Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
A bullet sounds the same in every language. So stick a fucking sock in it...
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.
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.
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)
/me paranoid first thing on a Monday morning
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"?
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".
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.
/., so it has worked to some extent.
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
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.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
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.