Artist Suggesting Ways Around Copy Protection

fanboyslayer writes "Switchfoot's new album Nothing Is Sound shipped from Sony with copy protection software on the CD, much to the dismay of thousands of iPod-wielding fans. The band posted a response on their official forum apologizing for the protection and detailing ways to circumvent the protection and rip their songs to PC. Switchfoot linked to open-source program CDex's download page with instructions on disabling the autorunning protection and ripping the files to MP3. Many of Switchfoot's fans have been upset by the copy protection measures, and it's nice to know the artists seem to care about the issue."

Comments

Nice comment

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice to see bands standing up for their public against the wishes of their labels. I can imagine this posting will cause some heated discussions within Sony!

For those too lazy to RTFA their advice is "press shift when loading the CD", and "if that's too late, burn the music back to CD and rip it again".

Re:Nice comment

[Rosyna]

I prefer this comment:

A) If you're a mac user, or you have access to a mac, or you purchased the dual disc, you should have no problems... simply import the songs the same way as you always do.

Re:Nice comment

[nmb3000]

I prefer this comment:

A) If you're a mac user, or you have access to a mac, or you purchased the dual disc, you should have no problems... simply import the songs the same way as you always do.

Not trying to Mac-bash, but having only about 3% of the consumer market share does have it's advantages.

If the Apple and Windows userbases suddenly became equal, you'd see copy protection for both platforms. Why spend an equal amount of money for copy protection that's only going to affect 3% of your consumers vs 95%?

That said, the whole DMCA side of this is plain stupid. Microsoft designed Windows (this really *is* a feature :) so that you could bypass pesky autorun software by holding the SHIFT key (or just turning off on a per-drive basis). It's not a secret. Maybe Sony should sue Microsoft for not giving them a good way to prohibit users from exercising their fair use rights. That's a Slashdot article I want too see; Microsoft getting sued (yay!) but by Sony because they want strict media access control (boo!).

Re:Nice comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft designed Windows (this really *is* a feature :) so that you could bypass pesky autorun software by holding the SHIFT key (or just turning off on a per-drive basis)

What's the odds that in Vista, the Autorun feature will be "improved" so that it's more like, "to disable Autorun, hold down SHIFT, unless it's a copy-protected disc in which case it WILL auto-run regardless of any key-presses or registry changes you make"?
/me paranoid first thing on a Monday morning

Re:Nice comment

[ArsenneLupin]

"to disable Autorun, hold down SHIFT, unless it's a copy-protected disc in which case it WILL auto-run regardless of any key-presses or registry changes you make"?

That would be great! Finally we can again make bluescreen disks which won't be defeated with a trivial press on the shift key, hehe...

Re:Nice comment

[Technician]

Maybe Sony should sue Microsoft for not giving them a good way to prohibit users from exercising their fair use rights. That's a Slashdot article I want too see; Microsoft getting sued (yay!) but by Sony because they want strict media access control (boo!).


You are thinking inside the box. The simple fact is MS doesn't own the Phillips Compact Disk standard. MS is trying to sell a format that they do own. Seen any secure WMA files lately? They simply haven't gotten the labels to bite yet because too many players in cars and such still won't play the format.

Does anybody know if the CD contains the Compact Disk logo? So far I have avoided the copy protected disks simply by not buying any CD without the Compact Disk logo as registered by Phillips. I wouldn't want any DMCA liability that the band advocates by defeating a protection mechanism.

Re:Nice comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Not trying to Mac-bash, but having only about 3% of the consumer market share does have it's advantages.

The same applies to Linux in this case. This is just another stupid exploit of the autorun behavior in Windows.

Re:Nice comment

[Itchy Rich]

The artists are mere karma bitches, playing Sony for money and the general public for simpathy. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Do they have to give up all principles when they take payment from a record company? No. If doing something for the benefit of others (telling them how to get music onto their PC in this case) is being a "karma bitch" then you might as well make the same accusation of Ghandi and Mother Theresa (that bitch was only doing it so she could get into heaven).

Re:Nice comment

[Pollardito]

Maybe Sony should sue Microsoft for not giving them a good way to prohibit users from exercising their fair use rights.

they could followup with a lawsuit against the keyboard manufacturers for including not one but two shift keys

Re:Nice comment

[DeafByBeheading]

For those too lazy to RTFA their advice is "press shift when loading the CD", and "if that's too late, burn the music back to CD and rip it again".

For what it's worth, a lot of the newer copy protection is much nastier than this and in fact breaks the red book standard. The companies using it don't give a rat's ass 'cause they figure if it looks like a CD, people will buy it as a CD whether it has the little Compact Disc logo on it or not.... I was very unpleasantly surprised when I bought a CD while in France this summer that turned out to have this on it...
 
I would have returned it, but (a) it was in France and I didn't find out it was DRMed until recently, (b) it was used, so it might've sent a message to the store owner but not to the label, and (c) my mom happened to have the same thing non-DRMed (stfu! my mom happens to have very avant-garde taste in music. or something), so I just ripped that.

Re:Nice comment

[Itchy Rich]

They did give up all their principles, if they ever had any, when signing for Sony. You're either part of the problem or part of the solution.

This is the same logic that Bush used. You're either with us or with the terrorists. It's just fallacy. Empty rhetoric. It just sounds good.

Sony are not a "problem" they're a symptom. They're a company, created by commerce-based culture. If they go under, another company will form to take their place. Your problem is with the system that created them.

Also, comparing a bunch of entertainers to mother Theresa and Gandhi is downright laughable, and only serves to reinforce my perception that these guys are some sort of PR hoes.

Why? They're just human beings in the pubic eye. Look at Bob Geldof. He's an entertainer and he helps people. Just because you have them categorised into neat little boxes doesn't mean they have to conform to your definitions.

Oh, and good_press != heaven so there goes the rest of your argument. Go get some sleep, fanboy.

I'm going to ignore your childish insults and explain again.

You are *assuming* that these musicians are doing this for PR reasons. If they are doing that then, although your label of "karma bitch" might be valid, you have to apply that label in some places you might not expect in order for you critisism to be consistent, and hence for you not to be a hypocrite.

For example, the Catholic church (amongst many others, I apologise for using the easy target) preaches that if you don't follow their ways you will go to hell. It follows that people become Catholic to avoid going to hell. So, a catholic who performs a charitable act could be said to do so under the threat of hell. The same label of "karma bitch" could be applied, it's just that the reward comes in the afterlife instead of at a celebrity record launch.

Personally I disagree with your label of "karma bitch". I think that performing charitable acts in your own interests is perfectly acceptable. In fact, think that performing charitable acts is actually usually in your own interests, even if it's only to satisfy your conscience or to appear generous.

Re:Nice comment

[CaptainZapp]

The artists are mere karma bitches, playing Sony for money and the general public for simpathy.

And your proof for this assertion is?

Re:Nice comment

[Tink2000]

Finding that little CD logo is becoming (actually, has become) nearly impossible to do anymore. Out of the last 50 cds I've picked up (read as: not bought) at local shops, nothing released in the last year has had it.

However, they have all had that cute little FBI logo on them.

Re:Nice comment

[skingers6894]

That's not a Mac-Bash at all. It's a succinct description of one reason why it's great to be a Mac owner.

When the Mac Market share hits, say 25%, I'll re-evaluate my platform choice.

Re:Nice comment

[lowrydr310]

Time to switch to linux!!!

There are a lot of rumors and reports about terrible copy protection in Vista, whether it's this or allowing only 'approved' monitors and the simplest solution is to switch to Linux. Unfortunately I still need Windows, and there's no way my wife would ever consider Linux at the moment so if copy protection gets too bad the best solution is to have a separate Linux box and do the rip/burn there. I can say for certain that I have no need to upgrade to Vista now, but when I do buy a new PC I'm sure it'll be on there.

My current setup would be a decent linux box, good enough for web browsing, listening to music, and ripping CDs. Then all I would need to do is set up a shared drive on the windows machine that I could access across my home network. Am I right to assume that Linux can read NTFS but not write?

Re:Nice comment

[arevos]

Then all I would need to do is set up a shared drive on the windows machine that I could access across my home network. Am I right to assume that Linux can read NTFS but not write?

Yes, that's correct. Though you can read and write to an NTFS drive across a Windows network using Linux.

Re:Nice comment

[dmaxwell]

If we are talking about shared drives then NTFS doesn't enter into it. Linux can both mount and share Windows network fileshares.

If you are taking a USB harddrive or some such back and forth then NTFS might come into play. Out of the box, Linux can read ntfs easily and can do limited writing on already in place files. If you don't mind mucking about with wrapped drivers from Windows, there is also Captive which gives you the ability to read and write NTFS but it is slow. There is also at least one commercial solution that allows this.

Re:Nice comment

[inquisitor]

The Macrovision CDS "copy control" logo should be on the front of the CD as a sticky label and on the back cover printed; it definitely is on all copy-control releases I've ever seen. It's multi-language as well. I certainly will not purchase any CC CD, and advise others against it.

The good news is that they're becoming less common - I've seen some very unwelcome uses of CDS here in the UK (including a jazz CD) but most new CDs I've seen from EMI/subsidiaries, the biggest users of CDS previously, have been protection-free; and new issues of some of the previously protected CDs, like Blur's Think Tank, have been CP-free. Which is certainly a good thing.

As for the Switchfoot protection, this is almost certainly the pain-in-the-ass SunnCOMM MediaMax system as seen on a lot of Sony USA albums. It's basically a legal trojan - it will install its Windows service even if you decline the licensing agreement (illegal in the UK under the Computer Misuse Act, which may be why we haven't seen many MediaMax CDs outside the States; they usually turn up as either CDS or unprotected instead.) It may be a good idea not to load the CD as Administrator, as well as turning off autorun.

Since it's a service, it's removable from the Computer Management services screen and from a hard to find link on he SunnCOMM website, but it has an obscure name - "SbcpHid" according to the CD3 analysis here, although I suspect they've either changed it now or added a partner (can't find any info to suggest otherwise). Can't someone sue them?

Re:Nice comment

[AndersOSU]

The problem is that the big record labels have a strangle hold on the distribution and radio networks. If you are new talent and hope to be discovered you practically need to sign a record deal with a major label if you ever hope to break out of playing home town bars. Hell you probably can't even get on tour opening for a moderately large band if you don't have a record company.

The fact of the matter is that the record labels coerce talent into signing exclusive recording and distribution contracts. And while Sony has certainly benefited from this system, they did not create it.

The only real way that I see that this system can be overturned is if the courts start striking down the label's contracts, or if clearchannel self destructs and we see some actual independent radio stations willing to take risks and play something other than the top 40.

Re:Nice comment

[lowrydr310]

I think most new CDs (at least the ones I've seen) have a little disclaimer that says something about them not being compliant with some standard and that there's no guarantee they'll play on all CD players. I haven't had any problems playing anything yet, but I'd be a little upset if I bought a CD that wouldn't play. I don't know of any store that would accept a return on an opened CD, unless it was physically damaged in which case they'd issue a replacement of the exact title.

Re:Nice comment

[Chiperdean]

Hrmmm....I am running Spybot with the Teatimer loaded into memory. It should stop and CD from trying to change my registry settings. I will have to try this and use the Shift key to stop the Autorun.

Re:Nice comment

[arkanes]

it will install its Windows service even if you decline the licensing agreement

This almost certainly falls under various US anti-spyware laws. It *probably* falls under good old 18 USC 1030 as well. The reason why spyware and other trojans don't is the nominal "authorization" of the EULA. If it installs even when you specifically decline that authorization, that should be a violation of law. Granted that the odds of any DA choosing to go after media companies for this is... poor.

Re:Nice comment

[Magada]

Their statements. Btw, they should be sued for providing means (information) for the circumvention of a copy-protection mechanism, under the DMCA.

Re:Nice comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at Bob Geldof. He's an entertainer and he helps people.

Live 8 was a publicity stunt, not a charity event--while Live Aid (from 1985) was a telethon geared to raise money for poor people, Live 8 was aimed at persuading the governments of various countries to forgive debt. Yep, not raise money, tell governments what to do. So they basically expect heads of state to say, "I don't want to forgive this debt, but Pink Floyd is back together, I have no choice."

Re:Nice comment

[Digital Vomit]

they could followup with a lawsuit against the keyboard manufacturers for including not one but two shift keys

With the stupidity levels of judges as they are today, I can actually see it working.

"Your honor, there is no question that a shift key is necessary to allow the user to quickly and easily capitalize the odd letter, but was the motivation behind the second shift button?...

Re:Nice comment

[LWATCDR]

" Also, comparing a bunch of entertainers to mother Theresa and Gandhi is downright laughable, and only serves to reinforce my perception that these guys are some sort of PR hoes.

Why? They're just human beings in the pubic eye. Look at Bob Geldof. He's an entertainer and he helps people. Just because you have them categorised into neat little boxes doesn't mean they have to conform to your definitions."

While it is "nice" that Bob Geldof and some other well to do people give out of there excess to help others I would say that is very different than people that have adopted serving others as a way of life. Which one could argue that Mother Theresa and Gandhi did. Of course disagree with that statment as well.

Your comment on the Catholic church is incorrect. The Catholic church believes in salvation based on grace. I.E. that one is saved by the grace of Christ and not based on works. So you could give billions of dollars and still going to hell according to Catholic teachings.

And no I am not Catholic.

Re:Nice comment

[Itchy Rich]

You just admitted to my point. Moreover, you have taken the tag I created and posted it on another one of my fave karma bitch types: the bigot.

Have you ever given money for charity? If so, why did you do it? To satisfy your conscience perhaps? That would make you a "karma bitch" by your own definition.

The topic isn't quite as black and white as you're trying to imply.

Re:Nice comment

[LWATCDR]

Will that work on my Linux system?

Re:Nice comment

[cloak42]

They didn't. They provided means of turning off Autorun in Windows.

Re:Nice comment

[MyDixieWrecked]

If the Apple and Windows userbases suddenly became equal, you'd see copy protection for both platforms. Why spend an equal amount of money for copy protection that's only going to affect 3% of your consumers vs 95%?

same idea as spyware.

i've got a question, though (being as I don't use windows and I've had the opportunity to rip several protected CDs for other people)...

One of the main problems with windows, in terms of reasons for lack of stability and the like, is that there is so much crap being installed on a regular basis (spyware, adware, and not to mention actual real software), what's to stop all this crap from conflicting and bringing down the system?

at my job, they just locked down all of the windows computers. Software cannot be installed without an administrator password. hell, you can't even look at the built-in calendar without loggin in as an admin (doubleclick the time in the taskbar).

how are office peons supposed to listen to music, now?

this also brings up another issue. Earlier on slashdot, there was an article about the 6 stupidest ideas for security. the author proposed a whitelist for executing software on a machine, rather than a blacklist. Having audio CDs require installation of software just to listen to music completely shatters his idea of keeping a clean system. Suddenly, you go from knowing exactly what you need to run (excel, word, minesweeper, adobe reader, etc) to saying "sonydrmdaemon32.exe? columnbiaprotect_win32.exe... wtf is that crap?"

I can see it now. in 2 years when nearly every audioCD comes with their own flavour of software DRM, the next wave of security exploits are going to involve that software.

the future looks pretty dark.

Re:Nice comment

[bonzooznob]

MSFT should just get a patent on the [SHIFT] key as a DRM system.
Then they can charge a levy on all Music labels.
Why not? I mean, if you Double-Click the CD Icon, you are already using patented innovative MSFT technology.
Personally, I can't wait till MSFT patents the ToasterTM.
I can see it now... (cue dream sequence)

New MSFT Toaster Vista (Corporate Office Edition) Features innovative 5 slice design, built-in Popup Blocking! and anti-toast Phishing feature! (workaround available via the undocumented [pull-plug feature]). Users will love the new streamlined interface... all the controls for each slice bay (cough tab) are on the far side of the toaster (cough, horrible IE7 tab implementation)... each slice is pre-buttered with MSFT Genuine Fudder(R) so you don't have to...

Aghh! Will these nightmares never end!

Re:Nice comment

[TheLetterPsy]

Granted that the odds of any DA choosing to go after media companies for this is... poor.

You never know what New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer's next target will be . . .

Re:Nice comment

[Magada]

I've never given money to charity, since I don't feel that this would alleviate the problem of poverty worldwide, or even just in my country, ethnic group or even neighborhood. so I will not use charity as an "excuse" for my conscience, so that I can continue to do nothing about the problem itself. So no, I am not a karma bitch, by my own definition.

Re:Nice comment

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same logic that Bush used.

I had to re-read this line a few times before I realized he was talking about the Prez. I was trying to figure out what the band Bush had done. Imagine me thinking of a band in an article that has to do with music.

Re:Nice comment

[frequnkn]

There is no "AutoRun" feature within Mac OS itself, and I don't think there ever has been. Quicktime had a similar function several versions ago (which could be disabled by removing/not loading the extension), but that was removed due to fear of malicious use, AFAIK.

Mac OS X will automatically open a Finder window upon mounting read-only media (and usually network volumes as well), but no code is executed.

Not sayin' it's good or bad, just sayin'.

-Foo

Re:Nice comment

[Anonymous Coward]

blah blah blah that's got to be an inaccurate statistic these days/\.

Re:Nice comment

[Magada]

They did, since by turning off autorun, you are effectively circumventing the protection mechanism that Sony put in place on that CD. Lock'em up!

Re:Nice comment

[Technician]

Finding that little CD logo is becoming (actually, has become) nearly impossible to do anymore.


And if shiny round pieces of plastic that didn't have the logo didn't sell, DRM on fake CD's would be already dead. Sadly there is enough demand for DRM CD's to keep making them.

nothing released in the last year has had it.


I've noticed. My purchases have reflected this. My last few CD's were purchased from Goodwill.

I Rip, Mix, and Burn my CD's. I also honor the DMCA. I don't buy DRM CD's.

I spend my entertainment dollars elswhere.

Re:Nice comment

[cloak42]

Not the band's fault that Sony provides idiotic means of "protection" for their software. :)

After all, what about people who have autorun disabled by default? What do they get charged with? Preemptive circumvention? :)

Re:Nice comment

[Itchy Rich]

I've never given money to charity...

Well at least you're consistent.

Re:Nice comment

[meadowsp]

So you post about it on Slashdot instead, which is going to obviously do much more about alleviating the problems of worldwide poverty.

Re:Nice comment

[d34thm0nk3y]

Do they have to give up all principles when they take payment from a record company? No. If doing something for the benefit of others (telling them how to get music onto their PC in this case) is being a "karma bitch" then you might as well make the same accusation of Ghandi and Mother Theresa

Ghandi didn't take money from the British imperialists before beginning on his crusade for independence.

Re:Nice comment

[technoCon]

"In fact, think that performing charitable acts is actually usually in your own interests, even if it's only to satisfy your conscience or to appear generous."

Ayn Rand, who was no friend of altruism, echoed this in her essays on the virtue of selfishness. And I agree with her analysis.

I've found that charitable acts bring me pleasure, and they are most gratifying when performed ANONYMOUSLY. The anonymous good deed makes it clear that one's motives are pure.

To think of heaven/hell in transactional terms is probably suboptimal. One should do right because it is right and eschew wrong because it is wrong. Such actions make a man good or evil and being a good or evil man causes him to perform good or evil acts. A bit circular, that.

Despite the Objectivist tone of this note, I am a Christian and the aformentioned transactional observation is made in light of the cosmic transaction performed by Christ on the Cross. In light of what has been done for me, anything I might do is laughably irrelevant. The only thing I can do is express gratitude.

Re:Nice comment

[An ominous Cow art]

I second this. I have only bought used CDs in the last 3-4 years. Between iTunes and my local store (http://www.bullmoose.com/ in the states of NH/ME) I've never felt any need to look break any copyrights.

Re:Nice comment

[Itchy Rich]

Ghandi didn't take money from the British imperialists before beginning on his crusade for independence.

No, he took his education.

However, what he may or may not have taken is beside the point. Being a "karma bitch" (as the original parent so tastefully put it) doesn't depend on what you may or may not have taken from someone else. It's a matter of your motives for helping people, i.e. "doing good" so that you will be rewarded in some way at some time in the future, even if that reward is only a clear conscience.

Re:Nice comment

[hey!]

The Catholic church believes in salvation based on grace. I.E. that one is saved by the grace of Christ and not based on works. ...

And no I am not Catholic.

And it shows in your post. You've just outlined the Protestant position on the problem of "justification". RC doctrine is not precisely antithetial to this doctrine, in that it agrees that salvation is by grace (e.g. that it is not a human right but a gift). However, RC theology goes on to a number of other concepts such as the redemptive value of suffering, the increase of grace through merit,or the loss thereof through mortal sin, which amount in affect to the ability to increase the probability of salvation or to lose it altogther via works.

So, neither you nor the poster got it exactly right.

In any case, I think the point of who is more meritorious is somewhat irrelevant. It is possible to use people through the pretext of serving them, or to serve people while engaging with them commercially. Even if materially you sacrifice for the material benefit of another, it is quite possible to exploit them in other ways, for example for social status, for ego gratification, or, as in the case the poster posited, for the purpose of ensuring ones' salvation. It should be noted that there is in RC theology no merit in an action that is intended for the selfish purpose of personal salvation.

At least in my opinion, the fundamental issue is recognizing the humanity of other people and responding to it appropriately. If you have a commercial relationship with somebody, it does not, or at least should not, preclude this.

Re:Nice comment

[Taevin]

Perhaps Sony should be punished for running software that modifies system files without permission.

It seems to me that this copy protection scheme exploits two security holes in Windows: autorun (maybe ok by itself) and everyone running with administrator privileges by default. We regularly imprison and fine people who exploit such security holes, why should Sony be any different? At the very least you can't blame people for trying to prevent unwanted changes to their system.

Re:Nice comment

[Tony Hoyle]

Packages can be set to autorun on download... seen it happen once or twice.

I'd love to work out how they did it, though.

Re:Nice comment

[abscondment]

Do macs have a similar autorun feature? Or is that platform a little more respectful, actually giving the user an opt-in styled choice in the matter?

Re:Nice comment

[shutdown -p now]

Am I right to assume that Linux can read NTFS but not write?

It can write as well, but you'll have to pay to get that feature.

Re:Nice comment

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking stillbirth, is what you are.

Re:Nice comment

[harlows_monkeys]

If the Apple and Windows userbases suddenly became equal, you'd see copy protection for both platforms

How so? To make system-specific copy protection requires two things. First, the record company has to want to do it. That indeed might depend on userbase size. Second, however, the platform has to support it.

The Mac doesn't have a mechanism for an inserted CD to automatically install software, like Windows does. It is that mechanism that is used to install the copy protection.

Re:Nice comment

[frequnkn]

Packages can be set to autorun on download... seen it happen once or twice. I'd love to work out how they did it, though.

Safari -> Preferences -> General -> 'Open "safe" files after downloading'

-Foo

Re:Nice comment

[dgatwood]

Mac OS 9 and prior did have an autorun, IIRC, though nobody ever did anything with it.

Mac OS X does not support automatic execution on mount.

Re:Nice comment

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice to see bands standing up for their public against the wishes of their labels. I can imagine this posting will cause some heated discussions within Sony!

One of my favorite artists, Charlotte Martin, had the same thing happen. RCA put the CD3 copy protection system on the first print of her album, while she didn't want that. Instructions were made available on her message boards for how to disable the copy protection, and the second print was copy-protection-free.

Re:Nice comment

[Trillan]

As usual, the "security by obscurity" comment is seriously flawed. Mac OS X does not support autorun, so a technique like this wouldn't be possible were the percentages reversed.

Re:Nice comment

[dustinbarbour]

It's not a built-in calendar. It is merely a graphical device to let you change the current system date. A lot of administrators don't want their users changing the system date willy nilly. Thus it is locked down for standard users.

Re:Nice comment

[Back Slider 1969]

I can imagine this posting will cause some heated discussions within Sony!

Such as cancelling their contract and making them repay any advances paid to Sony? If they didn't like what Sony does (I'm not saying I do, quite the opposite) they shouldn't have signed their contract in the first place.

Re:Nice comment

[Guyle]

Have them burn Winamp and their favorite MP3s on a CD, then run it off the drive. Works great.

Re:Nice comment

[mini me]

but having only about 3% of the consumer market share
You forgot a 0. It's more like 30%. It's the business market that brings Apple down to around 3% overall.

Re:Nice comment

[Keybounce]

It *probably* falls under good old 18 USC 1030 as well.

I just read that statute.

It starts with a section protecting any computer data (sounds good), oh, wait, that the government, by law, or executive order, says must be kept secret for reasons of national defense, foreign relations, or atomic energy concerns ... IF that information would hurt the US, or help another nation.

Meanwhile, if it doesn't hurt the US, doesn't help another nation, then it's all right. It's OK to help an indidual this way.

So looking at the other sections.

Section (2) protects any department or agency of the federal government without any loopholes (nice, wish we had that protection), any financial institution, any credit reporting agency (equifax, etc), or "information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication". Note that neither of the first two parts of this section has the interstate or foreign communications restriction. (Yea, that picky article one of the constitution here.)

But notice that bold phrase: Protected Computer.

(3) protects against any unauthorized use of a federal computer.
(4) protects against some unauthorized use of a private computer, if you are trying to commit fraud, futher the intended fraud, and get anything of value beyond just the computer time itself. Hmm, why don't we get the same protection the feds get?

(5) protects a protected computer from being hacked to cause physical injury, modification of medical information, or loss of $5,000 per year. So you can destroy a computer (valued at $2000 or less) if the data on the hard drive is unchanged and can be recovered. (Go ahead and flash the bios.) Oh, and a section that sounds like the patriot act, (5) (b) (v) protecting "a computer system used by or for a government entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security" from any actual or potential damage. Gee, I'd like that to cover my computer at home.

(6) protects against some trafficing in passwords for the purpose of fraud, to the extend allowed by the constitution. But if you're not doing it for fraud, go right ahead.

(7) protects from extortion by threatening a protected computer

So, if you're not causing fraud, and you're not bothering a government computer, or a financial site, this has almost no effect on you.

And all those references to protected computer :

"Your honor, the prosecution's computer cannot be considered protected. They do not use basic security practices, they use administrator access for normal day to day operations, they have not disabled any questionable defaults of their operating system, they are connected to the internet, and they are running Microsoft Windows. Clearly, that is not a protected comptuer, and as such, gets no protection from this law."

Re:Nice comment

[Anonymous Coward]

if copy protection gets too bad the best solution is to have a separate Linux box and do the rip/burn there.

You hit the nail on the head. The reasons that NO (you heard it here first) MP3 player + phone is or will be successful is the fact that the devices are too locked down to use and that the players that DO work are so cheap and effective. At some level the carriers realize that they have to let go to succeed but the corporate gestalt makes that nearly impossible to do.

