Slashdot Mirror
Sony's New Nagging Copy Protection
bort27 writes "You can put away your Sharpies, because Sony has launched a new CD copy protection scheme that is actually designed to be easily cracked: 'The copy-protection technology is...far from ironclad. Apple Macintosh users currently face no restrictions at all. What's more, if users go to a Web site to complain about the lack of iPod compatibility, Sony BMG will send them an email with a back door measure on how to work around the copy protection.'"
So...they've figured out they're not going to stop dedicated music pirates.
So instead of making the copy protection stronger, they're making it weaker?
Ostensibly, this is to stop 'schoolyard piracy' (as if your average 'schoolboy/girl' can't rip tracks to MP3), but I'm seeing a slightly darker angle here...hold on...
<tinfoil-hat>
OK. Here we go:
</tinfoil-hat>
Whew...wearing that thing sure makes you paranoid...but does it make you paranoid enough?
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
FtA: "The whole industry is in discussions with Apple, and we hope to have a solution soon," he said.
The "solution" he wants will lock Apple's customers into the music cartel's own brand of DRM. How is that solving anything for the consumer? Fucking prick.
Trolling is a art,
So if you complain about it, they'll tell you how to get around it? Why bother hindering at all?
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
I'll have to send them an email complaining about the lack of compatibility with my fav *nix based CD-Rippers, and see if they send me a back door ..
-GenTimJS
Is it a:, so they have a nice list of people who know about the backdoor, or b:, so they can use the DMCA if someone reverses it without being told (i.e. given permission) by Sony?
Get your own free personal location tracker
So after the backdoor information is disseminated over the internet (and it's able to be subverted by the average user, which the article implies) then Sony is just wasting money on the "principle" of stopping piracy?
...is that while the copy protection sucks, we're paying for it in the form of passed on costs from Sony.
what are the legal implications? Your still getting around a copy protection scheme, presumably Sony couldn't sue you, but what about potential criminal penelties?
Soney will send you a "crack" for the copy protection, but first you must send tham an email complaining about it. The Question is, what are they going to do with that email address? Will they start trying to go after those addresses for copyright infringement?
I mean, are they harvesting the names of these people who request the 'hot backdoor action' and storing them for later use?
This seems a little disturbing- for the first time they're admitting they're not trying to stop big pirate-mills but slow down the consumer? Why does Sony still sell blank CDs, blank minidiscs and blank audio cassettes then? That's a hypothetical question: I mean, I know they make money off it, that's why they sell it. But they continue to distribute the tools of schoolyard piracy, why spend any more time concocting the latest protection scheme? What a waste of employees.
yes. that's all I'm going to say in all comments from now on.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,52665
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/
Or do I need to complain every single time I bother to buy a CD? The problem is they are making a speed-bump to my legitimate use of loading the songs onto my portable player.
Save a life, sign your organ donor card.
If I copy it once, what's to stop me from making a copy of my first burned copy?
Let's hope they don't start making condoms....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
1: Find great singers & musicians
2: Record them
3: Sell recordings
4: Profit!
Seriously, the problem with record sales isn't "piracy", but a shortage of stuff worth buying.
It says the current scheme doesn't work on the MAC?? Gee, I guess that means that holding the SHIFT key or disabling AutoRun is now a violation of DMCA...
(Just figuring that it must be using an autorun to install or execute some kind of rights management / nag-ware program.)
The Digital Sorceress
How much do you want to bet that the "backdoor" is simply burning the protected WMA's to a CD and then ripping that? That's what the official work-around to the new Foo Fighters CD is, at least.
The good ol' Shift key and CDex have never let me down yet. The day I have to use protected WMA's and waste a CD and then get lower quality MP3's as a result of the multiple conversions is the day I stop buying CD's from that record label.
It's actually not such a bad idea, because it's more hassle than most casual music pirates are willing to tolerate. Anyone serious will just Google the workaround and be done with it.
The scary part to me is the e-mail address... now they can start getting a shortlist of people to look at closer for copyright violation issues. I know I'll let someone else ask for the hack and Google it myself...
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. -Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
Anyone know what the backdoor is? And no pictures of goatse please!
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
I don't get it, whether or not it is easily crackable shouldn't matter. The fact of the matter is that the Music Industry has now decided that all of their customers are criminals.
Logically, it makes sense. The path of least resistance is going to be the one that followed. So when games like Half Life 2 or Counterstrike: Source have 'hacks' like aimbots etc made for them, if they are easy games to hack, the hack comes out, you simply ban that individual hack. Since you are still allowing the same method, people will create the hack using the same parameters and you ban each hack because you know exactly how and where to detect it -- and ban all the players with it.
:)
I know it's totally irrelevant, but given the Sony 'initiative' and the fact they publish games... I'm waiting for this to happen too
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Does anyone know where this web site is?
Insert Generic Sig Here:
The back door is just the simple "SHIFT" key. Hold it and it does not auto load the DRM crap.
I usually buy about 50 - 70 albums per year. I listen to 75% of my music on an iPod at work, an additional 15% listening to these CDs in my car, and 10% listening to my legally ripped collection of mp3 files on my home PC.
Sony / BMG are making CDs using SunnComm's MediaMaxx that require a software end user licence agreement (EULA) to listen to on a computer, and they can not be ripped into an MP3 or an AAC file. Hence I have no way to listen to these albums on my iPod. I don't believe in agreeing to a EULA to listen to these songs on my home PC, so I can't use these CDs on my PC. And to pay $12-$15 for a CD that I can only listen for twenty minutes on the way to work or doing errands is crazy.
Why is the industry shooting itself in the foot by driving away loyal customers? I want to give bands like Velvet Revolver, Kings of Leon, and the Foo Fighters my hard earned money, but their record labels are not giving me a product that I find acceptable... A good old fashioned compact disk.
I got nothing...
Every time I try to listen to music, I find the industry is laden with idiots. They're preventing an obstacle to my listening enjoyment.
Could you please send me an e-mail telling me how to get around them? Thank you.
ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
They want people to accept DRM, this time its easy to crack-- first hit is free. Next time though...
call me paranoid
Jonathan
Utter waste of time.
Freedom would be not to choose between black and white but to abjure such prescribed choices. -Theodor Adorno
In answer to the question about Sony selling blank media - they are two completely different parts of the company. Sony is basically a collection of companies who only now are starting to work with each other on a day-to-day basis - eg the Sony Ericsson W800 walkman phone - combining the Sony Consumer Audio Walkman brand with the Sony Ericsson hardware.
Recorded Media and Energy (RME) falls under the control of Sony the electrical manufacturer, rather than SonyBMG, manufacturer of cheap boybands.
If this is DRM based for music CDs then I'm guessing ... guessing mind you. That it's auto-run based. So disabling auto-run, or holding shift when the disc is inserted will fix it right up.
Same reason Macs are unfettered, auo-run Windows code isn't exactly going to affect them now is it?
Sony is gearing up for the next big wave in DRM:
The revolutionary "imaginary" copy protection. Prominently featured on every product, a sharp and stylish sticker heralding the state-of-the-art "Sony Super-Fantastic Copy Protection 5000," a technology so advanced, it can't even be detected! Customers thinking of trying to subvert this new DRM can call an 800 number, where a helpful, sweet-sounding old lady will gently encourage them to do the right thing, so as not to disappoint their mothers and grandmothers.
Taking a DMCA case to court after pointing out the back door makes about as much sense as prosecuting Wal-Mart shoppers for trespassing. If they were going to take you to court they wouldn't be handing out the back-doors in the first place. This is an example of a company trying something new out in the copy-right arena, a scheme that might even have some room in it for "Fair Use"
only one everything
In Europe it is now illegal to tell publicly how to bypass copy 'protection' schemes, no matter how simple they are. If this 'trick' works on a copy protection by another record company, can they now sue Sony for telling people how to crack it? Please, let there be a small indie label that sues Sony!!
Timo's Audio Software http://www.esseraudio.com
Sony makes copy-protection weaker, while making 'speed bump' obstacle to 'schoolyard piracy'.
Stop right there. This is the entire strategy.
They're making copying their CD a matter of circumventing an encryption device which is a felony under the DMCA. There's guaranteed to be some encryption in this scheme somewhere, even if it's not the actual data tracks that are encrypted. Perhaps some meta information.
No matter, they're taking illegal copying of a CD from copyright infringement to a felony for easier / more terrorizing prosecution. Pragmatically, that's the only way they're going to be able to enforce artificial scarcity in this market.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Apple Macintosh users currently face no restrictions at all.
I suppose it's official now. Using a Mac puts you in violation of the DMCA.
But why is the rum gone?
But is it still illegal to break the protection without permission?
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
This is Sony's way of lewering people into using DRM technologies, once you're hooked in, the noose will slowly tighten.
I don't pirate CD's, but I had thought that most pirates burned CD's from MP3 files that they had downloaded.
Doesn't it just take 1 person to defeat the copy protection, then millions of distro's can occur?
Or am I mistaken and a decent size of piracy occur from John loaning Joe a CD, and Joe making a copy of it?
And I also bet this Sony protection is vulnerable to the single key defeat? (Can't say which one without DCMA violation.)
Curious.
Sure, any J. Random CD user can throw in a CD and hit import, but if there is a 'speed bump' it might stop quite alot of people who are to lazy to write an email to Sony to complain and find out how to do some backdoor trick to get it on their computer in an acceptable format. "Forget it, I'll just use the CD."
.. not me. I never pay for music.
This time I could be arsed.
The problem with DRM, and the reason it will never be completely unbreakable, is because of the following. With any data, that you are trying to prevent someone from reading, you need An encryption algorithm, and a key. You have to keep the key secret from those who you do not want reading the data. However, in this case, you must give the person buying the CD the key, or store the key somewhere, in order for them to listen to the music. So, the person always has the key, which makes any attempt at DRM useless.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
The only reason to do this, is to get everyone to start using DRM technologies. Once they are prevalent, you can better believe Sony and everyone else will start tightening the screws.
There is plenty of stuff worth buying; you're just not going to find 90% of it on a label. Head down to your local coffee shop on an open mike night, find somebody you like and ask them if they have an album for sale. These are the only CD's I've bought in years. The money goes to support somebody who is truly passionate about their work. You also have the added bonus of listening to original music instead of focus-group screened pop garbage.
only one everything
I dunno. When I was at school, if I wanted a copy of something, whether a game or a tape (Note for you youngsters - Music used to be stored on magnetic tape in small cassettes), I'd borrow it from my friend and make a copy myself. Seems this DRM isn't going to do a lot to prevent this. It will just allow each frind who borrows it to make 3 copieseach.
So, since I don't buy any CD's anymore (at least, not since the RIAA went after the original Napster, and not from any current RIAA distributer) this affects me how? LOL It amazes me just how *stupid* these people are... (i.e. Sony, RIAA) I guess, ultimately, what it'll end up being, is that they'll come out with a CD, that you can buy, but likely won't be allowed to listen to under any circumstances - seeing as it may circumvent the DMCA... Sheesh
Sony BMG will send them an email with a "back door" measure on how to work around the copy protection
Note: This was in the context of copying a Sony DRM protected song to your iPod...
This is a tacit admission by Sony that copying the song from the CD to another device falls within the realm of fair use (meaning you don't need Sony's permission to copy it yourself). Obviously most informed consumers believe that but some testamony in recent lawsuits have been arguing against it. It also means that Sony may have a difficult time suing anyone for breaking the new DRM if they plan to tell you how to do so themselves. It, however, could be a problem with the DMCA, as Sony might be telling you how to circumvent Apple's DRM. Should be interesting to see if Apple responds.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
This would be the Sony version of "Darning someone to heck" in Dilbert. When a corporate entity thinks of its consumers as people it needs to keep in line through the use of nuisance lawsuits and general obstructionism, that mindset will come down to us in so many stupid little ways.
