dslreports logo
 story category
Pretending DRM Works
New copy protection doesn't protect
Reuters explores how many customers are complaining about the DRM on the new Foo Fighters album, which is incompatible with iPods. Of course, despite the DRM, P2PNet points out the album is still being freely copied, one of the songs off it holding the number one spot among illegally traded rock music files. Despite that, the album has topped the charts - selling 736,000 units since launch, (and 23,000 digital copies).
view:
topics flat nest 

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

4 edits

FFH5

Premium Member

Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating

This is about the 50th attempt(probably a slight exaggeration; very slight) over the last year by BBR to justify music pirating. I'd like to see the reasons that they think stealing music is a justified activity. Sure the music publishers make tons of money, and they only promote certain artists. But that doesn't justify the stealing. If artists want to control their own fate, let them get together, find some investors, and start their own distribution channels outside of the RIAA. Let them distribute using P2P channels, and let them depend on voluntary PayPal accounts to make some profits. And about 2 yrs down the road, the artists and their investors will be whining like the RIAA about the lowlifes not paying for their work.

My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum

d_man60112
join:2004-06-09
Cortland, IL

1 recommendation

d_man60112

Member

Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating

I don't think they are justifying anything. I think they are just talking about the new technology that doesn't allow a person to legally transfer a purchased song onto their i-pod and how the technology that does not allow i-pod usage is not doing as it is intended (i.e. stop pirating) I think they are showing the irony.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating

Are you purposely overlooking this part of the BBR news item:
Of course, despite the DRM, P2PNet points out the album is still being freely copied, one of the songs off it holding the number one spot among illegally traded rock music files. Despite that, the album has topped the charts - selling 736,000 units since launch, (and 23,000 digital copies).

d_man60112
join:2004-06-09
Cortland, IL

1 recommendation

d_man60112

Member

Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating

Thank you for pointing out my argument. The technology that is supposed to stop illegal copying is only stopping legal copying!

gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium Member
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY

1 edit

3 recommendations

gheezer to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
Typical neocon response...kneejerk reaction without understanding what you're seeing.

BBR is QUOTING another web site news article...they cannot be held responsible for the NEWS they report...it's like blaming Saddam for Osama Bin Laden...

oh wait, the Republican's are doing that too...

This country's in deep doo doo man..Corporate interests rule, both political parties have sold out to the money god, and the freedoms we held so dear are disappearing at an alarming rate.

Go coddle another multi-billion dollar corporation and keep yer paws off DSLR.

I am an avowed Conservative libertarian, compare me to a liberal at your own risk.
joebear29
totesmcgoats
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL

joebear29

Member

Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating

If you had managed to say that without the needless political trolling, I would have like your post.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to gheezer

Premium Member

to gheezer
I didn't know that BBR had room for one political party. (thought it appears to be an ultra liberal site)

And don't take that wrong, becuase you and I come from the same polital threads... liberatarian.
unigamer
join:2005-06-01
Henderson, NV

unigamer

Member

Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating

The following is an observation, not meant to offend. So please let's skip the trolling and flames.

I'm sure that if you were to take a survey of BBR users, you'd find a multitude of views.

As for me, myself, I'm real close to moderate. On some things I fall one way, on some the other. I tend to follow reasoning and basic logic (and sometimes a little emotion) to decide on a case-by-case basis... I'm not the kind to subscribe to one side of the spectrum.
unigamer

unigamer to gheezer

Member

to gheezer
1.) And who the heck are you to tell someone to keep their hands off of DSLR, or any other public website or forum for that matter? I don't see any evidence of you being a sysop, etc... they're the only ones that can do that.

2.) Last time I checked, there were three forbidden subjects in polite conversation - if you bring them up, you're bound to cause trouble. The two I remember for sure are politics and religion - you sure opened that can of worms, didn't you? LOL I think the third is sex... I could be wrong, if I am, someone please enlighten me.

I think they said that about the first two for a good reason, though...

fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium Member
join:2001-05-25
Limbo

fireflier

Premium Member

Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating

The third according to Linus on Halloween Night is "The Great Pumpkin".

N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs

1 recommendation

N3OGH to gheezer

Premium Member

to gheezer
Way to Troll..

I'm so goddamn sick of how everything here deteriorates into partisan political bullshit.

When Napster first came out, did I download songs? Sure I did. My reasoning?

1: A lot of the songs I wanted (obscure 70's stuff) was not available in stores.