The same thing will happen with other media players. If Vista is too locked down to copy or play ordinary MP3, people will just go out and buy a $30 MP3 player. If people want to copy a disk, they'll go buy a $50 disk copier. The only reason these devices aren't available in every store that sells electronics is the simple fact that they are not needed: your general purpose PC can easily be adapted to that function. If you are standing in the store looking at a $1500 media PC that doesn't play MP3, that doesn't take advantage of your $3000 TV, that doesn't copy disks what is your motivation to purchase? If the guy next door is selling a $600 (or even $1800) system that DOES do all those things, which one are you going to buy? All MS is accomplishing is to make their OS the wrong tool for media.

Re:Nice comment

[Bassman59]

"In light of what has been done for me, anything I might do is laughably irrelevant. "

So, basically you're saying that you can go out and kill a bunch of people (or call for a fatwa on the democratically-elected leader of a sovereign nation -- Yes, YOU, Pat Robertson!) and you're still saved?

That doesn't make any fucking sense.

Re:Nice comment

[Baricom]

If the Apple and Windows userbases suddenly became equal, you'd see copy protection for both platforms. Why spend an equal amount of money for copy protection that's only going to affect 3% of your consumers vs 95%?

Why spend money for copy protection that's going to affect any of your consumers? It's clear the band thinks that either the DRM won't hurt sales, or that they can live with losing a few. In any case, what's the point of enforcing DRM on only some of the copies of their CDs? Won't the "evil pirates" just rip the unencumbered version?

Re:Nice comment

[Glendale2x]

Finally we can again make bluescreen disks which won't be defeated with a trivial press on the shift key, hehe...

I prefer Goatse and friends. Good clean fun for school computer labs and the like.

Re:Nice comment

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer this comment

But I prefer these articles:

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-912695.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2271

"Certain music CDs fitted with digital barriers to stop copying can also cause some Apple computers to crash and refuse to spit out the incompatible disc. The CDs can cause Mac computers to freeze and then reboot to a grey screen, according to an Apple technical support report."

To quote Ash: "WHO'S LAUGHING NOW?"

Re:Nice comment

[jc42]

CDs are a thing of the past anyway.

Not really. There are lots of people who view them as "backup".

The idea is, the first thing you do with a new CD is rip the music to your hard drive. Then you store the CD away somewhere.

Later, when your motherboard dies, and you find that the backups you've been making to that fancy USB or Firewire drive doesn't actually work right on your new machine, you haven't lost the music. You just sit down with your library and start ripping the things that you still want to listen to.

Your favorites you might want to store off-site somewhere, in case of fire or flood or whatever. Of course, you want that somewhere to be materially safer than your basement or spare bedroom. Considering the implications of recent events in New Orleans, good luck finding a reliable storage place.

Anyway, this is a lot more likely to save that music indefinitely than any other scheme you may have. So on to the next subtopic: With stuff downloaded off the Net, what guarantee is there that the site you got it from will still exist when you buy your next machine? If so, what are the chances that they'll have actually saved all that old music that isn't selling any more? Or maybe they'll have it, but the fine print of their contract says that they can change their policy at any time, and their policy now is that you have to pay 50% of the current price to replace an "inactive" music file (and if you don't like it, you can take them to court, which will cost you thousands of bucks even if you win).

What you want to do, of course, is burn all the downloaded stuff to CD and archive it with the rest.

Anyway, if you're thinking past the end of the week, there is good reason to want stuff on CDs. Or maybe DVDs, if there's a way to guarantee that they'll be readable on new equipment in 5 or 10 or 30 years.

Re:Nice comment

[FLEB]

From what I recall of the format, though, at least with these, it's a strange sort of "affirmative DRM", in that the CD portion of the disc isn't corrupt, but you "have to" (if you don't know how to turn off Autorun) load the player/driver, which includes a wedge program that scrambles reads from the CD-ROM if the disc is marked. If I'm not mistaken, it's plain CDDA if you never load the "driver". So, if the security software says "no", then the installer won't run, and you'll just have a plain ol' Multi-mode format CD in the drive.

It's really a shame, though, that CDDA doesn't support multichannel audio out of the box. That means there's a real competitive advantage for a next-gen audio format, which will undoubtedly end up having integrated DRM ability. Until then, there are predominant existing media (with consumer-ubiquitous players) to openly encode most current DRMed content, which means that DRM can't completely take over with the current 2-channel audio format.

Re:Nice comment

[jc42]

Do macs have a similar autorun feature?

Sorta, but as far as I can tell with my Powerbook, it's always off by default.

When downloading things like various archive file types, you get a popup window asking if you want to write it to disk or open it with a program. If you pick the latter, there is usually a default app, but you have the opportunity to change it if you like. There's also a checkbox for "Don't ask me about this again." If you check that, and said to run a program, that program will henceforth be run automatically for that file type. If there's a security hole in that app, and you download a file of its type that contains an exploit, it's too late. The exploit is run automatically, because some time in the past, you said that's what you wanted.

But it does take a bit of work and some understanding to opt in for automatic running of a program like this. If anything is opted in for you at purchase time, I haven't seen or heard of it. Which doesn't mean that Apple won't change this next month, of course. It just gives you a bit of confidence that they understand the problem and have Done It Right so far.

Re:Nice comment

[FLEB]

On a basic level, though, I'd say it's the nature of all motivation. No sane being would makes an expenditure unless there is either some sort of percieved direct or indirect benefit, or a neutralization of a negative situation. Be it physiological (endorphins, etc.) or social (rising tide lifts all ships, maybe I'll need it someday, social pressure).

...

Of course, there are some theories out there that attribute this on a wider scope ("relations" along with "self"), but it's a similar vein.

Re:Nice comment

[abscondment]

Well, that seems to be a browser related thing; I'm wondering about the CD medium specifically.

On most PCs, CDs can be easily made to autorun a program - you pop the CD in, and whatever code is designated to run, runs. Personally, I think that's a stupid design (but the idea is that it'll help the computer illiterate install things without having to be able to browse to the CD drive and click the executable - waaay to difficult, right?).

You can turn this ... "feature" off, but it's enabled by default (an opt-out scenario).

So, I know you can make the browser whisk away certain file types, etc. - I'm wondering if there's an equivalent autorun for CDs.

Re:Nice comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean Sony will sue Apple under the DMCA because the Mac is a means of defeating their copy protection or because the Mac contributes to piracy?

Re:Nice comment

[Khaed]

And change to what? An Amiga?

Re:Nice comment

[snuf23]

Or you can just comapletly disable autorun. I prefer this method as it's "set it and forget it".

Re:Nice comment

[SlowEmotionReplay]

how are office peons supposed to listen to music, now?

http://www.apple.com/ipod/

Re:Nice comment

[pizpot]

Here's why autorun is stupid. You click an icon to run a game. It runs, and then asks you to put in the cd. Then it runs again. Usually performance becomes crap when that happens. Bad programming yes... but its hard to blame a programmer since Windows makes it hard as hell to actually tell what processes are running. MS trade secret was the idea I think. A simple TOP command or PS but ohhh no.

Re:Nice comment

[mooniejohnson]

One of the reasons I applaud Elvis Costello is because on the back of "The Delivery Man" (his new album), it says "This artist does not endorse the following warning. The F.B.I. doesn't have his home phone number and he hopes that they don't have yours."

Re:Nice comment

[Eccles]

(stfu! my mom happens to have very avant-garde taste in music. or something)

My kids (10 and 8) and I have a very large overlap in our music interest, mostly 80's and 90's rock. Okay, I don't care for a lot of rap, but I think it's getting harder and harder for parents and kids to clash on musical taste.

Re:Nice comment

[Anonymous Coward]

When the Mac Market share hits, say 25%, I'll re-evaluate my platform choice.

When the Ferrari market share hits, say 25%, you'll re-evaluate your car choice too?

Re:Nice comment

[Red Alastor]

You could just use a LiveCD to rip then either burn it on another CD, or copy them to a USB drive.

Re:Nice comment

[SideshowBob]

Unlike on Windows (or Classic Mac OS) when you insert a CD or DVD on OS X you have a limited set of actions that can be performed automatically. It's completely under the user's control ("CDs & DVDs" control panel), and basically amounts to running a pre-existing application on the hard drive (not the CD).

So I would argue that market share is irrelevant, the Macrovision style copy protection (running malware off the disc) isn't feasible on a Mac.

Also the installed base is probably higher than 3%, and if you limit it to home users it's probably a good deal higher than that.

Re:Nice comment

[Squozen]

Why wait? Tiger is a terrific platform right now.

Re:Nice comment

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen some very unwelcome uses of CDS here in the UK (including a jazz CD) but most new CDs I've seen from EMI/subsidiaries, the biggest users of CDS previously, have been protection-free;

Here in Australia, EMI's use of copy-control on their audio discs actually seems to be increasing - they're even reissuing remastered versions of previously non-CC'd CD's (e.g. a lot of Brian Eno stuff) as CC discs.

At a rough guess, I've avoided buying 10-15 albums by now because they were copy-controlled. Tried one once - didn't play on my portable CD player or on my PC.

Re:Nice comment

[Squozen]

Interestingly enough, the Red Book specification DOES support 4 channel audio. Google for the 4CH flag. Early players didn't support it, so nobody released quad material.

Re:Nice comment

[MyDixieWrecked]

It's not a built-in calendar. It is merely a graphical device to let you change the current system date. A lot of administrators don't want their users changing the system date willy nilly. Thus it is locked down for standard users

then why can't it give the permission denied error when the user clicks ok/apply!?! or have some kind of error in there. or something!!!

sheesh. horrible UI design.

Re:Nice comment

[mr_shifty]

Likewise.

The RIAA affiliated labels did their best to drive me away, and I am what you would qualify as an "avid music fan". I buy 3-5 times more CDs than the "average" person, and there is hardly a minute out of any day that I do not have some sort of music playing in my presence.

Since they clearly demonstrated, however, that they no longer desire my discretionary funds, that money now goes elsewhere.

Here is my process now.

1) Search Amazon.com for music I want

2) Look under "used only"

3) Purchase used CDs from 3rd party vendors that sell via Amazon.com (usually for $4-$7 a CD... quite a bargain for full, DRM free albums in "like new" condition, complete with liner notes)

4) Rip 192kbps MP3s on my Slackware machine using Grip

5) Listen to 100% legitimate music on my portable player

6) Repeat

Re:Nice comment

[poopdeville]

I don't know the details offhand, but I'm sure there's a different .dmg image builder included with the dev tools. You might want to read the docs.

Re:Nice comment

[gone6713]

The Mac users don't have to worry about anything because they already have the new version of iTunes, which is compatible with the new CD protection schemes. Once it is updated on the windows version then there should be no problems.

Re:Nice comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, this isn't meant to be a dig or anything, just a tongue-in-cheek observation, but only a Mac user would explain in detail that checking the "Don't ask me about this again" checkbox means that if you the computer won't ask you about that thing again....

Re:Nice comment

[Criterion]

" Time to switch to linux!!!

There are a lot of rumors and reports about terrible copy protection in Vista, whether it's this or allowing only 'approved' monitors and the simplest solution is to switch to Linux."

And this is the simplest solution to what problem, specifically (I'm guessing ripping cd's, but you mentioned monitors so you confused me)? As much as I love Linux, it too, will have the same copy protection brought to it, and require the same 'approved' monitors that Vista will in order to watch protected content. Sure, cracks will appear that will allow viewing of content.. among other methods of aquiring said content, but I'm not discussing pirate activities as those same methods will also be available to Windows users, probably before it's available to us, so there's no benefit gained. Simply stated, in order to view protected content *legitimately* in Linux, it will have to support DRM, and all required hardware in order to operate correctly. Hell, most distros still require you to aquire mp3 codecs from a 3rd party due to licensing issues. I promise you won't see ways to get around DRM and such in out of the box installs.

Re:Nice comment

[nachoboy]

It's not a built-in calendar. It is merely a graphical device to let you change the current system date. A lot of administrators don't want their users changing the system date willy nilly. Thus it is locked down for standard users

then why can't it give the permission denied error when the user clicks ok/apply!?! or have some kind of error in there. or something!!!

sheesh. horrible UI design.

You may be interested in this post.

Re:Nice comment

[jseale]

That'd only happen if the RIAA knew about that trick (which I think they don't). The RIAA could probably care a rats ass about Vista anyway because it's going to suck rotten eggs. The real bogey men are the open source fans and the people that hold on to their beloved WinXP/2000 installs.

Re:Nice comment

[MyDixieWrecked]

indeed.

then why doesn't windows ship with a simple calendar program (I don't mean outlook). Just... something like the date/time control panel with maybe a couple holidays strewn about.

In fact, I'd be happy even with a simple commandline cal implimentation.

but still, I think when you doubleclick the time in the taskbar, it should open the window and only give you the permission denied error if you try to actually change it.

Is there any way of checking the timezone or anything (for sanity's sake of making sure you're in EST when you live in NY) outside of that?

can you tell I don't run windows at home? ;)

Re:Nice comment

[AnalogDiehard]

Finding that little CD logo is becoming (actually, has become) nearly impossible to do anymore. Out of the last 50 cds I've picked up (read as: not bought) at local shops, nothing released in the last year has had it.

However, they have all had that cute little FBI logo on them.

If you want a Phillips compatible audio CD, just look for one that doesn't say "SONY" on it.

Re:Nice comment

[Macrolord]

FWIW, I think you read into that a bit too much. I think the poster was indicating that anything he/she might do in favor of redemption is astonishingly insufficient to meet what has already been done by Christ on his behalf. And no, Christ gave no such teaching of killing others for the purpose of getting into heaven as a redemptive/loyalty act.

That sort of human against human fight is a human borne inductive thought that twists the relationship from man and God into what we generally think of as religion.

But to take the point further we need to look at this a bit from God's view of humankind versus our own view of human kind. Christs sacrifice on the cross was for all my sisn, not just the ones from before I was saved, but after as well. Many Christians including myself wrestle continually with this, but despite the desire to redeem oneself from any particualr sin, this has already been completed and need not be re-justified. any effort on my part to punish myself for that sin is simply wasted effort.

Christ's death was sufficient for all my sin: past, present and future. Keep in mind that this not at all give license to sin (aka killing a bunch people, etc...).

Gotta run now, but take this fwiw... (not proseletization just further detail on the thought)(just found this on a quick keyword search)
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/license_to_s in.htm

Have a GREAT day!

Re:Nice comment

[nachoboy]

Is there any way of checking the timezone or anything (for sanity's sake of making sure you're in EST when you live in NY) outside of that?

For a command-line solution that works even when you're not an administrator, try:

systeminfo | find "Time Zone"

Works on XP and above.

Re:Nice comment

[technoCon]

Apologies. I was saying nothing of the sort. I thought the immediate context of altruism and reconciliation with deity sufficed to make it clear that I was talking about my "good works."

However, you do make an interesting point. If human good works are insignificant, how can we attach significance to bad works?

I agree with you that bad acts are significant and offensive. St. Anselm, a thousand years ago, followed a similar line of reasoning and wrote an essay to explain it.

Nevertheless, I am offended by Mr. Robertson's words and suspect deity is, too. If you read the Bible, you'll note that Jesus addressed all his hell-talk to religion leaders, so Mr. Robertson has cause for discomfort.

Re:Nice comment

[WilliamSChips]

The Gentoo kernel can write to NTFS, but it's terribly risky. I have a small FAT partition that is used to share between my Linux and Windows partitions.

Wow

[rm999]

Wow, I wonder how Sony will respond to this. After all, bands usually have to give away all their freedom (and their souls) to the record companies when they sign.

Respect to Switchfoot. Oh, and down with the record companies, who don't give a damn about the artists or their music.

Re:Wow

[Seumas]

Um. Well, the obvious answer is to charge him with the criminal act of circumventing copyright protection in violation of the DMCA. I believe there would be both civil and criminal charges involved.

I don't see what other choice they have. You can't sue some kid for using a green marker on your CDs to break the protection, but not do the same with your own "employees" who are encouraging and educating people on how to perform a criminal act. Especially since the copyright no doubt belongs to the record label and not the band.

Re:Wow

[Krach42]

I'm sure Switchfoot isn't all that concerned, even if Sony drops them from their record label. There are a ton of record labels that would happily pick up Switchfoot.

Re:Wow

[LiquidCoooled]

They aren't encouraging a criminal act.

They are giving their paying fans/customers exactly what they want.

A way to play their purchased songs on their iPods.

Not one single mention of piracy or p2p.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be real funny when bands can completely circumvent the established methods of music recording and publication. I see a day not to far away when you can mix a song on logic and export it to the iTunes music store to be sold.

Also, has anyone noticed how bad sony wants to be apple these days?

Re:Wow

[fabs64]

yes but what their paying customers want, is in fact a way to circumvent the copy protection on the cd, whic because of the infinite intelligence that is the dmca, is illegal ;-)

Re:Wow

[LiquidCoooled]

Maybe in your country it is, but not in mine.

Re:Wow

[Seumas]

And to play those purchased songs on their ipods, they have to circumvent copyright protection, which is a crime. This has nothing to do with piracy or p2p.

Re:Wow

[E8086]

I've always considered the CD autoplay nothing more than a nuisance and have been disabling it since 1996. Anyone who thinks disabling a unneeded pre-existing windows process is circumventing the DMCA and a criminal act needs to have their head examined. They have their CD autoinstall a piece of restrictive spyware without the users knowledge and then complain when people do something to stop it. I was almost confused by that, then I remembered it's the RIAA we're talking about and the phrase "but that would make sense" doesn't apply.

I've been too lazy to hold shift so I just disabled autoplay:
Win95/98/ME get to properties of the drive uncheck auto insert notification
Win2000/XP run gpedit.msc Administrative Templates - System - Disable Auto play-enabled

Re:Wow

[ajs318]

what their paying customers want, is in fact a way to circumvent the copy protection on the cd, whic because of the infinite intelligence that is the dmca, is illegal

NO, IT IS NOT ILLEGAL!

There is such a thing as "right of fair use", which is sacrosanct.

Furthermore, the intended recipient of an encrypted message always has the right to decrypt that message -- the right comes with the fact of being the intended recipient. This right also is sacrosanct.

If anything, the DMCA is illegal. Or at least so completely unenforcible, that the taxpayer would have grounds to sue the government that allowed it to get onto the statute books in the first place, for wasting their time and money.

Re:Wow

[mejesster]

The right to fair use is not in the Constitution and only spoken of briefly in actual copyright law. It was primarily established in later cases/interpretations. Moreover, it is within the purvey of the US Congress to pass measures regarding trade, (copyright) thus it's hard to justify the "sacrosanct" right of fair use. Even more ridiculous is your statement "NO, IT IS NOT ILLEGAL! " Just because a law is unjust doesn't make it not a law. Break the law, knowing you're standing up for real rights and real justice.

Re:Wow

[E8086]

Anyone know if that "copy protection" exists on all Sony disks? I just got a used one, but since I've had autoplay disabled for years I didn't notice it trying to install/run anything and had no problems copying it to my iPod. If comments on this posting hadn't mentioned it was Sony disks I wouldn't have even considered that I may have unknowingly bypassed something "protected" by the DMCA.

Re:Wow

[lgftsa]

There is such a thing as "right of fair use", which is sacrosanct.

In your country perhaps, but not in mine. We have no fair use rights, we can't even back up an audio or video CD/DVD to preserve the original from physical damage.

Re:Wow

[rjshields]

Well, the obvious answer is to charge him with the criminal act of circumventing copyright protection in violation of the DMCA.

Since when has ripping music from CDs you own been illegal? It might be illegal in the UK, but it's not in the US AFAIK.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll believe the band did this in defiance of the label when Sony sues Switchfoot. Until then, I'll assume this is just another case of engineered street cred.

Re:Wow

[damiam]

Since the DMCA passed, if you circumvent copy protection to do it.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

There is such a thing as "right of fair use",

Not in any country I know of. In some places, there are fair use exemptions to copyright law, but that's not the same thing at all.

which is sacrosanct.

Again, not in any country I know of. Many places now have laws that make circumvention of copy protection mechanisms a crime in its own right, regardless of whether you would otherwise be allowed to copy the material. This is why things like the DMCA and EUCD are such bad law: they created a loophole through which fair use exemptions could be eliminated.

You might wish it to be different -- and I'm sure you would not be alone -- but wishing does not make it so, and I'm afraid shouting all over Slashdot in bold capitals that it is just makes you sound ill-informed.

Re:Wow

[Naikrovek]

you should tell us what country you live in.

Re:Wow

[yotto]

Depending on the contract, they may not be able to legally sign with another company, even if Sony doesn't want them any more.

Re:Wow

[ajs318]

Whichever law gave you the right to make a copy of material you own {in the UK, this would be a consequence of the fact that it is a necessary step in the process: for example, a home-taped cassette copy of an album you already own on CD is non-infringing provided your intention is to listen to it in a car which is not fitted with a CD player; in many other countries, there are specific legal exemptions} trumps the law that tries to make circumventing copy-prevention an offence -- because it cannot, by definition, be a criminal offence to do something which you already have a right to do. In fact, in some jurisdictions, copy prevention is itself technically illegal since it interferes with a consumer's legitimate exercise of their rights {but this has largely been unenforced to date}.

If you are unlucky enough to get taken to court over it, and you don't end up walking free with an apology, you need a better solicitor.

Re:Wow

[middlemen]

Win2000/XP run gpedit.msc Administrative Templates - System - Disable Auto play-enabled

The above location also says the following: "Note: This setting does not prevent Autoplay for music CDs."

Re:Wow

[Alistar]

This program will stop all autoplay and do a bunch of other nice stuff.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/power toys/xppowertoys.mspx

Re:Wow

[wocket44]

I don't know if this is a problem, but at the end of the Explination part in WinXP Pro it says: "Note: This setting does not prevent Autoplay for music CDs."

Re:Wow

[cpt kangarooski]

Since always in the US, actually. Generally when you rip from CDs, it either has to be under AHRA (which is extremely rare) or a fair use (which is a case-by-case issue). And as the other poster notes, if it's got an access control device, the DMCA becomes a factor too.

Re:Wow

[cpt kangarooski]

Well first, there's a good argument that fair use is a constitutionally required exception to copyright law. Secondly, Congress passes copyright legislation using the copyright power, not the interstate commerce power. In fact, there are some important disputes regarding this going on right now.

Re:Wow

[henni16]

The gp's comment almost fits Germany after a law change about two years ago:
Now you only have the right to make private copies as long as you don't have to circumvent some sort of copy protection.
And last time I looked (years ago) most of the music CDs here are crippled that way..
..and of course there still is the blank media tax that is supposed to compensate for the private copying; that wasn't lifted, AFAIK there even was one added for CD burners.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Please do cite the UK law(s) that provide the rights you describe, because I help to organise a dancing club that would love to take advantage of them. Our legal advice has invariably been that things like format shifting or making compilations of material we already own purely for convenience would infringe the copyright (though you can pay various token fees to various organisations to legitimise the copying for some of these purposes).

I'd be interested to hear the jurisdictions where you think "copy prevention" is illegal and the laws that give consumers rights that trump such laws, too. Again, no-one else seems to have found them, which is surprising given the interest groups like the EFF would presumably have in such legal tools!

Re:Wow

[jcostantino]

You live in the USA?

Re:Wow

[EzInKy]

Um. Well, the obvious answer is to charge him with the criminal act of circumventing copyright protection in violation of the DMCA. I believe there would be both civil and criminal charges involved.


Since the DMCA only applies in a severly limited number of jurisdictions I doubt that that answer would bother them at all.

Re:Wow

[j.someone]

Now we can see if the record companies really do care about the artists!

Re:Wow

[Malawar]

However, in this case it is the Data portion that is auto-playing and not the music. When you pop in a CD with music, or pictures, WinXP will pop up a box asking what you would like to autorun your "Music" or "Picture" CDs with. Which can also be turned off.

Re:Wow

[Bastian]

Agreed. Doesn't installing this software without my knowledge qualify as some sort of computer crime? If I installed software on one of Sony's computers without asking them first, you can be sure my ass would be in jail on computer hacking charges faster than you could blink.

Re:Wow

[funkatron]

Depends where you live. In the UK there's a law called the computer misuse act that makes it illegal to modify programs or data without permision from the owner of the computer. Perhaps there is a similar law where you live?

Re:Wow

[Krach42]

I'm sure many of those record labels are willing to go the extra mile and help them out.

Those kinds of people stick together, ya' know.

Re:Wow

[deaddrunk]

However bypassing the copy protection to create mp3s for your portable player which is the 21st century equivalent is against the law. Hooray for progress.

Re:Wow

[deaddrunk]

gpedit.msc doesn't exist on XP Home. You have to intuitively change the intuitive and easy to find innovative registry key. Alternatively you could download tweakui but why should you have to just to turn it off?

Re:Wow

[humina]

Again, not in any country I know of

The original post was probably thinking of the US circa 1900. Copyright was only 14 years then and things actually entered the public domain.

Re:Wow

[Bastian]

I live in the US, so I'm guessing the answer is "yes and no."

More specifically, "Yes if you are the kind of entity that can afford a million dollar lobbyist budget, and no if you've never seen a million dollars all in one place."

Re:Wow

[strider44]

Possibly Australia.

Re:Wow

[lgftsa]

Australia. What country are you in?

Re:Wow

[lgftsa]

Nope, Australia.

Re:Wow

[lgftsa]

Yes!

Re:Wow

[ajs318]

Your Fair Dealing rights under Copyright law are not strictly enumerated anywhere on the statute books -- they have to be determined by the courts. And a good thing too, because the courts are there to deal with the details -- and the details change over time.

You would first have to get caught {and the police really do have drier lentils to soak these days, what with all these unarmed Brazilian electricians innocently going about their legitimate business in tube stations}, and have the matter taken to Crown court. From then on, you just have to convince a jury that you were not doing anything you shouldn't -- which will come down to a matter of due diligence on your part that the only copying you did was necessary and all the copies you made were properly accounted for at all times {if you always had the originals about you, or at least always knew where they were, that also would not harm you}. As long as at least two of the people on that jury have at least one home-taped cassette in their cars, you are in the clear and probably so is everyone else in future.

Copy prevention on DVDs was ruled illegal in France, I think, but I forget the actual reference.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Actually, those exemptions to copyright law that we do have are enumerated specifically in statute law; the CDPA makes some provision for criticism and academic study, for example. There are also a couple of separate provisions, such as making back-ups of computer software. However, there is no blanket right to copy for personal use in the UK.