The **AAs need to make a clear distinction here in their minds -- pirate reseller, consumer -- and they do almost anything to muddy that line instead. They alienate us, without doing a thing to touch or turn the mills. Seriously short-sighted, self-destructive behavior, and one resulting from internally inconsistent positions, as you say. They think we're pirates, but they don't want to completely cheese us off... Why not just annoy us?
When you're devoting employee time to working out ways to trivially annoy your customers, now that is some fine prioritization.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
2. Sony will CONTACT YOU to tell you how to circumvent it
3. Sony WILL get bent when this ends up on the internet etc...
4. RIAA lawsuits ensue.
IANAL, but the problem here is that if the content provider tells you intentionally how to break the copy protection, they're inducing you to violate their IP. It's the digital equivalent of a cop approaching you, handing you a joint and saying, "Don't worry. I'm not going to arrest you if you smoke this", then arresting the person. It's essentially entrapment (though it's civil rather than criminal)
People use Windows Media Player to "rip" music from an audio-cd? Like, they actually figure out how to use it's "playlist" or whatever that contorted thing is called?
Wow. That's amazing. But I guess there's people that still use a tree branch and kite-string, along with a bent nail and twig-bobber. Back in the old days, you just didn't have anything else.
I guess my main question is "how does this affect me, as an Exact Audio Copy user?"
If the RIAA police nab you in the schoolyard with a CD-R labeled "Britney Spears Greatest Hits", you have an email from Sony that says, "Yes, you can make a copy of this disc."
Yeah, but you have the deterrent effect of having to make it public that you actually *wanted* to copy a Britney Spears silver-disc-with-music-on-it.
-- Side Note: What are DRM'ed silver-discs-with-music-on-them called? They aren't CDs, because they violate the Phillips spec.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
The record companies have put themselves into a difficult position with the absolutist stance on music copying. This stance is basically a physical metaphor imposed on a political position. In the 20th century, music sold in individual units of physical media with a specific amount of music available on each piece of media. This model of x minutes of music on 1 disk/tape selling for x dollars is a symetric and efficent business model that created a global music recording sales industry valued in tens of billions of dollars.
It does have one fatal flaw. It makes no differenciation between value of each individual title while every music consumer has a very specific pattern of choice in the music recordings. In the old model, you bought the number of selected individual recorded disks (each at the same price) that your budget allowed.
The technology of infinite non-degenerative copying at a next-to-nothing price (1000 songs on a 39-cent DVD recordable disk) is destroying the old model.
The industry has to decide if they are going to continue to use increasingly harsh legal resources to prop up the old business model. Or try new sales methods to find one that works well well with the new technology. Maintaining the old model is taking increasing amounts of company time and money, and the results (such as DRM and the DMCA) aren't functioning well.
Sony, as the one fully integrated entertainment company that owns the R&D, playback device manufacture and sales networks, and artistic talent to make the recordings, is in the best position to try new models. They have the least to lose. Music copying goes up; sales of audio playback devices goes up.
Music companies need to step back and examine what they are really trying to sell. It's not music disks specifically, but a sense of community and a social sharing among stangers. They're selling a bond of tribalism that unites atomized individual consumers into a shared social coherence. Once they master the means of marketing this quality, it won't matter whether the people share music. Music is just a tool to create the social bonding. People are paying to enter the tribe, not to listen to the music. If the record companies don't begin to understand this, all the DRM won't matter because people won't be interested in listening to their recordings, regardless of the price.
The worst thing that can happen to the music industry is not that people listen to their product for free, it's that people aren't interested in listening to their product at all.
i have no problem to use an analog way to backup my music to mp3. what i see coming next are low-bitrate datastreams encoded as noise into the music, so that the origin of the illegaly copied track is possible to find even when an analog step was in the copy-chain. then some copyright hunter can go into a disco with a cellphone enabled to read out this noise-encoded id-number.
From TFA: ... It's not saying you'll stop people from doing it, but it makes people stop and think."
"You're not going to stop tracks getting on P2P sites," he added. "It's designed to stop casual piracy
I really, really do hope people stop and think about statements like this, and what it means to equate fair use with piracy.
I've got over 1,500 vinyl albums of music of all types, over 1,000 of which I've never played. I've bought them at garage sales and auctions for maybe $100 total. I'm going through and listening, digitizing the ones I like.
So to the Inferno with you, Sony, and may your cash registers melt in the flames of your corporate soul.
sigs, as if you care.
My main question is why should I even go to a store like Best Buy and buy the CD? I can just go to iTunes and download the album, usually for less money, and then I can make my own CD and use the music on an iPod. Also if I need copies of the files without the DRM I either use one of the utilities available on the internet, or I just burn and then rip to MP3. What incentive is there for me to buy music from a brick and mortar store anymore? I guess I just don't get what the point of this is.
So in effect, the only thing this does is put a speed bump in the way of Fair Use. In fact, I'll cynically suggest that's precisely their intent.
What you will about this but at least they make a distinction between dedicated pirates and Joe Average user who wants to make a copy or two. Unfortunately, their DRM targets the latter. Seems a bit reverse but at least they're no longer in denial that Joe Average user isn't some "communist, anti-American, terrorist-loving" pirate.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
If a new CD is going to work with the first CD player made, it is going to be easy to rip. The standard wasn't built with DRM. All these technologies rely upon specific OS or driver software, which can be circumvented. But Sony is already talking to the guys working on the next format about integrating DRM. And I have a solution:
It's called a male-male phono lead.
Ok, I'm going to try to reply without getting flamed, but here's my take on this.
I RTFA, but I don't know if this is the same copying protection scheme where a person would be limitted to burning all of the CDs they want from the original, but would prevent the copies from themselves being copied. It's probably not, but stick with me a moment.
While one can argue against copyright as it is now, and information wanting to be free, but considering Fair Use as it is now, such a scheme like that makes sense. The big problem with previous schemes is that it locks out Fair Use.
I purchased NIN - With Teeth. I'm an honest consumer, and I pay for products I find of a good enough quality to deserve my consumer dollars. (I actually own pay for a RHEL license, for instance, even though I can legally get linux for free.)
