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."
I was under the impression that installing software on the user's computer without asking is illegal?
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. (> <)
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?
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.
Isnt this the software that you can avoid installing by just holding the Shift key?
Silent installs eh?
/.'ed....
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
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.
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.
... 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.
I can see moves and countermoves here. Suppose "someone" posts "instructions for removing the DRM software" that turn out to be destructive
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Also-- Anyone else notice the new FBI warning about piracy on the back of the case? Funny.
----- Doublethink
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
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.
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!
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
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
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.)
/.'ing, i guess? )
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
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.
My, my, my. The more things change, the more they stay the same:
The Sex Pistols - EMI
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
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.
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..
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.
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."
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?"
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.