decided to be wary about this album when i heard the drm rumors, and i was prepared. but i can't seem to find the 'shift' button on my turntable..

    --
    --BlueLines "The cost of living hasn't affected it's popularity." -anonymous
  112. Was it really 'silent' or was there a EULA of sort by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    More then likely the 'extras' were mentioned, be it in a eula, on the CD cover, or something..

    It may be morally unacceptable, but i bet the user WAS warned, thus totally legal...

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  113. One thing to say. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck the Beastie Boys! They've sucked for over a decade anyway. The last thing they released that was worth buying was Paul Revere.

  114. Re: by cpuenvy · · Score: 1

    They suck anyway :)

    --
    DISCLAIMER:

    I don't believe what I write, and neither should you.

  115. Thanks Mom! by cpuenvy · · Score: 1

    heh. Anyway, you can thank any elected official you wish. The 2 party system blows.

    --
    DISCLAIMER:

    I don't believe what I write, and neither should you.

  116. Spyware? by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    So what the hell does it do & does Adaware/Spybot pick it up?

    Jaysyn

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  117. You Gotta FIGHT...for your RIGHT....to Piiiirate! by cryophan · · Score: 1

    Seriously! Every huge brick building was built starting with just one single brick. And every long journey starts with a first step. We CAN take control of our own country. It starts here!

  118. The trouble with this is... by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 1
    The trouble with holding the shift key is that you have to do it every single time you insert a copy-protected disc. Forget just once and you're hosed.

    So just disable autoplay, if you're one of those unwilling to get Linux or a Mac.

    --
    Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
    Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    1. Re:The trouble with this is... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Disabling autoplay doesn't disable it for audio CDs. but, you only have to insert the CD once if you rip it. Why are you playing your originals anyway? Since they won't replace them if you damage them in most cases, you should be playing copies anyway. Or, MP3s. You can put all the works by an artist on or or two discs (or if it's tangerine dream, a couple of DVDs...)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:The trouble with this is... by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Would this CD be an audio CD though? It certainly runs non-audio code when inserted. I'm not saying you're wrong, but just wondering if you or someone else has tried this, because without other information I would suspect that turning off autoplay would work...

  119. That's an OR, not an AND by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    "intentionally and without authorization OR ..."

    Sounds like the guy has a case. The only iffy point would be: does inserting a CD count as authorization?

    1. Re:That's an OR, not an AND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, sure. Like the "DA" is going to take the case. The guy has no concept of how the law works. He doesn't walk into the DA's office and demand that they file charges. He might try the AG's office, but they'll probably just nod politely and send him on his way. Especially since the CD in question does not have DRM within the US or UK.

      It always kills me how anti-lawsuit the /. crowd is, at least until it's to their advantage - then it's sue 'em till they die. What a bunch of hypocrites!

    2. Re:That's an OR, not an AND by taustin · · Score: 1

      Depends on how its handled, and how many people try to file charges.

      There's also the possibility of a class action lawsuit, which requires only money to pursue.

      And if you're feeling especially mean, maybe a RICO lawsuit for criminal enterprise, since this is also almost certainly a violation of Title 17 of the US Code, too.

    3. Re:That's an OR, not an AND by michael_cain · · Score: 1
      Sounds like the guy has a case. The only iffy point would be: does inserting a CD count as authorization?

      Is the jewel box clearly marked? How about the CD itself? Do retail people who sell the disk explain it to you? If everything is clearly marked that inserting this disk in your computer may result in the installation of additional software, the insertion may be authorization. Otherwise, forget it -- if you don't know, you can't possibly be authorizing.

  120. They vented enough... by KC7GR · · Score: 1

    ...to slashdot the site already. Unreachable as of 19:19PDT, June 19th.

    --

    Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

    Blue Feather Technologies

  121. see, this is why people use windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    You have to use the group policies manager to disable it. Goto start --> run --> "gpedit.msc" (thanks to the other replier, I forget what it was called) --> Local Computer Policy --> Administrative Templates --> System (click it) --> on the right pane find "Turn off Autoplay" in the list --> right-click --> properties --> select the "enable" radio button.

    Ease of use has always been Windows' strong point. In linux you'd have to open up a file and change something; that's unexceptable for the casual user.

    1. Re:see, this is why people use windows by WhoDaresWins · · Score: 0
      Ease of use has always been Windows' strong point. In linux you'd have to open up a file and change something; that's unexceptable for the casual user.
      Actually the joke's on you. Windows does make it easy to do it. See my reply here for the trivially simple and easy way to do it. But this is slashdot and people have to give a really complicated way to do something even on Windows.
    2. Re:see, this is why people use windows by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1

      What I love about this is that to turn off Autoplay you find the policy named "Disable Autoplay", and then change its setting to "Enabled". :)

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    3. Re:see, this is why people use windows by Nerull · · Score: 1

      And if you read the replies to that, you will see that it won't work in this case.

      These aren't plain music cds, they have an autorun.ini launched executable, which will still run and install the driver.

    4. Re:see, this is why people use windows by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      If you have XP Home Edition, you need to use regedt32 to do this, since Group and Policy Manager is disabled. And I'd assume most people who don't know how to do this probably have XP Home Edition anyway. I have it, and my advice is this: learn to love regedit, because you'll be using it a lot.

      But, after a year with XP Home, you'll be more than qualified to work with httpd.conf or any other linux config files.

      Unless you don't plan on getting anything done.

    5. Re:see, this is why people use windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Q150449

      For data compact discs, the registry entry that controls AutoPlay is a bitmask in the following location: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curre ntVersion\Policies\Explorer "NoDriveTypeAutoRun"

      0x20 is the CD bit

  122. Except.... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    When I insert the AudioCD and have a dialoge pop-up asking me for my admin password - then why would I type that in?

    Furthermore for Mac users there is no such thing as "Autostart". So you also have to trick the user to run something as WELL AS typing in the admin password.

    Some vectors of attack are just way to easy on Windows, and are not done with such ease on platforms that care a bit about the users safeguarding.

    Would it hurt Windows to at least ask if you want to autorun a CD?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  123. TCPA is not DRM by Mephie · · Score: 4, Informative
    I also told them why .... I will not buy DRM ..TCPA....Copy controlled disks...ect

    TCPA is actually now TCG, Trusted Computing Group, and doesn't have anything to do with DRM. It's essentially a standards body that specifies compliance for hardware security modules, or TPMs (Trusted Platform Modules), which also don't have to have anything to do with DRM. For example, IBM makes desktop and laptop computers with TCG compliant TPMs on the systemboard which exist for the sole purpose of providing security for your data, not ensuring that you install only "trusted" software or don't violate this copyright or whatever, and cannot, in fact, be used for that function.

    A refusal to buy anything TCPA (which is actually TCG) is pointless. You're boycotting the wrong thing.

    1. Re:TCPA is not DRM by Martix · · Score: 1

      Maybe DRM and TCPA are different but it all come down to control of your music your system regardless the difference it wont make your system safer or your music portable.

      which gets down to why should corparations tell me what and what i cant do... do you like the concept of TCG / TCPA / Paladium / longhorn ect while were on that note check out the anti sites as well as www.eff.org on the above there is something there to be concerned with.

    2. Re:TCPA is not DRM by Convergence · · Score: 4, Insightful

      TCPA is an enabling technology to implement hardware-level digital control technology (DRM). The idea being that the'trusted platform module' has the ability to create locked boxes that the user of the computer can choose to run or to not run, but any code in that locked box cannot be modified by the user. (well, it can, but if it is, the platform module will refuse to relinquish decryption keys so it'll end up being nonfunctional.)

      If I want to enforce a control technology on your computer, I need some way to keep users from modifying the very program enforcing my policy choices, I need TCPA or some other hardware control technology that keeps my program from being modified.

      In one sense, this is security, I know that any sowftware runnign under TCPA/Palladium won't be changed by any virus and will only be given decryption keys only if its unmodified by any virus or worm. But at another level, it is *the* enabling technology to let anyone install *arbitrary* digital control technology, creating *arbitrary* hoops for me to go through on my computer before I can access the data it controls access to.

      Can you say ripe for abuse?

    3. Re:TCPA is not DRM by Znork · · Score: 1

      You've been listening a bit too much to the sales pitch, I think.

      There is, for the user, no security you can obtain with a TPM that you cannot easily obtain in a multitude of other ways.

      The entire idea with a TPM is to protect things _from_ the user, not _for_ the user. That's inherent in the entire architecture. And no matter how much the marketing speak may claim otherwise, the fact is the hardware architecture is engineered for that purpose.

      As long as you're protecting things _for_ the user you dont need a TPM to do that job.

    4. Re:TCPA is not DRM by Mephie · · Score: 1
      but it all come down to control of your music your system

      No, it doesn't.

      If a company chooses to take a TPM and write code around it to make it serve that purpose, then it does, and by all means, boycott that company. But I say again, boycotting anything TCG is simply pointless.

      You're essentially thinking the same way people who implement DRM are thinking, only in reverse: MP3s can be used for legal backups, but they can also be used to facilitate piracy. As such, we must find a way to eliminate the ripping of our CDs. That's seriously flawed, and I'm fairly certain you would agree.

      A specific company's implementation of a TCG compliant TPM could be used to implement DRM on some level, therefore we must find a way to eliminate TCG compliant TPMs.

      I'm sorry, that's just as stupid.

    5. Re:TCPA is not DRM by Mephie · · Score: 1
      Ripe for abuse?? Okay, I posted the following to anther person who seems to think that TCG and DRM are the same thing. It seems to work here as well:

      If a company chooses to take a TPM and write code around it to make it serve that purpose, then it does, and by all means, boycott that company. But I say again, boycotting anything TCG is simply pointless.

      You're essentially thinking the same way people who implement DRM are thinking, only in reverse: MP3s can be used for legal backups, but they can also be used to facilitate piracy. As such, we must find a way to eliminate the ripping of our CDs. That's seriously flawed, and I'm fairly certain you would agree.

      A specific company's implementation of a TCG compliant TPM could be used to implement DRM on some level, therefore we must find a way to eliminate TCG compliant TPMs.

      I'm sorry, that's just as stupid.

      Now, you're not talking about music piracy, but hardware level security for authorized programs. This is still a specific implementation of a TCG compliant TPM, and if a company does decide to put that kind of an implementation on their systems, I would certainly stay away from it.

      Here's the thing: There are tons of non-system control, non-take-control-of-your-music uses for TCG TPMs. Both IBM and HP use TCG TPMs on some systems and the implementation code for those TPMs is absolutely nothing like what you're describing.

      So I say again: Saying TCG is a bad idea because someone could use a TCG compliant TPM for a purpose with which you disagree is absolutely idiotic.

    6. Re:TCPA is not DRM by Mephie · · Score: 1
      Actually, I think you've been listening to a bit too much FUD. The only reason I know as much about TCG as I do is because I'm a data security specialist for a multinational technology company, and regularly teach classes on the use of TCG compliant TPMs for enhanced security of a user's data.

      There is, for the user, no security you can obtain with a TPM that you cannot easily obtain in a multitude of other ways.

      You should, then, become a consultant and take this uninformed opinion to the myriad of companies worldwide who are investing millions in TCG hardware to ensure corporate data on laptops is as secure as it can possibly be.

      In fact, I have a TCG TPM on my laptop's systemboard that uses PKI to protect 1024bit AES keys used to encrypt my critical data, and even to protect snapshots of my fingerprint for biometric authentication. Think you could get your fingerpint snapshots on to my system? Yeah, if you're good enough. No firewall is bulletproof. Think you can get your fingerprint snapshots in to my TPM? You can't.

      Interestingly, I can rip CDs on this laptop, I can play MP3s on this laptop... I still have to run a firewall and NAV to ensure I don't get viruses and, by gosh, I can even clear the chip in the BIOS! The only thing my TPM is protecting me from is data theft. Which, strangely enough, is exactly what it was designed to do!

      Shocking.

    7. Re:TCPA is not DRM by Znork · · Score: 1

      "teach classes on the use of TCG compliant TPMs"

      "who are investing millions in TCG hardware"

      Good buisness, eh?

      "In fact, I have a TCG TPM on my laptop's systemboard that uses PKI to protect 1024bit AES keys used"

      For most it will make much more sense to have passphrase protected private keys. One could even keep it on a USB disk if it's critical to really protect the private key. You dont need a TPM to achieve that.

      "Think you can get your fingerprint snapshots in to my TPM? You can't."

      Why would I need to? Your own fingerprints are freely available all over your laptop. I'd just use those if I needed to fake your biometrics. Or are you using gloves while using it?

    8. Re:TCPA is not DRM by ccady · · Score: 1

      But I say again, boycotting anything TCG is simply pointless.

      It has a very specific and dramatic point: to stop those who want to implement DRM using "trusted platform modules".

      If TPMs become commonplace, then we won't be able to control our computers. I'm happy that you've got a benign computer that only controls access to your fingerprint files, but what if the programs that you cannot control are set to do things that you don't want them to do? Paranoia? Yes, but there are definitely societal pressures to go that direction, so I'm rebelling against them now, while I have a chance.

      --
      J'aime mieux les méchants que les imbéciles, parce qu'ils se reposent. -- Alexandre Dumas
    9. Re:TCPA is not DRM by Mephie · · Score: 1
      Good buisness, eh?

      Yes it is.

      For most it will make much more sense to have passphrase protected private keys.

      I completely agree with this statement. The level of security afforded via comprehensive use of a TCG compliant TPM is certainly not for everyone, and it may be more security than you need, which is fine. Sadly, people who do not need that level of security and don't understand what it is they're doing still use it, which can create more problems than anything else. My point is not that everyone should use this level of security. It is, rather, that TCG does not automatically mean "third party controlling your system and/or software" like most people seem to think. TCG is, again, essentially a standards body. You don't even need a TCG compliant TPM to enable hardware based DRM.

      I think more people need to educate themselves on what this is before they automatically assume its evil, but that's, I'm sure, asking too much. TCG details security, nothing more. And TPMs, TCG compliant or not, are no more evil than ripping CDs. A given company's reason for using a TPM and their implementation of it may be evil, just like someone's reason for ripping CDs may be evil, like someone's reason for buying a gun may be evil. That doesn't make the technology evil, it makes that specific use of the technology evil.

      As for my fingerprints, yeah, they're all over my laptop. Fortunately, my fingerprint reader isn't a piece of shit, so you're not going to beat it by simply taping a capture of my print on to your finger, or by carving it in to wax or imprinting it in to silly putty or a gummy bear, contrary to what seems to be a common misconception. Any decent fingerprint reader will protect against similar attacks.

      Can you beat a fingerprint reader? Hell, maybe you can, and if you can, my hat is off to you. The only point I'm trying to make here is that TCG is not DRM, and there are many legitimate uses for a TPM, TCG compliant or not, that have nothing to do with keeping things _from_ the user. So if any anger or frustration is directed at the TCG, it's directed at the wrong place.

      That being said, I'm going back to watching the US Open now. Enjoy your Sunday (or whatever day it is in your timezone) and go Phil!

    10. Re:TCPA is not DRM by Mephie · · Score: 1
      Ugh.

      Okay, let's say you buy a systemboard from Asus that has an 802.3 port on it. This 802.3 port, somehow or another, has been designed to transmit all your Ethernet activity back to the Asus mothership.

      It's likely safe to say you wouldn't be happy about that. My question is: Do you boycott the IEEE for establishing the 802.3 standard or do you boycott Asus for implementing it in way you disagree with? Cos the former is what you're essentially doing. TCG is a SECURITY STANDARDS BODY. That's it. Nothing more. DRM is one possible use for a TPM, whether it's TCG compliant or not (which it certainly doesn't have to be to do what you seem to think TCG was established to do), much like writing a worm is one of a myriad ways you can use C++.