Now, I immediately made 3 copies of this CD. I ripped the highest quality MP3s to my harddrive (I hate when CD's get scratched, and songs are destroyed), and I burned 2 CD-R copies of the CD, one in MP3 format for my DVD/MP3 entertainment system, and 1 for my car in CDA format.
My copying isn't to give the CD to my friends, but to store my nice new CD away, and use "disposable copies" in the 3 places where I often listen to music: my computer, my entertainment system, and my car. I've only made copies that extend my fair use.
Now, if there were a DRM out there that let me make all these copies, as many times as I want, but just prevented me from 'schoolyard piracy', that's perfectly acceptable for me. Of course, that's considering that I'm free to use the content on any OS I want (linux), in any format I want (my brand of CD-R's, not some locked up high price brand), and that none of my listening preferences or other personal information is sent over the Internet to unlock the files on every play. My privacy is absolutely paramount.
If there is a DRM out there that can accomplish this, I would welcome it with open arms. Of course, I do agree with opening up those copyrights, making them opt-in, and for much shorter tersm. But, if NIN wants to not give their songs away, and use a charge only system, at least for a short term like 20 years, that's ok with me because I'm willing to pay for such excellent music. AFAIK, I can own this CD and listen to it for the rest of my life. I think my $10 (marked down at an independant retailer, not some mega-chain) was a fair trade for this content.
As always, I'm on the lookout for good Creative Commons licensed music as well. Sensable copyright and digital rights management doesn't necessarily mean that you are in league with the RIAA/MPAA, nor does it mean you can't support both it and copyleft. The **AA sense of Fair Use is warped, and they're just wanting the equivilant of a nuclear warhead for DRM.
Cleaning the net one sed at a time! s/sex/sermons/; s/hot/holy/; s/goats/thebible/; www.holysermonswiththebible.com
Once I bought a CD with really bad copy protection. It wouldn't even play in a regular CD player... Until I burned a copy of it!
- First, I don't like protcted disks, no matter that they can be easily circumvented.
- Secondly, I don't like protected disks which don't say what you are allowed or not, just say they have protection. Very many of these are around. You just take the disk, it says it's protected. I have no choice about it. If I knew I can only rip it into wma, I'd never buy it to start with. If the protection itself is annoyance enough, they also force a fragin' format on you.
- Why wma ? Of course I know the answer to that. Still, so many record companies helping to spread MS's proprietary drm'ed format it just foolish. I don't want no stinkin' wma, I want flac, ogg or mp3. All the rest is crap I don't even want to hear about.
- They - of course - would like to see wma support on the ipods. Hell, why wouldn't they. But, God help us all, why wouldn't they be willing to use Apple's way of formatting and protecting, why the hell put wma support where there is already one good, working, and spread like hell, which shows the viability enough to raise attention. They still don't seem to care.
Despite all this, I've bought some protected disks. I managed to rip them any way I want, but still, I always had a really bad feeling when I cashed out for them. The problem is there are some artists which I like so much I can't help not buying their stuff.
No, Metallica - which was a long time favourite of mine - can't make me buy their albums ever again, no matter what.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
somehow Sony must be tied in with this new world order of Apple and Intel. Sony must have seen how Mac users are far more likely to buy music even though they can steal it. even before iTMS was available for windows they were selling something like 95 percent of downloaded songs (which is a LOT when you consider how many Macs there are supposed to be). you can also consider that Apple is yet to put any security in their copies of the OS and people still buy them. yes, you have to buy Apple's hardware, but no serial number or anything. Apple still makes a ton of money off boxed copies of OS X.
it's all a scheme for Sony to get everyone to join Team Macintosh and they are somehow the secret 3rd partner that has not been revealed in the new Trinity of Technology.
So, you know people are going to pirate your music. You also know people are going to run into problems with DRM.
So why go to the expense of developing a DRM that is going to block no-one, and furthermore then paying people salaries to explain to people how to work around the DRM you developed?
The only explanation is what others have said, that it's some kind of trick. No way is Sony the business so dumb as to throw bad money after worse without an ulterior motive.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
This is a good thing. Complaining about it just makes the community look unpleasable. (Noooo. That couldn't be the case could it?)
I do security
running portable cd player into line-in on sound card, firing up goldwave/soundforge, and then going to town.
Perhaps they want someone to break the trivial system without emailing them (i.e. without permission) and then file a DMCA suit or have a DMCA criminal prosecution brought again that person.
If they win, they've got a precedent that even a trivially breakable system "effectively protects a right of a copyright owner" or "effectively controls
access to a work" under the DMCA.
Then they can put protection on everything, not worry about people boycotting CDs that actually stop them from making fair use or copying, not worry about updating the protections when they are cracked and not worry about effectiveness from a technical standpoint at all.
However, now every use outside of what they want is still illegal and fair use is illegal. People won't complain, since they are still able to DO what they want. Then they prosecute someone who made a copy of a CD for their car and win, and send the message that fair use is legally dead on all copy-protected media (which would be 100% of new media) and you'd better buy a new copy or face 5 years in prison and/or having everything you own sold off by a court and 25% of your wages (*) gone for life and a bankrupt estate when you die.
It is a circumvention hack by the content industry against the fair use protections in title 17 which was part of the bargain in granting copyright in the first place.
It essentially uses the DMCA to fully repeal fair use with regard to CDs.
Then any consumer that steps out of line (i.e. does anything they don't like) is breaking the law.
Fair use is seen as criminal, people claiming it likewise, the content industry can change the culture such that we the people consider the doing of anything they don't like to be illegal and thus pass more laws to restrict us and we won't mind.
It is a circumvention hack on the minds of the American public too.
Too bad their circumventions are legal.
(*) That is, if anyone will hire you - anyone that does could be nabbed under "negligent hiring" or not fire you - anyone that does could be nabbed under "negligent retention" for hiring/not firing a criminal.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
this new product is not a CD. it some CD-like thing. a real CD (as defined by the CD standards) has no copy-protection or digital restrictions management.
No, this is exactly right!
You should have to overcome some sort of speed bump, letting you know: "Hey, if you do this thing, you might be breaking the law. Think about it."
