Beastie Boys Respond to DRM Claims

An anonymous reader notes that the Beastie Boys have responded to claims that their new album is DRM-crippled; their response is that the US and UK versions aren't crippled, and the DRM software is only installed in RAM, not on disk. See our previous story for background.

Comments

Cognitive Dissonance?

[Defiler]

A) No software is permanently installed on your hard disk.
B) Check install.log on your hard disk for details.
Haha.
*weep*

Re:Cognitive Dissonance?

[pimpin apollo]

Yeah exactly, this is utterly insane. It's not about stopping internet 'piracy', it's pretty clear that ripping the disc is feasible; it's about making it a pain to put into itunes or whatever... so then you buy it off itunes instead of messing with it. It's like rebuying all of your records on CD. The record industry didn't forget that this is the only reason they stayed afloat in the 90s. Perhaps that's an indication that there's a bloated supply side?

Re:Cognitive Dissonance?

[MoonBuggy]

"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" seems to contradict the statement that "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."

If none of the copy protection requires software applications to be loaded, why does the very same article say that it sets up an audio player in RAM?

Re:Cognitive Dissonance?

[ASkGNet]

Imagine, what if the said player is inadvertedly (perhaps via user opening a memory hog program, such as one of Adobe's fine products) swapped to hard drive of the aforementioned user. Would that qualify as hard drive installation, since it obviously does modify data on the user's hard drive

And as a recent article showed, data in swap can remain there for many years, unoverwritten.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance?

[nzkbuk]

Because their version of loaded doesn't match everyone else's version of loaded.

They think loaded = installed
everyone else thinks loaded = run

Re:Cognitive Dissonance?

[krel]

Yes, this is RIAA stupidity, but it has nothing to do with making people buy their music again if they want to play it on their computers. The RIAA doesn't recognize that there are people who legitimately want to play music on their computers, and they're feebly trying everything they comprehend to stop real piracy.
Online music is mere peanuts to the record industry; the suits want to stop piracy, even if they don't understand how to.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance?

[pimpin apollo]

They do recognize that people want to play music on their computers. That's why they build players into these cds, which is the point of this entire topic. The recognize that where there's demand there's a market but the market is unforunately (for them) blocked by that pesky Constitution. The betamax case created legitmacy for time/shape shifting and now the goal is to roll back what amounts to competition.

I think the end goal is to create a new business model around pay-per-play. This is how they already view their 'property'. The fact that it's physically contained on DVDs and CDs is a messy necessity. But as we become more intellectually divorced from that view of property we start to see it as their intellectual property and not our physical property. Blocking the main competition through the DMCA DRM combo is hand in hand with this strategy.

don't kid yourself into thinking the riaa just doesn't get it... what's scarier than them not getting it is that they do get it and they're using that against us

Re:Cognitive Dissonance?

[Graff]

it's about making it a pain to put into itunes or whatever... so then you buy it off itunes instead of messing with it. It's like rebuying all of your records on CD.

Uh, if you are buying the album and you're going to rip it to iTunes why not just buy it from the iTunes Music Store in the first place? Then you only need to buy it once.

The real reason they are doing this is not to encourage you to buy your music multiple times or in a certain place. They are doing this to make it a pain for casual users to copy and distribute the songs. Sure they won't stop the hard-core techs from ripping the songs but they probably figure that if they stop the majority of people from being able to trade music then that's good enough. One problem with that notion is that it only takes 1 tech person to rip an album, the rest of humanity can leech off of the tech's efforts and download like crazy.

It's not enough to make it difficult to rip music and trade it. You either need to make it impossible to do or forget about stopping it. To me it makes much more sense to just make it insanely easy to get cheap, legal music. That way the free music isn't so much easier of an option than the bought music.

People will buy their music as long as the price is right and the barrier to obtaining the music is simple enough. Just look at the success of the iTunes Music Store. Keep lowering the prices of the songs there and continue to make buying simple and the music purchases will continue to grow.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance?

[usrusr]

"Uh, if you are buying the album and you're going to rip it to iTunes why not just buy it from the iTunes Music Store in the first place?"

erm, maybe because i trust my cd shelf a little bit more than i trust my computer? i trust my computer a lot, but since any event that would fukc up my cd shelf would kill my computer as well, and the opposite is not true, i know where my preferences are.

and then comes all the hassle in case you some day feel like you want some "alternative-ipod" even if it is just itms taking all your legitimately bought songs hostage to make you buy a possibly over-priced future generation ipod. just look at what sony does with their mem-stick. in case of a cd that is compatible with a cd player i know at least that i can get proper copies with all the hassle, getting past a drm solution either involves software more illegal than an spdif cable (or good converters..) or recoding, or both.

(on the ceap&legal point, i certainly agree with you. but honestly, i don't see that anywhere, do you?)

Re:Cognitive Dissonance?

[The Iconoclast]

"Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction."

So What?

[cr0y]

I don't care where its installed. If I am not notified when its installed. Its illegal. I think Symantec should start lumping this crap in with viruses and trojans.

Re:So What?

[Scoria]

If computer viruses are released by a well-funded, "reputable" organization, then they become recognized as benevolent anti-piracy software.

Interesting.

Re:So What?

[That's Unpossible!]

I wasn't aware that this program installs itself, then replicates by copying itself into other programs.

Malware, maybe. Virus/Worm/Trojan? Nope.

Re:So What?

[whereiswaldo]

It's a Trojan.