You seem to misunderstand the powers of the courts. They do not make new laws, they only interpret existing ones (and by doing so, set precedents that may be used in future cases, so yes, they do make law in a different sense). A judge cannot simply decide that you should be allowed to violate the statute law that provides copyright protection because he happens to think you should be allowed to do so.

If you cannot avail yourself of any statutory defence in this case -- and from the waffly arguments and lack of references you've provided in this discussion, clearly you can't -- then the judge will almost certainly stress this to the jury when summing up, and direct them as firmly as possible to reach a guilty verdict on the basis that you have submitted no defence of any legal merit.

Re:Wow

[ajs318]

Fair Dealing is a statutory defence to copyright infringement. {And your dancing club application might well count as "academic study" if you ran it as a class.}

As long as enough people on the jury are guilty of essentially the same thing, they will have to acquit you in order to avoid incriminating themselves -- whatever the judge tries to say. If the court decides to punish you, the Old Bill will be out there searching every single car in the car park for dodgy tapes just as soon as the doors open ..... Points Make Prizes in the modern police force, and no copper is going to pass up an easy nick.

Of course, you have to actually get as far as a courtroom in the first place, and then the prosecution have to get all the way through without blowing it on a technicality; till such a time, there isn't a lot of point arguing about it.

NOBODY WANTS IT

[frinkacheese]

So..

Artists dont want it.
Consumers dont want it. ...

When will they learn? It's such a pain in the ass to get any media, especially DVDs with diff region codes that I am literally FORCED to warez movies to play on my mac. If I buy the DVD, I can not play it (I am in the UK - I want to buy a Region 1 DVD...)

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[Willeh]

That doesn't matter as long as the people who call the shots want it, ie. the record companies themselves. The rest is by and large, inconsequential. They control the band via stranglehold-contracts, and the consumers buy the product like the sheep they are.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[Jugalator]

Artists dont want it.

You're extrapolating a bit. In this case:

Artist dont want it.

I'm sure we have thousands of artists out there that puts record company deals before their fans abilities to use iPods. I wouldn't even be surprised if it's more the rule than the exception.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[stunt_penguin]

Why don't you spend 30 on another DVD drive to play your region 1 discs on- the regions are controlled by the hardware, so all you have to do is fit another cheap drive and set it to region 1.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[Troglodyt]

If the artists and consumers don't want it they are free to go about their business without the record labels. Nobody is forcing artists to sign a deal to release their music, and nobody is forcing consumers to buy records from the labels. The labels won't learn until the public gets fed up with this crap and stop buying records.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[frinkacheese]

I thought I was not allowed to have a Region 1 drive in region 2? Won't I get taken to court or something? (Obviously I will not, I am talking about the letter of the law here..)

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[Lisandro]

Sadly, it doesn't mean a thing. As long as people continue to buy copy-protected CDs, region-encoded DVDs and other DRMed media, they will continue using it.

    It's as simple as that; if they feel it might be benefitial to their buisness and consumers put up with it, it will be there. That it might annoy consumers who have deal with that shit with media they bought legally is of little consequence.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Artist dont want it.

You mean "Artist doesn't want it" right?

Wow, I actually was able to correct someones spelling. My knowledge of the English language just went up from "terrible" to "poor".

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[dave1212]

I'm sure we have thousands of artists out there that puts record company deals before their fans abilities to use iPods.

Very true, and those 'artists' that feel that way will end up without any fans.

Bands who care only about money won't last.

Bands who care about their fans? They'll last forever.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[10Ghz]

Artists dont want it.
Consumers dont want it. ...

But that doesn't mean that "nobody wants it". The company who publishes the music wants it, and that's enough (unfortunately).

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[cp.tar]

My knowledge of the English language just went up from "terrible" to "poor".

Ah... a fellow ADOM player, I presume?

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[TheRaven64]

Take them back to the shop. They were sold and advertised as audio CDs, but do not work as audio CDs. The record company may well refuse to take them back - if so this is ideal, since it means the shop will be more wary about stocking crippled CDs in future.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[LordFnord]

You're in .uk? Richer Sounds (and Comet, and Currys, and everywhere else) are selling multi-region players. If they're illegal then no-one's bothered :-)

For example, try here.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[BridgeGarth]

No problem at all. Many, many region free players are available in major high street shops (including Sony), lesser hight street shops (Richer Sounds), supermarkets and online. If you are concerned there are many web sites which list capabilities of virtually every player out there and with reviews. Or you could pop into your local Co-Op and buy the 30 quid DVD player with "Region-Free" in big letters written on it. Well this is in UK, maybe different elsewhere, of course.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[ajs318]

The UK is still part of the EU, where multi-region DVD players are completely legal {true single-region players are not illegal but are pretty rare anyway}. Most cheap, far-east-made DVD players are multi-region.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[E8086]

"I thought I was not allowed to have a Region 1 drive in region 2? Won't I get taken to court or something?"

If it isn't illegal yet I'm sure there are some companies that would like it to be illegal, not because it's dangerous or harmful to anyone, only because it would be in the best interests of their obsolite business model.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[somersault]

actually he was just using the exact same sentence with one word changed for effect =p

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[laffer1]

Yes, an example would be the Rolling Stones. I think its obvious from their history in court. All they care about is money and not the fans. I think i'll go listen to bitter sweet symphony.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[gl4ss]

you know who are actually the people who want it?

in case of music cd's, the companies that MAKE AND SELL THIS _SNAKEOIL_ TO THE LABELS are to blame - they're the one's really profitting from piracy, selling comfort to label heads while actually not doing *shit*.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[xouumalperxe]

All you have to do is (...)

But all you WANT to do is just stick the legally bought DVD into your computer and watch it. Such a remarkable concept, isn't it?

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[Jugalator]

Very true, and those 'artists' that feel that way will end up without any fans.

What's worse, I'm not quite sure that's true... Don't we have several mainstream artists already with those protected pseudo-CD's sold in stores? I can't say for 100% sure though; it was a hell of a time since I last purchased a CD from a store. :-p

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[Anonymous Coward]

"Actually, no you weren't. Don't is an acceptable contraction for the phrase "do not" as well as "does not". While it is mostly used for the former, both are correct." Wow, it must have taken balls of steel to post that.

"do not" contracts to "don't"

"does not" contracts to "Doesn't"

Please show me one example where using a singular subject and "don't" won't make you sound like a retard.

He don't like that very much.

Right.

Please try understanding basic grammar before correcting someone else's, fucktard.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[christian.elliott]

While it may seem like people make alot of money from CD sales, you'd be suprised that those people are not the artists. Having watched persons in major labels and people independantly, I can say that most artists make no where's near the 15$ or 20$ per cd that you may expect. It's more along the lines of 1$-2$ per cd (Depending on the contract). Most of an artists money comes from touring. The cd is a great advertisement for their concert dates.

The fact that the music is getting out there is alot more important to artists.

I'd rather have a kid joyfully spending 40-50$ on a concert ticket than trying to beat 20 bucks out of him so I can get my 2$ the record company says I'm entitled to. But thats just me.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you being sarcastic? I hope so because every Stones conert sells out, and last I saw their CD sales weren't too bad either.

Personally I've never been a big fan of the Stones. I never liked their music much, and their fans are silly. Most of the fans I've seen and heard are people in their late 40s who rant and rave about how Mick Jaggar has the energy of a 20 year old up on stage. That reminds me of a comic I saw in MAD magazine where Mick Jaggar had a microphone stand attached to a walker (you know, those aluminum frame things that old people use to assist them when walking).

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[yotto]

I'm sure we have thousands of artists out there that puts record company deals before their fans abilities to use iPods. I wouldn't even be surprised if it's more the rule than the exception.

I would argue that those people are not artists so much as businesspeople. Not saying that's bad, we need businesspeople to keep the economy running.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[Anders]

Wow, I actually was able to correct someones spelling.

Seems to me that you corrected the grammar more than the spelling ;-).

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[CProgrammer98]

Change your sig and it will go from "poor" to "mediocre"...

(Hint: "Ofcourse" is usually rendered as two distinct words...)

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[Anonymous Coward]

It's such a pain in the ass to get any media, especially DVDs with diff region codes

Get a decent DVD drive like the NEC 35xx series (or similar; these are cheap, like $40) then get one of the custom firmwares (warning: ads) that completely remove the region coding garbage. Then you are all set.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[jedidiah]

If you really want to make a point about it, take it further than that. If the shop doesn't take back the defective product then take them to court. At the very least make things as inconvenient as possible for them.

            Also, I am the sort to be disinclined to relent just because a particular CD didn't have the official Phillips logo. The merchants are pretty much banking on the assumption by the consumer that "a CD is a CD".

            So they really shouldn't get off the hook regardless of how the CD is labeled.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[Anonymous Coward]

Hint 2: "I've got" -> "I have got"

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[DimGeo]

Artists dont want it.
Consumers dont want it. ...

... Managers don't understand it...

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[F_Scentura]

"Yes, an example would be the Rolling Stones. I think its obvious from their history in court. All they care about is money and not the fans. I think i'll go listen to bitter sweet symphony."

As much as I like the song, blatant sampling without receiving authorization beforehand is a *very* poor idea.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[christian.elliott]

The Rolling Stones weren't the ones who sued Richard Ashcroft and the Verve first of all. It was there ex-manager Allen Klein from the 1960s who was awarded the rights to the song in a buyout deal the Stones made so they could have control over their own music. Secondly, the Verve didn't rip off the Stones at all. They didn't even sample an actual Rolling Stones song, they sampled a re-arranged version of "The Last Time" done completely intstrumentally by the Andrew Loog Oldham Orchestra.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[Trillan]

Dave Matthews Band also has a page outlining how to work around copy protection. (Now that I know this, I might actually buy their new cd. I passed on it when I saw it stores because of the copy protection sticker.)

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am literally FORCED to warez movies to play on my mac."

That's weird. My powerbook, recognizes what region code the DVD is when I pop it in and asks me if I would like to change my region code to match so that I can watch the DVD. Then if I want I can rip the DVD to disk and run it any time I want. Doesn't matter what region code it is, because if it is different then what the DVDplayer is already set to, it will warn me and ask if I want to change it.

Boy, seems easy enough for me.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[conteXXt]

Lars? Is that you?

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[__aaahtg7394]

Bands who care only about money won't last.

Bands who care about their fans? They'll last forever.

The minimal-talent N*Sync guys made a lot more in their short career than the guys at the pub have made in 20 years of skillfully playing traditional Celtic.

I agree with you, but there's a serious economic reality at work here: everybody knows N*Sync ("Bye bye bye," argh!), while most people couldn't tell you what style the other people were performing.

Re:NOBODY WANTS IT

[snuf23]

"Bands who care only about money won't last.

Bands who care about their fans? They'll last forever. "

Hell, I just want the bands to care about their music and create something new and good. If they do that I'll care about paying for their music.
It should be noted that it's not just money that makes a band go with a major label. It's promotion and exposure. It can be very hard for a small label to promote its bands, get shelf space, get radio play, MTV play etc.

Good to see...

[SecureTheNet]

that bands at least care about their listeners. Maybe artists can pressure their labels into getting rid of this crap? Now that they've posted instructions on getting around the copy protection, is Sony going to sue them using the DMCA??

Re:Good to see...

[Library Spoff]

>>Maybe artists can pressure their labels into getting rid of this crap?

*hmm* maybe U2 can. But your average band on most contracts won't have that much clout with their label. Especially new bands. You're in a band, a label offers you a 5 album deal. The deal maybe mentions (or doesn't) DRM. yer not gonna knock back the deal or kick up that much of a fuss, are you? ok *you* might think you will sitting in yer mums basement/attic making generic house with a warezed copy of reason...

But when it comes down to it...

I'm glad...

[dadjaka]

I don't have to Dare You To Move on copy-protection - This is Your Life, and I'm glad you choose to let us share it. *That* is sound. :-) I love making fun of names... it's a Simple Plan :-)

RIAA Lawsuit Factor

[digital-madman]

Okay folks.. My first thought was: "How cool! At least not all artist's (I'm looking at you metallica) are all about money and not the art". But here's another thought. Most artists only make around $2 profit (I've read that somewhere, sorry I can't source it) per album. The rest of the 15 bucks go to production, marketing, studios, and guess who? The RIAA! So this could be the first case where the RIAA sues AN ARTIST! With all the P2P music trading lawsuits... I think the RIAA has the grounds here. The Artist could be called pirates for detailing how to bypass the DRM. Plus the OSS software is now at risk of a RIAA lawsuit. I'm no lawyer so I may be off base here but I do think the next Slashdot headline will be "RIAA Sues Switchfoot". -Digital Madman

Re:RIAA Lawsuit Factor

[Seumas]

You overshot the artist's profit by about a buck.

I don't recall specific numbers, but the artist gets a number of points. Each point counts for something like sixteen cents. It usually ends up being around a dollar per album. And out of that, I believe they have to pay their agent, manager and often times pay for some or all expenses involved in videos and touring and maybe even production.

Re:RIAA Lawsuit Factor

[Frogbert]

Not music but its the same in movies.

Re:RIAA Lawsuit Factor

[bnitsua]

this essay by Steve Albini explains the situation perfectly...

Re:RIAA Lawsuit Factor

[JeFurry]

The information linked below is out of date by a decade, but the industry hasn't changed in essence very much except for the very recent introductions of online music shopping (which the RIAA is still involved in) and podcasting/torrenting (which it isn't much, *yet*). I think the title sums it up well: "Some of your friends are already this fucked." http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic. html The financial breakdown on this page indicates a rather bleaker picture than $2 per album.

Re:RIAA Lawsuit Factor

[Asic Eng]

So this could be the first case where the RIAA sues AN ARTIST!

Doubt it - they might be able to pull that off legally, but it would hurt them politically. So in all likelyhood they'll just ignore the whole thing.

Re:RIAA Lawsuit Factor

[cheekyboy]

ironic that you mention metalica, since that was the first CD I bought in pre 89 days, or sometime like that.

Now the funny thing is, someone stole that cd of me, so i dont own it.

I guess I have the RIGHT to download it of p2p now. But I wont, coz I have a 12% accurate copy in my nurons inmy head, (suck you riaa, you cylons) . So now I just listen and DL trance/rave/techno. Those old metalica dudes can live of their investments/sales/drugs for all I care and can go die of blood poisoning really. They are but a memory like a supernova 13billions years ago, utterly unimportant and free in my quantum nuron brain cells.

Riaa btw has no clue, people can copy/trade 200gig at a time if they swap USB HDdisks with their friends. Personal P2P physical p2p is more efficient, though not as fast.

So to those Riaa lawyers age under 30 or sales/marketing chixs (that screw around the office), your days are numbered and your careers are a joke :-)

Re:RIAA Lawsuit Factor

[Tink2000]

And this one by Courtney Love (who'd have thunk it?) does even better: http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2000/06/14 /love/index.xml

Re:RIAA Lawsuit Factor

[Man of E]

I'm no lawyer so I may be off base here but I do think the next Slashdot headline will be "RIAA Sues Switchfoot"

Nope the next headline will be "Artist Suggesting Ways Around Copy Protection".

Re:RIAA Lawsuit Factor

[ebuck]

The RIAA has much, much more effective means to oppress and control the artists at their disposal, the don't need to resort to lawsuits.

Remember that the RIAA has a close relationship with the recording companies, so all it needs to do is let the appropriate company know. Then that company will come down like a load of bricks on the artist.

Re:RIAA Lawsuit Factor

[the_rev_matt]

Artists "make" about a buck a CD max. The artist cut isn't from the retail price of the cd, but from the profit. Thanks to the wonderful art of entertainment industry accounting, few albums are ever profitable, and the ones that are make less than 2-3 dollars profit per unit. Of that, the artist only gets a small percentage, out of which they have to pay agents and managers. Of course, this is only AFTER they have paid back the cost of recording and promoting the album.

Yes, you read that right: The label does not pay for recording, producing, or promoting the album. The artist does. The label will give them an advance (which they usually blow) but it has to be paid back in full before the artist sees a penny of profits.

One of my favorite examples was Faith No More back in the early 90's. With a platinum selling album and several hit singles and virtually no investment on the part of the label, they had to tour 18 months to support the album before they got a break and they were all still living with their parents and driving beat up junkers from the 70's because they were broke.

Re:RIAA Lawsuit Factor

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the link... Good article.

AC so my moderation actually applies.

Re:RIAA Lawsuit Factor

[gmhowell]

Get over it WRT Metallica. Seems like they are keeping the spirit of their original idea without canibalizing sales of studio work.

Re:RIAA Lawsuit Factor

[Anonymous Coward]

Metallica is a good object lesson and should never be forgotten. I'm sure they still have their fans but Lars' stupidity and greed has cost the band millions. The real irony is that the loss of sales from defaming their fans is probably being used against them by their labels: "Lars baby, we love you man but we're bleeding here. Your sales are way down and you've got a bad smell on the street. You're going to have give another half point if you want the full push on your next title."

Re:RIAA Lawsuit Factor

[Jesus_666]

Thanks for the link. That's probably the most interesting essay I have read lately (with "lately" equalling the last two years or so).

Re:RIAA Lawsuit Factor

[MutantHamster]

"But here's another thought. Most artists only make around $2 profit (I've read that somewhere, sorry I can't source it) per album." Try $0 per album, until the record company is "reembursed" for the cost of production. And then around a few cents after that.

Re:RIAA Lawsuit Factor

[DustyShadow]

I have a feeling it is even less than a buck. A record label is a bank, not a lottery. Those "bonuses" that you may hear that artists get when they sign are entirely recoupable. All marketing charges, videos, production, recording...basically anything the label does for the artist...it's all recoupable. Most major artists have to sell over a million albums before they make a dime off sales. Artists make all of their money off of touring and merchandise sales. Some get screwed though and have shitty contracts where the label gets a percent of merchandise sales. Being an artist is not easy.

Re:RIAA Lawsuit Factor

[utexaspunk]

Artists make all of their money off of touring and merchandise sales. Some get screwed though and have shitty contracts where the label gets a percent of merchandise sales. Being an artist is not easy

so why don't they skip the record contracts, rent some equipment and record their music at home, distribute it for free over the internet as advertising for their live shows? Does there need to be some central web repository for free music? What's to stop an artist from making music with garageband and putting it on iTunes, and getting pitchfork to review it? maybe even mainstream media? They might even be able to generate enough publicity to fill arenas.

I think Apple should make the iTunes client work with any mp3 player, and maybe offer mp3 versions over iTunes. It would totally take over as everyone's media client, and the iPod still totally owns the competition. Everyone knows that, and it doesn't need exclusive iTunes compatibility to make it everyone's most desired portable music device. They are holding eachother back.

What would be totally awesome, but would never happen, would be if Apple did that and began producing concerts and marketing artists. That would seriously be encroaching on their trademark agreement w/Apple Corps, and would be totally redefining Apple's role as a business, but still... it would be cool, and they would totally destroy. With podcasts and streaming radio. Maybe they should equip the iPod with WiFi.

Ooh- and they could connect it to threadless (or start their own version) to do the artists' t-shirts.

I'd never heard of the band..

[jcr]

But, once I read TFA, I looked them on the iTMS. Not really my thing, but I hope that they get a lot of sales from this exposure.

-jcr

Re:I'd never heard of the band..

[Eric604]

Ah, I haven't read TFA and I haven't looked them on the iTMS but I know it's not really my thing because I don't like bands. Anyway I hope that they get a lot of sales from this exposure and won't give CDex much trouble.

Re:I'd never heard of the band..

[Seumas]

Because nothing will show Sony the error of their DMCA/DRM ways like skyrocketing sales of their DRM CDs...

Re:I'd never heard of the band..

[Eric604]

Wouldn't that be something! Sony putting DRM circumvention instructions on their website to appear a 'cool' label and gain popularity.

Re:I'd never heard of the band..

[Midnight Thunder]

Because nothing will show Sony the error of their DMCA/DRM ways like skyrocketing sales of their DRM CDs...

This is the thing that sucks. What will most probably end up happening is that more people will simply become more aware of how to circumvent the copy-protection to listen to it on their MP3 players. People still want to listen to music. Either way companies like sony will continue living in their ivory towers.

Re:I'd never heard of the band..

[idonthack]

They don't need it. They're already mainstream. And, if what I hear from people that have talked to them is correct, they're posers too.

No Possible way out???

[inflex]

It is heartbreaking to see our blood, sweat, and tears over the past 2 years blurred by the confusion and frustration surrounding this new technology. It is also unfortunate when bands such as ourselves, Foo Fighters, Coldplay, etc... (just a few of the new releases with copy protection) are the target of this criticism, when there is no possible way to avoid this new industry policy.

[Bolding mine]

Not sure about there being "no possible way" - perhaps when it comes time to renew their contract with Sony they'll consider going to alternative solutions. Worse comes to worse, perhaps they won't ever be able to escape Sony but they'll serve as a warning for others.

If the large corps keep on with this process it'll typically generate a new band of recording studios who don't and thus are seen as somewhat more friendly (though the cycle will probably still go on).

Re:No Possible way out???

[Anonymous Coward]

But consider, small bands that are given the once in a lifetime opportunity to work with Sony and have their music delivered to the world probably won't have the "DRM on their CDs" as their number one priority. I know so many bands that struggle to break from being local to something bigger.

Re:No Possible way out???

[Seumas]

Hah. Unless I'm in the Rolling Stones, I'm probably having a hard enough time negotiating a contract that allows me to own a home and consider retiring someday (or even just put food on my plate), but I'm going to waste my bargaining power (what little there may be unless, again, I'm the biggest act around) on making sure the few legitimate users out there who need to circumvent copy protection can do so?

Not bloody likely.

Re:No Possible way out???

[CAIMLAS]

I've got a friend that is in a quickly-rising band. He's getting fucked twelve ways to Sunday - bigtime. He's having to borrow money from friends and relatives just to stay on the road.

The problem is that he has a contract with both a record label and an agent, and the agent is fucking him over. Unfortunately, he can't do anything about it until his contract expires - which it does, soon.

After that, he's got a guy lined up to give him and another member of the band (the only two who aren't restricted from leaving) a contract on another label, complete with a 11k/month salary and various other benefits.

It might not be enough to live off indefinately, but it's certainly enough to compensate them for their time. Artists shouldn't be allowed to eat off their art indefinately; they need to keep innovating and improving, just like the rest of us. A good example of this is, I think, Greenday. Their sound has matured quite a bit, and now they're not teen punkers but fairly mature adult artists.

Re:No Possible way out???

[lowrydr310]

Artists shouldn't be allowed to eat off their art indefinately; they need to keep innovating and improving

What most expired artists do is eat off their investments. That's the same secret that anyone in big business does - when you come across a large amount of money, invest it properly and you can live like a king without having to work anymore. The thing is that most multi-millionaires, despite being financially secure, aren't satisfied and want to continue to make more money.

Unfortunately, some artists don't make such good investments.

BTW - Wikipedia is great. I never knew that MC Hammer signed on with Death Row Records!!! The label did not release any of Hammer's music while he was with them. However, Burrell did record music with Shakur. Their collaborative efforts are yet to be released.

DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a band from the USA. Unless I'm mistaken, since the record company is usually the copyright holder of the recordings, this is actually a case of a band infringing the DMCA by telling people how to access their own music. Seems like a perfect example of how screwed up the DMCA is. I can only hope that they get sued for it, perhaps then people will realise the extent to which both copyright and the music industry is screwed up.

Re:DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I despise the DMCA and the major record labels as much as the next guy, it's not "their own music" since, like you said, the record company probably holds the copyrights.
Is this fucked up? Of course it is.

Re:DMCA

[dr_d_19]

This is NOT "a perfect example of how screwed up the DMCA is". This is a perfect example of the original copyright holder (Switchfoot) SELLING the copyright of his/hers/their music to another party (Sony). There. You get the money, and you LOSE the control. Simple as that.

DMCA only involvement in this story is the fact that the band gave instructions on how to circumvent the copy protection. But the discussion about DMCA belongs in another thread.

Re:DMCA

[Tezkah]

Sony will have to sue their own employees, since when I voiced my frustrations after buying a CD with copy protection (The Coral - Invisible Invasion), I couldn't put it on my iPod. After giving them my email they sent me this:

[Windows]
If you have a PC place the CD into your computer and allow the Sony BMG audio player on the CD to automatically start. If the player software does not automatically start, open your Windows Explorer. Locate and select the drive letter for your CD drive. On the disc you will find either a file named LaunchCD.exe or Autorun.exe. Double-click this file to manually start the player.

TIP: If your CD does not contain either the LaunchCD.exe or
                Autorun.exe files, it may not be compatible with this iPod
                solution. Please reply to this letter for more information.

Once the Sony BMG player 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 (or another fully compatible player that can playback secure WMA files, such as MusicMatch, RealPlayer, and Winamp). You can then burn the songs to a standard Audio CD. Please note that in order to burn the files, you will need to upgrade to, or already have, Windows Media Player 9 or 10.

Once the standard Audio CD has been created, place this copied CD back into your computer and open iTunes. iTunes can now rip the songs as you would any normal audio CD.

Please note an easier and more acceptable solution requires cooperation from Apple, who we have already reached out to in hopes of addressing this issue. To help speed this effort, we ask that you use the following link to contact Apple and ask them to provide a solution that would easily allow you to move content from protected CDs into iTunes or onto your iPod rather than having to go through the additional steps above:

      http://www.apple.com/feedback/ipod.html

Thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance.

The Sony BMG Online Support Team
CCKM

Notice how they try to blame Apple because they only allow customers to rip to crippled (and crappy, IMO) WMA. I eventually just downloaded Exact Audio Copy and it ripped it just fine. Still frustrating.

Re:DMCA

[QuantumG]

The mere fact that you can sell your copyright to another party is questionable isn't it? The power of copyright in the US comes from the constitution:

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Not to their agents. Not to their wives or children. Not to their publisher. To the Authors. Of course we've had too many years of copyright law abuse and reinterpretation to contest it now.

Re:DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

You get what you pay for. Thats why you should just say fuck paying for the CD and support the bands you like by seeing them in concert. Industry suits get fucked, your favorite band gets paid, and you don't have to jump through hoops to do what you want with the music you want to listen to.

Re:DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn those pesky Enumerated Powers!

Re:DMCA

[Boiling_point_]

...You get the money, and you LOSE the control. Simple as that.

(bold emphasis mine) Except we all know that's not actually the truth. Sony still gets the money, and the copyright. Cue the href to the now-five-years-old Courtney Love article for more information.

Sadly, unless you're Fugazi, you're not likely to be heard by many people unless you sell out. Something about the world just not being a fair place or some such...

Re:DMCA

[CaptainZapp]

You know, I was really impressed by this article and her presentation until a friend, who is media purchaser for a large domestic chain made me aware that the new Courtney Love was shipped with copy protection.