      In fact, since we're now being completely unreasonable, while you're at it, why don't you boycott C++ and all other programming languages, and hell, digital technology in general since it could, at some point, be used in a way you disagree with? I mean, shit, if you disagree with flying planes in to buildings, you may as well boycott Boeing, too.

      This has been a fun discussion, but I think I'm done now. Back to the US Open. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

    11. Re:TCPA is not DRM by Znork · · Score: 1

      "The only point I'm trying to make here is that TCG is not DRM, and there are many legitimate uses for a TPM, TCG compliant or not, that have nothing to do with keeping things _from_ the user."

      Oh, I dont disagree. My point is that while a TPM enables some legitimate security, similar security (for most users) can be obtained in other (cheaper) ways. The only thing that cannot be obtained _without_ a TPM is reliably removing control beyond most users, eg, DRM.

      Now, as that remains the main feature outside the overlapping featureset, and serious money is spent on this, it's hard to see the legitimate uses as anything but an excuse (and positive side effect) to get the tech into most users computers, and not the primary goal. The tech is not 'evil' itself, but the intended use most likely is, and the widespread introduction of standardized TPM's is the easiest and fastest way (if not only way) to enable the necessary marketshare to make such a scheme feasible.

      Have a good time with the games :).

    12. Re:TCPA is not DRM by Random832 · · Score: 1
      So I say again: Saying TCG is a bad idea because someone could use a TCG compliant TPM for a purpose with which you disagree is absolutely idiotic.


      And i ask: Do you really think microsoft won't?
      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
    13. Re:TCPA is not DRM by Mephie · · Score: 1
      No, I really think Microsoft can't.

      As part of TCG compliance, a TPM must be controlled by the user. The user must have the ability to turn it off, and compliant TPMs cannot have the ability to dictate what software can and cannot run.

      I recommend reading the TCG FAQ, paying special attention to questions 29 and 30.

    14. Re:TCPA is not DRM by Random832 · · Score: 1

      but _windows_ has the ability to refuse to run unless it's enabled.

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
  124. OH brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If you don't read it, that's your fault. "

    So I just sent EMI a bill for a billion dollars unless they refused within 10 days.

    They never read my letter.

    Now I own them. At least in your weird strange little world.

  125. Just return the god-damn CD! by ReptileQc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For you angry fans...
    There are two simple solutions :
    1) Don't buy it
    2) If you already bought it then return it

    If everybody keeps their bought copy, they won't get the message.

  126. But many attack vectors are WIndows only by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    And this highlights the major flaw behind the "This doesn't happen on MY platform," argument. If you are advocating that Windows sucks because it has the most viruses, or spyware, etc and people should therefore switch to your platform (Mac, Linux, whatever) since it does not, you are misunderstanding cause and effect. .....
    If you do want Linux/Mac growing to dominance, that's great, but then don't try to argue benefits gained form obscurity. If Linux becomes dominant then most apps will be written for it. This includes legitimate software, and malware alike. Both kinds of authors will target what is the most popular and espically in the case of malware, where the most clueless users reside.


    It's funny you should bring this up in regards to this topic, as OS X and Linux are especially immune to this kind of attack.

    First of all, neither platform even has a concept of "Autorun". So to install a bogus DRM laden CD driver you need to convince the user it's a good idea to run a prgram on the disc. Possibly...

    But then to actually install the evil driver, on OSX and usually Linux you'd have to ALSO provide the program with an admin password.

    Between all that at least the user knows something is installed on the computer, which is a far sight better than a silent install they know nothing about!! They have a chance to say "You know, my computer never has worked right since I tried out that last Britney CD" and check Google for the awful truth of what they have installed.

    There are some vectors that may be tried over time, like the XPI stuff you mention. But it's way, way harder to target a very wide variety of computers in this way, so even if they find an XPI attack it's probably a WIndows only attack that relies on some other Windows flaw.

    To put it simply - Linux and OS X both have means to limit the range that user viruses have wheres any flaw in Windows lets you install a device driver or what have you. Anti-virus stuff can help BUT (and here is a key point that people seem to overlook) how much overhead do you have from a virus scanner, and what does THAT do to your price-performance ratio? Is a Windows computer really a faster computer when it MUST be laden with detectors to keep it healthy?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  127. wow by unclefungus · · Score: 2, Funny

    this means somebody paid for an album by the Beastie Boys!

  128. Not to be stupid, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all the talk of this DRM, no one has said what it actually does.

    So what does it do?

  129. It doesn't bother all that much to me ... by anubi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    That they did this.

    What bothers the hell out of me, though, is that it can be done.

    How in the world can I trust *anything* that willy-nilly follows whatever orders someone else tells *my* machine to do, leaving me powerless to override? The most surprising thing to me is that business is taking this. Do they really think only "good guys" know where the unlocked back doors to the operating system are?

    Stuff like this just convinces me further that anyone even thinking of using this kind of system in a business environment needs to have his salary and standing in his organization re-evaluated.

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

  130. Applets by tsotha · · Score: 1
    When Sun came out with Java applets, I remember thinking "What is this sandbox stuff? I don't need so much security. I'm not the military or anything."

    Boy, do I feel stupid.

  131. Score Another One for OSX by deadsquid · · Score: 2, Interesting
    fire up the Ti

    Fire up iTunes

    Insert CD

    Click "Import"

    Flip EMI the finger while iTunes on OSX happily rips the CD with no problems

    enjoy the music when and where i want to enjoy it.

    --
    Idiot, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant
    1. Re:Score Another One for OSX by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2, Informative
      Just be sure to either disable Classic or disable the Autorun feature in Quicktime for Mac OS9.

      If you don't have Mac OS 9, you don't have anything to worry about.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    2. Re:Score Another One for OSX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is with the influx of all these lame Mac fag fanboys?

  132. BOYCOTT!!! by tbond_trader · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Use the power of your dollar and boycott the band and the label!

  133. it's a Mac OS 9 vulnerability by dmoen · · Score: 5, Informative
    The vulnerability doesn't exist in MacOS X, unless you are running the Classic subsystem. To protect yourself, start up Classic, run the Classic QuickTime control panel, and disable "AutoStart". Now your Mac will not automatically run malware on inserted CDs.

    So that's why most MacOS X users will not have their machines infected--they aren't running Classic at the time they insert the CD.

    Doug Moen.

    --
    I have written a truly remarkable program which this sig is too small to contain.
    1. Re:it's a Mac OS 9 vulnerability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes. And to clarify, you CAN NOT turn on autorun in Mac OSX at all. It's not even available.

    2. Re:it's a Mac OS 9 vulnerability by gt623 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apparantley the copy protection is only for non US and UK CDs. Still underhanded, but most of us should be safe.

    3. Re:it's a Mac OS 9 vulnerability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because it's illegal here.

    4. Re:it's a Mac OS 9 vulnerability by kitzilla · · Score: 1

      Thanks, Doug. I keep meaning to remove Classic altogether.

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    5. Re:it's a Mac OS 9 vulnerability by reidspice · · Score: 2, Informative

      that's not true. in osx, go to your system prefs and select the "cds and dvds" pref pane. there are a variety of autorun settings in there for different media and different associated apps.

    6. Re:it's a Mac OS 9 vulnerability by fermion · · Score: 1

      I would also suggest that unless you use OS9 very regularly, go into your OSX System Preferences, select the Classic Pane, and check the box that warns you before classic starts.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    7. Re:it's a Mac OS 9 vulnerability by socode · · Score: 3, Informative

      Perhaps you're in the habit of inserting a CD, copying a malware application from it yourself, and then telling OSX to automatically run the malware whenever a CD/DVD is inserted.

      For everybody else, this merely allows you to run something _locally_ on your computer in response to a CD/DVD insertion, for example DVDPlayer, not something on the CD/DVD itself.

    8. Re:it's a Mac OS 9 vulnerability by clarkcox3 · · Score: 1

      That setting isn't launching anything on the CD/DVD itself, so it isn't AutoRun. That setting launches apps already on your machine (iTunes, iDVD, Toast, etc.)

      --
      There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
    9. Re:it's a Mac OS 9 vulnerability by nzkbuk · · Score: 1

      That's a grey subject.

      It's more like file association than autorun.
      Sure stuff happens when you insert your cd / dvd but it doesn't run applications FROM the CD (which most people think of autorun as)

  134. This is news? by agraupe · · Score: 1

    To those people who say "they will piss off the customers!": if people still buy the CDs, they don't give a flying fuck what we think... The problem with fighting DRM is that most people who get pissed off at it wouldn't pay for the CD anyway. As soon as the mainstream consumer gets pissed for whatever reason (probably about 20 years from now, when standalone CD players are a thing of the past), the RIAA will say "oh shit, perhaps we should stop." The RIAA, like everyone else, follows the money. If the /. backlash doesn't impact their wallet, why should they care what a bunch of geeks think? We're the evil ones, remember?

  135. First they came for the Windows users by siriuskase · · Score: 1
    and I did not speak out...

    Mac and Linux users should be concerned. If it works for Windows, they will port to other platforms.

    Remember, First they came for the Jews

    We shouldn't wait until they come for us.

    --
    If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
  136. shift key by Spetiam · · Score: 3, Informative

    Nor with the SHIFT key held down on Windows?

  137. If you don't buy my record, I got my advance by The+Tyro · · Score: 4, Funny

    But I think it was the appropriately-named The New Style where they said "I had to get a beeper cuz my 'puter is tapped, better keep your mouth shut cuz I'm fully strapped"

    Apparently it is the new style.

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    1. Re:If you don't buy my record, I got my advance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I've been looking, I've been searching
      Just to find a little fun
      Thought that I will never get me some
      So I got myself together and I rewrote this little song

      If you don't buy this record your life will be better
      You life will be better, your life will be better
      If you don't buy this record, your life will be better
      If you don't buy,if you don't buy

      DRM installing all the time, why don't they take a rest
      Music getting complicated, just a mess
      Now everyday's a holiday and all I do is dance
      Oh, I got a ipod in my pants, oh oh oh ...

      Fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa
      Fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa
      Fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa
      Fabulous

  138. Sabotaged! by Rai · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sabotaged

    You can't stand it, you know I planned it
    I'm gonna set it straight, this fair use debate
    You can't copy shit when I'm in here
    Because my new CD will stop all your file shares
    So while you sit back and wonder why
    Copy protection is installed inside
    That's not a real CD, it's a mirage
    I'm tellin' y'all you've been sabotaged

    So listen up 'cause you can't copy nothin'
    I'll shut you down unless you use the shift button
    But I'm in and your MP3s are gone
    You'll never rip another one of my songs
    'Cause what you hear you might not get
    And we got legal threats so don't you pirate yet
    You're copying a thing that's a mirage
    I'm trying to tell you now you've been sabotaged

    You can't stand it, you know i planned it
    I'm gonna set it straight, the consumer rights fate
    You can't copy shit when my CD's in place
    And now you feel disgrace because I'm in your disc space
    But make no mistakes, I'll shutdown your scandal
    I'm Hilary Rosen when I fly off the handle
    No more fair use, it was all a mirage
    I'm scheming on your rights; you're sabotaged!

  139. Orrin Hatch needs to be deleted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and all the other Mormons with him.

    Where is that Mormon book collector when we need him ?

  140. You people just don't seem to get it. by b-boy_adrock · · Score: 1

    I continuously see posts on slashdot re: DRM, and I think it's clear that people here just don't get it - you don't like the policies, THEN DON'T SUPPORT THE COMPANIES/ARTISTS/ETC. - Don't copy their albums, don't buy their albums, don't go to their concerts, don't listen to the radio stations that play their music. Most of all, don't whine about it. Do what I do - go see live shows of unknown artists who just enjoy having an opportunity to make a few bucks playing for people who enjoy music. It's unfortunate that we live in a culture where people expect to be entertained 24/7 and can't seem to break the "addiction" of buying into the corporate megaliths who produce music/movies/etc. that these same people "protest against" by posting soon after they buy a copy of that corporations latest goods, or copying it from someone else.

  141. It's simple - protection has other meanings by dbIII · · Score: 1
    Protection in the music industry extends as far, in extreme examples (grandad in the Osbournes is scarier than the equivalent in the Munsters), as smashing the kneecaps of people that will not follow the will of management. They just have a different definition of the word "protection" to the rest of us.

    Nice computer you have there ...

  142. Re:Beasties replacement? by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 1

    If you haven't already, check out Grand Buffet. While they are not Beasties clones, they fix the same jones that Check Ya Head did. I recommend Sparkle Classic and Cigarette Beach as introductory listening.

  143. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this involved some group that had actual talent then I'd be concerned. But, Beastie Boys, ummm, yeah. Cookie cutter manufactured product. Of the record label, by the record label, and for the record label.

    Next!

  144. What doesn't kill, makes stronger. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Beastie Boys are just doing their part to encourage everyone to migrate to Linux, Right... Right?

  145. But this in an audio CD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is only 'autorun' for Audio CD's

    But this one is supposed to be an Audio CD!!

    1. Re:But this in an audio CD! by Graff · · Score: 3, Informative
      There is only 'autorun' for Audio CD's

      But this one is supposed to be an Audio CD!!

      The 'autorun' he was talking about is not a true autorun like the one on Windows. What the 'autorun' under Mac OS X does is tell the proper application (iTunes by default for an audio CD) to run. The default applications are pretty safe and they normally don't allow anything new to be installed automatically.

      For example, when an audio CD is put in a Mac OS X machine it defaults to running iTunes. iTunes by default simply shows the music that is on the disk. Nothing else is run, nothing is installed. It is safe.

      Now, if the user then goes on to run any old applications that happen to be on the data portion of the CD well then that's the user's dumbass fault if something evil gets installed! :-)
    2. Re:But this in an audio CD! by w3woody · · Score: 1

      Actually, there is something on the Macintosh for MacOS 9 (the feature was silently dropped for MacOS X because of security issues) that provides the same sort of functionality as autorun for Windows.

      The feature is called "AutoPlay", and was actually added in QuickTime v2 and later to allow developers to burn kiosk disks. The idea was that this would allow developers to burn a CD which automatically starts a kiosk program, web browser or movie when the disk was inserted into the Macintosh.

      "AutoPlay" for MacOS 9 can be enabled and disabled by going into Control Panels under the Apple menu, selecting "QuickTime Settings", then in the drop-down menu, select "AutoPlay." The second setting "Enable CD-ROM AutoPlay" is the one you want; uncheck this setting to prevent programs from automatically starting when inserted. (This is from QuickTime v6 for MacOS 9; earlier versions may put this setting somewhere else. YMMV.)

      If you wish to burn a disk that automatically starts a program or automatically launches a document when inserted in MacOS 9, in a CD-ROM burner program such as Roxio Toast, when selecting a MacOS volume to burn you have the option of specifying the file to automatically play when the disk is inserted in the same volume selection box. Just select the "AutoStart" checkbox and type in the name of the root-directory file to open or program to start.

      For more information, go here.

  146. Complete Post Stolen from MEMEPOOL. by CleverMonkey · · Score: 1

    Check out Memepool. Seems that their article of Thursday, June 17th was lifted almost verbatim by some karma-wh*re without proper attribution.

    Tsk-tsk. For shame...

  147. Sorry, wrong by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not only is that site heavy on the propaganda, light on the facts, the author isn't aware of how the whole malware situation works. Spyware type malware gets on the user's sustem through an action of the user. For the web variety you visit a site and a popup asks you if you want to install Comet Cursor, or whatever the spyware calls itself. If you click yes, it downloads and installs. For the trojan type, it just piggybacks on other apps. Kazaa RQUIRES you to install and leave installed several peices of spyware to use it. It even TELLS you this. None the less, people install it willingly.