What they need to do to come clean is pop up a dialog when you insert the CD that says "Click OK to install Digital Restriction Management software on your computer. This is required to play the CD on your computer. Click Cancel to quit without playing the CD"

Re:So What?

[quantum bit]

This is required to play the CD on your computer.

Even that would be a lie. If it plays in a CD player, it will play fine in a CD-ROM drive in analog mode.

This is not a cd then

[cove209]

Can they call this a cd then? Does it conform to red book standards?

haha

[wankledot]

"This Macrovision technology does NOT install spyware or vaporware of any kind on a users PC."

Uh... do they even know what vaporware means? I love press releases like this, they should just how little the PR goons know about anything related to this technology.

Re:Just Another Reason For News

[cens0r]

But my CD player as spdif out, and my computer has spdif in. All it takes is one person like me to put it on the internet and then the cats out of the bag, and trust me when I say I'm not the only one with digital connections on my equipment.

Err, Redbook != WMA

[murderlegendre]

Am I the only one who sees a strange contradiction between the following lines in the press release?

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.

Vs.

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.

So, which is it then? A Redbook audio cd, or a data CD with WMA compressed files? Am I reading this right?

Norton isn't so innocent

[WinterpegCanuck]

I like my recycle bin the way it is, painfully microsoft, I don't need it painfully microsoft and horribly symantec at the same time. Try and walk the average home user through disabling it over the phone. . . well then, my mother has always been the hardest person for me to give tech support for. . .. too much swearing knocks me out of the will.

Re:You gotta fight for your right

[kitzilla]

The real question is "who cares" about the beastie boys latest album?

Well, it debuted at Number One on the Billboard Album Chart, so somebody must care.

What is most distressing is that the Beasties are the second DRM CD to hit the top of the chart. Boroughs displaced Velvet Revolver's Contraband at #1. Contraband is also DRM "protected."

This should open the floodgates. If record companies were ever shy of DRM, now they'll know people will buy their defective wares, anyway.

I'd like a copy of Velvet Revolver. But I won't buy it until I can find a copy on the used market. If the entire Slashdot world quit buying CDs, it would hardly make a dent (not that Slashdotters *always* pay for their music). But it's the principle of the whole thing.

My main bitch with DRM CDs is that it might make it more difficult to rip legally purchased music to my hard drive. I don't even own a standalone CD player these days, and I want to be able to load my library on an iPod. All perfectly legal activities, but Big Music wants to dictate how I listen and store my music. In the owrds of our Vice President, f*ck them.

And f*ck artists who go along with it. Maybe I don't need that Velvet Revolver CD, after all.

The confusion of copy protection/DRM

[flinxmeister]

I was trying to explain the workings of the various online digital distributors to someone at the office. After a couple minutes she said "I think I'll just buy the CD and rip it".

Now junk like this is adding the same confusion to purchasing a CD. The logical result? "I think I'll just download a pirated copy".

When you have to post a 'response' to a new thing on an old thing that used to just work, you have by definition created confusion. People will go for the simpler option: piracy.

Good thinkin' record people!

Re:Does it work on Linux?

[sjwaste]

Uh, did you ever stop and think it was an enhanced CD? You know, music tracks at the beginning and usually some video files at the end that you can access in a computer? A lot of bands release those, in fact a whole lot more release those than a CD with DRM. It's one thing to make a conscious decision to not buy copy protected things, but come on, take off your tinfoil hat, the damn thing was likely not copy protected. For one, name me an indie label that has implemented DRM. Mod me down to hell for this, but the ignorance in some cases (this one) is amazing.

Re:Cache

[John Courtland]

That doesn't make any goddamn sense. Vapourware? Who ever wrote that article must not know what the fuck they're talking about.

Re:Damn Straight.

[cartzworth]

Actually, Thats plain copyright infringement Mr. Hatch, but we won't go there. You're correct thats not fair use, but what the poster is saying is that the recording industry doesnt respect fair use so he is going to use civil disobedience to disrespect them in return.

Re:You gotta fight for your right

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Actually their new album is quite good. Atleast you know where they're coming from. Their lyrics reflect their politics. Which i think is right on.

The new album has some very good songs. The beasties are perhaps a little more innocent in style compared to todays "i'm a big rich mother fucker driving a bentley" rap. Frankly that stuff is so sickening. The fantasy world the fans of that shit live in, is simply put... tragic.

The Beasties are as real as it gets and so what they have an older style.... Its still pretty dam good. They leave the audience feeling good, rather than worshiping the $ like a false god, only to go home to their lower-middle class lives, pretending that they're jay-z. Yeah that gets you far in life.

As for outkast, i never got how people love those guys. Someone in the record industry gave me their latest cd and i felt like a fag listening to it :) I'm sorry the whole first cd is a ballad to women.

The second disc is more of the same, except for a song or two.

I give Outkast credit for being differernt... but from an audience point of view... the music's really fem.

Most importantly...

[NumbThumb]

This Macrovision technology does NOT install spyware or vaporware of any kind on a users PC (emphasis mine)

Those marketing-drones really have no clue what they are talking about... vaporware can, by definition, not be installed.

Re:I don't mind too much

[AvantLegion]

First they came for Rap
and I did not speak out
because I did not like Rap.
Then they came for Pop
and I did not speak out
because I did not like Pop.
Then they came for Country
and I did not speak out
because I did not like Country.

Then the RIAA came for Good Music
and I did not speak out
For I died of shock