2: A lot of the stuff I wanted was on $20 CD's, and all I wanted was 1 song.

With the advent and proliferation of single song download services (not just iTunes, but a myriad of services), there is no legitimate reason not to go to a legal source to download the music you want.

Let's face it, if you're not willing to pay .99 for a song you want, you're noting but a 2 bit thief. I've downloaded a lot of songs for .99 that I thought were crap, and ended up deleting. It's .99! people, GET A GRIP.

I'm no friend of the RIAA, but since so many legal avenues to download music cheaply exist, it is getting harder and harder to fall on the side of folks who consistently bitch and moan about downloading music illegally on P2P services.

A short list of things that cost more than a buck...

A 16oz cup of coffee: $1.15

A 22oz Coca Cola $1.39

A gallon of gas $2.35

A lays "grab bag" of Doritos is a buck and a quarter around here for chirssake.

Let's face it, if you can afford 1: a broadband connection, 2: a computer that will facilitate the use of today's P2P networks, and 3: the CD burner to burn the CD's to export your illegally downloaded music to your CD player, you sure as HELL can afford to blow a dollar (a BUCK, .99C!!!!) on a song you might want...

Technology has caught up to this argument, and it has become totally moot. You can download almost any single song you might possibly want for a fair price, and the rights to it's use are, for the most part, pretty generous, as long as you're not trying to give it away for free.

I used to be a big advocate for the argument in favor of P2P, but not any more. If you're not willing to pay .99 for a song you might possibly want, I can't see where you were willing to pay anything for it in the first place...
43193594 (banned)
Chauncey Gardiner
join:2005-08-03
CX 747-400

43193594 (banned)

Member

Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating

Just because one doesn't feel a price is justified by a product doesn't mean they are a thief.

That doesn't make trading songs right. It also doesn't make trading them wrong.

Atomic Fro
@comcast.net

Atomic Fro to N3OGH

Anon

to N3OGH
Never mind the tax on the blank CDs the RIAA gets to compensate for music piracy.


They already got their dues from that. If the RIAA wants to take students and old ladies to court over a hand full of songs the market deems as only worth .99, then the tax on the blank CDs needs to go.
WirelessMajr
Premium Member
join:2005-08-03
College Place, WA

WirelessMajr to N3OGH

Premium Member

to N3OGH
said by N3OGH:

Way to Troll..

I'm so goddamn sick of how everything here deteriorates into partisan political bullshit.

When Napster first came out, did I download songs? Sure I did. My reasoning?

1: A lot of the songs I wanted (obscure 70's stuff) was not available in stores.

2: A lot of the stuff I wanted was on $20 CD's, and all I wanted was 1 song.

Let's face it, if you're not willing to pay .99 for a song you want, you're noting but a 2 bit thief. I've downloaded a lot of songs for .99 that I thought were crap, and ended up deleting. It's .99! people, GET A GRIP.

A short list of things that cost more than a buck...

A 16oz cup of coffee: $1.15

A 22oz Coca Cola $1.39

A gallon of gas $2.35

A lays "grab bag" of Doritos is a buck and a quarter around here for chirssake.

Let's face it, if you can afford 1: a broadband connection, 2: a computer that will facilitate the use of today's P2P networks, and 3: the CD burner to burn the CD's to export your illegally downloaded music to your CD player, you sure as HELL can afford to blow a dollar (a BUCK, .99C!!!!) on a song you might want...
Just because you see fit to waste a dollar on a song you don't like, don't label all of creation a thief just because everyone else doesn't comply with your personal morals.

1) Computers are relatively cheap nowadays. You don't need the latest and greatest. My mom's PII 266 will download and burn songs quite fine. Something that you pick up for $100, then purchase a cheap DVD burner (DVD burners can be had for ~$40 today) will service you for that exact purpose perfectly. You just need to make sure you have ample RAM.

2) A BUCK as you call it isnt cheap. Maybe, just maybe a person feels they have something better to do with a buck than to waste it on a lossy formatted song. For this "BUCK," I want a lossless copy of the song, as there are lossless codecs out there.
orangelemon
join:2003-01-29
Woodinville, WA

orangelemon

Member

Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating

If a buck's worth nothing to you, how about sending everyone regsitered on this site a buck just to prove it?

rds24a
Teach Your Children
Premium Member
join:2000-12-13
Newton Upper Falls, MA

rds24a

Premium Member

Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating

There's two points of view on the whole $0.99 deal:

1. The parts cost more than the whole. Common practice...ever price out buying a car piece-by-piece from NAPA? Way more than the whole. However, It currently costs more to buy the whole online than a CD in the store.