But you should still be able to overcome the hurdle. Because, "who knows?" You might actually have the right, it might actually be okay.
Besides: Some laws, you should be able to make the decision to break or not to break. Not all laws, but some laws. For the simple act of copying a file on your computer, you should be the person deciding what to do. But there should be some small barrier to transgress.
It's like the line of rocks on the side of the road at the park. "Please don't cross over this," it tells you. You can, and some do, but most don't.
It's called Soft Security, and it works great. It's all about respecting people, and respecting boundaries. Most people are pretty respectful, and things seem to work. People talk, people have ideas about what is right and wrong, and people don't violate things just willy nilly, provided that there are some cues and attention.
Does all this DRM and MS WMA format files take up space on the CD?
Does this mean there is even less space on a cd for actual music?
Or does the device driver (remember folks in Windows , press Shift when inserting the disks) create the WMA files on the fly for the listener?
I know most bands don't fill up the disks, but for those that do, it would be a pisser to be told to cut down your album cos of shitty half baked protection.
liqbase
How does this backdoor work ?
If the backdoor has to be present (and running, perhaps) to 'enable' the ripping of the MP3 files, what is to stop Sony using it to put a unique fingerprint into the MP3.
The following scenario is not beyond bounds:
1) anon emails Sony, and gets sent the backdoor
2) anon rips the CD (using the backdoor), and puts the MP3s on a P2P site. MP3s have a Sony fingerprint in them, courtesy of the backdoor.
3) Sony spots the MP3s, and reads the Fingerprint.
4) Sony looks the Fingerprint up in its records, and retrieves the email address the it was sent to.
5) Sony sends a Nastygram to the email address and/or wakes the lawyers up.
This doesn't stop someone ripping the CD for their own use, but if the files then end up on the 'net, Sony knows who to chase.
And yes - this is aimed at casual listeners / copiers. Professional pirates seem to mostly produce CD copies, not MP3 files, so wont be majorly affected. However, if Sony can stop a large proportion of Home users from making MP3 files and sharing them on the net, they will put a crimp (hard to say if it would be large or small) in the amount of sharing.
However, as a non-music listener (except the odd bit of live music) it should have little impact on me (at least for now)
It sounds more to me like cops *teaching* kids how to smoke pot when they buy.. ahem... "tobacco accessories" and keeping a short list of info on everyone they've sold a product to, maybe with the hopes of checking up on them a little later ;)
These guys still don't understand it.
The cd's are waaaaay too expensive to buy casually for ppl, so they download the songs they want instead of buying them.
A good quantity of music I enjoy are on labels owned by Sony and other members of the RIAA. Am I supposed to change my music tastes because of copy protection?
Soy-tainly, just as people who like cigarettes are expected to change their tastes once they develop a high risk of lung cancer.
Granted, it's bad, but if you're goign that far, *you* have forgotten what music is about.
Some people claim that people who buy major label pap have forgotten what music is about, that the restrictive "all rights reserved" terms imposed by labels hinder collaboration among musicians, changing music from a participatory sport into a spectator sport.
Personally, I don't risk buying anything made by a major record label in the last 3 years
Try 95.
Fortunately for us, Philips will continue to have something to say about it as they own the rights to trademark "Compact Disc", and do not allow the trademark to be placed on anything that doesn't strictly conform to the redbook standard.
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
The most insidious thing about this is the way that Sony/BMG is using this to reframe the dialog about ripping/burning. When I buy a CD and rip some tracks to put on my MP3 player, or to make a backup copy of the CD, I call this "fair use". They call it "casual piracy". JD Lasica has an insightful item on Edward Felten's site about exactly this issue.
My conjecure, but maybe every person they give a key to gets a different key. And this leaves the unencrypted file with a watermark (i.e. variations in the output sound that are undetectable to the human ear) but which can be used to determine what decryption key was used to decrypt it - hence who has made their copy available publicly. They've got your email address and presumably other details, so if that file turns up on P2P sites they know exactly where to place the blame.
43 - For those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe and everything.
It's amazing how many people insist that industry X needs to "adjust its thinking" and/or reach a compromise with developers/consumers/etc. At this point I think it's a promising sign that at least they're willing to be a bit more realistic in regards to copying etc, and perhaps it's the turn for the anti-restrictions zealots to let up a bit as well....
It may not have much of an effect immediately, but as time goes on the values and morals of new generations may change and a gradual decrease in piracy may begin.
You forgot the part about pigs flying.
Seriously, when technology renders the old distribution channels unnecessary, people growing up will somehow magically start respecting the obsolete companies more than people who grew up when they were needed? This sounds just as flawed as any RIAA logic I've ever heard.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
>>they'll come out with a CD, that you can buy, but likely won't be allowed to listen to under any circumstances
This reminds me of Nigel Tufnel's "super special" guitar -- remember the one he wouldn't let Rob Reiner play, touch or even look at?
Hmmm. Perhaps this hypothetical album you can't listen to was performed on that guitar.
I can't tell you the last time I bought a Sony BMG product. For contrast, I purchased 30 blank minidiscs just last month.
Doesn't Sony still own the patents on MiniDisc?
But they continue to distribute the tools of schoolyard piracy
I wasn't aware that making copies for your portable MP3-player or for your digital media library were piracy. I guess I'll have to blame the damn newspeak I'm simply refusing to accept.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
So, the usual load of CD-DRM rubbish then! Reading between the lines of TFA it's just the normal semi-crippled audio tracks along with Microsoft WMA DRMd PC files. What a load of complete tosh. How DRM companies can get away of charging for their crap technology is beyond me.
How about CC license on Free and free MP3s? How about pay the amount YOU choose for an album of CD quality downloads? How about HALF of whatever you pay going straight to the artist? How about being able to download your music again if your hard drive crashes? How about excellent, innovative music in many genres?
All at http://magnatune.com/
-nt-
My girlfriend bought the new Shakira album. No comments on that, please :)
The back of the disc says, translated from Spanish: "...this disc does not conform to CD specifications".
