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."
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".
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.
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...)
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??
SecureThe.Net - Practical Resources for Securing Systems
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...
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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).
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.
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
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.
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......
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.
Says the RIAA: When you EQ, you're stealing bass!
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"
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.
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.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
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
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.
~ Old Warriors Society
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...
"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?
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?
b3 4phr41d 0f my 4bov3-4v3r4g3 c0mpu73r kn0wI3dg3!
MadDwarf
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.
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.
/., 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.
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
Though of course I'm just guessing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
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
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...
No, it comes in black too now.
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.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
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.
Improve at backgammon rapidly through addictive quickfire position quizzes: www.bgtrain.com
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
Yeah if you want audiophile quality music, buy the cd.
Oh wait..
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.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
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?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
George Soros uses MJ? I know he's pro-reasonable-laws, but haven't heard yet that he's a consumer. -v, please?
Free as in mason.
** 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.
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
"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.
Everybody else will just download it, business as usual.
"SONY - Hurting our legitimate customers...". What's wrong with this business model?
No sig today...
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!
-William Brendel
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.
Digital Citizen
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
The "christian rock band" is just a front. It's not who they really are.
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
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.
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.