That was in Europe and maybe a couple years ago.

Even though she might not be personally responsible for that gaffe I couldn't quite get the word hypocrite out of my head.

Re:DMCA

[xouumalperxe]

Actually, since the major labels probably ALL demand copyright transfer, and they (as RIAA) have an effective stranglehold on the industry, well... I think you can see where this is going (think "an offer you can't refuse")

Re:DMCA

[twiggy]

Very much worth noting is the fact that Courtney Love's article is nothing but a poor rehash of a much better article by Steve Albini that was written at least a year before Courtney Love basically repeated it and took credit for doing some kind of expose by herself.

I think we're at an important time in music right now, because as the iPod proliferates, this sort of thing will not stand with consumers. Normally, they just keep buying and taking what they get and dealing with it. I don't see that happening much longer if Sony comes up with something that's more difficult to get around.

As far as the argument that "you sold the copyright, you lost control" - that doesn't make what Sony is doing any less stupid. Also, I don't know if Fair Use is supposed to be a right we cannot have taken away (as IANAL), but Sony is certainly on their way to doing that despite the fact that it's one of our rights.

Re:DMCA

[rpdillon]

Not really. The DMCA makes it illegal to traffik in copy-protection circumvention devices, i.e. software programs or physical devices primarily design to circumvent copy protection. In this case, the users already have all the equipment and software they need to perform the circumvention (although they do mention CDex, which isn't primarily a circumvention program).

Besides, the DMCA has a specific provision that allows for fair use, and this certainly qualifies. It is directed at owners of the CD, who are protected under fair use provisiosn to make caopies for personal use to allow them to listen to the music on the device of their choosing.

And if that doesn's convince you, the band is merely excercising free speech - it is perfectly legal to post a website detailing how to circumvent copy protection for whatever reason. You simply cannot distribute tools that implement what you wrote about.

Re:DMCA

[masdog]

So if all the major labels demand copyright transfer, why aren't there smaller labels popping up that offer better deals to artists?

Re:DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a perfect example of the original copyright holder (Switchfoot) SELLING the copyright of his/hers/their music to another party (Sony).

Much like we say a software sale is not an EULA, a record label contract is not a sale; it's an agreement (often heavily in favor of the label).

TFAOE

Re:DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so I buy the CD... Sony gets the money and they LOSE control to me, the owner, right?

Re:DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Probaby because the major lables have deals with most radio stations that prohibit the playing of music unless it is from one of the big lables.

Re:DMCA

[the phantom]

When you produce a work, you own the copyright on that work. You have a right to sell that copyright if you wish. So, no, selling a copyright is not questionable... it is well established legal fact.

Re:DMCA

[jflanger]

Well, the same issue of "who owns the creation?" came up in the comics world, and eventually led to the creation of a new publisher that left all rights with the creator. Of course it took a good 20 years or so for this to happen...-sob-

Re:DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

TicketMaster is the RIAA of going to shows. Your beloved artists are getting no better money one way or the other.

Re:DMCA

[MacDork]

DMCA only involvement in this story is the fact that the band gave instructions on how to circumvent the copy protection. But the discussion about DMCA belongs in another thread.

Article title: Artist suggesting ways around copy protection.

The story IS circumvention of copy protection. Without that, there is no story. Who sold who what is the sidebar. The DMCA is of the utmost relevance here.

Re:DMCA

[dr_d_19]

Who sold who what is the sidebar. The DMCA is of the utmost relevance here.

Yeah. Precisely. That's why I chose the word THREAD instead of, say, story :)

sigh.

[Anonymous Coward]

How long do you think it'll take for Sony to delete the post? My guess... they'll say "even if you bought the cd, simply trying to extract the songs onto your pc means you're going to send the songs to all your friends" and shut it down within a couple days. I don't understand this logic at all. Apparently (since the RIAA goes after p2p), they don't seem to care about the commercial pirating of music. I wonder what will happen when every music cd has copy protection on it, yet p2p and everything else (insert bittorrent jokes) thrive. The only thing this copy protection does is piss off people who legitimately bought the cd... it does absolutely NOTHING to stop piracy. sigh

Re:sigh.

[Loconut1389]

Truth is, digital copying is definately the easiest and fastest way to copy.. but as long as a home/pro audio cd player can play the music, there will always be piracy.

Ultimately, even if it takes hours and hours to get something to a piratable form, someone will have the time and means to do it and get the release out there eventually- much like it used to be with vcd's/vivo's, etc.

Even some consumer grade cd players have 24bit burr-brown dac's. Someone with a really nice cd player and a really nice sound card could probably make a rip that is almost indistinguishable from its digital brethren.

The other truth is that there are copyright bit removers you can buy for S/PDIF digital connections that will allow you to record digitally on your soundcard. Some soundcards supposedly have drivers/hacks that allow you to record copyright bit set streams.

Even if we get to the point where speakers are digital and have some sort of DRM in them (you never know...), a nice sound room with all the right foam and what not and some expensive mics and recording equipment would get a copy.

The point is, as long as you can listen to the music physically, there will always be a way to rip it.

Re:sigh.

[Loconut1389]

I should add, we may see the rebirth of an age of sneakernet piracy (like handing off tapes to your friends).

1) Remove DRM or make analog recording
2) Record on some digital media (cd, minidisc, zip, whatever)
3) Give to friend

Virtually untraceable.

Hell, maybe the audio tape will rise again. I have a professional tape deck and cd player at home and when I've made recordings, even I have trouble hearing the difference given a nice EQ setup.

Forget an iPod, a walkman is a couple of bucks at your local wal mart- most of which don't have any slurring while jogging as long as your batteries are good.

Re:sigh.

[Eric604]

I am an old fashioned pirate, I just sing out loud the songs I hear. Like in the old days. No DRM that can shut me up.

Re:sigh.

[QuantumG]

Jogging? With your iPod? You know there's a harddrive in that iPod right? And you know that harddrives work by having heads resting just above a fast spinning platter? Jogging will drive those heads into the platter and destroy the harddrive. That's why Apple released the iPod Shuffle (and now the Nano) because stupid people were buying a device with a harddrive in it and going jogging.

BTW - you also shouldn't take it in the shower with you.

Re:sigh.

[PakProtector]

I am an old fashioned pirate, I just sing out loud the songs I hear. Like in the old days. No DRM that can shut me up.

Whenever I do that at the corner of University and W 17th Street in Gainesville, Flordia, people look at me funny.

Maybe I shouldn't do it when my audience is drunk... of course, if they're sober, I sound like shit.

Re:sigh.

[ettlz]

I thought modern hard disc drives were built to withstand 200g shocks and reasonable vibration without error.

Re:sigh.

[E8086]

If I were an old fashioned pirate I'd find out where the CDs were being produced, you know it has to be outsourced, and capture the ship transporting the disks and sell them as coasters at 5 for 3 pieces of 8, whatever that's worth these days.

ARRRG!!!

Re:sigh.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's when they're powered off, with the heads in park position (modern drives are auto-parking, once the power goes out, the head moves back to the park position).

Re:sigh.

[ettlz]

200g operational shock tolerance. Some will do up to 800g non-operational.

Re:sigh.

[Anonymous Coward]

In a similar(ish) vein, this:

we have no record conntract.as such. any offers?..what we would like is th e old EMI back again, the nice genteel arms manufacturers who treated music a nice side project who werent to bothered about the shareholders. ah well not much chance of that.....

appeared and disappeared from Radiohead's website very quickly, a week or two ago. I like the description of EMI :-)

Re:sigh.

[Loconut1389]

Well, I did say 'forget the iPod' ;o)

also, AFAIK the read head length is so short that the torque on it is nowhere near that of a full sized drive, thus much higher shock tolerances (in addition to tighter construction and other factors)

Re:sigh.

[Loconut1389]

And in international waters, who's to say the ship wasn't abandoned? =)

That reminds me, it be talk like a pirate day! Yarrr!

Re:sigh.

[rthille]

do a google search like 'ipod jogging site:apple.com' and you'll see that Apple specifically recommends the iPod for jogging and sells accessories to help you do just that.

Also, new laptop drives like the seagate Momentus can handle 250Gs _operating_ shock. The iPod drives are spec'd to handle you jogging. Really, not a problem.

Re:sigh.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The only thing this copy protection does is piss off people who legitimately bought the cd... it does absolutely NOTHING to stop piracy.

You're right that this pisses off consumers and it certainly does little to stop piracy. The purpose of this DRM is threefold. First, inhibit casual ripping so that it is hard for the owner of the disc to play it at home, in their car, and on their portable player without buying multiple copies. Two, get people used to DRM so that it is less objectionable when stricter DRM systems are introduced. Third, make it hard for users to move their music onto the next most popular format, whether that is the hard drive, flash drive, or some new kind of removable disk. If it is easy to take a record, cassette, CD, etc. and copy the music to a new format, why would consumers pay for a new copy? Already the music industry is steamed about the ipod and playing music from computers. Most digital music players are full of songs ripped from CDs, DRM'd files are in the minority. Regular CD's are too easy to rip and the RIAA is not getting paid again for every song. moving to DRM will ensure the average user will soon have to throw away their old CD's and buy a new copy via the network for every device they wish to use.

It makes sense form a ruthless marketing point of view and thus far they have managed to keep the mainstream media reporting on how their "anti-piracy" software is occasionally causing problems for users, rather than on how their "make your music not work unless you pay again" software is working.

Re:sigh.

[the phantom]

5 pieces of eight == 62.5 cents

Pieces of eight were pieces of coins -- if you did not have exact change for something, you would cut the coin into as many as eight pieces, each weighing about the same. On coin would have been about one dollar, thus 5 pieces of such a coin would come out to be about 63 cents.

Re:sigh.

[lidocaineus]

That's why Apple released the iPod Shuffle (and now the Nano) because stupid people were buying a device with a harddrive in it and going jogging.

Uh, no. They wanted to cover all price points and go after the markets the original iPod didn't touch. You can always go jogging with your iPod. Apple tells you it's alright. The specs of the drive handle over 200g's of operating force (and that's for the older ones in the 2g ipod!). i've been doing it for two years and it has yet to develop a problem (and I even run surface scan checks on it).

BTW - did you know that the hard drive isn't spinning all the time, and in fact if you leave it on a playlist, it RARELY spins up more than a few times per hour? What a miracle!

Evil?

[__aaxwdb6741]

So, let me get this straight.
The record labels ARE the bad guys, and the band themselves probably didnt have a say when their record label decided that the CD should have copy protection, right?
The artists did realize that by putting copyright-protection on their CD, the piracy of their CD would increase, and not decrease - like the record company propagates - because everyone wants to listen to their music not just on their CD player, but also on their mp3 player, car stereo, and whatnot, right?

I really salute these guys for doing that they did, by putting out these instructions. It doesnt even matter to me that this smells a bit like a PR stunt - The thing that matters is that maybe more artists will follow this example, and soon "UNPROTECTED AUDIO-CD" will be a treat, just like "Limited Edition" is today.

Re:Evil?

[MoogMan]

It doesnt even matter to me that this smells a bit like a PR stunt

I beg to differ. Record labels are designed entirely to tempt the poor, talented band to sign a deal for $$$much. They get approached by some respectable business man with a large wad of cash, an even larger wad of paper to sign and a promise that if they perform a certain amount, they get all their CDs professionally recorded, distributed, publicised, etc and the artist need not worry, whilst getting commision in return.

Seems like a logical thing to do - Sign the forms and be happy...

Of course, then the realisation that they didn't read the terms and conditions as a lawyer would, and implicit "industry standards" (e.g. CD protection) becomes apparent to them. What is one supposed to do?

I guess it's easy enough to choose the big company that supplies you with money over a customer. Especially when you've become accustomed to that life.

I don't know this band, but I must agree they deserve the respect for doing something many other bands haven't (and indeed seem to not care about).

The bottom line of DRM

[rolfwind]

Has always been that your fans pay with extra inconvenience and the pirates-that-be will get around it with ease.

Companies should learn that all it takes is one copy cracked for it to be out there.

But then I see the upcoming standard for Blu-ray, etcetera - and I suppose making the paying customers pay is the point. I mean, it's wonderful for the bottom line when you can sell the same person a movie on VHS, and then on region hobbled DVD, and then entice them with a HD version on Blu-ray. And the incentive is even greater for Joe Consumer once they can't back up their stuff or transfer it to other formats.

I'm glad for corporate thinking - because of this whereas I used to buy 25 CDs a year from mainstream RIAA companies, I buy 1-2 now. I don't download music but I simply don't care anymore. My money has moved onto other interests......

Re:The bottom line of DRM

[jcaren]

"My money has moved onto other interests..."

Ditto - however I doubt that we are the
core audience. I expect Sony et.al do not care
that we simply stop buying music. The increase
in revenue from "die-hard" fans will make up
(or is making up) for you and I.

Of course, collateral damage (such as my "no Sony"
policy) means that they loose out on enternainment
and IT systems sales for my home, family, work
and clients.

Somehow I do not think they care too much about my
policy but if a large enough group of us said "no" when someone tried to sell us Sony hardware they *may* just review the cost-benefit analysis.

Jacqui

Re:The bottom line of DRM

[pimpimpim]

Well, I just don't have enough money left to buy cd's, even if I wanted to. I also don't download and just basically listen the things I already collected. I guess that since more basic things like housing and food aren't getting any cheaper while lately salaries are frozen for several years a lot of people will do it like this, and record companies will find a way to blame it on all the "pirating" people, instead of realizing that they, by asking too high prices and blocking the introduction of new artists (or just new cds from their own artists) are the main cause for falling sales.

Re:The bottom line of DRM

[AttilaSz]

Same here. I was buying lot more CDs when they weren't crippled. The thought of the CD being crippled automatically makes me not want to buy it. This all gradually led to me completely losing the interest in even browsing the CD stands at malls -- whenever I got to one, I bought 3 CDs on average, but I haven't done it for at least a year now, as I was frustrated by the proliferation of crippled CDs. I have a +150 collection of CDs dating from times when the whole thing wasn't screwed up royally. Interpolating the tendency shows that they did lose quite many sales to me. Such is life. I guess they'll just write me off as "not buying anymore because he pirates" in their statistics, but in reality I don't have a single MP3 anywhere, either legal or illegal. I exclusively listen to the radio and my old CDs in sort of a spontaneous passive resistance against CD crippling for some time now.

Re:The bottom line of DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to buy 25 CDs a year from mainstream RIAA companies, I buy 1-2 now.

Try this. (No I don't work there.) I buy about 5 used CD's per month, limiting myself to $8 or less per CD. I've never gotten one that I'd return (due to scratches etc). This is truly the best of all worlds: (1) you get the real deal, the actual lossless, DRM-free original, plus the inserts; (2) you pay less than half of what a brand new CD costs; (3) it's 100% legal and ethical, just like buying a used book; (4) you aren't giving one red cent to the music industry.

I honestly can't understand why more people aren't buying used. It's so simple, it's brilliant. The only downside is that you might not find the absolute latest releases. For me, that's irrelevant because I'm not looking for the absolute latest.

Nice try, but

[inkfox]

If they really cared, they wouldn't be signed to a shit-ass major label in the first place. They can't have their street cred indie underground image and swing for the major league cocksuckers at the same time.

Re:Nice try, but

[bnitsua]

they're a "christian" band, not indie. which, for some reason, only adds humor to the situation for me...

Re:Nice try, but

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, most bands really worth thinking about don't give a shit about maintaining a "street cred indie underground image".
They just want to be able to write and perform their music, and reach their audience. If signing with Sony is the best way to do that, they'll do it.

Re:Nice try, but

[QuantumG]

Cool, so if they get struck by lightning we know God is pro-DRM.

Re:Nice try, but

[Seumas]

Most bands really worth thinking about don't play christian (insert today's popular music genre here). Christian rock is offensive in the same way that rock music in the 60s praising the government and encouraging young men to go die for their country would be wrong. The same way rapping about how wonder "the white man" is would be. It goes against everything these forms of music stand for in the first place.

So really, these douchebags can go sit on it.

Re:Nice try, but

[somersault]

errr yeah, Christians shouldnt be allowed to play rock music.. o_0 that makes sense *enjoys rock music, is in a band, is a Christian* though I agree, most 'christian' bands play sucky music, hehehe

Re:Nice try, but

[Anpheus]

Because as this poster believes, making money and making music is easy. Promise!
And before I forget... 4. Profit!

Re:Nice try, but

[ElBeano]

I know Christian bashing is popular on Slashdot, but it merely displays ignorance of the diversity of those who call themselves "Christian". For example, the first Christians were model citizens but refused to recognize the "godhood" of the emperor. You may disagree with them (Switchfoot), loathe them, but they are doing what they believe is right. If you take care to analyze the situation, you WILL respect them... and avoid the snide comments. I take every claim to be "Christian" with a grain of salt. I examine the evidence to see whether the claim is valid (admittedly according to my fallible judgment) and then comment. I have a lot of respect for this band.

Re:Nice try, but

[Anonymous Coward]

I take every claim to be "Christian" with a grain of salt.

So, when you scrutinize most people's claims of "Christianity," you come to realize that a good many of them are as far from "Christian" as they can be, right? And FYI, I realize that many Christians out there actually do adhere to their beliefs. However, I also realize that there are a very large handful that are Christian only in name (televangelists and racist bible-thumpers, I'm looking at you!).

Re:Nice try, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Your faith is your own, a private matter for you alone

Ever considering becoming a lyricist? : p

Re:Nice try, but

[vanka]

Why is a Christian band that encourages fans to by-pass copy protection so humorous? Many people seem to think that Christian theology states that Christians must obey all laws, this is not true. It states that Christians are obligated to obey all laws that are not contrary to the higher law of God. That is why Martin Luther King Jr (while a minister) advocated civil disobediance during the civil rights movement and why Christians in the communist states of the former Soviet Union broke the law by holding secret church services.
I do not know why Switchfoot took a stand against copy protection, but I have talked on the subject with several conservative Christians. The views they expressed are not universally held, but they are very interesting. They view a musicians, singers, artists, etc talents as a gift from God. An artist has the right to sell his/her work, but he/she cannot claim ownership of it (by copyrighting it for example) because the gift is not his/hers, rather it was given to him/her not for personal gain, but for the enjoyment of the people around him/her.

Re:Nice try, but

[Anonymous Coward]

what about Pavement (/stephen malkmus), yo la tengo, buelah, anything from the Elephant6 group/label, and countless others.... (it's way too early to think through my entire cd collection)

Respect

[Spy Handler]

This fellow seems quite intelligent and able to express himself in writing. I wonder if he wrote that or if his publicist did it for him. I've had this idea that rockers are spaced-out potheads. Well at any rate, he has my respect.

"Hello friends,

my heart is heavy with this whole copy-protection thing. Many PC users have posted problems that they have had importing the new songs (regular disc only, not the dual disc) into programs such as Itunes. Let me first say that as a musician AND as a music fan, I agree with the frustration that has been expressed. We were horrified when we first heard about the new copy-protection policy that is being implemented by most major labels, including Sony (ours), and immediately looked into all of our options for removing this from our new album. Unfortunately, this is the new policy for all new major releases from these record companies. It is heartbreaking to see our blood, sweat, and tears over the past 2 years blurred by the confusion and frustration surrounding this new technology. It is also unfortunate when bands such as ourselves, Foo Fighters, Coldplay, etc... (just a few of the new releases with copy protection) are the target of this criticism, when there is no possible way to avoid this new industry policy.

For mac users these songs should import seamlessly. We are told that itunes is coming out with a new version for PC users in early November that will be compatible with all of these new CD's but in the meantime it's frustrating for all of us. That said, there are a number of solutions (as is always the case with these types of things) for importing the CD into your itunes and ipod. We have compiled some of the easier ways below. I feel like as a band and as listeners, we've all been through a lot together over the past ten years, and we refuse to allow corporate policy to taint the family we've developed together. We deeply regret that there exists the need for any of our listeners to spend more than 30 seconds importing our music, but we're asking as friends and partners in this journey together to spend the extra 10 minutes that it takes to import these songs, which we think you'll agree to be our finest collection of songs yet. As a band, we've always been known for having the best fans in the world and I know that will continue for years to come. A month from now, I hope to be singing these songs together at a show, and the extra time spent importing the music will perhaps be forgotten, or at least forgiven. Thank you for your understanding and the continued kindness that you have always shown for five dreamers from San Diego, we love you guys,

-tim foreman"

Re:Respect

[Karyyk]

As a long-time fan of Switchfoot (when they were a 3-piece band and doing some rather creative, but still cheesy videos for the Christian music scene), I'm fairly sure he did. The Foremans (Tim and his brother Jon) are a few cuts above the average rockers out there, and a bit deeper as well. They're also one of those bands who will stick around a venue for a while afterwards getting to know their fans, and to this point, have yet to let stardom cloud their eyes about what's really important, the fans. They'll stick by their guns on this one.

Re:Respect

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! A musician that's able to express himself. That's a first... :P

Re:Respect

[Mnemia]

There is a way he could avoid the DRM. He could just not sign a contract with a label that is inflexible on the issue. But this would require that he give up potential fame and fortune. But it's blatently false that there is "no possible way" to avoid this situation. Plenty of indy labels exist that wouldn't pull this kind of thing.

Re:Respect

[nicktripp]

I'll vouch for the band as well. These guys always have been a class act, and I have no doubt Tim wrote that himself. As for being signed with Sony, I'm fairly certain their contract was acquired by Sony when they went on a small-label buying spree. I could be wrong, but that's how I remember it going down.

Re:Respect

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see Apple getting sued from the RIAA for making iTunes skip the copyright protection on the PC version of their software.

That little move might send iTunes into the copyright protected era...

Re:Respect

[Anonymous Coward]

After hearing them quote Plato and the Divine Comedy, nothing will surprise me.

Re:Respect

[Anonymous Coward]

Having actually had conversations with the original three members I can say personally that they are all kind and intelligent men. Also, those three attended UC San Diego: Chad got his degree, while Jon and Tim have left theirs incomplete due to the demand of touring. Side note - Tim still managed to get into his Sophomore year in college despite having started in Switchfoot as a Senior in high school.

Re:Respect

[Anonymous Coward]

I have some news for you: not only are most rock musicians "spaced out potheads," but so are most other musicians, writers, painters, and quite a few of your university professors.

In fact, you'll find quite a few creative types smoking lots of weed.

Some of them (gasp!) drink beer, too.

I hope I have enlightened and educated your ignorant and predjudiced arse. What part of Texas are you from, son?

Re:Respect

[microwave_EE]

Did Sony buy out Forefront? Or did Switchfoot switch labels before they moved to sony? I don't have any of the albums with me...

As member #37 or so of their old forum board... before they went to Sony, I'll also vouch for these guys. I've seen them be consistent all the way back to when I first heard of them in '97.

Now, the question is...

[91degrees]

Will Sony sue them under the DMCA?

The optics would be really bad

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA is wrapping themselves in the flag and insisting that they are protecting the interests of the artists. If they start suing the artists, then the truth of the matter becomes obvious.

My wag is that the RIAA sends their lawyers over to Switchfoot and makes them an offer they can't refuse and makes them sign a non-disclosure agreement. We'll never hear about it.

On the other hand, we do have the example of several (at least two that I have heard of) single mothers standing up to the RIAA, so maybe there's some hope.

I've been thinking....

[rolfwind]

about this issue of DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) a lot lately and coupled with Stallman's famous library/closed_information society essay.

Does anybody else forsee a time when everything "printed" will be on e-ink paper-thin paperless electronic displays that sense when you try to photocopy them (from the light?) and the only thing coming out of the Xerox machine will be static-filled pages?

Re:I've been thinking....

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets hope you don't want to read such papers on a sunny, but somewhat cloudy day (on the beach ?) ... The change in light (from passing-by clouds) could than well (temporarily (?))"black-out" your paper as well ...

As for the work-around ? Just put a strong lamp over or in the copier, turn it on & wait untill the text becomes visible again. Than copy it. Chances are that the extra light from the copier itself will not be sensed. If it is, just switch off that copier-light. :-)

Re:I've been thinking....

[rolfwind]

DRM could easily circumvent that because it only has to look for a bright strip (line), not the entire screen. Hardly anyone will read in full sunlight where the light is segmented because of focusing problems (contrast and all that).

I mean you could always take a picture - but those hardly come out too well.

Re:I've been thinking....

[QuantumG]

DRM is a lot worse than that. One day people will distribute physical objects made from programmable matter. When that happens you will find that a few rare objects are free for you to copy if you have some programmable matter of your own. You could even recycle some objects into programmable matter that you can use for whatever purpose you like. Except that is, the objects that have DRM. They won't let you copy them. They will have biometrics technology built into them and, if the creator has so chosen, no-one else will be able to use the object except you. Or the object will only be good for a set period of time and you'll have to return it (or if you're lucky recycle it) after its use-by date.

This has to happen. Otherwise the scarcity that our society is based on will be threatened. If you wanna know what it feels like to live in a world of artificial scarcity, go play Second Life. Where every object has DRM.

Re:I've been thinking....

[arevos]

Except that, unlike normal encryption, DRM can only make it a little more difficult to copy an item; it cannot prevent an item being copied if the user is persistant enough. And once an item has been copied once, the DRM on the original ceases to be an issue (laws like the DMCA aside).

Re:I've been thinking....

[QuantumG]

DRM is a philosophy. It's not one particular technology. Digital Rights Management is the proposition that the creator of a work has absolute and complete control over users of that work. DRM is the logical endpoint of idea ownership.

Re:I've been thinking....

[arevos]

Except DRM, both in theory and in practise, doesn't work. Once information is in the public domain, it can never be completely removed. All DRM can be broken, and therefore all DRMed information will eventually wind up in the public domain.

Your assertion that a DRM-based society "has to happen" is flawed, because DRM cannot guarentee that a piece of information cannot be copied.

I can't speak for anyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

but copy protection is the reason I don't buy CDs any more.

Add Tristan Prettyman to the list

[Anonymous Coward]

On her Web site, Tristan, too, apologizes for the copy protection and links to a threaded discussion on her site about bypassing the protection to rip the tracks.

It's a shame record companies are forcing their artists to be on the defensive about this issue. The record companies are for the protection, the consumers (especially those owning iPods or wanting to play these non-standard CDs on their computers) are against it, and the artists are left directly in the middle of the tug-of-war.

That could be a good thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the fattest of fatcat judges can see that not only are the RIAA's tactics and intentions dishonorable (if not actually illegal) but that everybody else can see it too, and siding with the RIAA may not be A Good Thing, at least as far as the judge's public image and credibility goes.