So far, I've noted the following aspects:
* It rips with my friend's old CD-R deck (the one that takes the special discs).
* It does not play with iTunes.
* It does not play with Windows Media 9.
* It does not rip with cdrdao on a modern drive.
* It apparently _does_ rip with cdrdao on an ancient CD-ROM drive - well, can't say for sure, since it was proceeding so slowly that the process would take days.
* It does not work with dd with any drive (but I didn't give a blocksize arg, so that could be part of it).
If anyone has something that they'd like me to try, answer this post with a command line and I'll report back.
jh
The government doesn't want you to know, but wearing a tinfoil hat can cause brain cancer. Shhhh!
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
I wrote about this last month upon the release of DMB's new album, Stand Up.
You can read all about it here
You're wrong because your analogy assumes you have no right to cross the line. In the US, at least, the Home Recording Act and fair use allows us to make copies of our music and share them with friends and family. Any hindrance to that should not be allowed. Simply put, ripping a CD you legally bought is perfectly legal.
Under your analogy, it'd be perfectly reasonable for someone to put a barrier keeping you from entering your own property. Under property law that'd be a nuisance and would clearly be illegal.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
In Europe it is now illegal to tell publicly how to bypass copy 'protection' schemes
Even if you are a duly authori[sz]ed representative of the owner of copyright in the works in question? If the implementations of the EU Copyright Directive are anything like the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA (17 USC 1201 et seq), then operating "with[] the authority of the copyright owner" is a valid defen[cs]e:
If I make a 1-1 (backup) copy how would the copied disk "know" that it is a copy? If I put my original disk into a different computer how would it know that I already copied it on my other computer?
i found this on some site, it's apparently the email sony sends you with instructions on how to put the music on your iPod: this is for the ipod complaints the offical directions to get it on your iPod Thank you for contacting us, ##CENSORED##. We appreciate your purchase of the Foo Fighters CD and are happy to assist you with the music transfer.. Please follow the instructions below in order to move your content into iTunes and onto an iPod: If you have a Mac computer you can copy the songs using your iTunes Player as you would normally do. If you have a PC place the CD into your computer and allow the CD to automatically start. If the CD does not automatically start, open your Windows Explorer, locate the drive letter for your CD drive and double-click on the LaunchCD.exe file located on your CD. Once the application has been launched and the End User License Agreement has been accepted, you can click the Copy Songs button on the top menu. Follow the instructions to copy the secure Windows Media Files (WMA) to your PC. Make a note of where you are copying the songs to, you will need to get to these secure Windows Media Files in the next steps. Once the WMA files are on your PC you can open and listen to the songs with Windows Media Player 9.0 or higher. You may also play them in any compatible player that can play secure Windows Media files, such as MusicMatch, RealPlayer, and Winamp, but it will require that you obtain a license to do so. To obtain this license, from the Welcome Screen of the user interface, click on the link below the album art that says If your music does not play in your preferred player, click here. Follow the instructions to download the alternate license. Using Windows Media Player only, you can then burn the songs to a CD. Please note that in order to burn the files, you need to upgrade to or already have Windows Media Player 9 or greater. Once the CD has been burned, place the copied CD back into your computer and open iTunes. iTunes can now rip the songs as you would a normal CD.
/ http://suffocate.us
/ http://johngrayson.com
Funny, I thought iPods were completely compatable with MP3s. :^)
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It doesn't matter what any company says: if I can play it, I can copy it. A little ingenuity, a cable hooked from your favorite cd player to your computers mic port and the right piece of software will free those songs from the hell that is DRM.
--MaxPowerDJ
Excuse me but, isn't Sony the home of the Betamax decision and Fair Use?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Mark Cuban recently asked questions about Macrovision, wanting to know why such DRM exists if it doesn't work, and why do the content companies use it, knowing that it doesn't work. Ernest Miller provides some very cogent answers here.
Only the border region between these two actually e-mails Sony support. The latter Googles the answer.
Thus, the majority former group resigns from putting the CD on Kazaa, and while the latter group may do so, they will in much smaller proportion.
5. Profit!
The problem, as I see it, has many facets: 1) The music comanies start by perceiving everyone as a possible theif. Their general policies and actions have shown this.
2) a lot of people ARE, in fact, "stealing" "to stick it to the man." and who can blame them? Just by taking wide averages--say, $18/CD with about 20 songs, you're looking at about...a dollar a song. This includes packaging, literature, etc. Or, go to iTunes and spend...about a dollar a song. And they're (the music industry) still claims their prices should go up. Consistently.
I don't know about your neighborhood, but 'round here (Philly) the radio market sucks. There's no real variety, even with the stations that claim a "huge archive of music." What would YOU do?
I do know what a Sharpie is. It's a (usually) black pen that uses a fairly permanent ink (though it is easy to remove with isopropyl alcohol). I know some people have been known to draw round the edge of CDs using a Sharpie to increase imagined audio quality. But I don't see what that has to do with it.
So I did a web search on this exact phrase and found one web site. Bizarrely the full sentence was "The secret is out, guys. You can put away your Sharpies and stop using your code names. We're on to you." So there must be some cultural association between Sharpies and secrets and conspiracies. Are Sharpies used for covert communication? It seems unlikely - Sharpies are tradtionally associated with bold black writing rather than anything covert. So really, I'm at a loss to understand the relevance of this phrase.
Searching the rest of the /. web page turned up no clues either. Maybe the reference to Sharpies was too subtle for other people too. Or maybe it's a big open secret.
Can someone explain to me what the reference to Sharpies is about?
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
It seems like somebody at Sony BMG doesn't understand the threat model. Preventing 99% of consumers from circumventing the DRM on the physical media does pretty much no good, because as soon as a few enterprising individuals do manage to circumvent said DRM, there will be DRM-less digital copies on $P2P_NET_OF_THE_DAY, and once that happens, nobody who wants an illicit copy of the media in question will do it by trying to rip from CD. Seems like a no-brainer to me, but maybe Sony BMG is looking at it from some other angle.
Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
...sex-starved geeks should not make sex analogies.