    There is NO DEFENCE against this so long as the user has administrative access to the system. If they WANT to install it, they will. If it asks for admin, big deal, software does that all the time when it installs. I've never seen a Mac user give a second though to entering the root password in during a software install.

    For viruses, the situation is about the same. The vast majority of viruses these days are e-mail viruses. A person recieves an e-mail that has an attachment claiming to be something they should open. They do so, and it installs a virus, that then proceeds to e-mail itself out to people on their contact list. Again, this is a USER INITATED ACTION. It's not sneaking itself in through a hole, it's waltzing in through the front door. Again nothing you can do if the user has admin access.

    As for exploit viruses, which are a good deal rarer than e-mail viruses, these could possibly reduced on alternate platforms. It is possible that MacOS really is less prone to exploits than Windows. Unforunately, this isn't really testable at this point since there is less effort devoted to looking for OX-X exploits than for Windows exploits. However it is dangerous huburis to think that a UNIX basis equals security. I invite you to look at the history of Solaris/SunOS security holes. Here is real, enterprise grade UNIX, and it has a rich history of security problems. Again, this is not ot say that MacOS might not be better, but one cannot infer it is better from the fact that it is UNIX, or from the fact that it has less found exploits (that you don't know they are there does not mean they are not there).

    Oh and by the way, saying "Windoze" just makes you, and your argument, look immature. It does no good since you aren't going to convince anyone that Windows has faults though simple name calling. Keep it professional and people are more likely to listen to what you have to say.

    1. Re:Sorry, wrong by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear.

      I for one am getting sick and tired of the attitude of a lot of people here to the possibility of non-Windows viruses, malware and exploits. It really does smack of either some kind of misplaced superiority complex ("All OSS programmers are better than closed source programmers, so we won't have those problems!") or simply being in denial ("Viruses?! La la la, I can't hear you!!!").

      As you say, the facts of the matter are rather different. The vast majority of these things require some kind of user action to install and/or spread. My AV software has caught a couple of infected executables, and you know what? Without me running them, they just sit there doing nothing. Of the few self-propagating exploits that have been found over the last couple of years (at least), all the holes have already been patched. Keep your system up to date, and you have little to fear from them. Not patching regularly enough is not unique to Windows - if and when Windows users move to Linux or OS X, they'll fail to keep those systems up to date too.

      XP is easing people into the transition to not running as an admin-level account. Right now, the only reason to do so is because lazy programming teams don't write their software properly; no user-space program should require admin access to run. I fully expect an upcoming release of Windows to "protect" admin access from users in much the same way as OS X, and if your software won't run like that, well then people just won't buy it, and good riddance.

      I've said it before, and I'll say it again - if "alternative" OSes start to make real headway on the desktop, then virus and malware writers will come. It's already starting to happen in other areas - IE is king of the browsers, and so has a lot of malware plugins and extensions targetted at it. However, I've seen a couple of sites recently that pop up extension installation dialogues when I visited them in Mozilla. They may not be malicious (no, I didn't install them), but believe me, it's coming.

      As for the name calling, that's beneath contempt, and speaks of an immaturity that has no place in rational, mature discussions.

    2. Re:Sorry, wrong by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1
      There is one small area you appear to be overlooking. In the open source model, if someone releases a piece of software that requires spyware to install, like Kazaa, in less than a week there will be a fork that is spyware-free. Most of the malware business models don't work when the source is available and can be modified.

      Your points are valid for things like viruses and worms, but the "you can't use my software unless you install my spyware" model won't work in the open source world.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    3. Re:Sorry, wrong by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      For the trojan type, it just piggybacks on other apps. Kazaa RQUIRES you to install and leave installed several peices of spyware to use it. It even TELLS you this. None the less, people install it willingly.

      Because that is the price to get the software. Nothing in life is truely free. Most of the people I know that has tons of spyware enjoy the weather bug, precision time, and hundreds of other semi-useful programs that pay for themselves with spyware. I'm not saying its the best way to conduct business, but if people are just going to install all the free stuff they can as soon as they get in internet connection on their new windows box, nothing is going to help that poor machine.

      People need to learn to be skeptical on the internet. Or when they buy pieces of media crap from their "local" international media factory.

    4. Re:Sorry, wrong by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Don't be an idiot. There is no requirement that source code be provided with any software that runs on Linux. That is FUD straight from Bill Gates.

      The malware will come, and it won't have source code, just like the original poster said.

    5. Re:Sorry, wrong by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1
      Idiots generally have poor reading comprehension. You seem to have missed the point of my post entirely.

      There is a requirement that software following the "open source model" which is what I specified, incidentally, give away the source. If you refuse to install anything that isn't open source on your system, then my comment holds -- which was the point I was making that evidently missed you by a parsec or so. I specifically stated that viruses and trojans would be the same under both models.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
  148. boom chicka boom! by gwoodrow · · Score: 1

    No downloading on your hard drive!
    DRIVE!
    We have copy pro-tec-shun inside!
    SIDE!
    We're running out of ideas, as you can see!
    SEE!
    There's no such thing as bad pu-bleh-sit-tee!
    TEE!

    (Sung to the beat of about 317 songs sampled simultaneously on one track! It's phat!)

  149. Easily resolved by king_grimloc · · Score: 1

    Just don't buy the album because the Beastie Boys suck. I have a Win XP and Linux PC here, and the lack of buying this CD has not affected either one.

  150. Actually... by kcb93x · · Score: 1

    My family's Compaq Presario 5600i (custom built machine) had the 'Compaq Home Networking CD Version 1.0' bundled with it. This was *before* I knew how to really network, I knew I could, but why not just use the disk instead of having to learn? *I was like 14*

    So we popped in the disk on November 25th. Worked fine. Next day - the 26th. All hell broke lose. Ended up the autorun.exe on the CD had the Chernobyl virus on it. Good thing we'd made backups - spent 1 week digging out of MS-BACKUP files EVERY executable on the machine.

    Called Compaq - they totally denied ever having had made said CD.

    9 months later, an envelope from Compaq arrives. I'm like WTF, I didn't order anything...It was the latest version of the CD. By then I'd already gone and learned how to set up TCP/IP etc etc etc and had done it myself.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  151. From the offical forum: by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1
    There seems to have been a slight problem with the database.
    Please try again by pressing the refresh button in your browser.

    An E-Mail has been dispatched to our Technical Staff, who you can also contact if the problem persists.

    We apologise for any inconvenience.

    For the love of God, people!

    REFRESH LIKE YOU'VE NEVER REFRESHED BEFORE!

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  152. Lame by LaTechTech · · Score: 1

    These guys used to be cool back when I was in grade school. It is pretty lame that they have to make terrible songs that are anti-Bush just to sell an album. What ever happened to selling albums because the music is good?

    Here's a choice quote plus the link (I almost got sick reading it; they sound like quasi-hippies to me):

    "Since then, however, these clown princes of hip-hop have grown from B-Boys to men who rock the mic for social change, using their lyrics to decry a host of societal and political ills."

    Completely off topic, but also very funny:

    Anyway, sorry for the rant...21.5 hours of broken windows installations on the weekend will do that to you...

    --
    I want my! I want my! I want my Eee PC!
  153. How to really screw these studios by Windcatcher · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If I had more guts I'd call my uncle and ask him to do this, since he's a local politician and knows lots of judges. Someone should go to his local Justice of the Peace, pay his $50, and sue based on anti-hacking laws, asking the judge for an injunction blocking sale of this album anywhere in his state (or a fine of something like $100,000/day if the record companies defy the judge). Wouldn't it be a kick in the ass if EMI couldn't sell this piece of spywhere anywhere in, say, the entire COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA?

    1. Re:How to really screw these studios by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm. Total population of the earth: 6,375,537,968. Total population of "the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?" 12,281,054.

      Wait, let's run that again:

      Total population. Of the Earth.

      Six billiion three hundred and seventy five million, five hundred and thirty seven thousand, nine hundred and sixty eight. (Projected to 6-20-04)

      Population of.. Pennsylvania?

      0.19% (ZERO POINT ONE NINE per cent) of the TOTAL EARTH'S POPULATION.

      And all law-abiders!

      Yup, really screwed them studios.

    2. Re:How to really screw these studios by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that would be great except for the fact that as someone noted before "One of the comments in the cited links says that the copy protection is only for discs sold outside the US and UK."

      shame really.

    3. Re:How to really screw these studios by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, we need a consumer-rights group to act as the PMRC did during the eighties. Lobby government to ban the sale of the cripple-ware discs as you stated. Of course, the big record labels will fight this, so they'll be happier to settle. As a settlement term, order that they put a 1"x4" label on the front cover stating that putting the disc in a computer or middleware CD-player can cause failure to the hardware, software, and/or OS. Then sit back and watch record sales slump as Joe Consumer thinks that his $200 WalMart DVD/CD player may get damaged by a $20 disc.

  154. Beat the system... by _aa_ · · Score: 1

    ...buy vinyl.

  155. The Beastie Boys Need to Read their Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And earlier today, on Slashdot, we had a little article on how the U.S. will be cracking down on Spyware... If only everyone read Slashdot, the world would be a happier place... aside from the Slashdotted sites that would surely result. ;)

  156. Control? How about PC control? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

    It blows my mind that AV software does not stop or warn about auto-installs. I can write my own little trojan, burn a bunch of CDs with "Paris Hilton FULL" written on them, and leave them around campus (or anywhere) and fully expect to have root/admin on many, many machines.

    The very idea of launching an executable by putting a disc into a drive should have had us up in arms long before the record companies abused this security hole.

    Hopefully, more crap like this means a stronger offensive against crapware, spyware, stealth installs, etc from all fronts, including legislation and being able to sue content providers for damages.

  157. EMI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, you mean the label the Sex Pistols took for 40000 pounds? Gee, no one has ever differed from EMI policy before.

    they only did it 'cos of fame
    who? emi
  158. They HAD to do this by stor · · Score: 1

    Otherwise someone might sample their stuff. =)

    Cheers
    Stor

    --
    "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
  159. none of that crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ....on the version that keeps popping up on SuprNova.org

  160. more by Christ-on-a-bike · · Score: 1
    Some other, very good, no-DRM music sites: I can also vouch for the coolness of Magnatune.

    PS Having said that, I did actually buy the US/UK release of To The 5 Boroughs (which is not affected by the EMI 'protection' system). Don't blame groups for DRM and disc damage; blame the RIAA, their labels, and their stupid contracts.

  161. 'boys' website by imnoteddy · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just got: Forbidden You don't have permission to access /index.html on this server. So their website has DRM too?

    --
    No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
  162. How to disable autoplay by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

    I might as well toss this in:

    HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Serv ic es\CdRom

    Double click on "Autorun"
    Change the value from "1" to "0"

  163. New Song Titles by nathanh · · Score: 3, Funny

    Their next album has the following predicted hits.

    • Three MCs and One DRM
    • Fight Against Your Right (to COOOOO-PY)
    • Intergalactic Copy Protection
    • Sabotage (your Fair Use)

    I was going to buy the latest album but screw them. No album is worth the hassle of DRM.

  164. Written permission? by phorm · · Score: 1

    You do realize, of course, that this would negate the ability of any software - included any that you bought for the specific purpose intended.

    Now, it should be illegal to install any software for any purpose other than the media designates (a game should be able to install the game, office software likewike, no secondary hidden DRM or spyware BS, and music should just play). But how do you word it so that you don't encompass too much, or too little?

  165. .reg file here by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

    For 2K and XP.

    Enjoy

  166. Pennsylvania Anti-hacking Statute by Windcatcher · · Score: 3, Informative

    Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

    CRIMES AND OFFENSES (TITLE 18)

    CHAPTER 39. THEFT AND RELATED OFFENSES

    3933. Unlawful use of computer.

    (a) Offense defined.--A person commits the offense of unlawful use of a computer if he, whether in person, electronically or through the intentional distribution of a computer virus:

    1. accesses, exceeds authorization to access, alters, damages or destroys any computer, computer system, computer network, computer software, computer program or data base or any part thereof, with the intent: to interrupt the normal functioning of an organization or to devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud or deceive or control property or services by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises;

    2. intentionally and without authorization accesses, alters, interferes with the operation of, damages or destroys any computer, computer system, computer network, computer software, computer program or computer data base or any part thereof;

    3. intentionally or knowingly and without authorization gives or publishes a password, identifying code, personal identification number or other confidential information about a computer, computer system, computer network or data base.

    4. intentionally or knowingly engages in a scheme or artifice, including, but not limited to, a denial of service attack, upon any computer, computer system, computer network, computer software, computer program, computer server or data base or any part thereof that is designed to block, impede or deny the access of information or initiation or completion of any sale or transaction by users of that computer, computer system, computer network, computer software, computer program, computer server or data base or any part thereof.

    (b) Grading.--An offense under subsection (a)(1) is a felony of the third degree. An offense under subsection (a)(2), (3) or (4) is a misdemeanor of the first degree.

    (c) Definitions.--As used in this section the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:

    "Access." To intercept, instruct, communicate with, store data in, retrieve data from or otherwise make use of any resources of a computer, computer system, computer network or data base.

    "Computer." An electronic, magnetic, optical, hydraulic, organic or other high speed data processing device or system which performs logic, arithmetic or memory functions and includes all input, output, processing, storage, software or communication facilities which are connected or related to the device in a system or network.

    "Computer network." The interconnection of two or more computers through the usage of satellite, microwave, line or other communication medium.

    "Computer program." An ordered set of instructions or statements and related data that, when automatically executed in actual or modified form in a computer system, causes it to perform specified functions.

    "Computer software." A set of computer programs, procedures and associated documentation concerned with the operation of a computer system.

    "Computer system." A set of related, connected or unconnected computer equipment, devices and software.

    "Computer virus." A computer program copied to or installed on a computer, computer network, computer program, computer software or computer system without the informed consent of the owner of the computer, computer network, computer program, computer software or computer system that may replicate itself and that causes unauthorized activities within or by the computer, computer network, computer program, computer software or computer system.

    "Data base." A representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions which are being prepared or processed or have been prepared or processed in a formalized manner and are intended for use in a computer

  167. Basic challenge: by gerardrj · · Score: 1

    I was just thinking again about the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 1, section 8, clause 8:
    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    Can one say that music is really "useful art"? Useful to me means things like, medical arts, architecture, educational texts, etc.
    The clause also does not seem to protect performers, distributors, or anyone but authors and inventors. EMI didn't author the song, so what right are they protecting?

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  168. hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beastie Boys message board is down.

  169. Lots more here by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 1

    Here are some more for you:

    besonic
    mp3.de
    soundclick
    garageband
    france mp3
    vitaminic(free + pay)
    Washington Post (yup)
    Online Rock
    Peoplesound
    Download.com from the old mp3.com's new owners
    Emusic (pay)
    Artistlaunch

    --
    Sigs are bad for your health.
  170. Re:Beasties replacement? by Moofie · · Score: 1

    Cool. Thanks for the recommendation...I"ll check 'em out.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  171. They aren't the only ones-"You are in a maze..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's pretty well hidden in Windows XP. You have to use the group policies manager to disable it. Goto start --> run --> "gpedit.msc" (thanks to the other replier, I forget what it was called) --> Local Computer Policy --> Administrative Templates --> System (click it) --> on the right pane find "Turn off Autoplay" in the list --> right-click --> properties --> select the "enable" radio button."

    And people complain about the Nautilus switch between Spatial and regular being "hidden".

  172. Re:Naive slashdotters by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 1

    Your comment is a generalization ("All rock bands..."), and therefore false. There are many musicians who play solely out of love for the craft. The Grateful Dead spring immediately to mind. I'm sure most dance DJ's feel this way, as there is very little cult of personality attached to techno music.
    Macarena notwithstanding.