2. The lack of distribution. No CD's, no shipping, etc. etc. There should be a price break for that, I agree. However, there is a premium on convenience and I'm not willing to argue that it should be $0.50 or $0.75 or $5.00 an album. I think $0.99 a song is OK...not great, but OK.

As for the file size/quality issue. I'm sure it's more a matter of Dances with Focus Groups trying to find some one file size that provides sufficient quality while reaching out to those lowly dialup users who still have to wait 20 minutes to download one 3 Mb song file. Perhaps the solution there is to offer a hi-fi and a not-so-hi-fi version, but I guarantee you there will be a price difference (for not much reason other than they can).

tapeloop
Not bad at all, really.
Premium Member
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One

tapeloop

Premium Member

Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating

said by rds24a:

There's two points of view on the whole $0.99 deal:

1. The parts cost more than the whole. Common practice...ever price out buying a car piece-by-piece from NAPA? Way more than the whole. However, It currently costs more to buy the whole online than a CD in the store.

2. The lack of distribution. No CD's, no shipping, etc. etc. There should be a price break for that, I agree. However, there is a premium on convenience and I'm not willing to argue that it should be $0.50 or $0.75 or $5.00 an album. I think $0.99 a song is OK...not great, but OK.

As for the file size/quality issue. I'm sure it's more a matter of Dances with Focus Groups trying to find some one file size that provides sufficient quality while reaching out to those lowly dialup users who still have to wait 20 minutes to download one 3 Mb song file. Perhaps the solution there is to offer a hi-fi and a not-so-hi-fi version, but I guarantee you there will be a price difference (for not much reason other than they can).
Good points you make. You should check out the price breakdown that Wired had in a recent article. Reading that makes the cost of 75 cents a track sound more appropriate.

Full article is here:»www.wired.com/wired/arch ··· pic_set=

Still, I would personally rather buy whole (used) CD's rather than paying 99 cents a track. The sound quality and DRM are big issues to me, but if I find a one-hit-wonder that I simply don't want to buy the album of, I'll bite and cough up the buck. In that case I would be paying the unit cost of buying that one track as opposed to buying the whole album...but I'd still rather have the higher bitrate.

skipon11
Premium Member
join:2005-06-09
Pittsburgh, PA

skipon11 to N3OGH

Premium Member

to N3OGH
Whew! Wacoyle. They sure have Braineashed you!
unigamer
join:2005-06-01
Henderson, NV

unigamer to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
Both of the passages you quoted are simply observations, and journalistic publishing. It takes a warped brain to see them as justifying piracy... but then again, considering how some people see the world, nothing would surprise me, would it?

rds24a
Teach Your Children
Premium Member
join:2000-12-13
Newton Upper Falls, MA

rds24a to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
I don't see that blurb as promoting stealing. The points are that:

1. Copy protection schemes merely add a few extra minutes to the initial rip and don't effectively stop illegal distribution.

2. DRM and copy protection schemes only punish those who buy the music legitimately and then find it difficult or impractical to use on common devices.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating

See above: »Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating

rds24a
Teach Your Children
Premium Member
join:2000-12-13
Newton Upper Falls, MA

1 edit

rds24a

Premium Member

Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating

Still doesn't support your point. Just refrences that support my point #1. I do believe they also indicate that such file is being "illegally" traded if you read the rest of the blurb.

Yes, there may be some articles on here that indicate approval or disapproval of topics but this is not one of them.

mph300
Two Thirds The Way There
join:2000-11-09

1 edit

mph300 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

This is about the 50th attempt over the last year by BBR to justify music pirating. I'd like to see the reasons that they think stealing music is a justified activity.
I fail to see how this news article that BBR posted casts a light on BBR as justifying piracy.....

Anyway, if it can be protected, it can be broken......shift keys, sharpies, rip-burn-rip and "Hey, can I borrow a few hundred of your cds ole buddy!" come to mind:D

Useless sh*t if you ask me

Mike
unigamer
join:2005-06-01
Henderson, NV

unigamer

Member

Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating

The simple fact is, if it can be played or accessed publicly, beyond a small group of people, it cannot be secured, electronically or not. The keys, method to play it, etc. have to be somewhere, either in software or hardware, and they can be reverse engineered.