Looks like someone will have to challenge this in court again.
Buy CD take it home it does not work on a Mac, user is not technically enclined to use Sony's hack but store refuses to refund the money. Sony also refuses stating that they gave them the ability to copy the music and they could be trying to scam their money back after they copied the music.
Sony will be in violation of anti-trust rules if the protection only works on one operating system. They favor M$ and everyone else has to use a kludge to fairly use music they're paying for.
Hope the EFF steps on these people's necks.
What about the other side of the coin? When you ask for the work around they write your name down so they have a list of people to sue. Just some food for thought.
Aren't you still violating the DMCA for bypassing protection wether or not the company told you how to bypass it? If they were being honest they would just remove it completely.
That is an interesting concept, although I have to wonder if it would work in the real world where for most people music is something you enjoy but isn't really a big deal.
"Yeah, I like it, it's got a good beat and you can dance to it."
I do know that on online communities, there are plenty of fans of groups (I belong to groups devoted to The Flower Kings and Spock's Beard), where the people who participate wouldn't dream of cheating their musical heroes out of money (however small their cut is), and in fact are far more likely to purchase _more_ material in part because it does support these artists.
I believe the common word to describe these kinds of folks is "fanatic". I am fanatical about several artists, and being part of a community associated with them is a lot of fun (especially those groups like TFK, mentioned above, where members of the group actually participate too). It's a real treat to ask a question about an obscure solo album and have the artist himself respond.
However, that level of community is not going to be very common because most people don't care that much. For instance, I'm a huge fan of the TV show "24", but I haven't the slightest interest in discussing it on-line or being part of any kind of "community" relating to the show. It's just a show. I watch it every week (when it's on), I enjoy it immensely, but that's it. However, when a new CD comes out by an artist I've mentioned above, or one of many others, I'm online discussing it that very day with friends from all around the world.
Is this relevant to what you're talking about? I'm not sure. But my point is that any sense of "community" is only going to matter to a small portion of your audience. Of course, your assertion that the music itself is a means to an end is flawed too. If I didn't deeply enjoy the music, I wouldn't care about the community. The community is a means to an end. The end is enjoying the music, the community enhances that because you can share your throughts with like-minded people. If you really want to see what community-based music marketing is all about, check out the group Marillion. Of course, this came about from the fact that these poor guys can't make ends meet because there just isn't a big market for the kind of introspective and sophisticated prog that they make (e.g., I lost interest when Fish left). But they have done some very interesting and innovative (or desperate depending on your point of view) things to sell music.
If someone can manuever that into a business model, more power to them, but I don't think it will work for the vast majority of people.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I wonder if the "back door" software (or whatever they send you) will digitally watermark the ripped track. Maybe they're just doing it so they can find the person who originally ripped it.
and if you haven't done a lot of CS you wouldn't recognize it. If a cust complains, you try to get them to play ball in a manner that's most profitable to you (i.e. Sony ATRAK). If that doesn't work, you want a fallback. As a whole companies don't care much about cust service and happy customers, but the individual departments who get scored and graded by customer surveys do, and so we get stuff like this.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I didn't see this posted by anyone yet. If I missed it, then please ignore the post.
I discovered this nuisance copyright protection scheme the hard way when I bought the new DMB album when it came out. The CD itself does not seem to include the raw WAV format music in any way that a Windows PC can see. It contains the album in protected WMA format. To listen to the music on a PC, you must agree to the EULA, download the appropriate DRM crap from MS, which will then allow the CD to play, albeit only through Windows Media Player. iTunes is a no-go since it can not play DRM protected WMA files. I did not have any luck with WinAmp either, though I didn't spend too much time trying. The "work around" that came directly from Sony, is similar to how you un-DRM iTunes AAC files--burn the music to a CD and then rip it back to your computer as an MP3. They also include some whining about how we should collectively complain to Apple for not supporting DRMed WMA files, making it seem like this hassle is all Apple's fault. Essentially, the copy-protection amounts to security through laziness. They are counting on consumers not to want to go through all these efforts to generate unencumbered MP3s.
Uh... RTFA.
/. thinking they are a genius.
Macs are the only machines that work without restrictions. "Apple Macintosh users currently face no restrictions at all"
Read story, typical Windows/Linux user can read, just can't comprehend what is being read. Writes ignorant post to
Try learning to spell. Enclined isn't a word!
Anita, I disagree - I think parent post is exactly correct - and notes exactly what you say, that is, that in some cases you do have the right to cross the line. I believe that was exactly the parent posts' point: it's a speed bump to tell you to think about it - but if you've thought about it, and still decide that you have the right to proceed, you actually can Makes total sense to me
Isn't a simplier method of copy protection easier to explain to a jury? I would imagine they have a lot of problems explaining how things were cracked today.
"It's actually not such a bad idea, because it's more hassle than most casual music pirates are willing to tolerate."
Wait, they admit that this will do nothing to prevent the availability of the songs on P2P networks. But it will be harder for a person to buy the CD and put the music on an MP3 player. So they are giving potential customers LESS reason to buy the CD, while doing nothing to prevent actual piracy. How is that not a bad idea?
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Hold down the shift key.
If these CDs work in your CD player, then your computer will recognize it as an audio CD. The only thing they can do to prevent that is to install software on your computer to do otherwise. This is why it only works on windows machines.
"That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't care. Tell me when they figure out how to integrate copyright protection into vinyl and THEN you'll have my attention. My record collection > your CD collection.
Bungo!
So where exactly do you live? I'd love to build a wall keeping you from easily entering your house. Thanks!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Ok, so it turns out this copy protection is actually an exploit of a major security hole in Windows. It uses "auto run" in Windows, which apparently happily automatically launches any program that happens to be sitting on a CD when it is inserted. Presumably it must look for a special file name or script, I don't know since I have no Windows box or Windows CDs to check. Now, this intentional hole can be turned off - but Windows must ship with it on by default. Think about this - you insert a music CD, and software is automatically installed on your system. Further, that software then tracks what you do with your CD - ie how many times you have copied it - and then interferes with the normal functioning of the system by blocking attempts to burn further copies. Clearly this is a MAJOR Windows security issue!