So go right ahead RIAA and and sue the very people who created the art work you are mercilessly exploiting and getting rich off of. It could be at least as good as the whole SCO debacle!

Re:What's the point?

[nmb3000]

Whats the point of putting such protection on your music CDs when all you're going to do is turn around and post a link on your site about how to bypass it.

RTFA.

The band had no voice in the matter. Sony is their label and chose to put the protection on the disc, whether the band wanted it on or not. Switchfoot posted the info on bypassing it because it was pissing off a lot of their fans and that's not something most (read: not Metallica) bands want. In addition, they probably wanted to piss off Sony a little bit for abusing the power that labels have come to know and love.

One up for Linux and Alt OSes!!!

[NiteRiderXP]

It's funny cause the copy protection seems to only effect Windows. If you have Linux, Mac, or any other OS it won't hinder anything. Kind of shows how dumb the music industry is. I am sure it wouldn't be hard to find the service/dll causing the problem and remove it. Somebody should develop Copy Protection Definitions and a program to remove them automatically, kind of like virusscan.
Nite Rider

Re:One up for Linux and Alt OSes!!!

[Library Spoff]

I dunno about that.
I had a pre release of the latest Daft Punk CD.

Ubuntu & Slack wouldn't let me read the cd. It kept hanging when trying to Rip/Play.

My windows partition wouldn't let me play it in a cd player or rip it. I could copy it tho... strange.

Re:One up for Linux and Alt OSes!!!

[Dr_Barnowl]

They're not dumb. They're getting exactly what they want, which is to restrict the fair use rights of the consumer in the pursuit of greater profits ; if they can prevent the average Joe manipulating the music through his computer, they can sell more ringtones (bigger than the singles market now), digital music (especially for your DRM enabled player), and so forth. The argument that it's to prevent piracy is pretty transparent, precisely because of the demographic the technology is targetting. Which is over 90% of the installed user base for the consumer OS market.

The vast majority of their clientele will have Windows, with the CD-ROM Autorun feature switched on. The fact that the technology does nothing to prevent copying by the tech-savvy demographic indicates that they know that there is nothing they can do to prevent "cracking" of their protection schemes. They would love a universally uncrackable scheme, but they know that such a thing is not achievable. So they have settled for a scheme that nets them more money from a demographic that they can push around, and pointed the finger of blame at "those dirty smelly hacker pirates".

Re:One up for Linux and Alt OSes!!!

[jcaren]

I understood that installing any software without express permission is illegal within the UK/EU? If true, and if every purchaser returned the CD, and then somehow managed to take the record shop to courts for the IT cleanup fees, record shops would be far more wary about invasive DRM. Jacqui

Re:One up for Linux and Alt OSes!!!

[nogginthenog]

It only effects Windows boxes where the autorun feature switched is on. Not hard to circumvent.

Re:One up for Linux and Alt OSes!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a virus writer incorporate it so that the anti-virus tools pick it up and block its installation and/or remove?

Re:One up for Linux and Alt OSes!!!

[ajs318]

I have never had difficulty with cdparanoia. Just change to a directory, place the CD in the drive and # cdparanoia -B. You get a set of .wav files which are easily dealt with {for i in *wav; do lame -h $i && rm $i; done}. Note that you will have to download and compile lame yourself {from a server in a country where maths patents are unenforcible}.

Back in the days of 2.4 kernels, you had to muck about with SCSI emulation, /etc/modules and append statements in lilo.conf; but all that finally changed with the advent of 2.6.

For some discs, you might need a drive of 12X or slower speed. This is because older, slower drives seem not to read all TOCs as soon as the disc is inserted; so are immune to "protection" methods involving bogus TOC entries.

I once bought a copy-protected "CD" {Macrovision / Cactus CDS 200} just for the h4x0r challenge, and was so disappointed when it came through without problems that I have not even bothered to listen to it.

Re:One up for Linux and Alt OSes!!!

[xouumalperxe]

"Hey look! We have a scheme that prevents the users of 95% of computer users from copying our CDs. Aren't we dumb for not reaching the remaining 5%? Oh yeah, those are the blokes that would find a way around it either way..."

Re:One up for Linux and Alt OSes!!!

[Shaper_pmp]

No, it shows that they're happy only blocking access to 95% of the population, and don't bother tackling the 5% who'd be able to decrypt, dewatermark or otherwise circumvent anything they could currently throw at them anyway.

Just wait until Trusted[sic] Computing hardware is the norm in a few years - then you won't be able to play Blu-ray/HDDVD discs, listen to music or watch films on your linux box, and your Mac box will be just as Treacherous as your Windows one.

Not dumb (for once), just not wasting resources... and playing the long game.

Fucking bastards.

Re:One up for Linux and Alt OSes!!!

[sqlrob]

And how quickly does it end up on P2P because of those 5%?

No net gain, other than bad publicity.

Re:One up for Linux and Alt OSes!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod Parent Up

Re:One up for Linux and Alt OSes!!!

[cpghost]

The vast majority of their clientele will have Windows, with the CD-ROM Autorun feature switched on.

So it's perhaps a good thing that we belong to a minority, small enough to be under their radar?

Seriously: if we had, let's say, 30% to 40% of the OS market share, would Sony & Co. try to find ways to create un-rippable "CD"s? You betcha! Will they succeed, given enough money and determination?

Let the artist find the balance

[moriya]

The artist should have a say as to whether they'd like to opt for a copy protection system that their holders/labels employ. At least this gives the artist the flexibility of being able to let their fans rip the CDs into mp3s for dumping into their portable players. Eventually all the record labels would then be able to gauge as to whether the system is worth the price to pay to "defeat" piracy.

Re:Let the artist find the balance

[isecore]

The artist should have a say as to whether they'd like to opt for a copy protection system that their holders/labels employ.

Unfortunately though, that is not how the system works. Of course, you'd think that the artist would have something to say, but once they've signed on the dotted line they have no input whatsoever (other than that they do in the studio). The label/publisher owns ALL RIGHTS to the music and can henceforth do whatever they want with it. If they want to "copyprotect" it, then they can do it.

If the artist objects then the label will go into mobster-mode and say stuff like "yeah, but if we don't copyprotect then it will get stolen and that means loss of revenue, and that means you guys get less payout, and we wouldn't want that now?"

Signing a deal with a label is essentially signing away your soul and all rights to your music.

Wondering...

[Karyyk]

I wonder how many of the Sony bashers here have paid-for Sony products lying all over their abode? Just thinking out loud. Before this becomes a "Switchfoot sold-out" bashing thread, some of us might want to consider that we've done the same thing. Kudos to Switchfoot, Tim Foreman in particular. I'm sure they're aware that this will bring the Sony hounds on top of them, and they did it anyway. Oh, and if it's that easy to bypass the, ahem, "copy protection," Sony should get back to the corporate drawing board...

Re:Wondering...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've actually seen a reverse trend over the last year or so, i.e. people specifically not buying Sony audio and video gear because they're afraid that it won't let them do certain things, or will require some "sony-only" media that costs more than the non-Sony items that everyone else uses.

Re:Wondering...

[LinuxOnEveryDesktop]

I've actually seen a reverse trend over the last year or so, i.e. people specifically not buying Sony audio and video gear because they're afraid that it won't let them do certain things, or will require some "sony-only" media that costs more than the non-Sony items that everyone else uses.


Correct - at least in my case. I refuse to buy Sony gear now, because of the absolutely ridiculous way their company is run (the content side decides how the consumer electronics are designed - and guess what, the CE turnover is about 10x the content division's!), as well as their insistence not to follow standards and invent their own crippled, DRM'ed 'standards' (memory stick, ATRAX, etc).

I've had it with Sony until their CEO gets it, and kicks out the content guys for once and for all. And the day they start following standards, I'll buy their gear again.

Idiots. If I had shares in Sony I'd sue them for not working in the shareholder's best interests.

Re:Wondering...

[Quill_28]

Going along with that I understand the engineering side of sony has been frustrated by the media side sony limiting them.

Publicity Stunt

[firemoose]

If sharing the music was such a big deal, why not just post everything as mp3s? Giving away publicly known information on bypassing copyright protection gives the band more publicity and probably won't increase the amount of avaliable media considering the rampant piracy already occuring.

Re:Publicity Stunt

[BackInIraq]

If sharing the music was such a big deal, why not just post everything as mp3s? Giving away publicly known information on bypassing copyright protection gives the band more publicity and probably won't increase the amount of avaliable media considering the rampant piracy already occuring.

Well, while telling users how to circumvent the protection may or may not be a grey area (see DMCA), giving away the MP3's on their site is very much black and white: they (likely) do NOT have the legal right to do this. Their contract with their record company (likely) explicitly forbids it. And they are not worried about their fans' ability to SHARE the music, they just want their fans to be able to LISTEN to their music, on whatever devices they might own. So this would be the best way to help their paying fans make use of the CD's they have purchased. Switchfoot was never trying to give the album away.

Oh, and while bypassing this protection may be common knowledge on /., there are hordes of people out there who do NOT know how to do this. Imagine for a moment that there is a subset of the human race that does visit the Switchfoot home page, but does not visit Slashdot...perhaps those very people are the ones the band was trying to inform.

Though of course I'm just guessing.

Re:Publicity Stunt

[TheRaven64]

It's also in their best interests if everyone who has a problem with DRM can bypass it. How many people do you suppose were unable to convert music to MP3, googled for `{band name} mp3}' and discovered Kazaa et al? How many of these continued to buy DRM'd CDs when downloading was much easier - and don't forget that the majority of people have a much weaker grip of copyright law than even the average Slashdotter, so they may not even be aware that it is illegal.

Re:How will burning back affect quality?

[slashnik]

"burn the music back to CD and rip it again".

The article suggests in option (c) copying the secure WMA files to the PC and then burning these WMA files to a standard CD, and then use iTunes to rip the songs.

What's the quality going to be like after all this format conversion?

So, are they any good?

[Yusaku Godai]

I've never heard of this band Switchfoot. Would it be worth it to me to buy their album as a way of showing my support for their being awesome? As much as I like this gesture on their part, I'm not gonna buy this album if I think it sucks.

I'm sure I could just go download it and find out, but it's nearly 5 in the morning and I should be getting to bed.

Re:So, are they any good?

[Osty]

Would it be worth it to me to buy their album as a way of showing my support for their being awesome?

If only there was a way to register a reason why you're buying something when you buy it. Without that, you'd just be adding to the total number of sales, proving to Sony that consumers don't care about, or even like(!), this copy protection BS.

My advice? Don't buy the CD. Even if you're a fan, don't buy it. The artists get barely anything from CD sales. Go see them live, or buy their songs off of iTunes or MSN Music or similar (I have no idea if they're listed on any online music service). The very last thing you should do is buy the CD if you want to show support.

Re:So, are they any good?

[TheRaven64]

Or send them a cheque with a covering letter saying that it's a pre-order for the first album that they release into the public domain or under a Creative Commons license. If enough people do this, then maybe they will be able to buy themselves out of their contract with Sony.

Re:So, are they any good?

[Anonymous Coward]

I liked their last CD, haven't listened to this one yet.

One of their members is formerly of the pop-industrial band Mortal, who've been in hiatus on and off since about 1996, I think. They were and still are my favorite band ever. err.. I guess that didn't really answer the question. Sorry.

Re:So, are they any good?

[chudgoo]

"Would it be worth it to me to buy their album as a way of showing my support for their being awesome?" Not if you actually like music. No, seriously...Stephen Baldwin (the most crazy baldwin brother) wholeheartedly endorses them on his Sci-Fi channel show Scare Tactics. What do they sound like? Well, if you took the Beach Boys and added a heaping spoonful of sub-par "alternative" mid-90's rock and then beat it with a bible, you'd have Switchfoot.

Re:So, are they any good?

[ag-gvts-inc]

Switchfoot makes some good pop-style rock music. If you listen to rock on the radio, you've probably already heard some of their music.

Disclaimer: they are Christian artists that make music. Note that I didn't say "Christian music." They said once (on an AOL interview, I think) that they don't use their faith to sell their music or vice-versa.

All that aside, I'm a big fan of Audioslave, Velvet Revolver, etc. and I like their newest album (Nothing is Sound) as well as the one before that (The Beautiful Letdown). I haven't heard any of their earlier music though.

Some have replied to your question saying "don't buy, cause it'll prove to Sony that DRM cd's are ok." But TFA mentions that the DualDisc doesn't have the copy protection on it...ymmv

CDs?

[NewStarRising]

I was under the impression that the CD ISO Standard does not include copy-protection.
Any small-silver-disk that includes copy-protection could not be labelled as a 'CD', and must have the fact that it has copy-protection notified to the customer.
Has this changed, or does this type of protection not break the CD Standard?

Re:CDs?

[Azzmodan]

It doesn't break the standard, it has normal music tracks and 2 data tracks, inside the data tracks is a little autorun that will install a driver and that then blocks access to the music.

That's all there is to it, that's why people with a mac are fine, so are people not running windows (or are running windows but disabled autorun, aren't an administrator).

Re:CDs?

[BenjyD]

I have seen at least one copy-protected 'CD' recently that didn't have the CD audio logo on the casing. Not that anyone notices apart from geeks like me.

Re:CDs?

[sapone]

If, without my knowledge or consent, inserting the CD installs a DRIVER into my OS that stops me from doing things I'd like to do, isn't that a criminal act? Like giving someone a malevolent virus or a "joke" program that does "format c:"? I'm fairly certain it is in Germany, there something called "computer sabotage" in our criminal code. Since this "copy protection" not only keeps data from being copied, but actively alters the system in an undesirable and persistent way, that description seems to fit.

Re:CDs?

[StrawberryFrog]

I sucessfully returned a CD (Kasabian) to Amazon.co.uk

My main argument in returning the CD was that the CD attempted to install unknown software onto my pc without my consent when I inserted it, and said software did not come with any way of unistalling - after taking advice from geeky friends, I uninstalled this driver by reverting to the last system restore point.

Also at the time there was no indication of any copy protection on Amazon's product page.

If everyone did that, they'd soon get the message.

Re:CDs?

[sapone]

So the driver gets installed without any user feedback. Wow. That's... horrible. A trojan cd. I believe there's a criminal case... they're abusing a security hole in the Operating System that was intended as a feature (auto-execution of code upon insertion of media) in order to install malware. On a commercial scale. How gross.

Re:CDs?

[tokul]

I was under the impression that the CD ISO Standard does not include copy-protection.

"page with instructions on disabling the autorunning protection"

It looks like, protection is based on software that is started when cd is inserted. Just press shift key when you insert cd or get Mac Mini.

Re:CDs?

[LordFnord]

Nigel Kennedy's latest recording of the Four Seasons is like this. I'm not sure why, though, because although it plays and rips perfectly on every computer I own, the only CD player in the house (crufty old Cheapsui that must be easily 15 years old) just chokes and says "No disc".

As a result, if you want to listen to this music in our front room, you have to turn on the chipped Xbox and listen to the MP3 rip through Media Centre.

I'm not quite sure what all this DRM stuff is supposed to achieve, but whatever it is it's not working yet.

Re:CDs?

[Fweeky]

Many CD-DA copy protection schemes like to munge error correction codes which make CD-ROM drives and ripping software very upset, but which most cheapo CD players don't even notice. These definately break the standards, hence many copy protected CD's lacking the CD-DA logo.

It's just a shame these discs don't have to be clearly labelled by law as not being "real" audio CD's. I basically don't buy CD's any more because it's a crapshoot as to whether you get a real disc or not.

Re:CDs?

[Zocalo]

That would be the so called "Red Book" specification which defines the audio CD format and certainly does not include copy protection in the spec. Most copy protection schemes out there involve deliberately breaking the Red Book specification by tampering with the data to prevent the audio being copied to PCs etc. Since adherance to the specifications is explicitly required to qualify for the "Compact Disc" logo on the box and disc, this is why you don't see that logo on music CDs as much as you used to. As an aside, simply auto-running an application from a data track, whether to try and "add value" by providing some multimedia content or make a lame attempt at DRM, is within the bounds of the relevant format ("Yellow Book", IIRC).

All of which, given the title, is going to make it somwehat ironic if Texas' upcoming CD entitled "Red Book" includes any form of copy protection...

Re:CDs?

[PhunkySchtuff]

You're 100% correct - these Copy Control Discs (or whatever flavour of DRM they're using at the moment) are _NOT_ CDs - and you will not find the Compact Disc Digital Audio logo anywhere on the disc or the packaging. Frequently (at least here in Australia) the discs are quite clearly labelled as being protected, and listing system specs of compatible systems, but the discs are not labelled as CDs because they are not Red Book CD-DA.
They happen to follow enough of the specification that the majority of devices will play them - "dumb" devices such as your CD player _should_ only see the CD-DA parts and "smart" devices, that know about things like multiple sessions and the like will see the data portion of the disc.
FWIW, I've never had a problem with any of these discs in my Mac - insert the disc and OS X shows not one, but two, partitions. One partition (session, slice, whatever) contains the CD-DA stuff (which iTunes promptly imports as MP3 or AAC, whatever I've told it to use) and the other session contains the lower quality DRM audio.

Re:CDs?

[ettlz]

A trojan cd. I believe there's a criminal case...

This is actually a good point. Did the grandparent contact the Police?

Re:CDs?

[advocate_one]

they get away with it by using the CD-Text standard... it lets them put a "CD" logo on the disk... it takes a sharp eye to note that the word in the logo is "Text" and not "Audio". "Joe Public" doesn't know the difference anyway, he's been well trained to just look for the "CD" logo and not the actual standard.

Re:CDs?

[justforaday]

He did, but their response was "De doo doo doo de da da da is all I want to say to you."

Re:CDs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Joe Public is trained to look for the thin square plastic cases, not some silly CD logo.

Re:CDs?

[ettlz]

He did, but their response was "De doo doo doo de da da da is all I want to say to you."

So they'd organise a sting operation, then?

Re:CDs?

[slavemowgli]

c't has a database of copy-protected CDs. The site's in German, of course, and YMMV if you're not from Germany (since CDs are something sold with copy-protection in one place and without in another), but it might still be helpful. They also have a program for download (UnCDcopy) that allows you to rip copy-protected CDs.

Re:CDs?

[nightgrinder]

It's not labelled with the "Compact Disc-Digital Audio" logo. Unfortunately, most consumers don't know what that logo implies and you can still call it a "CD," so they'll buy it without realizing. To be fair, the packaging does have lots of notifications on it about its protected nature (e.g. the hinge portion of the jewel case holds the text "Copy Protected" or somesuch, and the back-cover fine print explains the ways the record company wants to allow you to liten to it). Amazon labels it as "[CONTENT/COPY-PROTECTED CD] [ENHANCED]." That's why I didn't buy it at the store. I like the band a lot, but won't buy music that doesn't carry the "Compact Disc - Digital Audio" logo. My son downloaded it from ITMS, and we won't have any issues with our iPods.

Re:CDs?

[iamlucky13]

If everyone did that, they'd soon get the message.

Probably not, actually. They'll just take a lesson from Bonzi Buddy, Weatherbug, and Gator. All that would change is there would be a little warning on the insert, in 4 pt font, saying that the CD includes software that you are legally obligated to install if you want to use the contents of the CD, and insertion of the CD into a reading device is aknowledgement of acceptance of the terms of the EULA, or some such crap like that.

Re:CDs?

[Anonymous Coward]

If, without my knowledge or consent, inserting the CD installs a DRIVER into my OS that stops me from doing things I'd like to do, isn't that a criminal act?

That's an oxymoron. How can your computer possibly load and execute untrusted code (apparently with kernel permissions?!) on inserted media, without your knowledge and consent? Either you have told your computer to run the code (in which case, you consented) or you haven't (in which case, it doesn't get executed).

Or are you saying that some little gremlin inside the CD case, snuck out in the middle of the night and typed "su" followed by your password, and then "sh /mnt/cdrom/install_virus.sh"?

Re:CDs?

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried to do that. The store said they would not accept opened returns. I asked why. The manager told me it was to prevent people copying the CDs and then returning them. I brought it to his attention that this was a copy protected CD and that was in fact the reason I was returning it. He would have none of it. I left and never came back.

Re:CDs?

[sapone]

Uuh... you know there things like security holes? Like the WINDOWS auto-execution of autorun files (I hope you've heard about this commonly used OS, or haven't you stepped out of your nice server room where you spend your nights monitoring security mailing lists for a decade or two?

Having an open security hole is NOT an invitation for somebody to come along and abuse it. And even if foreign code is executed with my knowledge - if the code performs something unexpected and malevolent without telling me so, isn't the author of that trojan to blame rather than me? Have you ever installed and run a binary package or a source package without reading the source code first? Yes? Well, then you just relied on that piece of software not being trojaned.

You know, there are people who neither have your technical knowledge nor an OS with a decent security in mind. Maybe you don't have the problem - I personally haven't had it either on my Debian desktop. But that doesn't make me so narrowminded as to forget about the rest of the world.

Copy protection?

[Mr_Silver]

The band posted a response on their official forum apologizing for the protection and detailing ways to circumvent the protection and rip their songs to PC.

Having read the posting, I think it would be safe to say that this disk doesn't have much "copy protection".

In short, the instructions for Windows PC's are, essentially, insert CD, hold down shift so it doesn't autorun, rip with CDex.

To be honest, I was expecting something a little more complicated although I do accept the fact that:

1. Most people don't know the hold-shift functionality.
2. It's nice to see a member of a band advocate ripping it to MP3.

If this is going to be the "copy protection" employed on all Sony disks in the future then it's a damn sight better (read: useless) than some of the other things they've tried.

Re:Copy protection?

[Mr_Silver]

If this is going to be the "copy protection" employed on all Sony disks in the future then it's a damn sight better (read: useless) than some of the other things they've tried.

Oops, missed the part which does have the detailed instructions if you've not held down shift and the Sony software has been installed.

Mind you, I doubt this won't affect a lot of Slashdotters who, I would have hoped, have disabled autorun on CD's.

Re:Copy protection?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mind you, I doubt this won't affect a lot of Slashdotters who, I would have hoped, have disabled autorun on CD's.

Slashdotters use Windows?

Re:Copy protection?

[TheRagingTowel]

I wonder if MS will disable the shift-hold thingy in future versions or sps...

Re:Copy Protection?

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed an opportunity there to use "suckz0r" instead of just plain "suck".

Just a heads-up for the future in the hope it may aid you on your adult quest to entertain us all.

We need better labels

[forgoil]

We simply need better labels, preferably who sell all their music online, that tries to _sell_ the music for a resonable price. I can't imagine how the artists could loose from that since most of the money goes to people I don't _care_ if they loose their jobs. I won't buy music until the formats are free of patents and DRM, and I urge everyone else to act the same.

Looks like a Great Test Case for the DMCA

[putko]

Looks like the band is telling folks how to circumvent the copy protection -- time for the D.A. throw the book at the band, anyone linking to the site, etc. Looks like a DMCA violation.

I really hope we can get a nice, egregious test case before a court so that we can see what the hell our rights are.

A lot of techies get nervous due to the DMCA; we know how arbitrary the lines are, and all it takes is a stupid judge to decide you are on the wrong side of things and then you are screwed. Ala Dmitry Skylarov.

Re:Switchfoot's own fault

[Anonymous Coward]

I blame switchfoot. They should have known that Sony would not be looking out for the band or the fans.

Newsflash: directors of publically held companies are legally obliged to put profit before everything else.

The consequences of this fact and your above stated opinion are that the only faultless way of making money in a band is to self-publish. Signing to a privately-held company is not an option because although they aren't legally obliged to put profit before anything else, you have no guarantee that they won't do it anyway.

How stupid are Sony?

[BenjyD]

Something like 90% of my music listening is on my iPod: if I can't rip your music to my iPod in one easy step, I'm not going to buy your album. It's as simple as that.

I'm sure that is true for a large number of people these days, most of whom are 18-35 with a reasonable disposable income: ie. exactly the kind of people that buy large numbers of CDs. It's amazing how companies can be so incredibly short sighted.

Re:How stupid are Sony?

[Seumas]

I just skip the whole ordeal and buy my music from mp3search.ru for a dollar an album. No DRM. High quality MP3s. Huge selection. Works on all my hardware. Even for music I already owned, it was cheaper to go through that place than waste my time popping the disks in and out of my drive and waiting for the songs to burn.

Sure, nobody involved in the making, promoting or distribution of the music gets a dime of it, but what the fuck do I care? The pushers of music don't get a fuck about me except as something to suck cash from. So why should I give a shit about them? And, luckily, I don't.

Maybe I'll go to hell for it. I don't really care. I still buy CDs from really good indie bands who deserve it. But you're fucked if you think I'm going to stick $16 in the hands of some assholes still profiting off of music from an artist dead long ago.

Re:How stupid are Sony?

[Anonymous Coward]

How stupid are Sony? Not very stupid, at all. At least when it comes to upping their profit margins.

See, the whole point of this rather simple-to-defeat copy protection isn't to keep "pirates" from stealing music. If they wanted to do that they would create copy protection features that also worked on Mac, Linux, and all of the other operating systems of the world.

"Copy Protection" like this is meant to make people who buy a CD turn around and buy the songs from iTunes or some other service, as well. In the mind of the corporate beancounters which I'm sure are in full force at Sony, this is a brilliant idea. Consider the kind of person who has enough money to spare that they regularly buy CDs and also happen to own a trendy mp3 player. Also consider that this person is also not necessarily tech-savvy. When this person uses their expendable cash to buy a CD, and then finds out they can't copy it to their computer (so they can then copy it to their mp3 player), what does Sony hope they'll do? Well, of course, they'll hop on iTunes, or Yahoo Music or some other service, and pay even more money to download all of the songs of their new favorite CD.

Remember how record labels used to charge $20 for a 10-song CD? Remember how finally consumer pressure (and a court loss, I believe), forced them to lower their prices to something "more reasonable" ($15, heh)? Now they can charge $15 for the physical CD, and another $10 or so dollars for the downloadable version. What's that add up to? $25. They're making more money now off of the uninformed consumer than ever!

Copy protection was never about protecting their interests from pirates. Copy protection is purely about making even more money than ever off of the uninformed consumer.

Re:How stupid are Sony?

[BenjyD]

I would think (hope?) that won't happen. I think the ability to format-shift recordings is assumed as a right by consumers, from the days of copying records to tape for playing on a Walkman through to ripping CDs to MP3.

Re:How stupid are Sony?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would hope that it wouldn't happen, either.

Unfortunately, it already is.

When we buy a CD we don't "own" that copy of the music anymore. Somewhere in the past we stopped "buying music" and started paying for "licenses."

So while copyright law does stipulate fair use, the various industries (music, movies) are doing their darndest to make sure we can't exercise it.

RIAA defending artists?