It really doesn't matter if you think piracy is right or not. I personally think that it is against the law, even if it's just civil liability. But just because something isn't a crime, doesn't mean someone won't do it... People jaywalk all the time, after all. (On both, I plead the 5th... )

The reason good cryptosytems (PGP, GnuPG, etc... something beyond garden variety WinZip! LOL) can keep data secure (assuming they're used right) is because the key can be kept secure - it's often in the heads of only one or a few people. But to protect a public work that way - that key has to be available to the player somehow, not in someone's head. Hence my point.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

2 recommendations

Karl Bode to FFH5

News Guy

to FFH5
Point out where this blurb "justifies" piracy? It points out DRM attempts are failing. It also points out music sales are strong despite piracy.

You're in such a rush to grab the first spot on every news post every day on every subject, I'm pretty sure you don't actually read any of them.

mph300
Two Thirds The Way There
join:2000-11-09

mph300

Member

Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating

said by Karl Bode:

Point out where this blurb "justifies" piracy? It points out DRM attempts are failing. It also points out music sales are strong despite piracy.

You're in such a rush to grab the first spot on every news post every day on every subject, I'm pretty sure you don't actually read any of them.
Bingo!

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

2 edits

FFH5 to Karl Bode

Premium Member

to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:

Point out where this blurb "justifies" piracy? It points out DRM attempts are failing. It also points out music sales are strong despite piracy.
I don't see a denial that you think copyright infringement(theft) is ok or that you haven't posted article after article defending the practice. The editorial selection of news stories shows what you think.
said by Karl Bode:

You're in such a rush to grab the first spot on every news post every day on every subject, I'm pretty sure you don't actually read any of them.
Off topic and false.

G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY

G_Poobah

Member

Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating

Copyright infringement? Where?

If you purchased the album legally, please explain where copyright infringement happens? I bought it, they took away my right to play a legally purchased CD on my ipod, so I downloaded a LEGAL COPY from a P2P network.

There's no infringement there. nothing to see.

RayW
Premium Member
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT

RayW

Premium Member

Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating

said by G_Poobah:

Copyright infringement? Where?

If you purchased the album legally, please explain where copyright infringement happens? I bought it, they took away my right to play a legally purchased CD on my ipod, so I downloaded a LEGAL COPY from a P2P network.

There's no infringement there. nothing to see.
Did you not know? That is the infringement! You are suppose to buy a new copy each time you wish to use a new media just for that media.

That is the new wave that people like Retire_Rich and his Hollywood (just a guess, not a known fact) friends would like to get into place.

And I will leave out the politics since it looks like it is no longer just one party, but all parties and groups that are being bought out. (Isn't it amazing how certain people spout off about the "dems did this", or "the repubs did that", but ignore the fact that the other party usually had the same view previously but not the wherewithal to implement it?)

1 edit

DRM is legalized the to G_Poobah

Anon

to G_Poobah
said by "G_Poobah":
Copyright infringement? Where?

If you purchased the album legally, please explain where copyright infringement happens? I bought it, they took away my right to play a legally purchased CD on my ipod, so I downloaded a LEGAL COPY from a P2P network.
Well, there is some slightly grey area about whether or not downloading the "same group of bits" as you would obtain through ripping a lawfully-owned copy of a work into a digital data file is legal or not.

But in general, these new DRM schemes are more-or-less CONSUMER FRAUD upon the people. I think that needs to be clearly pointed out to people.

A copy-protected "CD" is in fact, not really a CD, since it doesn't meet the proper specifications, and usage of the trademarked logos is trademark infringement, and likely a violation of the licensing agreements that the large publishers have to sign to use the logo(s).

But of course he doesn't bring up that aspect, of how big business is 'raping' the consumer, oh no...

Slaphappy1279
@216.135.x.x

Slaphappy1279

Anon

Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating

I think it's most important to remember that, originally, copyrights were designed to keep someone from PROFITING from the use of someone else's intellectual property. The protection was designed to stop illegal use by another business entity.

Now it's about trying to control the uses of the CONSUMER. Make no mistake, ultimately these initiatives are leading up to attempts by media giants to ram through per-use types of fees. Sound ridiculous? The Phone Company (I'm talking the AT&T monopoly here) tried for years to get measured-service rates (fortunately without success). The agenda of the media-interest groups are much larger than what is being talked about in the present.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

1 edit

1 recommendation

Karl Bode to FFH5

News Guy

to FFH5
You're flailing your arms. I think DRM doesn't work. I think suing customers doesn't work. I think the industry can't and won't adapt. I believe in fair use rights. But we've never "justified piracy".