  173. unanticipated outcome from DRM attempts by borgalicious · · Score: 3, Informative
    I have a friend who put a DRM hybrid disk into her iMac (Alexander Calder model) to listen to it. Somehow, the code portion of the disk totally trashed her System 9 boot drive, as in restore from factory media type trashed.

    Not having made the correlation between the two events, she tried to play the disc some days later. The boot drive was trashed again. There is something severely wrong with this model. When code designed to thwart legitimate use causes loss of user data and much time restoring the computer and the code wasn't even written for the box in question, the labels really are shooting themselves in the foot.

    I haven't bought a commercial CD since. Yes, I know a one-person boycott won't kill the industry but I used to buy ~100 discs per year.

    1. Re:unanticipated outcome from DRM attempts by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      Hm... CDs don't have disclaimer saying that they're not liable to damages to your computer, do they? If not, BRING ON THE LAWSUIT!

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    2. Re:unanticipated outcome from DRM attempts by eadint · · Score: 1

      What cd lable is this i would like to look into this. macs arent sopose to be affected by this and apple would consider it malware, quickly fixing it

  174. I don't get BSOD's either by Prof.+Pi · · Score: 2, Informative
    Sorry, but I haven't seen the BSOD in two years

    My employer assigned me a new Thinkpad with XP on it (their choice, not mine), and I don't think I've ever seen a genuine BSOD. MS must've heard too many complaints about those and decided to fix them.

    Instead of those annoying blue screens, my system has a less intrusive way of alerting me to problems. It freezes the cursor and won't do anything until I hit the power button. Sometimes I'll come back from lunch and tind that the machine took the initiative to reboot on its own. When I log back in, there's an error report asking me if I want to "help" Microsoft fix the bug by sending them a report or something. (Yeah, right.) I typically get about one incident a week. (Not counting the reboots I'm required to do after every virus patch -- why on Earth does MS insist on rebooting even when you're just patching an app?

    It's not really so bad, though. Besides Outlook, I mainly use the Windows box to connect vis VPC to a Linux server, where I do my real work. With VPC, you run an X server on the remote machine, and VPC runs its own display program on the local machine, linked by its own protocol. The advantage of this over Exceed (which run an X server on the Windows machine) is that you don't lose anything if the Windows box goes down. After the Windows box comes back up, just reconnect to the remove server, and all your windows are in the same state.

    About every year or so, they reboot the machine to upgrade the kernel, and I complain about the time it takes to restart my KDE desktop. The Windows users look at me like I'm from outer space or something.

    1. Re:I don't get BSOD's either by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      Instead of those annoying blue screens, my system has a less intrusive way of alerting me to problems. It freezes the cursor and won't do anything until I hit the power button.

      Your machine is broken. Take it back to IBM and demand they fix it, or refund your money.

    2. Re:I don't get BSOD's either by Alexis+de+Torquemada · · Score: 1
      Instead of those annoying blue screens, my system has a less intrusive way of alerting me to problems. It freezes the cursor and won't do anything until I hit the power button.

      Your machine is broken. Take it back to IBM and demand they fix it, or refund your money.

      Exactly... let's blame the hardware. But what if a Linux system on the same machine runs much smoother? Is it a hardware (or hardware only) problem in that case, too?

      For example, I had a cheap Duron 800 machine with a rather crappy mobo I guess (I didn't really intend it to become my main machine at home, but so it did). It was configured for dual-boot with Windows 98 (yuck) and SuSE Linux 7.3. Under Linux, it would sometimes spontaneously freeze, forcing me to reset it. Because the same happened running Windows as well, I guess it was a hardware problem*. However, under Linux I would experience one lockup every few weeks. Under Windows, the machine would often freeze after no more than a quarter of an hour. It was a miracle I could actually use it for anything useful. Actually, I - for obvious reasons - avoided starting Windows at all, unless there was something I wanted to do that really didn't work under Linux. I didn't play any recent games at that time (and PrBoom and other Linux games were nice enough for me), plus it would hardly have been possibly to enjoy doing that given the frequent lockups. But I was forced to use Windows in order to copy files from my USB digicam and to my mp3 player, which Linux at the time didn't support properly (access worked somehow but was damn slow).** I tried reinstalling Windows several times, but this didn't improve the situation at all.

      So yes, this was a hardware problem. But why was it that much worse under Windows than under Linux? If you ask me, Linux tends to handle flawed hardware way more gracefully than Windows. Ok, that was the 9x series, but from what I hear the same seems to be true of the NT series.

      *) more specifically a mainboard problem since I actually used quality cards - Matrox Millenium, a TerraTec sound card, and a TerraTec TV/Radio adapter. The latter two run just fine in my current PC. LAN+USB were onboard.

      **) Until that kernel 2.4.21 which I'll never forget, when suddenly all of my USB hardware worked perfectly, even better than under Windows! Kudos to the developers!

    3. Re:I don't get BSOD's either by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      It all depends on the exact hardware malfunction. I've seen systems that ran windows beautifully, but choked on even loading any linux kernel for even a straight console. I've also seen systems that run beautifully with linux or a workalike and then will not run windows very well. Generally the ones that choke on linux choke harder than the ones that choke on Windows, but then again, both cases are few and far between.

      There is also the fact that linux vendors regularly upgrade their kernels to the newer versions that have better support of hardware. Windows only does this with a new point release (meaning a service pack or new version). And even then, the base windows system may or may not have fixed the problems you had. The linux kernels are nicer in telling you the issues they know they have fixed.

      So, you are right and wrong. I still don't love MS any, but seeing as I'm forced to use it, and have fewer problems with hardware than with linux (I use all very good hardware)and I can play my games here without jumping through hoops, as well as the video out on my video card. All in all, I'm stuck on windows for the most part, though my laptop only runs linux (except once in a long while when I actually *need* to boot Windows on it for whatever reason).

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
  175. Well, there's a very clear and simple message here by X86Daddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And the message I get from this is:

    Do not buy this album. If I want to hear it, download it instead.

    Their instruction is just crystal clear. Yes; it sucks that Windows auto-installs crap off CDs, and yes, there's easy ways around that. But to arrive at that is to miss the point. The point is that if you don't want their DRM, don't buy the product... you can get the music for a nice $0.00, without rewarding their vile practice.

    If people in the biz are reading this, please take note: DRM offends and insults and disrespects those who you're trying to sell to. You're only getting sales from the ignorant, and I'm working to reduce their numbers by telling as many friends / family members as I can to stop buying big label music. Flat out stop. Download, buy used, or go with small, respectable labels. (I do still buy, generally direct from small artists; the rest... fuck 'em. Not a dime to the RIAA from me.)

    If you agree, you can help... simply assist as many people as you can to find alternatives to buying big label music. If people really want the latest Beastie / other-pop album, there's torrents, k-lite, etc... and the price is better. Is it wrong? Is killing in a war wrong? I'm working to destroy my enemy or change their stance here; that is the nature of war. You gotta fight... It may be company policy, but you're still sell-out bitches, Beastie Boys (and I love some of your work... oh, well).

  176. I just returned my copy ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and I said I was having problems, but the clerk didn't even argue. It looked like they've seen this often. Good music, bad label. :-(

  177. Linux machines. by eniu!uine · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Wasn't there an article many months (years?) ago about how to circumvent this kind of thing by holding "shift" as you insert the disc? Yes, that's a Windows-only solution, but I don't see this kind of problem affecting Macs or Linux machines."

    I'd like to see them try to install something on my linux machine. Hell, I can't install anything when I'm trying.

  178. Re:Well, there's a very clear and simple message h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was going to buy thid cd to suport one of my favorite bands but no more they can lick me.A downloading I will go.

  179. Simple Solution by serutan · · Score: 1

    Don't buy recorded music. Listen to live music and download songs. The musicians get your money, the record companies don't, and your computer is safe.

  180. Good business decision? by chrisfnet · · Score: 1

    Taking all morality and/or copyright factors out of the entire situation. Do you really think it's a good business decision to deceive and piss-off your consumers?

    "I want you to buy this CD, but if you do - I'll kill this kitten."

    I can understand their need to protect their own intellectual property, but I don't think their doing it the correct way. Adding malicious, and deceptive software to CDs doesn't seem like a way to become favorable with your consumer-base.

    On the upside, maybe this DRM crap will spark the Linux Revolution (TM). We can finally rid the planet of Windows for good!

  181. Macrovision buys Installshield by nurbman · · Score: 1

    Anybody notice this? Link

  182. Re:This goes to the heart of why people choose Lin by Xuranova · · Score: 1

    I don't think peoples anticipation of DRM in the new beastie boys cd had much to do with their linux migration. If it did, I pity them.

    And were you waiting for the most opportune story to make such a "Linux is superior" post? Seriously, no matter how you look at it, your post was out of place and by most means pointless. Well, at least one thing came out of this and that is becoming aware of where your alliance lies. I think its alot more pro-linux than anti-DRM, and no, the two are not inclusive of each other.

    --
    "There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
  183. They can't be all that bad by karniv0re · · Score: 1

    At least their website is open source:

    (From their website)
    Warning: Unknown(/usr/local/apache/htdocs/beastieboys/bbs/s howthread.php): failed to open stream: Too many open files in system in Unknown on line 0

    Warning: (null)(): Failed opening '/usr/local/apache/htdocs/beastieboys/bbs/showthre ad.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/lib/php') in Unknown on line 0

  184. Parsong OR... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that's the problem right there. You can't prove intent to injure or defraud.

    Um, no. Just parse the sentence correctly. OR means that when any of the parts are true, or all of them are true, the statement is true.

    So all that is necessary for these installs to be unlawful is that the malware installs "intentionally and without authorization." If the 'ware is installed with the user's consent, then the "intent to injure or defraud" clause must be true. Of course, if the 'ware does both, that's a slam dunk.

    Screw the RIAA - Support the musicians

    Happy Sunday,
    Mal The Elder

    1. Re:Parsong OR... by Durindana · · Score: 1

      Um, no.

      There is no 'parse the sentence correctly,' because there is almost certainly no operand order laid out in Minnesota law. Without commas expressly delineating the operand order you're just guessing. You may be confident that your interpretation is correct, but laws are interpreted in courtrooms, not on Slashdot. If there's case law on the question, which I'm far too lazy to look for at the moment, that may prove helpful.

      Not too lazy to point out the general requirement of mens rea for crimes which carry felony-level penalties, however. It's basic constitutional law that proving the mental element of a crime can generally not be dispensed with; if you think about this for a minute it's blindingly obvious you can't subject someone to severe criminal penalties unless you can prove they intended to do whatever it is they did (in general; yes, I know about accomplice and unintended-consequence statutes, but this is neither of those).

      To hazard a guess, I'd imagine a judge (at trial) or judges (on appeal) would indeed require an intent to defraud or injure, not merely an intent to access without authorization or whatever. The latter transgression smells more like a property or privacy tort than an appropriate subject for the criminal law. Also, as the original poster is probably aware, in general DAs have near-total authority to prosecute or not as they choose.

      Unfortunately, you're probably out of luck.

      IANAL and this post is not legal advice.

    2. Re:Parsong OR... by Viewsonic · · Score: 1

      The OR is multiple choice, dude. You only need to have one of those to stick up. English is pretty easy. There is also the spirit of the law as well, which most judges use common sense for what they're being used for. This case would fit perfectly for what this law was designed for.

  185. Backfired by TintinX · · Score: 1

    I was about to order this CD and read about the silent DRM installation just before I did.
    Now as a matter of principal (it doen't matter that I can effortlessly get around the auto install) I am not giving the label/distributor my money.
    It's on a.b.sounds.mp3.indie for anyone who's interested.
    Go ch-check it out...

  186. Option 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Become Tech Savvy, try to understand what the fuck windows is doing eh?

    Ignorance is the key to spyware, viruses, malware, DRM...

    1. Re:Option 4 by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Become Tech Savvy, try to understand what the fuck windows is doing eh?

      Not really an option. If you understand Windows you realize it is broken by design and can't really BE fixed. Sure you might learn not to open attachments but you can't be there to stop the overly curious but not quite bright enough to know better nephew from clicking on something. And since Windows still has no security model (just TRY running a locked down system in a home environment and see how far you get) a Windows PC can never be more secure than the least clueful user with access to the machine.

      Plus, unless it is your major purpose in life you can't really KNOW Windows because it changes so fast, even if real accurate documentation were available to non-developers. While over here in UNIX land vi has pretty much been been vi for over twenty years; even if we all use vim, vile or elvis now they still act EXACTLY like vi (except a few of the most obscure and unused commands). A GNU Emacs manual from 1994 would still be very relevent today and will likely still be useful in 2014. An X11 program from 1994 will probably still compile on Fedora Core 2.
      (Question: Will the current Visual C++ still build a Win16 app? A DOS app?) POSIX has been set in stone for a good while. This is a good thing.

      Seriously,over the last twenty years the Microsoft world has had major upheavals. DOS being replaced with Windows. Windows being replaced with Win32 (and the end of compiler memory models, yea!), DOS vs NT kernel, the coming and apparently now the exit of .net in favor of mono.. or maybe it was what .net was originally going to be.. except for a timeline problem.... and now looking forward to yet another major rewrite of damned near everything with Longhorn. Seriously, unless it is your JOB, who has time to keep up with the latest registry hack?

      And just how useful would an MS Word manual from 1994 be now? Or how about a WP manual from 1984? How useful will an Office 2003 manual be in 2014? Who can afford to keep a Windows reference bookshelf up to date? I know I couldn't, I can barely keep up with O'Reilly's UNIX/Linux books as they rev. and then only because I can usually read the list of what is new and decide I don't need the new version yet. But every single book on Windows XP will be useless when Longhorn ships, exactly like every book on Windows 9x is useless for working with W2K and XP.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    2. Re:Option 4 by Ignignot · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I have been running win2k for a long time and I'm happy with its performance. Hell, I'm writing this post on another machine (linux) that is connected to the internet through the win2k machine using internet connection sharing. I have to reboot every couple of weeks, but the windows machine, through very regular virus scans, adware scans, malware scans, and by changing what services are running to the minimum instead of a bizzare collection of things I would never use, is in good shape I think. Also its behind a router which adds a small amount of protection. I keep it anal retentively up to date, and I have a lot of internet explorer functionality turned off so I don't run into too much flak when surfing. I do wish the operating system didn't take up too many resources, but it is a small price to pay for the benefits of broader software support, and free wireless support. Linux didn't support the wireless card that the computer uses unless I shelled out some money to linuxant so my choice was pretty easy. Also, how else can I play some of my favorite games? Yes the operating system goes through big upheavals, but since everyone uses it, it pays to keep current with the system. That might seem like hypocracy since I'm running win2k but at my work that's what we use, and being more familiar with it helps put bread on the table. If they change to XP or 2k3 I'll do the same upgrade.

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    3. Re:Option 4 by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > but at my work that's what we use

      Sounds like you are in that group I referred to with "unless it is your JOB to know". Hell yes, if an employer pays me (and a lot more than I ask for UNIX stuff, since I LIKE doing UNIX stuff) enough filthy lucre to cover the higher training costs, more frequent turnover of my bookshelf, overtime for allnighters when the latest worm hits and to cover the generally higher mental stress of exposure to Windows I'd happily spend my days on MSDN learning the latest registry tweaks so the Beastie Boys couldn't 'own' the boss's machine when one of the kids sticks a CD in.

      But just listen to yourself above! You are "happy" with the performance of a machine you expend a great deal of effort on to keep software NOT installed on, think nothing of rebooting every couple of weeks and unless you are bootlegging that anti-virus program from work, you paid more for it than linuxant wants for a wireless driver. Besides, had you done better presale research you would have selected a wireless card that was compatible. (Giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assuming you actually found a home computer preloaded with the W2K bug or got the machine from work.)