[KarMax]

"In general, they [Copyright Laws] are designed to protect the rights of artists while preserving the public's right to benefit from the works of those same artists." (From RIAA.com )
Its seems that the Artist doesnt WANT some "protections" :P

The artists should not sign if the contracts of the Record companies requires they "soul". The musicians and the music exist since always... the companias not. ;-)

BTW i dont want to sound as an asshole, but that info was posted in the sonymusic forum some days ago... maybe its all marketing? :?
Although thinking it better, if those are the "PROTECTIONS" that they are developing, I do not believe that they have many people qualified managing the forums.

Good Bye

Foo fighters

[Anonymous Coward]

Foo had exactly the same problem with their latest album and posted details on their forum on how to get around the copy protection too.

Do not buy those CDs or stop whining

[jopet]

As long as there is a market for selling copy protected CDs, companies will do that. If people are dumb enough to let companies impose all those restrictions on them and still buy the crap, complain to the idiots who do that. This is not much different to why you do not get a decent tasting apple in any supermarket: people will buy the nice looking, crappy tasting ones and that is why the do not sell anything else.

Re:Do not buy those CDs or stop whining

[SnprBoB86]

Mod parent up, but after reading the parent post, please understand:

There is a major flaw in the "vote with your dollars" aspect of a market economy. That flaw is that there are far too many people who don't realize the importance of this concept.

In the case of CDs with DRM, customers will continue to buy them without being aware that they are casting a vote in favor of DRM. Maybe they are ignorant to the issue, computer-illiterate in general, or simply just don't case. Those who do avoid buying DRMed CDs will just contribute to the RIAA's "piracy is hurting out sales!" FUD.

In order to counter-act this, I think law should require that CD's with DRM be clearly marked. Customers should be aware of what they are buying. Currently, two CD's produced by the same company can be sitting on the shelf next to each other, same price, but one has DRM. One of these two products is intentionally crippled. One of these products is over priced. Which is it? Consumers are entitled to know.

Additionally, this marking should be standardized in such a way that DRM doesn't look like a "feature". Maybe something like "This CD contains contains software designed to inhibit copying".

Not a chance

[banana fiend]

Why would they sue the artist?

With a lot of artists coming out and making bold statements about politics etc. why would they shoot themselves in the foot and give Bono et al. a cause to bring a massively-publicised effort against their practices?

Not a chance. They'll sue the consumer and say the consumers are hurting the artists. That way the artists who want to complain come off as patronising the "little guy" when telling consumers to be more aware while making lucrative deals and earning money from consumers mistakes (never mind that they may not be given a choice, or a good deal). The record companies want tension between the artists and the consumer, NOT to be fighting a two-fronted war. If there is a lawsuit, it will be against CDEX or people using it illegally.

In general good, but..

[Eivind]

Most of what he writes makes sense and is true, but he is a little bit overeager to put the blame on someone else:

It is also unfortunate when bands such as ourselves, Foo Fighters, Coldplay, etc... (just a few of the new releases with copy protection) are the target of this criticism, when there is no possible way to avoid this new industry policy.

This is bull. The artists are the original copyrigth-holder for their work. They choose to license it for publication by some record-company, or not. They are free to set whatever demands they want for this publication. (with the risk that if their demands are too stiff, the record-company will say: "no deal")

Especially famous, well-selling artists have considerable leverage. If say Madonna (more realistically, her manager or whomever representing her) walks into a record-company and say she'd like to publish her new record with them, but one of the conditions is that it be released in standard CD-format, that the company would refuse to negotiate a contract.

Artists do have a way of influencing record-companies. It may not be easy, and it may be that not all artists have a lot of negotiation-leverage all the time. But to claim, as he does here, that they have "no possible way" to influence things, is bullshit.

Re:In general good, but..

[Dhalka226]

If say Madonna (more realistically, her manager or whomever representing her) walks into a record-company and say she'd like to publish her new record with them, but one of the conditions is that it be released in standard CD-format, that the company would refuse to negotiate a contract.

If you're already a superstar at the contract negotiation phase, sure. If you're a new artist looking for exposure and you sign a four album deal and hit it huge after album #1, you're in trouble for three more.

Re:In general good, but..

[Tom]

Especially famous, well-selling artists have considerable leverage.

Not all. Most of them are under long-term contracts. Remember Prince? He didn't even own his own stage name.

Re:In general good, but..

[Eivind]

Even if you're not a superstar, it seems pretty stupid to me to sign a contract wherein the publisher gets to, unilaterally, decide what formats and thus to wich people your music will be available.

More sensible would be a contract for a enumerated list of formats, along with an exclusive for future formats (i.e. to make say a SACD the recording-company needs the approval of the artist, but the artist cannot let a different company make the SACD)

I'm aware that many musicians sign slave-contracts, but they do so of their own free will, to claim that they cannot possibly act differently is running away from responsibility.

Re:In general good, but..

[Eivind]

Who forced him to sign that contract ?

Sure, many artists are slaves. But they generally choose to sign the slavery-contract of their own free will. They have to accept the responsibility for doing so themselves.

If you signed a contract that says sony can do whatever the hell they like with your music without asking you, then it's still your responsibility that bad stuff happens with your music.

Re:In general good, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

And the next time you're at work, tell them that you will only write code if they release it under the GPL. (Or try to influence anything you find morally objectionable that your company does)

Yes, we all have a choice. We can be brave and "do the right thing". But no matter where we are, how rich we are, how "influential" we are, we all have our pressure points.

While it may not be literally true that they didn't have a choice (you always have a choice), clearly they feel like they are over a barrel. Cut them some slack.

Wars are won incrementally. This is a good increment.

Re:In general good, but..

[omega9]

Please, we get the point already. You're 12 and aren't capable of thinking outside yourself.

Seriosly, stop posting.

Seriosly.

Re:In general good, but..

[DannyO152]

They may hold the copyright to the songs as writers, however, one cannot copyright a performance, one can only copyright the publication of a performance. The contract they signed is about exclusive recording rights for the record company and probably includes provisions to allow the company to own the masters and recoup any recording costs against future artist peformance royalties. The record company is the publisher and holds the copyrights to the recordings.

I have felt for a good many years now that a band's management is the proper one to fight whenever record company policies interfere with the long term career strategies of a band. The essential goal in the early phase of the career is to build as big a fan-base as you can. While having a hit record on a major label works, it isn't going to happen for 95% of the people signed to recording deals.

Switchfoot may never get a song in heavy rotation on radio. And now their record company is attempting to seal off a word of mouth channel, as they've made it difficult for Logan to transfer the mp3 to Jason and Gunther and Bob and make a mix CD for Bethany. Sony doesn't care. In 12 months they'll be seeing if some other band breaks through.

It's the management who has to care. So will the management fight for a client band's career, or take the 10% of the label advance and acquiesce rather than risk any future label deals for another band they manage?

Should anyone from Switchfoot read this, good luck in your efforts to cut the major label Gordian knot (with this extra loop interfering with how fans want to hear your music today).

Re:In general good, but..

[Tom]

Who forced him to sign that contract ?

Did these guys know about upcoming copy protection when they signed their contract? Was it even something that they could have known?

And, as someone who happens to know a few musicians, you are quite mistaken. If you want to make a living, you can sign the deal, go to another label which will offer you pretty much the same, or piss off.

The record companies hold the keys to the record stores. If you're not with a label you have a chance of precisely 0.01% to ever have any shelf space in any record shop anywhere, including your home town. And the 0.01% are for the musicians who happen to own a record shop.

The record companies also hold the keys to the radio stations, to MTV and in many cases to the recording studios.

So if you want a little more than playing occasionally in some underground club, you have little choice but cutting a deal with the devil.

Not a good Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

At first glance, this sounds all very nice, freedom to music and all, but I have a few objections:
** If these aretists - and others - were really so much interested in DRM-free music, why not make an appropriate deal with their label? Did these guys even try to tell their label that they wanted this CD without DRM?
** Are the artists prepared to lose sales to piracy or will they demand that their label pays them as promised?
** Before a court, this entire piece is worthless. No judge will let some filesharing kiddies go free because the band itself endorsed DRM circumvention.
** All this sounds like a cheap marketing move: "Look at us, we are really cool, freedom-loving anti-DRM guys!"

Re:Not a good Idea

[omega9]

** If these aretists - and others - were really so much interested in DRM-free music, why not make an appropriate deal with their label? Did these guys even try to tell their label that they wanted this CD without DRM?

It's my understanding that Switchfoot originally signed with a smaller label that was later bought by Sony. For a band to sign a contract specificaly stating they do't want DRM no matter who may eventually own their contract would be extremely forward thinking and suprising.

** Are the artists prepared to lose sales to piracy or will they demand that their label pays them as promised?

If the label has promised to pay them then there shouldn't be a demand to follow through, unless they can be declared in violation of their contract by their recent actions. Plus, even if they succomb to a little privacy it might mean they lose a few immediate sales but gain a wider audience, meaning possible larger crowds for concerts.

** Before a court, this entire piece is worthless. No judge will let some filesharing kiddies go free because the band itself endorsed DRM circumvention.

I can see that happening, but it could take a lot. Switchfoot is more of an employee of Sony, and it may be determined thay don't have any authority on how to handle their CDs, i.e. speaking on behalf of their employer. On paper, Sony would be ultimately responsible, but I could see a court understanding that direct instruction from the band gives the appearance of legality.

** All this sounds like a cheap marketing move: "Look at us, we are really cool, freedom-loving anti-DRM guys!"

If it is a marketing move I doubt it's cheap. Details are details but in the end Sony is no fan of p2p or copying in any form. It's tough to imagine they would go through the expense to copy protect discs and then have the bands leak info on how to get around it just to be "cool". It could be a ploy by the band I guess, but they've just opened the door to getting around not only their own album, but evey other Sony album protected in the same way, and Sony can't be happy about that.

And for the record, though I do appreciate Switchfoot's recent actions, I'm no fan of their music.

not sure i follow

[tklive]

so what happens if i have installed the sony program on my PC ? does it stay in the memory and prevent me from ripping ? Why cant i just kill the process and follow the shift/ cdex route ? seems a lot less hassle compared to burning a cd and then ripping it. and this just seems like a no cost publicity stunt.....since the record guys are seen as the bad guys anyway, why not boost the bands popularity using it ?

If they really cared...

[Jekler]

If artists really cared about fans, freedom, etc. they wouldn't ink deals with the devil in the first place. Signing on with a big label isn't the only way to succeed in this world. I don't think they posted instructions like this against the label's wishes. Anything that happens within a label is the result of a marketing pow-wow. Some guy in a suit told them to post the instructions to further their rebel image and make them seem even more cool so they'll sell more albums.

Wealth, fame, and integrity; pick two.

Albums I would buy if they weren't "protected"

[SageLikeFool]

The following is a list of CD's that I haven't bought in the last few years because (at least here in Canada) they are copy protected CD's.

Chemical Brothers: The Singles Double CD
Chemical Brothers: Push the Button
Fatboy Slim: Palookaville
K-OS: Joyfull Rebellion
Massive Attack: 100th Window
Massive Attack: Danny the Dog Soundtrack
A Perfect Circle: Emotive
A Perfect Circle: Thirteen Steps
Radiohead: Hail to the Theif
Royksopp: The Understanding

That is just off the top of my head. There may be more. I know I could probably circumvent the protection with a sharpie, but I prefer to not pay for something that is essentially a broken CD.

The irony of it is at 15-20 $CDN a disc, the record companies have not only helped me choose to not give them a few hundred bucks but also managed to give me more reason to "pirate" that music all with one idiotic move.

So what is it they are really trying to protect here? My wallet?

Re:Albums I would buy if they weren't "protected"

[TheRaven64]

Have you notified the record label(s) of this? Have you bought the CDs, and then taken them back to the shop the next day as not suitable for the purpose for which sold (or whatever the correct legal phrase in Canada is)? Have you done this with every shop that sells them in your area? Have you persuaded your friends to do the same?

Re:Albums I would buy if they weren't "protected"

[nkh]

Don't forget the new albums from Prodigy, Norah Jones and Gorillaz in some countries. I've been scammed once, I won't fail for it once more...

Re:Albums I would buy if they weren't "protected"

[djmurdoch]

Have you bought the CDs, and then taken them back to the shop the next day as not suitable for the purpose for which sold (or whatever the correct legal phrase in Canada is)?

Canada has weak consumer protection laws in this area. Most music stores post a sign saying they won't give refunds, only replacements, and that is sufficient to allow them to refuse a refund.

On the other hand, Canada has strong consumer protection laws in respect to copyright. Canadians are legally allowed to make copies of music CDs for private use.

So the GP is right when he wonders what's in the mind of record companies that make it less attractive to buy and more attractive to copy. Buying is risky, copying is not.

Re:Albums I would buy if they weren't "protected"

[(startx)]

Wow, I'd bought a few of those (Chemical Brothers, A Perfect Circle) and didn't even realize they were copy projected. Of course I don't think I've ever played a cd in Windows before. The first thing I used to do was rip my cds with Grip in Slackware and then dump them on my file server so I can listen to them whereever. Now I pop them in my powerbook, hit import in iTunes, and then plug in my iPod and let it transfer them over. Completely seemless and hassle free. Hurray for using OSes that the RIAA doesn't care about!

Re:Albums I would buy if they weren't "protected"

[glsunder]

I own both of the APC cds listed and have ripped them both without any alteration or problems.

My 20 month old son LOVES to play with CDs -- especially putting them in the CD player, taking them out, over and over again. My best option is to rip the CD when I buy it and put it away where he can't get it. I can guarentee you, if 13th step didn't rip, I wouldn't have bought emotive.

Re:Albums I would buy if they weren't "protected"

[MConlon]

I did that when I passed up buying an album because of the copy protection. EMI's customer service apologized for the problem with the CD and told me how to return it for a non-defective copy. Note that I hadn't bought the CD (my entire letter was a "this is why I won't buy any of your music" complaint), and I assume the "non-defective copy" would include the same copy protection I was complaining about.

It read like a form letter, so I'm not convinced anybody actually cared what I had to say.

MJC

Re:Albums I would buy if they weren't "protected"

[Stonehead]

Oh, the list is *very* long. I boycot copy controlled CD's since 2003 or so. Some of my friends do so, too. It's mostly EMI who is the bad guy, here in The Netherlands. Sony/BMG dropped copy control here last year, but apparently they want to lose money again.

To give an idea, on the top of my head:

Athlete - Vehicles and Animals
Audio Bullys - Ego War
Ben Kweller - On My Way
Chemical Brothers - Singles 93-03
Chemical Brothers - Push the Button
The Divine Comedy - Absent Friends
Doves - Lost Sides
Doves - Some Cities
Ed Harcourt - From Every Sphere
Ed Harcourt - Strangers
Fischerspooner - Odyssey
Gisli - How About That?
Goldfrapp - Supernature
Gorillaz - Feel Good Inc (single)
Idlewild - Warnings / Promises
Kraftwerk - Minimum-Maximum
LCD Soundsystem - LCD Soundsystem
Mando Diao - Bring 'em in
Mando Diao - Hurricane Bar
Phoenix - Live! Thirty Days Ago
Placebo - Once More With Feeling
Royksopp - Sparks (single)
Royksopp - The Understanding
Sarah McLachlan - Afterglow
Supergrass - Road To Rouen
The Ark - In Lust We Trust
The Magic Numbers - The Magic Numbers
Thrills - So Much For The City
Thrills - Let's Bottle Bohemia
Zero 7 - When it falls
Zoot Woman - Grey Day

Those are the ones I *know*. In a record store, I don't even look further when I see the copy control logo, and I curse the record company.

I even contacted a representative of EMI once, offering him real money for ANY kind of way in which he could have me play The Doves' newest record on my Sun Ultra 5. It has a cd-player which refuses copy controlled CD's, and of course it doesn't play WMA either. His final mail told me that EMI would "improve" the copy control in the future, but not lose it. I was deeply disappointed.

However, it seems that EMI doesn't add copy control to CD's with extra content (for example a video clip). They are real CD's. Some festival samplers aren't protected either. In those ways, I've been able to pay for at least some normal EMI content. I let my money vote.

I am sure there is still a market for CD's which were previously released under copy control. But I wonder who will re-release all those music that I wanted to have in these last years.

artists helping pirates!?

[wdwillis]

ok, lets be simple here. this artist has not helped a single pirate. pirates already know how to circumvent such copyright procedures. what he has done however, is left himself open to a major lawsuit, which will indeed set precedents for the future. he has indeed broken the law by advocating people to circumvent the copyright protection on SOMEONE ELSES intelectual property. the fact that this intelectual property is not his property, but that of sony has been brought up, and is absolutely correct. by signing the contracts, ad agreeing to them, and taking the money for the advance on the album, he signed away his rights other than any editorial provisions he made in said contract. the fact is, he doesn't have the legal right to tell people how to do this, or to suggest they do. i doubt sony will publicly sue him, but i do not forsee a happy jovial relationship with his label in the near future. not that sony has a great histlory of making artists happy... just ask michael jackson, or prince... but it stands that he has done it, and now it is time to watch the fireworks.

Re:artists helping pirates!?

[MerlinTheWizard]

You're right, and thanks for pointing that out. How dumb is it really to sign a contract with Sony, then get the money and later break the contract: that's exactly what this artist has done. If this artist didn't want to have anything to do with Sony, they should simply have gone with some other label. But nooo: Sony's contracts are probably more juicy, no matter what some of you say. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I just want to say that I think for most "minor" artists that don't sell a lot of records, they get the most money from the initial fixed sum allocated by the contract (advance money, as the parent said) - any extra money made on sales may never reach the artist if they don't sell enough, because the editor will cover its costs before giving a percentage to the artist; that's usually the deal. So for a "minor" artist, it's like they don't really care what happens once they have signed the contract: it won't make a difference, financially speaking; so they might as well do something to gain some popularity (like helping the public to circumvent copy protection): even if that means lost sales, it's pretty much the same. Unless, of course, they want to maintain a good relationship with the editor...

If artists really want to bypass all the DRM crap, then they'll need not to sign with the companies promoting it. But "spitting in your own soup" isn't going to help matters, methinks.

Re:artists helping pirates!?

[wdwillis]

sincerely, artists don't make much off of albu sales once they reach the level of being on a sony contract. the real money they make is through the summer tour, and merchandising. and your right, if they wanted to allow their fans to do this, they should have made it a point to specify as such in their contract.

You mean...

[emkman]

"This fellow seems quite intelligent and able to express himself in writing. I wonder if he wrote that or if his publicist did it for him.I've had this idea that rockers are spaced-out potheads."

You mean you had the idea that people who played music and smoked pot can't write.

Intelligent responsible cannabis users are the silent majority. You just hear about stereotype potheads. Ever heard of Carl Sagan or billionaire George Soros?

And you'd be shocked at the large overlap of the computer nerd and pothead demographics if you didn't see it firsthand.

Glad to see that you've opened your mind atleast a little though.

Re:You mean...

[LittleBigLui]

Intelligent responsible cannabis users are the silent majority. [...] George Soros [...]

George Soros uses MJ? I know he's pro-reasonable-laws, but haven't heard yet that he's a consumer. -v, please?

Re:You mean...

[emkman]

I believe that he is, tho I'm admittedly lacking a site a the moment. I do know that Peter Lewis, CEO of Progressive, and Soros' major partner in drug law reform, was arrested for posession in New Zealand. He was never charged because he donated a large amount of money, but thats just standard politics. And whoever modded my original post as flamebait? You are the people whose minds I am working to change.

Re:You mean...

[dave1212]

To the mods on crack, you now have a chance to make things right, if even in a small way. This comment is now at 50/50, interesting and flamebait. Do the right thing and fix it so it gets read by those that need to read it.

Re:Switchfoot's own fault

[@madeus]

Newsflash: directors of publically held companies are legally obliged to put profit before everything else.

The consequences of this fact and your above stated opinion are that the only faultless way of making money in a band is to self-publish

That conclusion is incorrect because it presumes that implementing obtrusive 'DRM' (and alienating your user base in the process) is a good way to maximise profit. What evidence is available, not the least of which is the dominance of the iTMS and the iPod and the relative obscurity of competing stores and DRM enabled media players, as well as the overwhelming balance of consumer feedback, would seem to suggest otherwise.

It is fair to say that Switchfoot bear responsibility if they knew Sony were engaging in this sort of behaviour before they signed (in that they 'did a deal with the devil' and can be expected to bear the consequences of their financial decisions).

Of course it's entirely possible Switchfoot signed with Sony years ago before this practice became practice became commonplace, but - and it's possible I may be misjudging them, but frankly I doubt it - I rather suspect they would have found the pull of fame and fortune hard to resist and that they would have signed with Sony even if they had been fully aware their music was going to be distributed in this fashion.

It's a

[complex17]

stupid idea anyway. The people buying the CDs are the people doing the RIGHT THING; I would say that only a small minority of those who buy/rip a CD will then bother to upload the songs to others via P2P. More importantly, these 'pirates' are going to get the songs off the CD somehow, regardless of copy protection: all copy protection is doing is putting a mild speed-bump in the way of small-time 'pirates' and pissing off the vast majority of people who are doing the right thing.

Re:It's a

[Anonymous Coward]

The record companies are going to continue to blame "piracy" for sagging record sales, but the fact is that when record sales start to sag, they do so because most bands suck, and people are getting tired of the copy protection on CDs.

Incidentally, it's very easy to bypass audio copy protection on any platform, no matter what. Essentially, just direct the audio output from your CD player (internal CDROM or external player) into the audio inputs of the PC, and record it to a wav file with something like CoolEdit. Yes, it's a digital->analog->digital conversion, but if you have a decent soundcard and run the sample rate the same as the CD (44.1kHz), the sound quality will be indistinguishable from the original CD. Converting the resulting .wav files to AAC or MP3 does more to degrade the sound quality than this step ever will.

Since you're working with an analog audio stream instead of trying to copy data directly, no amount of DRM crap the record and OS companies put in your way will stop you. Ever. The only way they could stop you from doing this is to force computer manufacturers to build machines w/o sound cards.

Re:It's a

[melvin22]

You're missing the point. The people who are legimitately buying the CD are not able to rip it to put the songs on their personal mp3 players. What's the solution? Buy the songs from an online store and burn them? But what if they want the original CD with cover art and such? Should they buy an electronic copy, and a CD? I say circumventing the copy protection on these CDs is defnitely justifiable.

For "Bobs" sake just turn auto run off.

[TractorBarry]

Good grief are people STILL allowing autorun on Windows boxes ? Have they learnt nothing from the last ten years ?

Every single time that anything is allowed to automatically run on Windows (opening email attachments, Word document macros) it's been a source of viruses and other crap. It's a fatally flawed idea.

So just turn the bloody thing off (Google to find how for your version of Windows) If the CD contains drivers, etc. etc. then the worst you'll have to do is open the disc in Explorer and double click on something yourself. No big deal.

Then again you could just hold down the shift key when you insert a CD.

Bah.

Re:For "Bobs" sake just turn auto run off.

[entrigant]

then the worst you'll have to do is open the disc in Explorer and double click on something yourself

Speaking of which, even with autorun off if you double click on your cd drive in My Computer with an autorun enabled cd in the drive it'll "run" the cd instead of "explore" it. If the cd installs a driver w/o so much as a prompt you could just as easily get screwed by this lame behavior as you could by having autorun off. Do you know how to turn this "feature" off?

Re:For "Bobs" sake just turn auto run off.

[cortana]

fdisk

Re:For "Bobs" sake just turn auto run off.

[Sloppy]

Speaking of which, even with autorun off if you double click on your cd drive in My Computer with an autorun enabled cd in the drive it'll "run" the cd instead of "explore" it.

Then whatever desktop software you're running, has a major security defect. Email whoever wrote it, telling them about the problem, and surely they'll issue a fix within a few days. If they don't, then stop using it.

The only thing more pathetic than MS Windows itself, are MS Windows users who don't take responsibility for choosing to continue running known dangerous malware, year after year. The dishonest irresponsible whiney bitches actually have the nerve to blame someone else for their problems.

Re:For "Bobs" sake just turn auto run off.

[xerxesdaphat]

Nonsense. I'm talking about WinXP here (as you presumably are), and yes, it's true that merely right-clicking the drive and changing the auto-play settings from there won't fix it entirely - but there is a simple fix. Simply download Microsoft's "Powertoys for WinXP" (sort of an unofficial, unsupported collection of utilities made by Microsoft engineers). Within Powertoys there's a nifty little programme called TweakUI (there have been stand-alone versions of this released in the past for other versions of Windows). TweakUI will let you turn off autoplay completely on whatever drives you choose simply by unchecking a checkbox. I do it eveyrtime I reinstall Windows.

Re:For "Bobs" sake just turn auto run off.

[Anonymous Coward]

AKA - To lazy to sign in.

Whoever gave you the Insightful tag was obviously not thinking very clearly. You're basically saying that leaving the Autorun feature enabled for CD's is going to infect your system with malware. Except for this whole copy protection thing (which I believe does have an initial EULA it just doesn't follow itself) I've never had ANY MALWARE INSTALL ON MY OR ANYONE ELSE'S SYSTEM BY STICKING A CD IN MY AUTORUN ENABLED DRIVE. To say that people are stupid for leaving autorun enabled is stupidity in it's most prestine form.

The Band IS NOT blameless.

[eddy]

>The band had no voice in the matter.

Of course they did! Or they would if they hadn't signed away the rights to dictate how their music is delivered/distributed.

I'm so fucking sick of bands whining about "sorry, but the big bad label WE, BEING OF SOUND MIND, SIGNED WITH did it!"

Either make sure you control the distribution, or stop fucking whining about it not being your fault. If it happens it's because the band LET IT HAPPEN. Fuck.

How many more years are bands going to be able to claim ignorance? 'Wooahhh.. the label put on copy-prevention measures? Who knew?! Hehe.. and we 'forgot' to sign their right to do that away in our contract with them.. oops.. 'forgot', nudge-nudge-know-what-I-mean?'

Sorry, if they signed in the last five years, then they're just as guilty as the label. That's how long these schemes have been around, how long it's been COMMON KNOWLEDGE.

Re:The Band IS NOT blameless.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently they signed to a smaller label who Sony then bought.

In A.D. 2005

[mikiN]

...
Sony: How are you gentlemen !!
Sony: All your bass are belong to us.
Sony: You are on the way to litigation.
Tim: What you say !!
Sony: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Sony: HA HA HA HA ....
Tim: Copy every song !!
Tim: You know what you doing.
Tim: Use song.
Tim: For fair use.

Re:In A.D. 2005

[omega9]

Sony: STFU

Publicity?