Still waiting for evidence this article "justifies" piracy. Can't provide any?

shane349
Premium Member
join:2005-03-21
Delta, OH

shane349 to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
i think this artcicle here is simply explaining whats going on with the albubm, no where does it say "its ok to steal music, download as much as you can!". i seen something on CNN the other day talking about how music theft is growing, are they supporting it too?

"Of course, despite the DRM, P2PNet points out the album is still being freely copied, one of the songs off it holding the number one spot among illegally traded rock music files. Despite that, the album has topped the charts - selling 736,000 units since launch, (and 23,000 digital copies)."

where in there does it say its ok to steal music?
if you dont like BBR and their news that they give out, no one here is forcing you to read it.

mph300
Two Thirds The Way There
join:2000-11-09

2 recommendations

mph300 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:
said by Karl Bode:

You're in such a rush to grab the first spot on every news post every day on every subject, I'm pretty sure you don't actually read any of them.
Off topic and false.
Off topic, I know, but I had to back Karl Bode See Profile up on this one!

If what Karl Bode See Profile is saying is not true then why are most of your first posts a short one or two sentence post that is edited right after posting almost every time to make the post go along with the subject matter?
He is not the only one noticing.....

Mike

•••
unigamer
join:2005-06-01
Henderson, NV

unigamer to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
So what if someone drifts a little bit off topic? Just so it ain't way out in left field, it makes life more interesting.

In this particular case though, I do note it was a jab.
orangelemon
join:2003-01-29
Woodinville, WA

1 recommendation

orangelemon to Karl Bode

Member

to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:

You're in such a rush to grab the first spot on every news post every day on every subject, I'm pretty sure you don't actually read any of them.
I agree. He obviously has nothing better to do. You guys should lobby congress to pass a bill to put all these retirees back to work instead of them mooching off social security and causing a raucous.

richk_1957
If ..Then..Else
Premium Member
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith

richk_1957 to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
Wrong!

The BBR article summarizes stories from »australianit.news.com.au ··· ,00.html and »p2pnet.net/story/5818. It makes no attempt to justify anything. Don't you think if it did, the RIAA would jump on them quickly? Of course, you are free to read it & draw what conclusions you will, but they are just repeating facts from other media outlets.

What has me concerned is that you buy a CD legally and since you have an iPod & don't want to scratch & ruin the CD, you want to rip it off the CD and put the music there - but you can't. Why not? Because of the stupid DRM on the CD. So you download the music [you've already paid for it] and put it on your iPod. In that case, I'm sorry, I don't see it as stealing.

Now, if you wanted to rip it off the CD & share it out on the internet [through whatever means], that's a different story. But if you want to take a piece of music, that you own [and have paid for] and to put on a piece of personal equipment (iPod), you shouldn't be prevented from doing so. Period.

rchandra
Stargate Universe fan
Premium Member
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105
ARRIS ONT1000GJ4
EnGenius EAP1250

rchandra to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
You've a very active imagination. What you're saying is akin to saying, well, the WalMart down the boulevard just got its gun counter all set up, so WalMart condones murder. They're just REPORTING ON WHAT HAPPENED.

Hey, just another opinion here, but there's nothing in the article that says stealing is OK, and I don't even think it's implied. You're the one exaggerating that because BBR reports on new attempts at CD DRM, BBR condones music piracy.

What's really important to take away from the whole discussion is that the whole CDDA format was never designed/engineered with security or DRM in mind. Therefore, in order to remain compatible with the vast base of CD players, these new measures to try to discourage piracy are all just snake oil. In order to ensure the desired DRM, the delivery system must be engineered with that goal in mind. It's much akin to our present email system, where hosts trusted other hosts not to spam or phish or anything like that. So now we have bolt-ons like SPF, Y!DK, caller-ID for email, starttls (certificates), and so on. Because (E)SMTP was never designed with proving identity in mind, we have these various measures to combat spamming with varying levels of efficacy. Unless we can get a vast majority of sites/domain owners to switch to a new, more secure email protocol (even if it's a "mandatory" modification to the existing protocol), we're going to have the problem of email abuse. So too will we have a DRM content delivery problem until the CDDA format is deprecated (and replaced with another delivery system...it happened with vinyl->CD).
Sancus
join:2002-10-17

Sancus to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
People who call music pirate stealing amuse me so much.
unigamer
join:2005-06-01
Henderson, NV

unigamer

Member

Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating

Well, it is stealing... but, as with many laws, there's a big gap between the law, and the enforcement of the law. LOL

If every stupid little law on the books were enforced everywhere, they'd have to build a zillion new jails... and get aliens to be the jailors. Because I'm sure that almost all of us were guilty of something at some time.
43193594 (banned)
Chauncey Gardiner
join:2005-08-03
CX 747-400

43193594 (banned)

Member

Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating

said by unigamer:

Well, it is stealing... but, as with many laws, there's a big gap between the law, and the enforcement of the law. LOL

If every stupid little law on the books were enforced everywhere, they'd have to build a zillion new jails... and get aliens to be the jailors. Because I'm sure that almost all of us were guilty of something at some time.
Actually, the law defines the act as copying and infringement. Says nothing about "stealing."
Magnet2
join:2001-10-25
San Francisco, CA

Magnet2 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
First things first, artists do not have investors, they have producers. Occasionally, producers are the label (which do have investors) or a production company. Mostly produced by individuals, however.

On the outside chance that what you really mean by 'investors' are the people who buy into a record (i.e. the public). As such, and I think you're outnumbered here, I would like listen to a damn album on my iPod (well, it's an iriver)!

Secondly, Ol_boy, your trolling indicates, that by BBR not actively dissuading piracy, they must be all for it. Any news outfit should only be unbiased in a story. However, as any good republican can attest, unbiased simply means no criticism of the ruling party.

DRM in its current form does not work. RIAA and MPAA believe that the PC is not a trusted environment. This is the main reason for Vista being what it is, and what it requires.

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

djrobx to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
I don't see how they're trying to justify anything. They are pointing out that DRM is hurting legitimate buyers and doing nothing to stop piracy.

When I buy a CD, I want to be able to insert it in my computer for addition to my collection without fear that it's going to install something nefarious. I want to be able to copy my legally purchased music to my car's Phatnoise car audio system. It does not support DRM. I have two other players - an iPod and a Sony solid state player. Guuess what? The only thing that works on all my players is ... *drumrolll* unrestricted MP3!

Frankly, I have no use for a DRM audio file. I generally listen to streaming music either from the net or my cable company at home. I primarily listen to purchased music in my car or on the go.

New_Repub
@dsl-w.verizon.ne

New_Repub to FFH5

Anon

to FFH5
I agree that piracy of music is morally wrong, but I think the recording industry association is tilting at windmills with their legal and public relations campaigns.

Once upon a time, it actually cost a non-trivial amount of money to copy and distribute music (and other content) to the masses, but that's simply not true any more. In fact, it's because someone can make a copy of a song and send it to a thousand other people at practically zero expense that we're having this conversation.

The RIAA is trying to assert its role as middleman between the musician and the consumer, and there's nothing wrong with being a middleman. However, the RIAA adds plenty of cost to the equation without adding much value. People recognize this (either conciously or intuitively), which is why so many otherwise law-abiding are willing to pirate music. Most folks understand that a reasonable profit is necessary for a business to survive, but they're going to resent any company that increases their costs just because it can.

thender2
Glamour Profession
Premium Member
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY

thender2 to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
quote:
Retired Gov't Official
Explains a lot.

My method of finding music is by listening to it how I want.. buying CDs at a store is inconveinent and far too pricy(companies who charge record pressing prices for CDs should be driven out of business), and legal online downloads are all low quality, overcompressed trash.

Until they get a system that works, I'll continue downloading.

•••••••
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
Bypassing DRM for personal use is not Piracy and is Not illegal.

TheEternalTroll
join:2000-12-01
Knoxville, TN

1 edit

TheEternalTroll to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

This is about the 50th attempt(probably a slight exaggeration; very slight) over the last year by BBR to justify music pirating. I'd like to see the reasons that they think stealing music is a justified activity. Sure the music publishers make tons of money, and they only promote certain artists. But that doesn't justify the stealing. If artists want to control their own fate, let them get together, find some investors, and start their own distribution channels outside of the RIAA. Let them distribute using P2P channels, and let them depend on voluntary PayPal accounts to make some profits. And about 2 yrs down the road, the artists and their investors will be whining like the RIAA about the lowlifes not paying for their work.

My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum
Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating.

Another troll.........
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
a 320k MP3 cant be seperated from a CD in quality. ive played Burned from MP3 and store bought CDs in my truck and cant tell the difference.

••••
amungus
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
America

amungus to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
I'm sure Dave Grohl would laugh at this! Esp. this 1st comment here...