      > Also, how else can I play some of my favorite games?

      Nintendo Gamecube, Microsoft X-Box or Sony Playstation 2. All have their advantages and disadvantages, best discussed on a forum for that sort of thing. Besides, my first and only console was the Atari 2600 so I'm the wrong guy to ask for advice. But if games is your only remaining reason for keeping Windows on a machine, just consider how expensive a PC is to buy and maintain vs a console.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
  187. I want to thank the music industry... by innerweb · · Score: 1
    ... for helping me with my college savings and retirment savings. I used to spend many hundreds to thousands of dollars per year on audio and video. Now, I spend nothing. If I want to hear a song, I request it. If one station does not have it, I find another (have always found what I am looking for). But, mostly, I have picked up my guitar again (first time since I was married),and started working the keyboard again. It is amazing how much better music feels (if not sounds) when you play it yourself. Another nice benefit is that people never told me how good I was when I listened to music. They do so when I play and sing. You all should try it as well. It takes a few years to get anywhere, but it is easy (If you are mathematically inclined, music seems to be much easier, IMO).

    InnerWeb

    --
    Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
  188. Yet? by 87C751 · · Score: 1

    Or "anymore". Or maybe "for the moment" is a better way to put it, because Macs had some of the more original worms back when you could hide one in a floppy disk's resource fork successfully.

    --
    Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
  189. I don't understand by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

    >To find out if this is true, borrow the disc from some sucker who actually bought it, and can't use it. By all means do not buy it yourself.

    I don't understand - you can't use a borrowed original disc and yet you suggest that people don't buy it?

    So how can one listen to it if he doesn't buy it and he can't use a borrowed CD?

    1. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steal it from Wal*Mart, that way you're ultimatly hurting the industry by stealing several pennies from them.

    2. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The industry already got their money when WalMart bought the CD. Stealing from WalMart hurts only WalMart and WalMart customers. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

    3. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wal-mart is a joke. Why would anyone purchase a cd from a store that will not warn you in advance that said cd is missing all the "dirty words". They just expect legal adults to walk into their store, plop down $20 and take their "cd" home, and then be THANKFUL that wal-mart is protecting them from those evil and dangerous words.

  190. obligitary screed by nanojath · · Score: 1

    nanojath declaims how he won't buy stupid corporate music any more and it rocks because the indie stuff is a lot more interesting (I'm listening to some right now). Record Industry: Ow! Ow! Ow! my foot!

    --

    It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

  191. Mod parent up by TheLink · · Score: 1

    I say it _easily_ (no need for any stretching) comes under:

    1. accesses, exceeds authorization to access, alters, damages or destroys any computer, computer system, computer network, computer software, computer program or data base or any part thereof, with the intent: to interrupt the normal functioning of an organization or to devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud or deceive or control property or services by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises;
    ---

    However aren't there other penalties such as jail time?

    --
    1. Re:Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything I've read says the disc in question is specifically labeled as "copy protected," so I don't see what "false or fraudulent pretenses" are involved here.

  192. Just a question... by John+Leeming · · Score: 1

    Is there a tool that literally _blocks_ installations unless and until one can review whatever the hell is being thrown on one's system?

    Just a question, nothing more...

    --
    "Eustace? Eustace? Are you there? Are you there?" = John Leeming
    1. Re:Just a question... by Kredal · · Score: 1

      Ya, it's called the shift key. Hold it down while inserting the CD, and it will keep autorun events from happening.

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
    2. Re:Just a question... by Jack+Schitt · · Score: 1

      Isn't there a registry hack for turning off autorun? Then somebody (me?) could write a simple program in vb or something that polls the cdrom drive every n seconds. If one is found, it ASKS YOU if you want to run the autorun.

      I hate playing DVDs on my computer because they always want to install their own player program, wheras ATI's DVD player works fine for me.

      --
      This message brought to you by Jack Schitt's Previously Shat Shit
    3. Re:Just a question... by Kredal · · Score: 1

      Open up Regedit, and go to this directory in it..

      HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Serv ic es\CDRom

      Find the setting called "AutoRun" and set the value to 0 to turn off autorun. Whee. (:

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
  193. Blackball update by Jack+Schitt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The following is a partial listing of my blackball database:
    ----------------------
    ID: 21284739495
    Name: Capitol Records
    Type: [Commercial Entities: Corportation]
    Alternative: Second-hand cd purchase. Duplicate cd purchase. Online music purchase/download.
    Reasons: Affiliation with RIAA. Unethical business practices. Releasing DRM protected media without notice on the packaging.

    ID: 36876819294
    Name: Beastie Boys
    Type: [Musical Entities: Band/Group/Performer/etc.]
    Alternatives: [Null]
    Reasons: Affiliation with Captiol Records. Releasing DRM protected media without notice on the packaging.

    ID: 36876819295
    Name: Beastie Boys: To the 5 Boroughs
    Type: [Musical Entities: Album/DVD/CD/Tape/Vinyl/etc.]
    Alternatives: [Null]
    Reasons: [Ref to #36876819294#>>(Reasons)]
    ----------------------
    This database was created using a custom tool that will not be made available to the public at this time. I may release my blackball db as an mdb later on though, if any is interested.

    --
    This message brought to you by Jack Schitt's Previously Shat Shit
  194. Completely illegal in the UK? by mattbee · · Score: 3, Informative
    I remember some software which pulled a stunt like this in the name of "copy protection", and in the same way I think the CD's operation may be illegal under the "Computer Misuse Act 1984. Section 3 says
    3.-(1) A person is guilty of an offence if-
    (a) he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and

    (b) at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.

    (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so doing-
    (a) to impair the operation of any computer;

    (b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or

    (c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data.
    Doesn't that sound like exactly what this is? Unauthorised modification of data on a computer to impair its normal operation? Absolutely no consent or knowledge from the purchaser of the CD?

    Any Beastie-Boy-fan lawyers reading who agree? The sentence could be up to five years in jail :-)
    --
    Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
    1. Re:Completely illegal in the UK? by Arimus · · Score: 1

      IANAL but I do have experience from working with computer security firms and from what I've read hear coupled with the various computer misuse acts if someone wanted to give the legal system a tug Beastie Boys may well find the cost of the lawsuite would make the idea of a few downloads and the lost royalties seem like a good idea.

      ANY SOFTWARE which installs without prompting you is in breach of Comp. misuse act...

      --
      --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
    2. Re:Completely illegal in the UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You made a good point, but please, use punctuation.

  195. iTunes by alecbrown · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is simply brilliant for the likes of iTunes, the best reason i have heard for not putting music CDs in my computer again.

  196. Seen this before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...in the Intergalactic Planetary Album.

    There was an autorun program on it. Haven't RTFA'd (will momentarily), guessing this is a more invasive form of the same idea.

    Quoth the Simpsons character Little Nicky: "I am ever so pissed."

  197. not just strange, it defeats the purpose by revolution1901 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    this is more than strange. this is a major f* up. it totally defeats the purpose of the combination of 1) their wide appeal, and 2) their increased intelligence and politicization over the years. --- what's the purpose of waking up socially and politically and having the power to make change if you then *let* the system keep you in check. (keep you in ch-ch-ch-ch-check, i guess that would be.)

    the album aims to encourage people to fight (albeit nonviolently --- better than nothing) against bush and the system. not only did the beastie boys let their message get stifled by record company copy protection (thus the record companies do their little part to keep progressive/anti-bush messages from disseminating, how nice of them) but they also lose the trust of those people who dislike the system and like the b-boys.

    what a huge mistake. it's like, wouldn't it be stupid if michael moore agreed to some new fangled dvd copy protection scheme for when farenheit 9/11 comes out? wouldn't you think, "that makes less than no sense". same with the b-boys. of all people they should have fought this tooth and nail (maybe they did, i want to hear the apology and details of the battle of failure).

    yo, adam, adam and mike: what the f*ck? what about those kids out there who won't get to hear your album because their friend tried to copy it for them but they couldn't, and they aren't middle class enough to afford to buy it? and maybe this album would have been a huge turning point in their life. i want an answer. i'm going to get one. (i notice for now the beastieboys.com forum is down for registering, they couldn't handle or didn't like the result of the /.'ing, i guess? )

    so, yeah. anyways, i plan to make it a personal mission to share this album with as many people as i can. it's been on the bittorent sites since almost the first day. it still doesn't change the fact that they messed up big time.

    i still love the b-boys. i feel like i grew up and matured with them. i'd like them to take the right step here and fight the label bullshit (someone told me they are on Capitol (capital?) who are among the most fanatic of the copy protectors).

    vote Bill Kush in 2004.

    1. Re:not just strange, it defeats the purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Bill Kush...
      I prefer the Spoonerism.

    2. Re:not just strange, it defeats the purpose by revolution1901 · · Score: 1

      nice. you may be the first person to ever get it without explanation (although, i've normally only spoken it, not written it.)

      (by the way, 1901 was a very good year.)

      (off topic, i know... but it's so worth it.)

  198. Slashdotted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    There seems to have been a slight problem with the database. Please try again by pressing the refresh button in your browser.

    An E-Mail has been dispatched to our Technical Staff, who you can also contact if the problem persists.

    We apologise for any inconvenience.

    Now tell me that this wasn't an expected result of linking a crummy, steam powered PHP forum to the front page of Slashdot.
  199. Here's one way to avoid the DRM problems... by gordgekko · · Score: 1

    Don't buy the album. It's as boring as fsck. Drum machines and rote lyrics...

    --
    You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
  200. already downloaded it 2 weeks ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sux.

    They really fell off.

    Definitely their worst album by far.

  201. Won't work. by Otto · · Score: 1

    These are not "music" cd's. They're hybrid audio/data discs using the Blue Book standard. It'll appear like a Data CD to your computer.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  202. So how can I tell if I was affected? by Spoke · · Score: 2

    So how can I tell if I happenned to get one of the CDs that has the auto-install DRM "feature" on it? And how can I remove it?

  203. Virus! (cue running, screaming & flapping of a by RichardX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Okay.. let's face it, Average Joe doesn't really give a septic monkey's lung(*) about DRM.. and if you try to explain to him exactly why DRM is bad - not getting to use copies in his car, etc, he's likely to have fallen asleep before you've got to the really good part about how record comanies are sneaking DRM technology in through the back door, and... etc.

    Likewise, terms such as "spyware" will probably just generate blank stares - though it's starting to become a more recognised term, and it does sound pretty sinister. However, there is one word that will strike hysterical fear into the hearts of simple family folk everywhere.. no, not "terrorist" (well, yeah, okay.. but we'll use that one as a last resort).. no, I'm talking about the term "virus".

    Now, hear me out here.. I know this sounds like an entirely irresponsible and underhanded plan of action, but that's only because, well.. it is. But it's also not all THAT far from the truth - it's software that stealthily gets onto your computer and does bad things to it. In the minds of most "joe average" types, that's pretty much what a virus is (except everyone knows real viruses can launch nuclear missiles, too)

    Anyways. There's a virus on the new Beastie Boys CD. Spread the word, and watch the sales. Just a thought :)

    (*) just to clarify, yes, that is indeed a healthy lung from a septic monkey, rather than a septic lung from a healthy monkey.

    --
    Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
  204. Somebody broke the linked BBoys web page by Secrity · · Score: 1
    The link to the Beasie Boys website now displays:
    "There seems to have been a slight problem with the database."
    The main site is up but the message board section is down.
  205. Re:Freaking brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one of thes days, Alice.

  206. Trojan horse by TheLink · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The false or fraudulent part? It's fine to sell people a CD which says it's "copy protected" that is hard to copy. But it's not fine if that CD is designed to install stuff onto people's computers without their explicit permission - remember they bought the CD to listen to the stuff, not to install software, especially software that is USELESS or perhaps even damaging to them and only USEFUL to the CD creators.

    This is "trojan horse" software.

    If this is legal then creators of webpages could legally install software of their choice into systems of people who just browse a page containing copyrighted content, and say it's "copy protection". e.g. install stuff like monitoring/blocking software so that they could keep track of the user's activities - "to ensure that the terms of use are complied to".

    Even if there's an agreement with lots of fine-print to click on doesn't necessarily make it OK. Otherwise those wormmakers will be spreading those greeting card/screen saver stuff which does other things that's written in the fine print (like allow the worm makers to use the PC for whatever they want).

    How about if I sold you a movie DVD that hypnotized you so that you would never ever willingly make copies of that DVD for whoever or whatever reason? A "Copy Protected" label doesn't count. If the DVD was explicitly about convincing people not to copy then that's different - there is no or little deception involved.

    --
  207. How to burn such cds by stefankoegl · · Score: 2, Informative

    Try unCDcopy from the German news site Heise.

  208. Re:Freaking brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good one

  209. What are you talking about? by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    Windows XP/2000 is not a "hack" on a single user, non-networked DOS based OS. Windows 98 was, definetly, but XP/2k (and NT) definitely have a fully functional multi-user system with working file permissions.

    A lot of older software was coded to require administrator access, but most new software should run fine without it. You should be able to run, and "install" any well-written program as a non-admin user on XP or 2000.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  210. To any record company execs who can read by ajv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have over 700 CDs, and on average buy about 60 or so a year. I do not copy my CDs and I have no copied CDs as I respect intellectual property and feel that artists should be appropriately rewarded for their hard work.

    However, after ill-advisedly buying a copy prohibited disk (Norah Jones), I had to get my car serviced to get the disk out. This cost me a morning of my time, and $70, plus I have a disk I can't use and couldn't return as Borders felt that I had copied it, even though I showed them the VW dealership receipt.

    Norah has released a second album. I will not be buying it. I will not buy any copy prohibited disks. Ever. Not even if you pay for my lost time and my bills to get my stuff repaired when playing music I legally bought and used in usual fashion.

    Wise up or go bust.

    --
    Andrew van der Stock
    1. Re:To any record company execs who can read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your going to miss out on a lot of good media, but that's your choice.

      The best media is always 'protected' as much as possible. Can you buy a GOOD software app without a CD key? Can you buy a GOOD game without 'original CD' tricks?

      Music CDs will be no different. The music industry is just playing catch up to the software industry. Even if the current music industry crumbled and a new one formed, copy protection will be there.

      It's economics. If X amount of dollars spent on copy protection helps with sale drop offs X percent, then X profit is made. The amount of dollars involved is huge, so even a tiny nudge of more sales (as with the apparent success of shift-key sunncomm) equates to millions of dollars.

      There will always be ways around it, but that is a smaller X percent of the population. There will also be those that avoid it entirely because it has DRM/copy protection(as in your case) and that is X percent of the population.

      No copy protection scheme is perfect. All that matters is that in the end the X profit is made and then it's successful.

      Most people don't care. They want the media. They want to support their artist. They'll hack around it if they don't want the DRM crap.

    2. Re:To any record company execs who can read by ainsoph · · Score: 1

      They want to support their artist.

      Stop yer killing me..

      Buying media does nothing to support your favorite artist. You wanna support your favorite artist? Give em a couple of bucks on the street.

      Buying media supports those who opress and exploit artists, and feeds your own addiction to consumption.

      Have fun dupe.

    3. Re:To any record company execs who can read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By and large buying a CD does not support the artist.

      That portion of the cost of a CD that goes to the artist is refered to in the industry as the "Mechanical". This "Mechanical" on average amounts to between 4-15 cents per disc depending upon the negotiated artist contract.

      The lions share of the money goes to the publisher. In some cases the publisher is also the artist. I dont know about the Beasties in particular, but Id be willing to bet they own their publishing.