[gallondr00nk]

Has anyone considered that this announcment could be made with the full cooperation of Sony? The label wins by having "underground" artists who supposedly don't buy into the corporate ethos - angst and pseudo anti-corporatism generates a lot of sales. Anyone worth their salt would find a way to circumvent copy protection this easy anyway, so the label doesn't really lose out.

  The artist gains from having that warm fuzzy feeling of "speaking out", and generating sales of course. They also have a shared voice with their fans, without lifting a finger.

I'm not saying they don't care, i'm just saying this could easily be a publicity stunt. It's on /., so it has worked to some extent.

Re:Publicity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Publicity? Maybe, but I doubt it.

For one thing, switchfoot is not an "underground" artist. Sure, they're not metallica or some band that every household in the world knows the name of, but they're far from being an unheard-of indie group.

They were all over the place last year. If I remember correctly, they played during the super bowl (halftime or opening, I dont remember.) Additionally, during that time period I know I'd seen their videos on MTV and VH1 quite a few times.

Just because *you* haven't heard of something doesn't mean it's completely unheard of.

So again, was it for publicity? I doubt it, because most of the people who are going to be switchfoot fans, probably already are.

And I don't even like switchfoot!

Re:Publicity?

[Dirk the Daring]

Simple test-- wait for the lawsuit.

Ha! Like Sony matters.

[SpaghettiPattern]

I'm not going to buy your album.
And deprive yourself from the music you like. Come on, you won't even fool my demented mother in law with this.

Apparently, artists have no say in whether the CDs shipped are crippled or not. That's the worrying bit here.

Oh yeah, I wouldn't be surprised of the band got sued by Sony.

Brave step by these guys though to just stand up.

Re:Ha! Like Sony matters.

[BenjyD]

Admittedly, this DRM is so easily circumvented I wonder why Sony bothers with it. But if a CD has more effective protection (I believe there are many with added errors that won't play on a computer) then I effectively can't listen to it anyway. I don't have a CD player near me most of the time and I don't want to have to lug a discman around. If I want to listen to music on my stereo, I plug my iPod into the inputs where the tape player used to go.

Why would anyone buy music that they can't listen to? Walking around town these days, I hardly see any portable CD players - everyone has some kind of mp3 player. Copy protection effectively eliminates these people from the record company's market

Legality of installing malevolent software?

[sapone]

Isn't it at the brink of illegality to install a DRIVER on a consumer's computer which the consumer doesn't want there and that only has negative effects for him? If there is not at least a dialog that warns about what is about to happen, I think the makers of such "trojan cds" are in trouble...

Re:Legality of installing malevolent software?

[phuturephunk]

Probably not, if only for the fact that I would bet that there's some little disclaimer, somewhere inside the CD documentation or on the case liner saying that it's going to install the software and that by using the CD on a windows platform you, by default, agree to that action.

Good on switchfoot, but...

[Trogre]

... I sincerely hope they don't think the only portable music player out there is white with an Apple logo on it?

Surely?

Re:Good on switchfoot, but...

[BenjyD]

No, it comes in black too now.

Re:Good on switchfoot, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good on Switchfoot, but ... I sincerely hope they don't think the only portable music player out there is white with an Apple logo on it?

Why not? Most of the mainstream media seem convinced that Apple single-handedly invented the portable music player market.. guess my Rio MP3, my Creative MuVO, and my Creative NoMad player must all be figments of my imagination?

I'm sick of reading puff-pieces for the ipod on "responsible" media sites - the BBC for one should know better..

Heads up *AA meatheads

[Anonymous Coward]

My fucking standalone AD (analogue to digital) converters weigh a ton. If I can hear the audio NOTHING that you can do will stop me converting it to mp3. NOTHING.

So don't worry kids, When I can;t rip my CDs directly in my PC I'll be using my AD converters to bring mp3s to the masses over p2p.

*AA, Fuck you.

Re:Looks like a Great Test Case for the DMCA

[hodma727]

The funniest thing would be in a court case having the defending lawyer pop up and ask Sony, "so... you've been selling MP3 players, walkmans, and other devices, encouraging users to buy them and rip songs onto them, but now you're saying it is wrong if one of your clients repeats your message?" :)

Stupid Copy Protection

[vhogemann]

So,

As I could understand from the article, this whole new copy protection thing involves running some program automaticaly when the CD is inserted, and it's Windows only.

That's just pathetic!

Do they really think that it will prevent piracy? I guess not.

It won't even force people to buy an extra digital copy from their online store... Yes, I guess that Sony's original intent.

But I think that all those schemes from the big labes are a good thing! Here at Brasil the local, small labels are selling like they never did before. And our big artist are going indie too, because the prices praticed by the big labels are too expensive for our average consumer.

my 2 cents

[Anonymous Coward]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=581&e=3& u=/nm/20050616/tc_nm/media
(EDIT:yahoo link dead but if you google the context of the link you will see it was heavily blogged about)
This is a story where if you had a mp3 player and were unable to load your copy protected cd on it you could call sony and they would tell you how to bypass the protection so this isn't a first for sony as a label, Second I think bands would like to forgo the dollar or 2 it per disc it takes to license a copy protection scheme and either make a bigger royalty cut or make the album cheaper for the fans. I give these guys credit for being upfront about it i just think the only way to combat this is to NOT buy drmed music however the success of itunes and napster are proving customers will put up with this crap so labels see no reason to not roll drm out into the physical media. I can see radio advances and what not being drmed or watermarked but if i buy a music cd it better be compliant and play in all my hardware (pc, car, portable).

Why don't they tell Sony to sod off?

[Morgaine]

It's nice to see bands standing up for their public against the wishes of their labels.

Yeah, while still taking Sony's money and saying that it is "impossible" to change the system, and therefore supporting its continuation.

Let's be honest here. They don't WANT to change the system, because they like Sony's cash too much.

If they were genuine about being pro-fan, there is a hell of a lot that they could do about the situation.

For a start they could tell Sony to sod off with the copy protection, or they'll go with another publisher. If Sony threatens them with litigation on the basis of the contract signed, then get together with other artists in the same situation and run a class action on the basis of such contracts being in restraint of trade.

Sony (and other labels) are just distributors and promotors in this day and age when you can have a billion-track studio at home for peanuts, and hire in your mastering experts for a session. Yet, the labels want to own it all, for eternity. Bollocks.

It's time that bands did something about it, or be branded money-grabbing hypocrits. The power to bring down the system is in their hands. Currently the majority just have no interest in using that power and getting rid of the old machine.

Re:Why don't they tell Sony to sod off?

[AndersOSU]

The problem though isn't with the production side of things, it's with the distribution and promotion side. As long as radio stations (clear channel and MTV) only play major label artists if you want to be able to make a living as a musician you have to sign up with a label.

Re:Why don't they tell Sony to sod off?

[F_Scentura]

"If they were genuine about being pro-fan, there is a hell of a lot that they could do about the situation."

They're also pro-feeding and clothing themselves. There's not a "hell of a lot" that they can do in the notoriously fickle recording industry.

Re:Why don't they tell Sony to sod off?

[marcosdumay]

Sonny is not only a distributor. Sonny is also the owner of all the intelectual property the bands crete. So, if a band ditches the label, they can't sing their old musics anymore. This makes this step pretty hard...

If this was easy to solve, it would aready be solved.

Re:Why don't they tell Sony to sod off?

[ConceptJunkie]

It's time that bands did something about it, or be branded money-grabbing hypocrits. The power to bring down the system is in their hands. Currently the majority just have no interest in using that power and getting rid of the old machine.

That's all well and good. Would you risk your livelihood to stand up for a cause against a company to which you will almost certainly lose?

Most people can't afford to put their lives on hold and lose years' worth (if not more) of income to take a moral stand.

That might be sad, that might be selling out, but that's life. Most people can't afford to fight a crusade, and no sane person wants to be a martyr for a cause he probably can't win.

Re:Why don't they tell Sony to sod off?

[King_TJ]

Ok, saying it's "impossible" to change the situation isn't quite accurate - but it's quite likely Switchfoot is content to point out the futility of such copy protection schemes (on a Sony sponsored message forum, no less!), rather than risk everything they've worked for to date (all the existing recorded material that Sony would *still* have the rights to and so forth).

While it's true you can have quite a multi-track recording and mixing powerhouse in your own basement for a very reasonable price today, that still doesn't do squat for you in the way of helping you *market* yourself to the public. When you're just getting started, you need people with connections to get the radio airplay, the ability to have your material put on store shelves in prominent locations, the deals with game companies to use your tracks as background music, and/or movie deals. That's usually why people sign these "deals with the devil" with major labels. Once they're off to a good start and have the name recognition, they're trapped in a really bad contract arrangement - but setting up one's own personal web pages and putting songs on a few music-sharing sites doesn't usually give you that initial boost into "popularity" that you need either.

Re:Why don't they tell Sony to sod off?

[Anonymous Coward]

So not only is Sonny Bono still alive and well, he's also buying up rights to all music from Crete? The mind reels.

Re:Why don't they tell Sony to sod off?

[KrackHouse]

I went to high school with those guys, they're really not greedy people. Sony is giving them a bad name though with the copy protection and the payola thing involving switchfoot.

In fact, the fact that they are nice and trusting is probably what allowed Sony to sneak this under their radar.

Re:Why don't they tell Sony to sod off?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sonny is also the owner of all the intelectual property the bands crete.

Well that's precisely the source of the problem, isn't it.

Re:Why don't they tell Sony to sod off?

[n0tWorthy]

So it's OK for the band to tell it's audience to violate the DMCA and bypass Sony's protection? I don't think so!

Re:Why don't they tell Sony to sod off?

[Deraj DeZine]

Yeah, they're not like those malnourished, naked independent artists.

These guys are clearly tools of the industry and no amount of message board posting will prove otherwise. Maybe if they were bold and ACTUALLY DID SOMETHING I would admire them.

Re:Why don't they tell Sony to sod off?

[celimage]

Yes you can do wonderful things with a home studio. However people are still programmed to think if they hear it on the radio it is good. The labels have a lock on commercial radio and except for college and some internet stations independents dont get play. There is a ton of free music on the web that is just as good if not better than the label's but people still bypass it and try to acquire the label's music because they hear it on MTV and the radio etc. If you want to loosen the label's stronghold buy some indie downloads or CDs. Most indies dont have the resources for protection schemes.

Re:Why don't they tell Sony to sod off?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's my understanding that this is a NEW policy for all new Sony CDs. They're under contract, so they can't go with another publisher. And other bands in the same position probably aren't as pro-fan as Switchfoot is.

Re:Why don't they tell Sony to sod off?

[F_Scentura]

"Yeah, they're not like those malnourished, naked independent artists."

While Ani DiFranco and a handful of others can do well as indies, they certainly can't do it alone and without a struggle. It's not for everybody, and it's a much smaller market share.

That considered, they are not "tools of the industry", as much as contractors for the industry. Copy protection is annoying, but does NOT prevent their fans from listening to the CD, and only provides a slightly greater annoyance to those who wish to copy or upload their music to another device.

You don't *have* to admire them, but actively disliking them is certainly a wasted effort here.

You've hit the nail on the head.

[raehl]

I've stopped believing that the goal of copy protection is to stop piracy. That's not it. Pirates arn't going to pay for the music anyway, copy protection just ups the hassle factor a bit. Most people don't make illegal copies from CDs anyway - they make them from already existing files on the internet somewhere.

The goal of copy protection is to make people who ARE willing to pay for music pay more than once. Use to be able to buy a song once and then copy it to the various formats you use? No more - the music industry wants to change your purchase of the song to a purchase of the media - pay for the CD, pay for the tape, pay for the MP3.

What the record companies havn't figured out is artists usually don't make their money from the media - they make their money from touring. So the more expensive it gets for consumers to buy music, the more incentive consumers will have to give their patronage, and concert sale dollars, to articsts who give the music away.

Truth in advertising

[LividBlivet]

I know, it's an oxymoron but if Sony wants to sell these socalled 'CD's' then they should be REQUIRED to label them as software. Any disc that installs drivers is NOT a music CD, it is a software CD.
Just boycott Sony, they haven't made anything but crap since 1979 anyway.

Can Sony be sued for hacking into your computer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like most anonymous cowards, I'm speaking from ignorance. If a hacker wrote a program that installs itself without knowledge and consent that did the same thing as Sony's copy protection, the hacker would be put in jail and the key would be thrown away.

Jesus... isn't that ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

A christian rock bank telling people how to avoid paying caeser what is due caeser?

I wonder how many cheeks they turn?

Re:Switchfoot's own fault

[Anonymous Coward]

That conclusion is incorrect because it presumes that implementing obtrusive 'DRM' (and alienating your user base in the process) is a good way to maximise profit.

Read it again. He was laying the blame at the band's feet because they went with a company that went for profits first, not because they went with a company willing to implement DRM. That logic is independent of whether or not DRM is profitable.

Re:How will burning back affect quality?

[psymastr]

It's gonna be such that you'll (unless you have bionic ears or some kind of hi-fi setup costing ten grand) not understand any difference from simply playing back the CD.

I really can't understand why this audiophile crap has infected almost everyone. Just try it yourself people. Try it with *your* ears. I'm pretty sure you won't hear any difference.

Re:Switchfoot's own fault

[sleeper0]

That would be a great rant if it wasn't for the fact that the technology you are ranting against (wma drm) is nearly identical in form and function to the technology you are using as an example of what is great (aac drm via itms).

So basically you don't really have a problem with DRM as long as it's well marketed and works with a trendy player. As opposed to less marketed and works with less trendy players.

OK, gotcha.

To all bashing switchfoot for being on Sony:

[no reason to be here]

They are a quasi-Christian band, and I believe that they were signed to a Christian music label which was acquired by Sony, so chances are that they did not actually have much leverage at all into what they could or could not demand from Sony.

Another way to circumvent the copy protection...

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually picked up this CD last week and it's a bit cagey to break. I ended up making a copy of the disc in Nero for Linux. As soon as the copy is made, bam, the copy protection is gone and you can rip it to your itunes library.

Re:Another way to circumvent the copy protection..

[Aslan72]

What's especially evil in this version of the copy protection is that the disc doesn't allow any programs that could burn it to run while the disc is in the drive. If you don't close the programs (like itunes/nero/etc.) the disc ejects and won't insert into your computer unless their closed.

--pete

Re:How will burning back affect quality?

[NetFusion]

Yeah if you want audiophile quality music, buy the cd.

Oh wait..

SONY Gives the same info for XCP

[wordisms]

My girlfriend recently purchased a Sony BMG CD with XCP protection on it.
http://cp.sonybmg.com/xcp/english/faq.html/

If you click through, you can fill out a form to receive an email giving basically the same instructions as A. and C.

XCP CDs do not carry the "CD" logo as they are definitely not the standard.

XCP is a very nasty little thing, and I seriously suggest everyone to check thier CDs before they purchase them, and boycott XCP albums.

The thing is....

[CastrTroy]

The thing is, I've bought a couple CD's with copy protection. Effectiveness of this copy protection is essentially NIL. If you either have CD Autorun disabled, or are using Linux, then you don't even know it's there. Disabling CD autorun is good anyway, why would it want my computer to automatically execute any CD I place in the drive? Basically, all you really need is for 1 person to figure out how to copy the music off the CD, and put it on some P2P network. Then, let the internet do the rest. I wonder if the people paying to put this crap on the CDs are actually aware of how bad it is a stopping piracy, and how good it is at pissing off normal everyday users who just want to copy the music to their mp3 player.

Re:The thing is....

[swordgeek]

" The thing is, I've bought a couple CD's with copy protection."

No you haven't.

If the thing isn't redbook complaint, it's not a CD. It's a small, round, shiny disk with copy protection and no official name that HAPPENS to behave similarly to a CD under most circumstances.

It is not a CD. It is not a Compact Disc. It is not CD-DA format. Switchfoot has NEVER RELEASED a CD of this album!

Re:The thing is....

[CastrTroy]

It's not a CD-DA, as defined by the standard, but it is still compact, and still a disc, so it's still a compact disc. And therefore a CD. Actually, the discs with copy protection are just Blue Book format CDs, also known as Enhanced music CD. It's actually one of the specified standards, and should play on most modern CD players that follow the standards.

Many bands have put out CDs with extra content on the CDs such as videos, and pictures. Copy protected CDs are the same thing, except that the data section is something that Windows usually executes directly, and stops you from copying the CD. That's why it's so easily bypassed, by just having windows not automatically run CDs, either by holding shift, or by turning this feature off completely.

How an instruction for Linux

[layer3switch]

#sarcasm starts
Hey, little boys and girls running GNU/Linux want some instruction on how to rip that teen pop hippiedee dooda songs, too!
#sarcasm ends

When "they" start making worthy music important enough to copyprotect, I'll start buying CD again. Until then, copyprotecting CD on deedly doodap poop teenie weewee music is like putting $20 gift wrap on 2 bit picture frame.

But then again, listening to 80's metal bands over and over again is kinda getting old...

---------
mod me funny, mock me once
mod me insightful, mock me twice
mod me informative, you like metal, too?

Wonder how long.....

[cbiltcliffe]

Wonder how long it will be till the RIAA starts suing their artists under the DMCA for "providing tools to break copyright protection". They already sue their customers, so why not?

Guess that'll shoot to hell their insistence that "it's all for the artists!", though, huh?

Re:Wonder how long.....

[Anonymous Coward]

True ... I wonder if a person sued by the RIAA for breaking copy protection could cite this as some sort of "you didn't complain when they did it, so why are you complaining now?" precedent.

SDMI was the killer for me

[Anonymous Coward]

After an MP3 a few years back wouldn't play my MP3s ripped from MY purchased music collection, I think courtesy of the SDMI 'feature'.

I don't buy Sony, I have zero Sony equipment in my house now. Its a devalued brand when it starts to work against my interests.

The band is actually good

[LazyPhoenix]

For those who've been asking, Switchfoot is actually quite talented. I haven't heard this new disc yet, but the last one, Beautiful Letdown, has got some great tunes and hooks on it. And, for what it's worth, I'm not even a christian and I dig 'em, even though they are labeled a christian band.

Don't Buy It

[Michael_Burton]

Okay, you can override copy protection today. Sometimes it's easy. Sometimes it's a pain. In the U.S., there are laws forbidding you to do it. But it can be done.

But every time you buy a protected CD, you're telling the recording companies that you don't mind. It's okay. They can interfere with your rights in the products you've paid for, and you don't object.

Naturally, encouraged by your acquiescence, the labels will work to develop new copy protection methods that are harder to override. You'll either spend more and more time finding ways to crack that protection, or you'll find yourself living in a smaller and smaller box of things you're permitted to do with the products you've paid for.

Well, to hell with that.

The solution is to boycott protected CDs. It's tough to do when you love the music, I know. It's a shame to deprive artists, who aren't in a much better bargaining position than individual consumers, of reward for their work. But it's the only way to maintain our rights.

Don't buy it. Period.

Re:Don't Buy It

[MikeBabcock]

... and if you want the songs, buy them with the iTMS. Copy protected CDs are not allowed, IMHO.

Re:Don't Buy It

[What me a Coward]

Trouble with that is

    When you're Sony you don't take a hint very easily that people don't want this type of thing. Sony memory stick comes to mind as does minidisc just to name a couple of times Sony fought tooth and nail to get people to use their format even though most didn't want em at all. ANd let's not forget how long it took them to admit not supporting mp3's was a mistake that cost them millions if not billions.

    So judging from Sony's past record it will take 5 to 10 years for them to finnaly get the message that DRM'ed music just won't sell. Mean time people are getting frustrated passing by music disc's for their PSP's because of DRM from a company that pigheadedly pushes a format or DRM that nobody wants years after the rest of the industry finally takes the hint.

Re:Don't Buy It

[Anonymous Coward]

...and you think songs sold through ITMS aren't infested with DRM? Ever heard of fairplay?

moron....

xbox seems to be very good for ripping protected..

[rednuhter]

It seems strange but the XBOX is very good at ripping DRMd audio CDs.

DRMware Removal

[Junior Samples]

The article didn't discuss removal of Sony's DRM software once it gets installed on your computer? How difficult is it to remove this DRMware?

Is it as simple as using Control Panel/Add-Remove Programs or do I need a malicious software removal tool such as Ad-Aware or Spybot Search and Destroy. It's not really Adware or Spyware, but it's just as bad. Hopefully these popular removal tools will pick up DRMware as well.

Define user base...

[Tominva1045]

That conclusion is incorrect because it presumes that implementing obtrusive 'DRM' (and alienating your user base in the process) is a good way to maximise profit.

This so-called user base would never contribute to profit. They are upset because it is not free.

In the future why should companies such as Sony pay a dime to bands like this? They hope to make it back on the CD sales. And now they cannot.

Garage bands everywhere can thank Switchfoot. :-)

Re:Define user base...

[Tony]

This so-called user base would never contribute to profit.

This is a bald statement with no supporting argument or evidence. I am a member of that "user base." I purchase music. A lot of music. Thousands of dollars a year in music.

I will *NEVER* purchase a DRMd CD. Never. I will go without the music I would otherwise love to avoid profiting any company that feels the need to fuck me over.

This is not about piracy, it's about herding the sheep into a pen and extracting as much wool as possible. It's about controlling a new and emerging distribution system (the internet). It's about maintaining control over the distribution of music, while convincing everyone it's for their own damned good.

I for one do *not* welcome our new/old music-controlling overlords.

Re:Define user base...

[humina]

This is a bald statement with no supporting argument or evidence

Considering that you have a 3 digit slashdot number I won't post my original thought ("you're new to slashdot aren't you"). Instead I'll post "you should be used to comments like these by now."

Uninstall?

[xenobyte]

Shouldn't it be fairly simple to uninstall whatever the autorun installs, or to reinstall whatever it overwrites?

Maybe someone here knows more about this issue and what actually is installed?

Conditioning the public

[Mysticeti]

"Everyone" hates DRM and it's currently trivial to circumvent so the only reason I can think of to continue pushing it is to condition the public into accepting DRM's inevitability.

Re:Conditioning the public

[Anonymous Coward]

It is trivial to circumvent, for the 200,000 or so people who regularly read Slashdot.

It is not trivial to circumvent for many of the "average" consumers, though.

The point of this type of DRM is not to prevent "piracy." The point is to create a situation where the "average" consumer, frustrated by their inability to copy their just-bought cd to their flashy mp3 player, turns around and buys the cd -again- from an online music source, like iTunes. This way Sony gets to make double the money on the same songs.

Sony knows that a "pirate" will know how to circumvent DRM like this. Sony also knows that the average human being is not a pirate. What Sony is banking on is that enough average human beings won't know or won't take the time to learn how to circumvent this DRM. Sony hopes these people will just roll over and pay them even more money just to play songs they have already purchased.

OFFTOPIC: Ghandi and Mother Theresa

[danila]

Sorry for the offtopic, but I just don't like people succumbing to the idea that Ghandi and Mother Theresa somehow are saints and have done only good things. If you dig deeper, you will find that neither Ghandi, nor Mother Theresa did anything particularly good to deserve their reputation, except for being lucky and good at publicity. And there are plenty of things they did that were outright disgusting. I don't want to discuss this here, but just want to encourage people question their beliefs in myths and search for information to either support or disprove them.

Re:OFFTOPIC: Ghandi and Mother Theresa

[Itchy Rich]

Sorry for the offtopic, but I just don't like people succumbing to the idea that Ghandi and Mother Theresa somehow are saints and have done only good things.

Good point, in that it's always important to question assumptions. In this case I question the assumption that a 'saint' can't have done anything wrong. For example, St. Paul. But that's going further off topic... I'm stopping now.

I used Ghandi and Mother Theresa as examples because I wanted to get across the point that the original parent's description "karma bitch" could be applied to a much wider group than the musicians in question. I didn't mean to imply that Ghandi and Mother Theresa had never done anything wrong... I think it'd be pretty hard to find someone I could say that about.

Re:OFFTOPIC: Ghandi and Mother Theresa

[operagost]

There's definitely no biblical basis for believing that anyone has done no wrong. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Ripping switchfoot

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't have any problems ripping "Nothing is Sound" with Audiocatalyst.

We used to call programs like DRM viruses.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, AVG, Norton, NOD32 etc could spot and remove these ugly things.

Anyhow, I wouldn't buy a CD with DRM period, I also know of at least one band steel pole bath tub that quit producing new music in order to get out of their contract with Sony when Sony did not like the songs they wrote for their album. Fortunately I'm reaching the age where I don't like much of what people play me these days in the way of new music partially I think its age and partially its just that it sucks. Anyway if bands loose fans due to DRM hassles it serves them right for signing to a company which enforces it.

Who cares WHY, as long as there IS an advantage?

[DavidinAla]

I hear this same argument when it comes to viruses. As a user, I'm not as concerned with WHY my platform has advantages than I am that it DOES have advantages. For whatever the reason, the bottom line is that the Mac users can use this CD without having to resort to a bunch of hocus pocus. Windows users can't.

(Just for the record, I'm aware that there ARE other reasons other than "security through obscurity" why a Unix-based OS can be safer than Windows, but that's not my point here, so I'm not even getting into it.)

Hey, isn't today....

[Metsys]

... National Speak Like A Pirate Day? Maybe Switchfoot is just being festive. They might have not realized that these are the "Arrr. How'd you like to scrape the barnacles off of me rudder?" type of pirates that we are supposed to talk like today though. Oh well, "A" for effort.

Re:Hey, isn't today....

[Anonymous Coward]

wasn't it Switchfoot who did the "Pirates who don't do anything" song for Veggietales?

Re:Hey, isn't today....

[reiggin]

That was Relient K, not Switchfoot.

The only people it hurts are...

[Joce640k]

The only people this hurts are...the people who PAID FOR A REAL CD.

Everybody else will just download it, business as usual.

"SONY - Hurting our legitimate customers...". What's wrong with this business model?

Wait...

[chudgoo]

Switchfoot has fans ?!?

Also....

[NightEmber79]

The new 30 Seconds to Mars disc has the same BS. And I just booted into my Gentoo and took care of it Larry the Cow style...But hey, the copy write software isn't so bad, it does keep people from listening to Switchfoot...that should lessen the amount of Blink 182 baby jumpers sold at Hot Topic by preventing the mood music necessary for a Nancy boy in a pink t shirt and a girl, a bit on the husky side, with a Betty Paige haircut from awkwardly copulating

Ethics

[Tony]

And deprive yourself from the music you like. Come on, you won't even fool my demented mother in law with this.

Believe it or not, there are people in the world with integrity. I am not going to purchase a DRMd CD. Ever. Even if that means I can't buy the new Ben Folds or Son Volt, or any other band I love.

I won't download it, either. I'll play the game by their rules, I guess. Will that cause much worry, one guy with some semblence of ethics not spending money on new music?