I heard him on the radio once (napster era) and he was very open about the arguments. He believes (as MANY artist do) that sharing is in our nature. That if somebody hears his stuff and likes it, that's one more fan even if they might not buy the album. It matters more that the exposure is happening so that when they TOUR those people show up. Of course many artists would not make it w/out distro/publishers/sharks of all types taking their cut along the way.

That's not the issue.

Surprise, foo sells foo! Does it matter one bit that it's also a top 'shared' song? Maybe, and it also shows from that article that they've sold a boatload of discs! That, IMO, is the fracking issue. Foo Fighters are proving to everybody that both worlds can exist... BBR is NOT saying hey everybody go find free Foo Fighters 'cause they're popular and stuff... Who taught you how to read, and between what lines???

I'm not even a big fan of the FOO, but dammit, Dave seems like an awesome guy. This story proves that 'sharing' aside, music still matters to people. Get over it. Pay for Rhapsody, go to iTunes and spend a buck or two, it's cheaper than gas and it lasts longer!!!

Irun Man
Premium Member
join:2002-10-18
Millsboro, DE

Irun Man

Premium Member

There's a workaround:

"Sony BMG, a joint venture between Japan's Sony and Germany's Bertelsmann, said users can get the music onto iPods by transferring files to a PC, burning them to a CD, ripping the tunes to the hard drive and finally transferring them into Apple's iTunes software."

Quoted from the linked article. Cumbersome, but if you want to iPod this there's a legal way after all.

••••••

ack21
@comcast.net

ack21

Anon

Ridiculous.

I hate it when a major news organization like Reuters gets it wrong. Incompatible with iPods? So what, both these albums are on iTunes. iPod users can just get it there. The burden is on the record companies to release a product that works. If they don't then people don't buy the product, not the other way around.

guitarzan
Premium Member
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA

guitarzan

Premium Member

Who is stealing from who ?

Dirty Restrictive Media (DRM)only appears to kill fair use, frustrate and anger iPod owners.Which from the news posted, it appears legally purchased CD's just raped iPod owners,DEMAND your money back,except no excuses nor half witted lame brain bullshit "fixes" by sony.iPod owners you were sold faulty merchandise and the vendor knows it.

Sue them greedy money hungry smuck bastards for an inferior product.IMO,if I owned an iPod and bought that album, just to have it not play.I would tweak the laser or whatever reads the disc, then also sue for a new iPod stating it broke the iPod, when tryin to play the CD.

Did sony disclose the fact or mention the DRM installed on the cd before the purchase became final.? This rat in the sewer pipe (sony) is more of a con-artist and thief than the fans who legally obtained the shitty cd,or the file traders they crucify.

the album has topped the charts - selling 736,000 units since launch, (and 23,000 digital copies).
What is the purchase price of those 736,000 units? That's a hefty chunk of change their no doubt.Demand a full refund, you purchasers of this album, just on the principle of the DRM issue.
23,000 DRM digital copies sold online

Wow all i can say is WTF?? is wrong with you 23,000 people?? No wonder DRM is being implemented.When DRM is fully embedded in everything, i want to see who cries the loudest about it.Because when you want to know who is to blame,The only response givin' .Will be look in the mirror-That's who you blame.

1 recommendation

NO digital handcuffs

Anon

Re: Who is stealing from who ?

said by "guitarzan":
Dirty Restrictive Media (DRM)only appears to kill fair use, frustrate and anger iPod owners.
"Digital handcuffs", my friend, "digital handcuffs". Start using that term, and people should "instantly get it".
russotto
join:2000-10-05
West Orange, NJ

russotto

Member

Found on the net....

A bit of googling reveals the claim that booting a PC into Safe Mode allows the protection to be bypassed. That's some powerful protection there, pard

happyrobot
join:2001-05-09
Brooklyn, NY

happyrobot

Member

I wonder if Dave Grohl got it to work on his iPod

Dave (of the Foo Fighters) was 'interviewed' on the inane AOL Music site - this would of been a great opportunity for them to ask him about the latest album's DRM.
»music.aol.com/artists/ai ··· rohl.adp

olmusic [2:15 P.M.]: what do you bring with you from home on the road?
nyourhonor [2:15 P.M.]: ummmmm
nyourhonor [2:15 P.M.]: laptop
nyourhonor [2:15 P.M.]: ipod
nyourhonor [2:15 P.M.]: razors
nyourhonor [2:15 P.M.]: immodium

cavemonkey50
Monkey Madness
Premium Member
join:2003-11-22
Allentown, PA

cavemonkey50

Premium Member

You Can Still Put the Album on Your iPod Legally

Just because you can't put the actually CD on a MP3 player doesn't mean you can't legally. The new Foo Fighter CD is available in the iTunes Music Store, and on Napster.