      All of this being said, in most cases, the best way to support your favorite artists is to request their songs on radio, to go to see them live, and to buy their concert shirts. These 3 things get the artist the most money and make their song climb the charts thereby giving them increased bargaining power with their label. If they get more bargaining power they may be able to negotiate their own publishing.

      CD sales dont make artists rich. CD sales make labels/publishers rich.

  211. Beasty Boys broke my PC ? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 4, Interesting


    My soulmate wanted to rip the CD to put on his Archos Jukebox, since he is not using CD's anymore but still buys them to be legal and to have the full version.

    Since I put in the CD I can't run my company invoice system anymore, can't do anything at all with that cdrom drive, not even play a game. Every time I put in the CD it cannot be recognized by my system.

    I already tried to uninstall the software but the problem stays, which forces me to reinstall the PC completely (which I definitely don't have the time for now at the moment and will cost me days to get the invoicing update done).

    Is this legal ? Can this be allowed ? I am literally loosing money now just because I wanted to rip that legal and bought cd for him straight to his Archos. It's not even music I like to listen to...

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
    1. Re:Beasty Boys broke my PC ? by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1

      Umm. maybe your soulmate did a little more than rip a CD. Mine used to act like that for a day or two after my mom used the computer. She swore that all she did was "by clothing off the internet."

    2. Re:Beasty Boys broke my PC ? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1


      Since I did it myself I know for sure nothing more happened. I rip a lot of cd's of myself to my own archos so I can use it whenever I am travelling.

      Never had this problem before, only one time had the problem a Solid Sounds CD did not want to leave the CD-ROM drive because it was copyprotected but a paperclip does the trick ...

      Although this problem really annoys the hell out of me because I am now unable to use MY pc for what it's being used for daily.

      --
      --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
    3. Re:Beasty Boys broke my PC ? by zarker · · Score: 1

      I assume you tried the usual turning the computer on and off?

    4. Re:Beasty Boys broke my PC ? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

      I tried to uninstall that driver, tried to uninstall it through system settings, disabled it, tried to reboot, removed the program physically by deleting it, tried to remove the cd-rom drive through system settings, reinstalled the cd-rom drive ...

      It still does not recognize the cd's - very weird but it happened when I "installed" that CD...

      --
      --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  212. The Liner Notes by cammoblammo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Given the EULA that these things will attempt to pass off on us, I wonder if they can (pseudo-legally, at least) get around *nix type security arrangements?

    Hey! Buy this great CD! It rocks! It jives! It's phat. It's good, and reeeaaalll bad! Stick it up the establishment, throw down your oppressors and ROCK!!!!

    .
    .
    .
    4. A II 3 e vii) THE USER AGREES, IN THE EVENT OF SECURITY SYSTEMS ON MUSIC SYSTEM BLOCKING THE INSTALLATION OF SAID MUSIC PROTECTION SOFTWARE, TO SUPPLY AS NEEDED ALL PASSWORDS, ENCRYPTION/ DECRYPTION KEYS, USER NAMES, OPERATING SYSTEM DETAILS, CREDIT CARDS NUMBERS AND ALL OTHER INFORMATION NECESSARY TO INSTALL AFOREMENTIONED ON THE AFOREMENTIONED MACHINE OF AFOREMENTIONED USER, HERETOFORE AFOREMENTIONED.
    4. A II 3 e viii) IN THE SITUATION THE SAID MUSIC PROTECTION SOFTWARE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE OPERATING SYSTEM, APIS, REGISTRATION DEVICES, OR OTHER SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE FEATURES OF THE COMPUTER ON WHICH THE SOFTWARE IS TO BE INSTALLED THE USER AGREES TO REMOVE ALL SOFTWARE FROM THE COMPUTER, INCLUDING OPERATING SYSTEMS, AND AGREES TO INSTALL THE PRESCRIBED OPERATING SYSTEM SOFTWARE WHICH CAN BE PURCHASED VIA WWW.MICROSOFT.COM. ANY NECESSARY SOFTWARE PURCHASES, SYSTEM UPGRADES, OR OTHER CHANGES IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE USER. THE PUBLISHER WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ASSOCIATED COST.

    .
    .
    .

    Yeah! Rock on!

    I'd like to thank my girl, my wife, my manager, and most of all God who made all this possible.

    --

    Cogito, ergo sig.

    1. Re:The Liner Notes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to lynch the idiots modding this up as Informative. Don't the mods ever READ the posts before modding? That's obviously Funny, not Informative. But, I forgot this was Slashdot.

    2. Re:The Liner Notes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I should hack their website and put up a notice saying that they're required to let me back in should I want to hack them again. Oh, and by the way, I'm not liable for any damages because they agreed to this by having my copyrighted work (the license I put there myself) even if I decide to delete their whole damned site.

      What? It's no different than what they're doing...

  213. I Tried to Register so I could complain ... by George+Worley · · Score: 1

    But could not because of this error:

    There seems to have been a slight problem with the database.
    Please try again by pressing the refresh button in your browser.

    An E-Mail has been dispatched to our Technical Staff, who you can also contact if the problem persists.

    We apologise for any inconvenience.

    I guess there response to the DRM's on the CD is overwhelm the registration database.

  214. Meet the Press and Boycott the Beasties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get the word out. We must take this information mainstream. It's hard since the TV stations want to keep us down, but maybe we can get an audience.

    We should organize groups in all major cities to meet with the press at good enlightened small CD stores. Give the small CD stores a boost with us.

    I haven't bought this CD and I will no longer buy Beastie CDs. I encourage you to do the same.

    Well, you can and should buy or contribute to these 3 beastie boys.

    www.openbsd.org
    www.freebsd.org
    www.netbsd.org

  215. So, let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's hard to believe that a band that has prided itself on pushing the envelope and being controversial would do something like this."

    So, what you're saying is, a band that considers itself to be constroversial uses a constroversial copy protection system...bit of an oxymoron :)

  216. prostate? by wadiwood · · Score: 1

    > quick prostate massage

    I guess the majority of humans won't be able to use that OS cos they don't have a prostate.

    Since when has Micro$oft anything worked perfectly anyway? What a dumb grandparent this post has.

    --

    -- it must be true, it's on the internet.
  217. So what? BFD by NineteenSixtyNine · · Score: 0

    Just rip it on a "friend's" computer.

    --

    --
    What would Bill Clinton do?
  218. Choice. by ZxCv · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So to avoid having the CD install DRM software on your computer, you used a DRM system you already had (iTunes) to buy the songs in AAC format with DRM?

    I chose to install iTunes. And I chose to buy songs from iTMS.

    And although I bought this CD, I did not choose to install its DRM.

    --

    Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
  219. Mike D says: EMI's call, not on US/UK CDs by jon323456 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Found this attached to BoingBoing's writeup of the same thing:

    Update: Ian sez, "Hi, I'm not sure who posted re: Beastie Boys copy protection, but I just spoke with Mike D and their management and they wanted me to pass along that a) This is all territories except the US and UK -- US and UK discs do not have this protection on them; b) All EMI CDs are treated this way, theirs isn't receiving special treatment; c) They would have preferred not to have the copy protection, but weren't allowed to differ from EMI policy."

  220. Just disable the god damn autorun by melted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not that hard, you can do it. Better yet, write a script and run it on your friends' computers, too. Be proactive about this shit.

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?ur l= /library/en-us/shellcc/platform/shell/programmersg uide/shell_basics/shell_basics_extending/autorun/a utoplay_reg.asp

    Oh, and not buying CDs from bands that have no respect for you would be a good idea, too.

  221. UK version is non-DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Reading the articles, it says that the US and UK releases are the only ones without DRM. Possibly that's the reason. We had an article about US anti-spyware laws just the other day that would ban installing without consent, and according to another poster further up the story this is already the case in Minnesota.

    It looks like the record companies are on the run. Now all we need is Canada and Europe to follow suit.

  222. Remove spaces in the URL above by melted · · Score: 1

    after doing copy & paste.

  223. obl futurama quote by Sunnan · · Score: 1

    "Hey, Bender! Gonna make some noise
    with your hard drive scratched by the Beastie Boys!"

  224. vira? Get it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Virus" or "Viruses"
    Idiot.

  225. Fight for your right to party heh? by TTimo · · Score: 1

    nuf said

  226. Dont even trip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dont even think about dissin on the bboys. They are some true hip hopping ya dont stop b-boys.

  227. Heh III by Texas+Consultant · · Score: 0

    Heh. Not on my stereo. You have to be dumb as a brick to waste money on that "music."

  228. Re:Independent Labels by Bastian · · Score: 1

    Man, there needs to be a way to identify independent labels. I can't for the life of me find a site that lists truly independent labels or artists on truly indie labels, and most the ones that claim to be independent are really just peons of Columbia House or Sony or some such.

    The biggest roadblock I find when I am encouraging people to stick with independent labels and artists is that when they ask me how to know what is independent, I have to shrug my shoulders and tell them it takes a huge pile of research.

    I've heard the suggestion of having an association of independent labels, but that sounds like a good way to end up with two RIAAs to me. (Double your evil, double your fun!) Maybe if there were an organization that trademarked a logo that labels could put on their CD and aggressively enforced that only indie labels could use that logo.

  229. Solution works on every copy protection by thehomeland · · Score: 1

    Analog recording. Play it on your stereo and record it thru the in-plug on your soundcard. If you can hear it, you can share it.

  230. It's Sabotage by kitzilla · · Score: 1
    So Listen Up 'Cause You Can't Say Nothin'
    You'll Shut Me Dow With A Push Of Your Button?
    But I'm Out And I'm Gone
    I'll Tell You Now I Keep It On And On
    'Cause What You See You Might Not Get
    And We Can Bet So Don't You Get Souped Yet
    You're Scheming On A Thing That's A Mirage
    I'm Trying To Tell You Now It's Sabotage.

    From the Beastie Boys, "Sabotage" (1994)

    --
    This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
  231. It seems to me like the Beasties don't need .... by Stew_Pidbeatch · · Score: 1

    ... to install software to impede piracy. I think they've found another way to limit it; come out with an CD _so_ bad, no one will want to pirate it.

  232. Folly of No Root/User Distinction in Windows by javacowboy · · Score: 1

    This is yet another example of why Windows shouldn't allow the user account to install software. A Windows user should have to log in to an administrator or root account if he/she wants to install any kind of software.

    This would solve many Windows problems, including spyware, virii and this DRM installer nonesense.

    Microsoft doesn't want to give you this ability, because it prevents them from allowing the media companies to take over YOUR computer.

    --
    This space left intentionally blank.
  233. Hipocracy goes further than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you remember the words to "Get Back" by The Beatles?

    The *original* lyrics hel the gem:

    "get back home you pakkie bastard".

    Because at that time, pakistani immigrants were poentially affecting them and their friends (taking their jobs).

    Later, when their livelyhoods were not affected by immigrant labour, and their circle of friends included more people in the same situation, it became

    "get back to where you once belong".

  234. Good ol vinyl by DA_Chef · · Score: 1

    Buy it in vinyl.

    If you don't have a record player, download the tracks from your favourite p2p-network.

  235. Re:Well, there's a very clear and simple message h by AC5398 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    *** Do not buy this album. If I want to hear it, download it instead. ***

    No, no, no dude. You've sent the wrong message. You've just told the music execs that you are unrepentant music pirate who will use any excuse to justify not paying for music.

    Yeah, I know where you're coming from, but the Gucci-wearing music geniuses won't. And they'll take your above statement as the justification for their virus-laden music cds: you must be forced to pay for the music.

    If you want to let them know you are really UPSET about legitimately purchasing a cd, about doing the RIGHT thing but instead of being given a pat on the back they label you a thief instead, then don't go anywhere near their music.

    Don't purchase it. Don't download it. Don't listen to it on the radio. You hear the Beasties on Q107, phone the DJ and tell him not to put such crap on the air.

    Then write, both to the Beasties and to the music execs, and tell them you aren't purchasing their music, you aren't downloading their music, hell, you won't even listen to it because of the DRM-virus on the last cd. Then tell 'em you are encouraging all of your friends to do the same.

    When the music industry sees all interest in their bands die - put DRM on a music cd and sales/interest in the band/artist dies - the industry will soon learn not to DRM anything.

    And that is what both you and me want -- to purchase an audio cd and be able to play it without fearing it'll screw the computer up and result in another 3 days worth of fighting with the damn machine to get it working properly again, all because I was stupid enough to want to play the music on the portable mp3 player. THAT kind of hassle I do not need.

  236. Would it be legal if you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bought the CD and left it in its original packaging and then download the music in MP3 form. The same could be asked about games: if you bought them, left them in original packaging and then downloaded the games. You own the media but are not agreeing to any addendums to any EULA's. Just wondering...

    1. Re:Would it be legal if you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately not. Thanks to the DMCA and similar laws in Australia and numerous European countries, it is illegal to download the music, no matter whether you have the original CD or not.

  237. Disable autorun and other crap by .+visplek+. · · Score: 1

    I use xsetup for tweaking Windows register settings. It tweaks all versions (al two of them :)) and can do many other nice things. It's free, works plugin based and it has a very nice search option.

    --
    - Save a tree, eat more woodpeckers
  238. beastie boys website bbs thread by tobyvoss · · Score: 4, Informative

    here is a link to the forum thread explaining that the copy protection is on all emi cds, except us and uk versions, and that the beastie boys would have liked it not to be protected but couldn't help.

    1. Re:beastie boys website bbs thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      beastie boys would have liked it not to be protected but couldn't help.

      These guys have been around for 20 years, and have a huuuuuge, loyal fan base.

      In light of that, you'd think they'd be able to extract a few concessions from their record company. I guess all these big, long-lived acts are too busy putting outlandish things into their performance riders to concern themselves with doing something for their fans.

    2. Re:beastie boys website bbs thread by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      So what it boils down to is the Artist got screwed by signing a bad contract.

  239. I'd never heard that definition... by blorg · · Score: 1

    ...until you mentioned it - I had always associated the phrase with the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883, which did in fact turn the moon blue.

  240. Whining and Bitching? Try this: by Kwil · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since writing on slashdot about this means something between Jack and Shit to the music industry execs, what you could try is writing out your letter and hitting print instead.

    Once that's done, send it to here:
    By Mail
    Corporate Communications Department
    EMI Group plc
    27 Wrights Lane
    London
    W8 5SW

    Or call:
    Tel: 020 7795 7000

    If you happen to be a shareholder, you can use the fast track address/number:

    Lloyds TSB Registrars
    Shareholder Services
    The Causeway
    Worthing
    West Sussex
    BN99 6DA
    Tel: 0870 600 3984
    (+44 121 433 8000 from outside the UK).

    Tell EMI who you are, why you bought their music before, and why you won't be buying it in future.

    If the only thing these boys understand is money, let's let them see what's happening to it.

    --

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    1. Re:Whining and Bitching? Try this: by Martix · · Score: 1

      Just sent this to EMI Canada

      EMI Music Canada
      3109 American Drive
      Mississauga, Ontario
      L4V 1B2
      (905) 677-5050

      HI there

      Just wanted to let you know sneaking in software is as good as giving me or you a virus. on a simple note just wanted to let you know im not happy with the whole copy protected DRM ect. the entertainment industry is doing as a whole.
      because of all the sneaky antics.

      One year my van got broken into I lost over $1000 dollars in CD's I do believe in buying the music not downloading it.
      I buy disks I rip into mp3's so I can take the music in the car and listen to it on my computer saving the originals from theft or damage and when my copy get ruined over time I can make a new one.

      But the new disks wont play in car decks computers ect(copy controlled DRM ect).

      So I wont buy any protected disks that wont play or infect my computer or cost me money to get the disk out of my car deck.

