Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Beastie Boys Respond to DRM Claims

Posted by michael on from the didn't-do-nothin' dept.

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.

8 of 581 comments (clear)

  1. Cognitive Dissonance? by Defiler · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Cognitive Dissonance? by pimpin+apollo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:Cognitive Dissonance? by nzkbuk · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      They think loaded = installed
      everyone else thinks loaded = run

    3. Re:Cognitive Dissonance? by pimpin+apollo · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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

  2. So What? by cr0y · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

    ItWasFree.com - Take the mystery
    1. Re:So What? by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  3. This is not a cd then by cove209 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  4. Err, Redbook != WMA by murderlegendre · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.