••••

sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ

sporkme

MVM

Can't rip your CD to iPod?

Well then we have the answer for you, just buy it again:

"Record executives said they were continuing talks with Apple to make such CDs compatible with iPods. In the meantime, Sony BMG also released versions of each album to Apple's iTunes service."
Spudge_Boy
join:2004-09-17
Orange, CA

Spudge_Boy

Member

Well, let's see here

I just ripped both discs (bought and paid for) and they work fine on my iPod. What this is really about is people downloading the music legitimately and finding out that it uses a different encryption than their iPod uses.

This isn't even about pirating. It is about dumb ass RIAA tactics to put DRM on everything and then having that blow up in their faces.

Karl, get rid of that moron (poster #1) that can't seem to read.

Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium Member
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX

Doctor Four

Premium Member

Re: Well, let's see here

said by Spudge_Boy:

Karl, get rid of that moron (poster #1) that can't seem to read.
He's entitled to his opinion, as wrong-headed and narrow
minded as that may be. There's an advantage to going
Premium: you can ignore someone else's posts. I don't have
to read them if I don't want to.
Spudge_Boy
join:2004-09-17
Orange, CA

Spudge_Boy

Member

Re: Well, let's see here

That is a good reason.
BIGHUSKER3
join:2002-01-20
Minneapolis, MN

BIGHUSKER3

Member

The reason it doesn't work...

I'm sure this is just that stupid "copy protection" that exploits the weakness of the autorun "feature" in Windows XP. If autoplay isn't disabled and you don't hold down the shift key, a malicious driver gets installed in the background which prevents you from ripping the songs off the CD. This is why everyone should disable autorun and autoplay in Windows XP.

Disable Autorun:
»www.annoyances.org/exec/ ··· le03-018

Disable Autoplay:

WindowsXP Home: »www.dougknox.com/xp/tips ··· home.htm
WindowsXP Pro:
»www.dougknox.com/xp/tips ··· _pro.htm

•••••••

MsGeek
We Jam Econo On This Ship, Sailor
join:2001-06-06
Panorama City, CA

MsGeek

Member

So this uses a corrupted WINDOWS driver, hmm?

I guess the moral to this story is that for unrestricted fair use of this CD, you have to be running Mac OS X or Linux? OK, duly noted.
BIGHUSKER3
join:2002-01-20
Minneapolis, MN

BIGHUSKER3

Member

Re: So this uses a corrupted WINDOWS driver, hmm?

Only if you're incapable of pressing the shift key while the CD is loading or disabling autorun/autoplay altogether. Why Windows has autorun on by default is beyond me, but it's easy to disable.

PhoenixAZ
Get A Mac
Premium Member
join:2004-01-04
Phoenix, AZ

1 edit

PhoenixAZ

Premium Member

What you people are forgetting....

Most of you are forgetting that this DRM prevents people from loading music on to their iPod. When I buy a CD, I load its contents into my iPod, and safely store the CD away, and keep it only as a backup, then use my iPod for my primary source of music. Please DO note the fact, that I BUY CD's to load them on my iPod (This way artists still get paid, blah blah blah), I didnt steal them. Not everyone who sticks a CD in a computer is going to copy and hand the copies out to other people.

stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Utica, MI

stet

Member

Re: What you people are forgetting....

It doesn't prevent you from doing anything if you were smart enough to have disabled autorun (auto insert notification) on your PC.

jeffmacosx
@cox.net

jeffmacosx

Anon

These discs are not incompatible with iPods

The DRM on these discs only works if you are running Windows. For those of us smart enough to run OS X or Linux, the DRM is useless. It doesn't work. So these discs can be ripped without any problem. The DRM on these discs runs only in Windows. So get smart people, throw Linux on your PC or go out and buy an Apple!
BreakDecks0
join:2005-08-29
Collierville, TN

BreakDecks0

Member

Re: These discs are not incompatible with iPods

I think that the music industry needs to just wake up and see that even though it is illegal, it is probably the ONLY reason that a lot of artist are becoming big. If it wasn't for P2P networks, I would never have known about most of the artists I listen to. And yes, I do still buy music, I just choose to download music becuase it is a lot easier than hunting down some record.