      Its to bad really that this is going on because in the end you lost out on 6 sales this week and someone some ware will crack it and like a virus the cracked files will wind up on P2P networks.

      It would be better to lower prices and make more of a effort to repair the damage done by this type of activities( music industry and the consumer).

      when the DRM and Copy protection is gone I will then think it will be safe to buy the music again.

      there are a lot of people that are looking at you in anger and rightfully so due to the way you sneaked in DRM software on the new Beastie Boys album. there should have been a warning on the disk. I see none. best just to remove. the Malware spyware or virus that's on this disk and let people return the CD that is not a true CD (red book) and replace it with on that is ....and no DRM ect on it.(then I will buy it)... I do have the original vinyl licensed to ill.

      I do respect that the artists are to be paid I have over 1000 records and over 400 cds and I am happy to listen to them.

      but please think about what your doing your Beastie boys album and others have caused some computers to crash and not run again and some car decks that need repair...
      This is not a good thing its like committing suicide.

      you may find your self in one nasty law suit soon.

      Thanks for reading

      ********* (name withheld for this post)*********

    2. Re:Whining and Bitching? Try this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have a better idea, tell everyone you know and meet about the problem/issue.

      Tell them not to buy music from EMI.

      That letter will just reach some low level person and never make it to the top.

      Hurt them where they will feel it the most. Their bank accounts.

      heh the beastie boys indeed. More like middle aged men who want a new car and house.

    3. Re:Whining and Bitching? Try this: by Kwil · · Score: 1

      Do both.

      But doing the latter without the former is rather pointless.

      Boycotting without informing is pointless. After all, it could simply be that audience tastes changed. It could also be (and this is the excuse they like to use) that piracy is up, thus providing reasons to get even "better" DRM schemes in place.

      --

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

  241. IT'S NOT A CD, DAMMIT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is NOT a CD! It's a program that doesn't meet CD Digital Audio redbook standards.

    We need to stop calling it a CD. We need to remind people that it is not possible to buy the new Beastie Boys album on CD, outside the US and UK.

    If you look at this disc, I'm sure you'll find that there's no hind of the term "compact disc" on it. The record companies are very careful NOT to make that mistake, knowing full well that between the stores and the users, the distinction will be lost, but they'll be legally safe.

    If we call it a CD, then we're destroying the knowledge that real CD's can't have copy protection, they can't install software, and they can't be misused in this way.

    Don't let the record companies get away with this! If they're in the "Rap CDs" section of your local music store, tell them that they're breaking the law.

    (Posting anonymously, since I've moderated people in this discussion)

    1. Re:IT'S NOT A CD, DAMMIT!!! by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      They could technically be sued either way - Lindows lost on less of a case. These are the exact same size and shape as CDs and 'work' in CD drives and are packaged and sold as CDs, 9 out of 10 people questioned in a store would say they had bought a CD and the other 1 would say 'get out of my face' theres absolutely no debate that these wouldnt be confused as CDs as much as I hate patent and IP law and im sure the relevent CD trademark owners have either been paid a shitload to allow this or are about to win a shitload in court.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    2. Re:IT'S NOT A CD, DAMMIT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Don't let the record companies get away with this! If they're in the "Rap CDs" section of your local music store, tell them that they're breaking the law."

      Umm, the local music store can put the *CDs* anywhere they goddamn chose to.

  242. what do you think? by golgafrincham · · Score: 1

    So it's not about educating the user, or switching software all the time or even turning everything off, where's the fun in that?

    this is all well and good mr. hand, but what should one do? all you say is "that's not the answer". what is your answer then?

    --
    beer as in "free beer"
  243. You are contributing to the problem by iamacat · · Score: 1

    Think of DRM as a company telling you what you can and can't do, not as a technological measure. If it's unacceptable to you, buy entertainment elsewhere and let their bottom line suffer. Otherwise they will just assume consumers accept DRM and sell all CDs protected. Just look at Macrovision on DVD.

  244. Please do not buy music from these record labels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been said time and time again, do not buy music from certain labels.

    It appears the average slashdot user buys a lot of cds from record labels we hate.

    It appears the average slashdot user runs microsoft windows.

    Hypocrites. Each and everyone.

  245. Look, how they make me pirate their music by fatmanone · · Score: 0

    I had NO INTENTION of listening to the Beastie Boys new album (nor I knew about it:)) until I read about this despicable doing.
    So I just downloaded the album, just to be sure I rip the lousy 20 bucks from them. (evil)

  246. Message from Beastie Boys camp by iancr · · Score: 1
    Hey all, I've worked with Beastie Boys since 1994 or so (used to run their web site once upon a time, did a couple of tours with them) and have been following this matter. See my reply to Cory's original Boing Boing post:

    http://boingboing.net/2004/06/11/new_beasties_disc _ha.html

    Someone please tell me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the copy protection is *only* on non-US and non-UK discs. I also believe that this protection is "EMI policy", and nothing specific to Beastie Boys' disc.

    I can tell you for a FACT that Beastie Boys didn't want this and fought against it, but lost this battle with their label.

    We encourage you to buy a non-protected US or UK disc. We understand that in today's world Slashdotters are going to do whatever it is they usually do to get music, and this post isn't going to change that. But when we've done so much progressive work in this space over the last 10 years it sucks to see a Slashdot post claiming we're "Evil".

    See you at the live shows, ian

    1. Re:Message from Beastie Boys camp by MacWiz · · Score: 1

      I can tell you for a FACT that Beastie Boys didn't want this and fought against it, but lost this battle with their label.

      Then they'll certainly understand when no one wants to buy it.

      After four years of the record labels treating their fans like criminals, any group that still sucks the major label tits deserves no respect whatsoever from the consumers and even less in the way of sales.

  247. Message received by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This is just the recording industry's coy way of saying "we don't want you to use CDs anymore." Take the hint people. Download these albums off your favorite P2P or Usenet group (make sure you send the royalty payment directly to the artist so it's all legal.) That's the only way to make sure you're getting the music the way you want.

    Frankly, I admire the recording industry having this much nerve to finally put the nail in the music CDs coffin, once and for all. Help them out and download the music.

  248. Re:Windoze by spitzak · · Score: 1

    It is f**king annoying that they chose a common word for the name for their system. I am working on GUI interface software and the fact that by default you cannot tell whether I am talking about the OS or the plural of an object that is used quite a bit in GUI makes documentation almost impossible unless a different word is chosen for the name of the OS. So for very professional reasons I used "Windoze" for many years, with no complaints from users Windows users. Then suddenly people started saying "oh using that word means you hate Microsoft" I had to switch, I now am forced to use "WIN32" to indicate the operating system (you use "#ifdef _WIN32" to detect it in C++ code, so I guess this is an officially sanctioned name). Thanks a lot for making my documentation look a lot worse and more geeky than it needs to be.

    I consider it extremely annoying the political-correctness has forced me to obfuscate my own work, and am very annoyed at people with your attitude, and the sad fact that all fun and creativity is being sucked out of this field by people like you.

  249. I don't care about DRM by mattgoldey · · Score: 0, Informative

    I'm going to buy the music I like. I don't care what label it's released under. I don't care what crazy copy-protection technology they try to use. It doesn't matter to me.

    Whatever they do, we'll always be one step ahead. The new Beastie Boys disc was copy-protected, I downloaded a copy from the Internet 2 weeks ago (at least a week before it was even released). Yes, I have since purchased the album - the BBoys are in my all-time top 5 bands.

    Sure, the unwashed masses may get screwed in the process. I don't care.

    It's all about me.

  250. Has anyone tryed . by odaen · · Score: 1

    Battling it out between the Velvet Revolver and the Beastie Boys album. I wonder if DRM incompatabilities is anything to worry about on broken computers in the future.

  251. Great! by crhylove · · Score: 1

    This simply means that ethically I can no longer justify buying any of their albums. Save me some money!

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  252. Alternative means to purchase w/o Spyware by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 1

    You could always buy it through iTunes Music Store. Of course Tux would be out of luck then... No spyware, just pretty reasonable DRM that lets you then burn to a "normal" CD. Of course your player is limited until you round-trip through the CD burn. Does iTunes run under Wine? Does the Beastiely CD Spyware install under Wine?

    --
    - Tjp

    I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

  253. Serve? FOUR!!! by Eric(b0mb)Dennis · · Score: 1

    Okay, attempt #2, first Velvet Revolver now the Beastie Boys....

    How long will it take the stupid record lables to figure out people WILL hit the shift key (replace shift key with whatever it takes) and once that ONE pirated copy appears on the internet it's a no-brainer from there...

    All it takes is 1 person to break the DRM... once that has been done the data is free game.

    --
    Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
  254. my protest against CD protections ... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1


    I wonder why I deserved my CD-ROM drive not to be working anymore because I have tried to copy my friends legal-bought CD to the Archos of him.

    I can't read anything anymore through the CD-ROM drive, no data and no audio cd's, nothing works since I have inserted the new Beasty Boys CD.

    I am really starting to get annoyed since this means a complete re-install of that PC which I do not have the time (or money) for. A lot of data is on backup but also a lot of data (my vinyl and protected CD's ripped to WAV format) will be lost after this re-install.

    These copyprotections are taking more time than I have; to be even more specific, certain CD's like Solid Sounds I need to rip manually to be able to USE this CD in my older car cd player and pro Denon DJ CD player!!! Since I am DJ and using vinyl and CD's a lot I find this unacceptable.

    Is this copyprotection a convenience only for the record company or should the audio CD be a convenience for the listener? Where's the time you put in the CD in your favorite cd player you like to listen to the music you like ? The time of putting your cd in your car cdplayer, cd-rom drive or professional CD player is over and it's only getting worse, looking to this example of the latest CD I tried to rip for my friend.

    I used to buy 2 to 5 cd's a month, since I am not sure anymore which cd's work or not I started buying more vinyl again, but hell, I do not want to buy ANY releases of the same producers that cripple the audio CD's I have bought for 20 EURO or more!

    The recording industry has lost at least 600 EURO last year only because I do not want to buy or use cd's anymore.. what's the use to buy a cd if I can't use it?

    I have built up a nice record collection of +30000 vinyl records and +2000 cd's. Probably the collection of my cd's will not be updated anymore as protest to this kind of behavior towards the consumer. I currently have about 62 cd's of the last 2 years that I cannot use at all unless I rip it and copy it. This is about 1200 EURO/$ I have lost because I cannot use them as DJ.

    This will conclude the recording industry will not get MY money of minimally 720 EURO/$ per year anymore, which I will spend on independent vinyl recording companies which are not related to the ones that cripple MY cd's I have bought with my well-deserved money.

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  255. Look! Im funny! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You gotta fight - for your right - to cooooooopy!

  256. Don't pretend you are immune. by thomasdelbert · · Score: 1
    It's weird, technically, it's a virus. It spreads onto your system without your knowledge and prevents the computer from doing some function.
    Aren't viri defined by idea of self-replication? To be a virus, you have to make copies of yourself and distribute them so the copies can repeat the cycle. This goes more under spyware as it installs on your computer and watches what you do and responds to those actions.
    Glad we use Linux, we're immune from all these WinViruses ;)
    While yes, Linux is inherantly more secure than Windahs, but daemons run just as well from a user as they do from root, and social engineering works just as well if you are using Linux as it does Windahs. Not only that, but most of the notorious viri that have appeared lately didn't show up because of problems in Windahs, but because of problems in the software that runs Windahs (usually Outook, SQueaL Server, etc (Yes, I know, same company)). It's only a matter of time before the first Linux worm arrives so we can't rest on our laurels, we have to be just as vigilant on a Linux system as we do on Windahs.

    - Thomas;
    --
    ___ This sig is in boldface to emphasize its importance!
    1. Re:Don't pretend you are immune. by molarmass192 · · Score: 1

      That's true but it's almost impossible for a worm to reach critical mass on Linux. The reason why Win* is such a hotbed for them is that the environments are so fricken homogeneous that it's very easy to create a "write once, run everywhere"-ish virus. Linux is blessed with a severly heterogeneous install base. To get to the point, the exploit might be there in all that are running the particular kernel version -but- doing anything "?useful?" with your virus is way harder since as a virus writer you have to make assumptions about glib, kernel patches, directory layout, etc. So it'd be easy to target say a stock SuSE 9.1 install on x86 but you'd have a much harder time getting that same code to also inject on RHEL, Debian, Gentoo, Slack, Mandrake, etc. Also, most distros release twice a year, so that SuSE install base is likely to be mainly spread between 9.0 and 9.1, leaving the available infection pool that much smaller.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    2. Re:Don't pretend you are immune. by mad_goldfish · · Score: 1

      On that basis, I wouldn#t call it a virus, but it does sound an awful lot like a trojan horse. You think you've bought an audio CD but what you've actually got is a corrupted non-red book optical disk that installs software you didn't ask for on your machine. Aren't trojans one of the warnings the RIAA gives you against P2P?

      --
      Don't read my journal. I don't post there, honest guv.
    3. Re:Don't pretend you are immune. by hearingaid · · Score: 1

      Quite right. It is, in fact, a trojan, i.e. something which pretends to be something else, which installs itself when the user isn't looking.

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

    4. Re:Don't pretend you are immune. by Hognoxious · · Score: 0
      a trojan, i.e. something which pretends to be something else, which installs itself when the user isn't looking.
      Trojans install themselves when you are looking. That's why they pretend to be something else - they wouldn't need the disguise if you were looking.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Don't pretend you are immune. by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      I think is this also a matter of the user base. Assuming Linux begins unseating Windows on the desktop I think we will begin to see a homogonizing of Linux, at least for the average user. Most people don't want to fiddle with the inner workings of thier computer, they just want to click next until the computer gives them a smiley face and they can use thier new gadget. To this end, I expect that we will see one or two flavors become widely popular with the main-stream users, with the rest being relegated to geek toys. Further, the one that will become dominant will be the one that gives the user what they want, ease of use, unless one of the flavors starts a good marketing campaign. Moreover, you will probably start to see apps developed for Linux which make things eaiser for a user, but make the system less secure. Consider the root password for a moment; the user will have to type it in every time they want to install a new piece of software. This is a great idea for security, but damned inconvient for a user. So, naturally, some enterprising person will invent Gatorux, a wonderful little program that lets you type in your root password once and forget about it, then any time it is requested Gatorux will type it in for you automagically. Of course, now that Gatorux has root access, it will install and regularly update some adware program that creates no end of headaches. It will also become a prime target for hackers.
      Also, lets not forget the social engineering aspect. It will change slightly, but it will still work the same. The email will simply be an icon that says "Nekkid pics of Anna Kornokova", and when clicked will have a dialog box pop-up and say "Type root password to download HOT NAKED pictures". And we will still have countless people infected with a virus. A bit harder to do, maybe, but its going to happen. As PT Barnum didn't say, "There's a sucker born every minute".
      Lastly, you will have those users who will just run as root all the time because, it works better.
      Personally, I can't wait to see Linux really take off on the desktop, it will be better overall, but far from perfect I expect. However, I do think that the current fractured state of Linux going to go away as it happens. Average users and businesses are going to want something that is standardized. They are going to want something that they can expect to just work. And they are going to install programs that will comprimise the security of thier system because, it makes it work "better". "Better", of course meaning, "I don't have to think about it." Also, if nothing else, Linux on the desktop would give Microsoft some meaningful competition, which might just make them start to innovate again, and put out a quality product.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    6. Re:Don't pretend you are immune. by hearingaid · · Score: 1
      I think you're getting caught up in wordplay.