OK, so the teeny-boppers and my grandparents can't copy a CD, but I can easily use a COMPANY PROVIDED back door to rip my CDs, put the song on my iPod without any hassle. In otherwords, I'm happy because I change nothing, Sony is happy because they get their DRM to discourage 90% of everyone else.
If I have to deal with DRM, this is what I want.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but In the US it is perfectly legal to give away a copy of a work, provided it isn't sold, broadcast, or traded.
However, the DMCA makes "schoolyard piracy" of works protected by technology a crime.
forget all those steps just do this.
1. cmd prompt
2. "sc stop SbcpHid"
done.
But that's who they're marketing the product to in the first place. So they only have to copy protect it against their target market.
We are the 198 proof..
I like most of them
He likes most of me
And I like most of him
Their [sic] my alter egos
And to them I'm wed
'Cause I'm happy I live in a split level head
**Complete lyrics to the song by Napoleon the 14th are right --> here.
The last fucking thing you want is my undivided attention...
Entrapment is criminal, regardless. There is no civil about this.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Let me see if I understand your argument right:
"This is something I own. This is like putting a wall in front of what I own."
First: Do you really own it? If you or a friend made it, then presumably there are no DRM locks on it.
Second: This is in no way like putting a wall in front of the entrance to your house. This is more like putting a line of 9 inch diameter rocks in a row in front of your house. Rocks that you can easily step over.
The purpose of the rocks isn't to be an electric fence with razor wire. The purpose of the rocks is to be a warning sign: That this is (perhaps not) for you. But if it is for you, or even if it isn't, but for some circumstance, you think you should tresspass, you are supposed to be able to.
There's 3 feet deep and 9 feet tall of a difference between a solid wall and a little row of rocks.
Really: What do you want? How would you build a better system than this?
Let's say you believe copyrights are overblown. Let's say you are like me, and think that copyright should last roughly 17 years.
Even if copyrights last only 17 years, there's still enormous potential for piracy in those 17 years.
(I hope you do realize that: If most people pirate, than movie makers will stop making films, and most book writers will stop writing books.)
Okay, so we have 17 years where it is important that we protect the things they make.
The question is: How do we do it?
We could: (A) Do nothing. (B) Put in Soft Security, like is being done here. (C) Put in Hard Security, like most media groups want to do.
If we do (A) nothing, then we don't get to watch the Lord of the Rings. If we do (C), then we easily walk into totalitarianism, and all kinds of other nasty stuff.
If we do (B), then people can police themselves with their own conscience. You do realize that this is the only thing that says: "I trust you to think," and systematically asks you to do it, right? Because if you say (A), then there's no prompting to think. If you say (C), then you've removed all choice from the user. It's really (B) that gets people thinking:
"The manufacturers of this technology have effectively told me 'please don't do this, but we know there's situations where it is right for you to do so.' I'm about to copy a file so that I can play it in the car, as well as at home. Do I believe this is okay? Yes, so I will let this one go over." That is, they are forcing the decision on you. But it's a good decision to force on you. And it's much better than them making the decision for you. Especially since there's no way (that we like) such that they could reliably make the decision.
This is totally about trusting them trusting you, and I'm shocked at the negative response this has generated.
Now letsee here...
MediaMaxx installs a driver/device using AutoRun on insertion a so-called "copy-protected" CD.
Australia has recently created a $10K/install fine for installing software without permission.
Hmmm.
Seriously, who leaves autorun turned on anyway?
The quote in the story:
..."
..."
"It's designed to stop casual piracy
Should actually read:
"It's designed to stop fair use
That's much better. Now it makes sense.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Listening to music from major record labels doesn't damage me in any way.
Cents of every dollar you spend on major label music go to the label's lobbying efforts to promote further anti-commons legislation. Sometimes you have to deny yourself "most of the best music on the planet" to preserve your freedom.
What about when their annoying DRM scheme is preventing a purchaser from taking an action that no reasonable person would believe to be illegal, like trying to play one of these crippled CDs in a car stereo? The message that sends me is "we don't care if we screw some of our customers over, so long as we get ours."
For sale: one sig space, gently used. Inquire for details.
Music + DRM is basically music in a different format.
... It's not saying you'll stop people from doing it, but it makes people stop and think."
It's basically like saying: "Drat! I can't play my OGG files in the iPod!"
Or, to an extereme, in order to make the subtle difference more obvious: "Drat! I can't open this data file on my CD player! ''Damn The Man!''"
The idea is that if you have car stereos that can interpret the new format, then it should play fine. I think they would actually like people who make your car music player to support their format.
If they really wanted to screw you over, there are better ways than telling you how to circumvent their own protection mechanisms.
I think what they want here, is actually what they said: "It's designed to stop casual piracy
"First: Do you really own it?"
Wrong, you don't have to OWN something in order to have rights to access it.
"Second: This is in no way like putting a wall in front of the entrance to your house. This is more like putting a line of 9 inch diameter rocks in a row in front of your house. Rocks that you can easily step over."
Not really, the CD is locked. Only by asking Sony or by violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act can you get the CD unlocked. Thus, you're either at Sony's discretion or at risk violating federal law.
"The question is: How do we do it?"
Sony fully admits that the new DRM is solely directed to those who BUY their CDs. Thus my answer to the question would involve NOT screwing over your legitimate customers. That should obvious. If CDs sales are down, the last thing you'd want to do is screw over those few people left who are still willing to buy from you.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Real pirates, the ones selling bottleggs of CDs, are using commercial pressing machines and no amount of "copy protection" can stop that.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
Ok, wow..another copy protection scheme. As a part of the artist community, I just don't see the point. The people who copy our music are also the people who are buying our music. I'd much rather have my song traded 100 or 1000 times. Think of the free advertising! And why buy anything from Sony when the independent music choices are so much better. Anyone who's in the know shops at CDBaby.com and learns about music at sites like CD Babel http://www.cdbabel.com/. I say just avoid the record companies all together...they aren't worth the hassle.