Probably not. But I can sleep at night. And, there's a lot of good old music available that I don't have yet. I still have to go back and pick up all the DBs, most Camper Van Beethoven, Posies, Odds, Amps, and a bunch of assorted others. Then there's the indie crowd-- you know, the ones making interesting music?

Fuck the music industry. Fuck them up the ass with their DRM. Glue some broken glass on that DRM. Drive some rusty nails through it. Then let them gang-bang each other with it, and while their bowels bleed, I'll be listening to music I can own, and that fucking rocks .

Sorry. I guess I've been listening to too much Bill Hicks.

CCM scene turning their backs on Switchfoot?

[Anonymous Coward]

The CCM "scene" (aka most other CCM artists and many outspoken fans) are increasingly turning their backs on Switchfoot. Seems that Switchfoot isn't quite evangelistic as they once were, and are becoming just another radio pop band. It's a shame, because songs like "This is Your Life" bear a powerful message of self-examination of where you've been and where you're heading in your life. Jesus said He will spit out the "lukewarm" Christians, and I'm afraid Switchfoot is becoming just that.

If you're a believer or have been thinking of handing over your life to Christ, and love good rockin' music, I challenge you to go see a Third Day or Casting Crowns concert live. If you want to rock a little harder, then try to find a Hyper Static Union show. HSU has been touring with Third Day as an opening act, and those kids know how to rock!

Re:CCM scene turning their backs on Switchfoot?

[VIIseven7]

At the risk of being off-topic, I'd like to address this.

Just because "Jesus" isn't every other word out of your mouth doesn't make you a "lukewarm" Christian. There is more to Christian life than going to church. I'm a Christian when I'm singing a hymn, doing volunteer work, playing a video game, eating a sandwich, and posting on Slashdot.

My faith informs my views and decisions. Switchfoot's faith obviously informs their lyrics. Why is that any worse?

Re:How will burning back affect quality?

[cloudmaster]

Actually, the default WMA settings are pretty crummy, and unless you have some kind of low-fi setup costing $10, you probably can discern a difference. Not that Switchfoot is known for their subtle musical nuances, but none the less, it's likely that a difference will be perceptible unless you crank the quality all the way up (or use another codec all together - perhaps one designed for sound quality rather than size, maybe even a lossless codec like "monkey's audio").

I will not apologize

[Anonymous Coward]

You are either part of the solution or part of the precipitate.

Clears up one thing.

[Raven42rac]

It's not about the artist, who makes not a lot from albums, but the poor record companies, trying to protect their old and busted business model. The horse-drawn carriage went out of service, so can record dictatorships.

Who's setting up the PayPal defense fund?

[wbren]

You or me? Because no matter how much money Sony has paid Switchfoot for its work, they won't have enough to fend off the RIAA lawyers when they get sued for copyright infringement.

The best analogy I can come up with is this: A Microsoft exployee working on Windows XP discovers that Windows Genuine Advantage is about to be implemented and posts instructions on how to circumvent it. Microsoft is feeding him and his family, Sony is feeding Switchfoot and its members' families. The Microsoft employee and Switchfoot both gave up rights when they signed their respective contracts.

As stupid and unjust as it may seem, Switchfoot has set themselves up for a major lawsuit.

Or.... Maybe it's just a conspiracy.

1. The RIAA told Switchfoot to post the story so they would get sued.
2. The RIAA sues Switchfoot to "prove" bypassing DRM is illegal.
3. Switchfoot's lawyers intentionally do a horrible job presenting their case in exchange for an RIAA pay off, and the RIAA wins.
4. Precendent now says that bypassing the DRM on these discs is illegal.
5. People are scared to post instructions on bypassing any form of DRM.
6. Profit!

Cost one sale this weekend

[nightsweat]

I almost bought this neat CD from some French singer I heard on the listening stand at Virgin this weekend, but then I noticed it was copy protected and put it back.

Copy protection may not stop me from picking up my absolute favorite artists, but it will stop me from buying something out of the ordinary.

Re:Cost one sale this weekend

[ecumenical_40oz]

I've haven't bought a physical CD in years, and with the new copy protection scams, I have no intention of starting ever again.

Dave Matthews Band

[morcheeba]

The DMB also posted information on how to beat their copy protection to enable fair use. The CD won't read into iTunes, so it can't be listened to on an iPod. Basically the procedure is to burn a copy of the WMA files to a CD and then rip that.

However, the band makes no apologies for this complicated procedure and blame it all on Apple! (see last paragraph). Somehow I don't think they grasp the fact that Apple is standards-compliant, and that their label is selling broken cds to their fans.

Re:Dave Matthews Band

[Tokerat]

No, it seems to me that they grasp the fact that their label is selling DRM'd CDs, and they're asking Apple to add more DRM to iTunes so they don't lose business from not being able to sell well to the digital music market.

Of course they make no appologies, they want the DRM. Someone needs to explain to the band that this is like dumping a tour bus load on all their fans at once.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I bet they were happy to cash Sony's check

[elrous0]

But now they complain that Sony owns their music.

Make up you mind, guys. If you're going to be a prison bitch, don't complain about having to suck dick.

-Eric

Copy Protection?

[Anonymous Coward]

WoW, I didn't even know that CD's had copy protection! I use Linux and Grip; so I was never aware of such a thing! It must really suck to run w!nd0w$.

Run a free software OS and free software on that.

[jbn-o]

There's nothing to stop the harm as long as you run non-free software. The reason spyware, adware, and such can work is that nobody but the proprietor can inspect, share, and modify the program. This means that nobody else can distribute an improved version without the annoying or malicious parts of the program.

So, even if one runs a free software operating system and runs non-free software on top of that, one is not safe from the harm of malicious software. The solution is to run a free software OS and run nothing but free software on top of that.

As for DRM, the EFF has pointed out how DRM is already being leveraged against users. Fighting this will require more organization around the idea that one's customers don't deserve to be treated so shabbily.

Hmm..

[ProjectzDragN]

Seeing as how this software is loaded WITHOUT user notice... and remains so even if you do not accept the license agreement.... Funny... I thought only ad/spyware behaved in said fashion... How long until this is classified as MALWARE? Record Labels need to remove this self loading "Malware" from their CDs and find an alterior method for protecting their... "rights"

BS

[Vila, Bob]

I think you'd find it challenging to defend the statement that their music has been "beaten with a bible". The music is quality, and the lyrics actually have some intelligence behind them. A deviation from the standard in music today, but in a good way.

The argument of "person=suck, person endorse music, music=suck" doesn't quite hold up to logic either. I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of morons who would wholeheartedly endorse your favorite band as well. Doesn't mean the band sucks.

Won't work on XP?

[mccrew]

Win2000/XP run gpedit.msc Administrative Templates - System - Disable Auto play-enabled

Just out of curiosity, I followed your instructions for Win XP. In the same dialog where you can enable "Turn Off Autoplay", there is a clickable tab, "Explain," to give more detailed background on the setting.

At the bottom I spied this nugget:

"Note: This setting does not prevent Autoplay for music CDs"

Re:Won't work on XP?

[E8086]

"Note: This setting does not prevent Autoplay for music CDs"

HAHA, that's the funniest thing I've seen all day.
I never liked XP enough to switch from Win2000 so I was unable to look for the notes unique to XP. If I'm remembering correctly XP gives you a popup asking what you want to do with some types of disks and "do nothing" should still be an option unless it's been changed to "do what the RIAA wants". If it installs software then it's a data/music combo disk and should not be seen by Windows as a music CD.

Re:Won't work on XP?

[AnyoneEB]

That is correct. The "autoplay" for music CDs that is referring to is having it automatically open a media player when you put in a music CD, not the regular autoplay of running a program.

And they are right to control it..

[Tominva1045]

It's about maintaining control over the distribution of music

You bet it is about maintaining control- of their product.

This is specifically about piracy. That is the reason they put these schemes into place. Some people have the wrong belief that they can rip a product and distribute it to others. This is called stealing. See P2P file sharing system (almost all of them).

You only speak for you when it comes to buying music. Anyone can see the dramatic decrease in music sales since P2P started happening. And it is not because the music sucks. If that were the case all this new music wouldn't be getting P2P'd.

Put yourself in Sony's place- if they know they won't sell that many Switchfoot CDs why should they pay Switchfoot anything in a recording contract?

It's fiscially nonviable.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:How will burning back affect quality?

[John Courtland]

A bit offtopic:
As long as you keep the bitrate high enough, you won't hear it. If you take a song encoded in 128Kbps MP3 (a slightly low, but not uncommon, rate) and convert it at 128Kbps to Ogg or WMA, it WILL sound like shit. I've had luck doing it from 256Kbps and below MP3 into 320Kbps (0.9q) Ogg and can't tell the difference.

Re:How will burning back affect quality?

[compro01]

Actually, the default WMA settings are pretty crummy,

then don't use the default settings! i'm sure most people here are bright enough to move a slider from the left to the right, though finding that slider might take some slight mental effort.

Re:How will burning back affect quality?

[harlows_monkeys]

I really can't understand why this audiophile crap has infected almost everyone. Just try it yourself people. Try it with *your* ears. I'm pretty sure you won't hear any difference

You haven't tried this, have you? I don't have golden ears, and normally find 128 kbit/second MP3 indistinguisable from the CD (and I've done blind A/B testing to confirm this). However, if something that was compressed to that level is expanded and recompressed, I can easily spot problems.

Re:Switchfoot's own fault

[@madeus]

That would be a great rant if it wasn't for the fact that the technology you are ranting against (wma drm) is nearly identical in form and function to the technology you are using as an example of what is great (aac drm via itms).

So basically you don't really have a problem with DRM as long as it's well marketed and works with a trendy player. As opposed to less marketed and works with less trendy players.

I'm actually saying it's very simple - that most consumers don't mind DMR if it's not implemented in a way that seems particularly obtrusive to them, they have no 'in principle' objection to the concept on philosophical grounds.

It seems that they don't really understand the issue, nor do they really care about it even when it's explained to them, unless it adversely impacts their regular usage in a significant manner.

"Bad news:" This is why I strongly suspect we will end up with DRM eventually.

"Good News:" This is also why the most poorly implemented DRM schemes seem unlikely to succeed.

Most people would be just as happy with WMA DRM if it was implemented in a way that is as user friendly. Your right the systems are very similar in principle, but it's the small differences in practice (such as the often underestimated importance of the ease of use of the iTunes music store, especially compared to the god awful competition) that makes all the difference.

Eventually companies will stop pushing retarded DRM (that doesn't even let you put music you own on your portable music player) and they will starting pushing smarter DRM (that still doesn't let you copy your songs to your friends system, but doesn't get in your way when you try to copy it between your own various media devices either).

Once that happens, I fully expect the majority of people will shrug and accept it and for DRM to then become commonplace.

Too bad Switchfoot is

[Anonymous Coward]

Ghey.

Utter Bollocks!

[pandrijeczko]

Sorry but do Switchfoot really expect me to believe that it's a genuine apology when it's posted on a *Sony* sanctioned site (forums.sony.com)?

Not that I've ever heard of the band anyway but it's the same as breaking into someone's house, stealing their stuff & selling it for money, spending all the money & then writing the person you robbed a letter of apology... just doesn't sit right.

Re:How will burning back affect quality?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't encode on the rip, it doesn't affect it at all. I'm not entirely sure why you'd encode on the rip if you're just planning on burning it back on to a disk, since that involves immediately decoding what you've just encoded, but if you're silly enough to do that, then I guess you can stand to have crappy sounding music. Oh, unless you use WMA lossless. That should ... well ... not lose anything.

Lossily encoding stuff that's already been lossily encoded is bad since the encoder throws away information based on the current amount of noise. In short, if the audio stream looks bad to the encoder, it thinks it can make the output that much worse. If you must do it, try to go from one type of algorithm to another (like say, from mp3 to ogg, or vice versa), since they won't compound errors as much.

Returning broken CDs (in the UK)

[Anonymous Coward]

This advice applies to the UK. (I am not a lawyer, but I have taken advice from one to exercise my statutory rights when it comes to returning copy-protected CDs that refused to play.)

If something that a reasonable person would interpret as being a CD that ought to work (and that hasn't specifically been pointed out to you before you bought it; something a reasonable person would expect, like being in a big box marked "SCRATCHED CDs - 25p"; obscure labelling on the back that it ought to play, but might not, won't do) was bought by or for you, and won't play in your CD player (any of your CD players or anything that ought to play audio CDs, regardless of whether or not it plays in the shop's CD player), it can be returned, in a complete, reasonably as received state, opened or unopened, to the retailer for refund, repair or replacement, at YOUR option under the terms of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended), Section 14, (2B) (a): a failure to meet the "fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied".

You have a reasonable expectation; you buy an audio CD, or something that substantially appears to be one, it should play in things that play audio CDs. If it doesn't, you can take it back to the shop, regardless of whether or not it's been opened (how are you supposed to know if it plays without opening it? Psychic CD player?), within a "reasonable period" of time (exact limits are deliberately not rigidly defined, could be 28 days up to 6 years), and get a refund.

You don't have to accept a replacement in lieu, and they can't refuse to give you a refund if you demand one.

The shop does have to accept returns of opened CDs, if they are faulty and weren't marked specifically as faulty, or won't play.

If the shop is inclined to push it, you may need to prove it won't play; if it really won't play, this shouldn't be a problem. Bring the player along, and some working CDs to demonstrate your player isn't at fault. And remember, it might play in the shop but that doesn't prove it doesn't play in yours. (This may be awkward in some cases, but don't let that put you off, it's not £18.99 worth of awkward, and that damn CD was.)

You can demand a refund in cash. The shop can offer vouchers or a credit note, but if you demand, can't refuse to give you your cash back.

The shop is liable, not the manufacturer/distributor; that's the shop's problem to sort out, in the return channel (and they don't want to have to, which is why they really don't want to have people knowing widely about this and quoting at them).

In fact, you don't even need a store receipt; it would not be unreasonable for the shop to want some proof of purchase, but any proof of purchase will do (credit card receipt, bank statement showing transaction, cheque stub).

If the shop flat out refuses to offer you a full refund in cash, threaten to call the local Trading Standards. If they still refuse, make the call to the Citizens Advice Bureau, and follow up in Trading Standards. You can make a claim in a Small Claims Court if you feel inclined to push it, and this is very cheap and does not require a solicitor.

If even one person did this in a substantial minority of stores, distributors would no longer distribute protected discs in this territory. It wouldn't be worth the bloody hassle.

Sony is a huge supporter of our rights to copy...

[fmaxwell]

Details are details but in the end Sony is no fan of p2p or copying in any form.

Sony is a big fan of copying as shown by the Betamax case of '76-'79. The plaintiffs, Universal and Walt Disney Productions on behalf of the Hollywood majors, charged that the ability of Betamax VCRs to copy programming off of the air was an infringement of copyright and they sought to halt the sale of the machines. In its defense, Sony asserted that a consumer had the absolute right to record programs at home for private use. It drew an analogy to the audio cassette recorder, which was introduced in the 1960s and had made music tapers out of millions of American teenagers. Although the practice had not been tested in the courts, Sony believed a tradition had been established. Surely they wouldn't seek to prevent us from copying now.

Sarcasm aside, this shows the kind of despicable anything-for-profits mentality at major corporations. They don't care about the rights of their customers. When Sony made its money selling VCRs, it was a big proponent of fair use rights for consumers. Now that it is a major content publisher, it's suddenly opposed to those same rights.

If Sony brings a suit for private-use copying, then the suit should be dismissed and Sony should be forced to pay the legal costs of the defendents. The courts should inform Sony that "your corporatation made its position clear in the 1970's Betamax case and the record will show that Sony is in favor of unencumbered consumer rights to copy for private use."

Actually

[idonthack]

The "christian rock band" is just a front. It's not who they really are.

Re: Region free players

[Keybounce]

Several years ago, there was an article talking about regions and Dvds.

The bottom line: region free, or adapting players, can be fooled. It's one thing for the DVD code to ask "Are you a region 1 player? Good, you can play this". But they can also ask "Are you a region 2 player? Ok, don't play. Are you a region 3 player? Ok, don't play." Etc.

With the need to know whether to answer yes or no, you get into trouble.

With any "official" player limiting to 5 changes (or so it seems), that will quickly get into problems.

Thankfully, we know the decryption now, we can use friendly DVD software that changes freely. Oh wait -- didn't they lose a court case on that?

The music industry

[dot_borg]

I stopped buying CDs several years ago in protest of price fixing and the current direction of the music industry certainly won't win me back. I wish others would stop buying music in protest as well but that, unfortunately, won't happen. :(

Home Recording Isn't The Answer

[Petersko]

Sony (and other labels) are just distributors and promotors in this day and age when you can have a billion-track studio at home for peanuts, and hire in your mastering experts for a session. Yet, the labels want to own it all, for eternity. Bollocks.

Spoken like somebody without a clue.

A properly wired and isolated recording studio costs a great deal of money, not least for soundproofing. Add to that say, oh, $10,000 worth of microphones (at least), and the cost of GOOD hardware plus software, plus the cost for the engineers, and you start to understand why most people don't go that route. A pro-grade signal chain for vocals alone is gonna run you at least a few thousand.

A quality product demands quality hardware, space and skills. You can record a band in a basement with $1000 worth of gear, a $1000 audio interface and Cubase, but it's not going to be good enough for production no matter what you do with it.

Re:Home Recording Isn't The Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

You can record a band in a basement with $1000 worth of gear, a $1000 audio interface and Cubase, but it's not going to be good enough for production no matter what you do with it.

Oh yes it is (good enough), in fact it's vastly better than required. You obviously haven't heard any home studio demos recently.

Pretty much anything you make yourself with modern equipment can be turned into a smash hit by a pro mastering engineer. They're the only people worth their weight in gold, apart from the artists.

If the studios and labels died tomorrow and were replaced by entirely separate mastering co-ops, CD+packaging contractors, and promotors working on a small commission basis, it would be no loss whatsoever, and a huge gain for the musicians' profits. No cartels tying artists into serfdom, just competing service providers.

Re:How will burning back affect quality?

[cloudmaster]

Those people wouldn't need directions as to how to do this, either, and therefore are outside of the realm of discussion. I mean, if "don't use the default settings" is valid, then "hold down shift when inserting the CD" and "why are you using Windows at all, dumbass?" are just as valid. Also, WMA sucks, even at high bitrates (where its space gain is lost in favor of other CODECs that were created for a reason other than "We're MS, we need to reinvent the wheel to make DRM more popular").

Re:How will burning back affect quality?

[FLEB]

Funny... I often find 128 MP3 to sound like a fishtank, and can spot most 128s right off. Granted, some that have been pre-tweaked (with compression, band filtering, etc) to prep them for compression can escape as "perfectly lo-fi" without warble or artifacts.

Of course, move me up to even 192, and it takes an exceptional song for me to notice. My preferred format is LAME VBR, qval 2, 32-320kbps, usually averaging about 196-256k.

I've heard (somewhere or other) that people with worse hearing can actually hear MP3 artifacts better, since they can't hear the higher frequencies, that would normally mask the holes from the lost sonic data, as well.

Limited user != full lockdown (was Re:Nice comment

[Laebshade]

A limited user windows XP account is not a full lockdown. There are many programs you can install without being logged in as administrator. Nearly all programs that are obtained in zip format, where you unzip and run them, work. Even regular programs will install, you just need to install to somewhere you have rw access to (My Documents/Programs is a good place). Unfortunately, some programs require changing system files or the registry, and they will not run. Some install programs also explicitedly require admin rights even though they don't need it, and won't let you install otherwise.

Everyone is missing the obvious point here.

[/dev/trash]

All of the sudden, Switchfoot is the injured party. the label did them wrong. Well boo-hoo. Read your contract. if it isn't something you can live with, don't sign it.

Re:How will burning back affect quality?

[psymastr]

However, if something that was compressed to that level is expanded and recompressed, I can easily spot problems.

I have tried this. Ok then, if a file is decompressed and then recompressed you can tell the difference (of course that would be dependent on both bitrates used during the process, which you don't take into account which makes no sense whatsoever).

Re:Switchfoot's own fault

[humina]

The consequences of this fact and your above stated opinion are that the only faultless way of making money in a band is to self-publish. Signing to a privately-held company is not an option because although they aren't legally obliged to put profit before anything else, you have no guarantee that they won't do it anyway.

You don't have to self publish, but yes your statement generally summarizes my thoughts. I bought music off of http://magnatune.com/ 2 days ago. This was the first music I've bought in at least 2 years. I was able to download my music in FLAC, OGG and MP3 formats. I paid $5 and $2.50 went to the band which is more than if I bought a CD from Sony and the band got less than a dollar. You could roll your own distribution site, or go with other distribution methods such as those linked on the left of this page:
http://creativecommons.org/audio/

or you could sign with a major record label and I will post about how that is a bad idea and get modded as a troll. Switchfoot chose the last one.

Isn't this illegal?

[innate]

Why are record companies allowed to install viruses on Windows PCs?

A program that surreptitiously loads which damages your ability to use your PC, is malware. That is what is being autoloaded when you insert a CD. For some reason anti-virus programs don't pick it up.

suing the artist next?

[ecumenical_40oz]

I'm just waiting for the day when some artist actually gets sued by their own label for uploading their own music. That's what we've about come to with this article, isn't it? And nobody doubts that the record companies would hesitate to file a lawsuit against a client, considering how they already treat them.

Re:Switchfoot's own fault

[humina]

Once that happens, I fully expect the majority of people will shrug and accept it and for DRM to then become commonplace.

I really hope you are wrong, but I fear that you might be right. DRM restricts my rights and removes my freedom. I cherish my rights and freedoms and will never pay someone to strip them from me. Unfortunately I fear people will shrug DRM off as a necessary evil. I will never support a company financially or otherwise if they push for the use of DRM.

Just because YOU can't tell the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

...doesn't mean it isn't there. I am a musician and can readily tell the difference between mp3s and originals. (High bitrate Ogg and AAC is ok, but mp3 is never ok)

it is pronounced:

[KillShill]

copy PREVENTION.

And bands..

[Neoncow]

..who care about the music?

Screw them, they're already obsolete.

Don't put your oar in that water

[Anonymous Coward]

..shipped from Sony with copy protection software on the CD..

Arrr, maybe you lubbers can explain this to me. If the CD comes with software that you're not interested in running, then why can't a user simply decide to not run it? Just read the music off it, and let the software that ships with it, rot.

Are people buying CDs for the software that comes bundled with the music?

I will:

[spx]

If you (RIAA) do not throw me in jail for music I want on my computer (non-cd) and let me keep the music I wish to listen to, while being able to download at somewhere, somehow the other music I want....and I will post a banner on my domain about your awesome music with reveiws and yelling at people to go buy their CD, pending they dont have their own computer. FREE ADVERTISING. Im a geek, I dont listen to music anywhere else, possible once a year thru the stero in the living room speakers, I dont have a CD player in my car, and even if I did, I would rather have a computer playing it (It would be free, I am a cheap bastard). Mondays epiphany, Thee end.

Switchfoot...

[skogs]

has always been one of my favorite christian bands. This is an excellent idea, though I agree with all previous posters that it is legally 'difficult'. One can hope, however, that Sony(and all other moronic corporations out there) will take notice, and perhaps listen to the artists when they specifically try to have the DRM removed.

Really, if Sony is so upset that one of their groups did not want their stuff copy protected, and did it anyway...they are going to pay a much larger penalty because this information will now get around to several hundred thousand more 'non-technical' users. And the fix mentioned by switchfoot does not work only on their CD, it works with all of Sony's work. So really Sony put all of their musical releases at jeapody(if you believe them) because they ignored the needs/wishes of one artist/group. I like this. Also...testing my new sig.

Yes, philips was threatening to sue about this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, philips (one of the companies that did the CD standard) was threatening to sue (or did sue??) over this. So now maost companies that do copy protection dont have the CD logo on them. Not that most people know wtf that means.

The Grateful Dead are RIAA members.

[MacDork]

They did give up all their principles, if they ever had any, when signing for Sony. You're either part of the problem or part of the solution.

If you put money in Sony's pocket, either as an artist working for them, or as a buyer of music, well, you're part of the problem.

If you feel the need for a role model, as your age would indicate, look at the Grateful Dead for guidance.

The Grateful Dead are members of the RIAA. Do not support them.

Long Live San Dieguito!

[ccoakley]

I went to high school with those guys, they're really not greedy people.

Yeah, Tim and Jon were always nice guys. What I want to know is why didn't Jon go to his ten year reunion? I would have loved to have seen him again. I'd bet good money Tim shows for his.

I mean, shoot, they're the only ones that really made it big.

In other news, my sister stole my Etc. album.

Re:Limited user != full lockdown (was Re:Nice comm

[MyDixieWrecked]

A limited user windows XP account is not a full lockdown.

we've got a win2k3 active directory server and all kinds of snazzy security whatnot. I'm the guy in charge of the macs and I take care of the PCs so they don't have to call in the 100$/hour guys. the've done all kinds of voodoo. ever since they locked down the machines, a lot of files can't be moved or renamed or anything, even when I log in as admin and explicitly set the permissions to read/write for all. When I called the guys to see how to get around that (some lady's personal files were locked with no access at all. she couldn't even burn a CD of them), they told me that she shouldn't be doing that, anyway.

heh.

Free Advertisement

[UnkyHerb]

They put the copy protection on so that their fans would complain, and than they would resolve it and submit the story to slasdhot for free advertisement!

test -- ignore

[Boss Sauce]

sorry, just testing... there's probably an appropriate place to do a test, but it's probably harmless to squat down and do this thing right here...

Switchfoot.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are, in essence doing you a favor by not letting you put it to your computer because THIS BAND IS CRAP.

There is a simple solution to copy protection

[computergeek1200]

Just play the audio into a recorder by connecting the headphone port to the microphone port.

Buy and return.

[jotaeleemeese]

I recently bought one of these aberrations of pseudo CDs.

I put in on my office PC ( I have not owned CD player for at least 5 years) which runs Windows and it did not play.

I ejected it, went back to the shop and demanded a refund.

When asked the reason I simply said it does not play in my computer.

The salesperson told me, thinking he was insightful "that is to avoid people copying it" to which I retorted " I wan to play the CD, not to copy it".

They lost a sale, as simple as that. I wish most people will do likewise.I also took the trouble to write to the artist in question, their agents replyed and I had to lecture them in how they were making life difficult for their potential fans. What do you do when you are an artist in a niche market? Do you rise the barrier of entry to potential buyers or do you make it as easy as possible for them to enjoy your product?

I kind of understand if they try this shit with the best selling acts, but to insist on this with artists that will sell a handful of CDs is just madness.