      However, I will re-explain. A trojan installs itself after having convinced the user that something else is going on. That would be "when the user isn't looking." Ok? :)

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

    7. Re:Don't pretend you are immune. by Hognoxious · · Score: 0
      A trojan installs itself after having convinced the user that something else is going on. That would be "when the user isn't looking." Ok? :)
      So if I put on a fake beard and dark glasses, that means you're not looking at me?
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:Don't pretend you are immune. by hearingaid · · Score: 1

      No, but I'm not a user. I was speaking of the Lesser Life Forms. :)

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

  257. ...and one more to go with the others :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My favourite:

    opsound.org

    - Voice of Ambience -

  258. A long term solution to such trickery. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are using windows, just disable auto insert notification on your cd rom drive. That way the drm will only be installed if you do it on purpose.

  259. Not to put down YRO or anything, but... by Mortanius · · Score: 1

    ...how about some details of what it actually does? I know wild speculation and paranoia is the cornerstone of YRO, perhaps justifying said speculations and paranoia would help turn more people on to the 'cause'.

  260. A series of firsts by torklugnutz · · Score: 1

    Licensed to Ill was the first tape I ever bought.
    Check your Head was my first CD.
    The Beastie Anthology was my first DVD.
    And now, the new one is the first DRM CD.

    By the way, MTV2 is playing Beastie Boys stuff ALL day Sunday, including the live show from Vegas.

    --
    Often in Error, Never in Doubt.
  261. Re:Independent Labels by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
    I think a lot of people use the RIAA Radar site for this.

    You are also right about some indie labels. They are just another marketing device for some big labels, to sell manufactured rock music to youths as "indie".

  262. I used to like BB... but by missing_boy · · Score: 1
    ...some people argue that installing DRM code was the ONLY purpose of this album...

    heheee...

  263. Ad-watch? by jasontromm · · Score: 1

    Does Ad-watch protect the listener? Have they done something to get around that?

    --
    "Politicians always tell the truth, when they're calling each other liars."
  264. Channel your agression by MacDork · · Score: 1
    The poor clerk :-( If he didn't know WTF you were talking about when you mentioned copy restriction, berating him about it is going to accomplish squat. Rather, ask him for a corporate address or phone number and vent there. It isn't his fault, he just works there (for very little $$ I'm sure). Take it out on a pointy haired boss. They're the SOBs that deserve it anyway.

    When you are done venting, find some music without the restrictions. I would advise checking RIAA Radar before any purchase. We wouldn't want to help the bastards, now would we? Try my two favorite sources of DRM-free music: CDBaby and iRate.

  265. No BSoDs? by Alexis+de+Torquemada · · Score: 1

    That's because Windows XP auto-reboots after a fatal error before you even see the BSoD. Clever trick by Microsoft, I have to admit. How often do you see a Linux box reboot itself because some daemon fucked up? Still, most people don't register it as a crash, but sort of a normal thing that just happens every few days or so (the frequency of course greatly depends on your system configuration, hardware and drivers etc.). Nothing to worry about...

  266. Re:Yes it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It is a Blue Book (multisession) CD. It is no different than those CDs that include both music tracks and a data track with pictures. The Blue Book standard is old (windows 3.1 era), and just as valid as the Red Book standard. Suncomm's protection is nothing more than a standard multisession Blue Book CD with a trojan horse on the data track.

  267. Re:How to fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You might be able to fix it by disabling the driver it installs. Instructions can be found here http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/ .

    P.S. this post is a circumvention device

  268. Re:Windoze by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Ya, right, nice try. There is, lingusitically, no way that is useful. In the written word, it is easy to tell which you are talking about. The objects, windows, are not capatalised. The software, Windows is a proper noun and is capatalised. Simple, easy distinction.

    Speech is equally useless. The pronouncation difference between the s and the z is almost nil. Infact most people actually say something closer to windoze than windows, at least with the popular American accents. Combine this with the way the brain processess speech and it's a wash.

    See our speech is sloppy. We do not properly pronounce all phonemes. In normal speech, we slide them together, and often miss the mark on them. The brain is designed to compensate for this and do so by surrounding context, both the other phonenems in the word, and the context of the word in the sentence. Thus regardless of if you think you are using an s or a z, the word is likely to be interpreted as windows by the hearer.

    The real interpreation of what you are saying simply comes from context. In most sentences it is easy to tell if you refer to the GUI metaphor, the physical object, or the operating system. In the event you wish to clarify it as the OS, you simply say "Microsoft Windows" leaving no doubt as to what you are refering.

    So quit playing like you little verbal zealotry is some real, useful clarifier. A freshman linguist could rip that argument apart. Oh, and this is in no way creative either. Name calling, espically simple, overdone name calling, is not creative. You didn't think that term up and it's been done to death. Just as all the people that immatate Dave Chappelle, you are note being creative. Those that create something are being creative, those that copy it are not.

  269. no EULA? by Luscious+Jackson · · Score: 1
    My housemate bought the aforementioned album, so i thought I'd check out what all this is about. Not being a windows or mac user nothing was installed (i hope) but i scoured the whole disc looking for a EULA or something that mentions the fact that software will be installed. The only human readable files on the disc were autorun.inf and UninstallPlayer.txt It's probably violating copyright laws to post their contents here but here goes.. UninstallPlayer.txt:
    Several new files are automatically installed on your PC when listened to for the first time. In order to remove these newly installed files, please double click on "UninstallPlayer.exe" file.
    There is no mention of this software anywhere in the liner notes or on the disc itself, and not wanting to be accused of reverse engineering i didn't look at the binaries themselves.. my question is, isn't it a bit late to tell users AFTER they've unknowingly installed the software that software is going to be installed? IMO just providing a way to remove the software just doesn't cut the mustard.
  270. Your web site has a broken link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.cranialfracture.org/dissonant.html, linked from the releases page, does not exist.

  271. that sucks.. by techefnet · · Score: 0

    people should be able to use their music wherever they want, and without have to mess with that drm shit

  272. Thats just too bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still buy albums from time to time, when bands are really good and i like them. But what the hell? a cd that install weird stuff in my computer? a cd that cannot be played in the car or in my oooold good cd player? Why the hell would i want to buy that album if i got so many restrictions? If i buy it it will barely let me listen to it...its stupid! And why the hell do they start making so much problems? everyone knows that crackers can put it on the P2P in no time...its just a matter of time...and in the meantime they bother the real people who buy the albums with crappy stuff that spy/ruin your computer and cannot even be read in their cd players... If they continue like that its like they are pushing us to go download from any place the album instead... I felt more like buying the album before i knew there were these problems...its too bad because i like the beastie boys and maybe i would have bought it..

  273. Re:Windoze by spitzak · · Score: 1

    Classes are usually capitalized in C++, you know. When my documentation says "Window" it means the class, when it says "window" is means an instance of the class. It used to read something like "When using Windoze you need to make sure all Windows are declared before you can call the blah() method, and unfortunately X11 requires the exact opposite." You need to learn a little programming before you start saying anything about capitalization.

    Now my documentation reads "When using WIN32 you need to make sure all Windows are declared before you can call the blah() method, and unfortunately X11 requires the exact opposite."

    Great, you have just made your favorite os look as stupid with letters and numbers as X. You should be real proud of yourself.

    This thinking is right up there with the "you can't call things master/slave" ruling. If you actually knew anything about computer science history you would see that creative mispellings are usaully an indication of affection (unless it is blatently obvious: calling it "WinBlows" is obvious hostility, and is pronouced with obvious hostility). As you pointed out "Windoze" is not pronouced differently and is thus only useful for text, just like the capitalization is a handy shortcut for classes. No duh, when speaking, I have to say "Windows OS", "Window class", and "window". That does not mean I should be unable to use a convienent shorthand when writing. Now of course I call it "win thirty two" when talking, just to piss people like you off.

  274. Re:Windoze by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Look I know you'd like to pretend it pissess people like me off, because that's why you actually use it. Infortunately it doesn't even bother me at all. All it does is serve to make you look unprofessional. You can attempt to justify it all you like, doesn't change anything. The fact that you have to justify it speaks volumes. I just find it highly amusing to poke fun at people like you. You use name calling and then, when cornered, try and rationalize your way out of it. Sorry, but as I said, it's easy to shoot that down on a linguistic level if nothing else.

    So feel free to keep using Windoze or whatever other name calling you like. No skin off my back, you are just one of many zealots out there. Just know that it tips people off, and makes you look unporfessional.

  275. Re:Windoze by spitzak · · Score: 1

    If you read my response you would see that I am *NOT* using it, I am using "WIN32".

  276. its the porn that gets you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you can take all of your precautions and in the end, its the porn sites that will be your end.

  277. It's not a CD, It's a Virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (The worms crawl in, the worms crawl out...in your tummy and out your mouth.)

    Enough said.

  278. W4R3Z by acidbass · · Score: 0

    And the record companies wonder why people prefer to download the tarred up gzipped album off kazaa as opposed to the one in the store which costs 15$ and gives you malware?

  279. The DRM actually works! by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

    Ch-ch-ch-check it out: New album on usenet

    You'll notice that there's been only 5 full album uploads in the past week to usenet as opposed to the usual 10. DRM clearly reduces piracy by 50%.

    Hooray @ RIAA!

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  280. beastieboys Pre-sponse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To see the pre-sponse the Beastie boys have issued, refer to track #7 on "To The 5 Boroughs".

  281. schemes of old... by grepistan · · Score: 1

    I remember something slightly like that... IIRC the original simcity came with a list of cities and (I'm a bit hazy on this; it was 12 years ago!) their populations, which were used in the copy protection scheme. This sheet was printed in red ink on white paper, which was allegedly impossible to photocopy, which my copy obviously disproved. I think you just had to turn the darkness level of the copier up. Tricky stuff. It was, as you suggest, more or less agonizing to read.

    My personal favourite tho (and on of my favourite games over the last 15 years) is the original railroad tycoon check, which asked you to identify the name of an engine pictured onscreen. As the game was marvellously accurate and played in the main by trainspotterish types, this was not an issue. I knew them all after a fortnight and still know them now!

    --
    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
    -- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
    1. Re:schemes of old... by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      Ah, SimCity... Those were the days... I had it on the Amiga and don't remember a copy protection scheme but then I think my disk died so I used a cracked copy.

      I look forward to the day when all software ships with a lawyer to ensure compliance. I assume they can work something in to the software licence whereby you agree to feed it.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    2. Re:schemes of old... by hearingaid · · Score: 1
      Or there was the old classic, Bard's Tale. It had this crazy system where every time you went up to the next level, you were supposed to look up a word in the manual. It would say, "Page 34, Line 14, Word 3" or somesuch, and then you would type "kobold" or whatever.

      They had some kind of encoding system, possibly primitive encryption (I never cracked it), built into the disk-reading program, which made it really tough to crack - except if you altered the code after loading. Change one BEQ to a BNE and you were on your way, and since I had a Snapshot cartridge, that was pretty easy... (Snapshot was a C=64 hacker device. It had eighteen billion cool features. However, one of the best was a built-in disassembler on the ROM, which you could activate by pressing a button. Presto, your machine would suspend itself, and you could alter memory at will. Odds are it was actually quicker for me to run the disassembler than it would've been to look up the word. :)

      Or how about Autoduel? One of the dumbest copy-protection schemes I ever saw. There was one track, which was formatted in some funky way, on the floppy. The physical protection was practically uncrackable. However, the checking routine... The way in which the program checked to make sure the copy-protection was still there was it tried to load a file, whose directory listing indicated it was on the broken track. If the disk drive returned an error message, the game thought "Oh good, I haven't been broken" and continued to boot. I cracked it accidentally, by copying all the files that didn't have errors in them onto another floppy. The booting mechanism tried to load the aforementioned error-prone file, got a 66 FILE NOT FOUND error, and happily booted. It didn't check the error message, it just wanted to make sure that 00 OK didn't come back. Zounds.

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

    3. Re:schemes of old... by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you know more than I do about the technical aspects of the disk copy protection software. I just remember the terrible noises that used to come from the drive when certain disks were in there.

      I remember there being a debate as to whether some types of copy protection actually shortened the life of drives. Any idea if this is true? (I'm thinking about copy protected disks from the Amiga).

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    4. Re:schemes of old... by hearingaid · · Score: 1
      Yes, it was true. However, I don't know if what I'm about to say applies to the Amiga.

      On the C-64, you could gain direct access to the track the drive head was on. In some protection schemes, the drive head would be stepped off the disk itself. No, I don't know why, at least not for certain, I only read the code, and went "Huh?"

      I believe the idea was to realign the head by stepping it off the end of the disk, and then quickly re-step it back to the disk, only now slightly out of alignment. If the disk was formatted "correctly" (i.e. out of alignment), then the drive might have been able to read it in this fashion.

      However, I could be wrong. The one thing I am certain of is the head was flown off the disk in some schemes. (That code is pretty easy to recognize :)

      It's this flying-head system that shortens your drive life. When the head is stepped off of the disk, it bangs against the wall of the drive. This does physical damage.

      'Course, that didn't stop C-64 hackers from making their floppy drives 'sing' by headbanging. :)

      Anyway, I don't know if the Amiga's floppy error-correction will allow this kind of behaviour. I never went inside Amiga internals to that extent. Modern floppies, incidentally, will completely refuse to step off of their disks; this hasn't been a problem for quite some time.

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

    5. Re:schemes of old... by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      Thanks, that's interesting.

      I never had the money to have a floppy drive (or the motivation to be honest) on my C64. I remember hearing stories thought about 1541 and alignment.

      I suspect my Epson LX-86 was more noisy though.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
  282. Re:Independent Labels by Disevidence · · Score: 1

    This is a legitimate problem. The thing is, lots of labels are independant, but rely on the RIAA and its ilk for distibution purposes. So while most of the money is going back to the band and the independant label, some is still going back to the RIAA. The best way to encourage not using the RIAA is ordering directly from the label itself, either via Mail Order or over the Internet.

    --
    Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
  283. Winamp 5 already does that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I predict that the next versions of CD recording software will bundle their own hardware-banging IDE/ATAPI drivers to get around tricks like these.

    Winamp 5 already includes its own drivers for burning & ripping. It's defeated other "bogus ASPI layer" copy protection methods so I expect it'll work w/ this CD.

    ~lighting

  284. DirectLaw 9! by grepistan · · Score: 1

    New, from Microsoft... DirectLaw 9.0b! Provides access to the lighning-quick gaming capabilities of the DirectTHEFT and QuickSuit API's and informs appropriate authorities of any 'irregularities'

    DirectLaw.INI
    [EULA]

    EULA_gibberish_quota = huge
    Longwindedness = yes
    Impenetrable lawyerese = on

    [COPY PROTECTION]

    broken = quickly
    serial algorithm = depressingly simple
    Rampant piracy = yes

    I think my copy of Simcity must have been cracked by the 'find a friend, copy the disk(s)' method that was all the rage back then. It still is, if you swap swap 'disk' with 'CDR' or more so, 'P2P client'

    --
    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
    -- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
  285. mods, please mod parent up - interesting by grepistan · · Score: 1

    This is a very well-argued, balanced and interesting reply! I'd mod it up, but have already been involved in this discussion.

    I do tend to agree with you. What your post gets at, I think, is the simple fact that this kind of thing is ultimately unenforceable given a sufficent level of technological literacy. At some stage it has to come down to trusting the consumer to pay for something that they like. Copyright holders shouldn't kid themselves... copyright and IP issues are facing the biggest problem in their brief lives.

    And I have to say that in many ways, they have brought it upon themselves. By ripping artists and consumers off and maintaining price fixing cartels, the music, movie and to a lesser extent gaming industries have systematically alienated their consumer base. Their latest lawyer-based attacks on fileswappers may well have been the last straw... there's no trust and no respect any more (was there ever any, or was it simply that the technology wasn't around? I will leave this problem for the reader. :o)

    --
    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
    -- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather