 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
 ·Verizon FIOS
| The best part... ...is pointed out in the front page /. write up. If you rename your ripping program so that it starts with $sys$, the DRM crap can't detect it. So you essentially circumvent their DRM software by using their DRM software.
--
"What gives them the right to come in and do this?" she said. - Lady complaining that she was getting FIOS in her backyard. | |
|  | 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
 ·Comcast
1 edit | Re: The best part... said by cdru  :...is pointed out in the front page /. write up. If you rename your ripping program so that it starts with $sys$, the DRM crap can't detect it. So you essentially circumvent their DRM software by using their DRM software. That is so funny. Their own program making copying easier instead of stopping it.
And on another note the PATCH Sony provided is now causing crashes on some PC's: »www.techworld.com/security/news/···sID=4733
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page | |
| | | | | | | gatzdon
join:2002-10-25
Lake Zurich, IL
1 edit | List of CD's Anyone know where there is a list of CD's employing this crap. I would like to hit all the review sites for those discs and add a comment with a link to the blog. | |
| | 
bentman78
Bentley
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
| Re: List of CD's I do here....
* Arista Records
* BMG Classics
* BMG Heritage
* BMG International Companies
* Columbia Records
* Epic Records
* J Records
* Jive Records
* LaFace Records
* Legacy Recordings
* Provident Music Group
* RCA Records
* RCA Victor Group
* RLG - Nashville
* Sony Classical
* Sony Music International
* Sony Music Nashville
* Sony Wonder
* Sony Urban Music
* So So Def Records
* Verity Record | |
| | | 
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
1 edit | Re: List of CD's Is there a list somewhere of actual CDs (not just a list of record labels) that have this on it?
I buy a lot of CDs, and have no idea of any of them that I've purchased have this.
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. | |
| | | | 
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: List of CD's said by stet :Is there a list somewhere of actual CDs (not just a list of record labels) that have this on it? I buy a lot of CDs, and have no idea of any of them that I've purchased have this. Unless they are very recent, most likely not included on the disk. | |
| | | | |
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| Re: List of CD's I buy recent CDs too. I even plan on buying a new release tomorrow.
I've yet to be able to find a list of CDs that have this. I even find it hard to find mention of any specific CD that has this. Is it like some big secret or something?
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. | |
| | | | | |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: List of CD's said by stet :I buy recent CDs too. I even plan on buying a new release tomorrow. I've yet to be able to find a list of CDs that have this. I even find it hard to find mention of any specific CD that has this. Is it like some big secret or something? Don't believe it's a secret, just most likely no one has compiled a list yet. If someone has, I don't know of any links, anyone out there with a list yet? | |
| | | | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| I think Philips already put the hammer down on anybody using that little CD trademark on any compact disk with DRM. If you don't see that CD label anywhere on the album then it's almost a sure bet there's some copy protection on that CD. Maybe not this current one from Sony, but DRM nonetheless. | |
| | | | |
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI | Re: List of CD's A lot of CDs that have multi-media content also don't have the official CD logo, so that's not really a good indicator.
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. | |
| | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: List of CD's Only other thing I can think of is research the CD you're about to buy. I know a number of web searches came up with some juicy DRM info when I was checking a few months ago. There are enough "activists" out there who will post what kind of copy protection a CD will have (or any other interesting things). | |
| | | gatzdon
join:2002-10-25
Lake Zurich, IL
| I was hoping for a list of specific CD titles so I can add a review for each and every one linking to the Blog and a small summary of the vulnaribilities it instroduces to the computer.
--
$100 placed at 7 percent interest compounded quarterlyfor 200 years will increase to more than $100,000,000 --by which time it will be worth nothing.- Lazarus Long | |
| | 
ag1010
join:2001-06-11
Kenosha, WI
| Trey Anastasio, Shine (Columbia)
Celine Dion, On ne Change Pas (Epic)
Neil Diamond, 12 Songs (Columbia)
Our Lady Peace, Healthy in Paranoid Times (Columbia)
Chris Botti, To Love Again (Columbia)
Van Zant, Get Right with the Man (Columbia)
Switchfoot, Nothing is Sound (Columbia)
The Coral, The Invisible Invasion (Columbia)
Acceptance, Phantoms (Columbia)
Susie Suh, Susie Suh (Epic)
Amerie, Touch (Columbia)
Life of Agony, Broken Valley (Epic)
Horace Silver Quintet, Silver's Blue (Epic Legacy)
Gerry Mulligan, Jeru (Columbia Legacy)
Dexter Gordon, Manhattan Symphonie (Columbia Legacy)
The Bad Plus, Suspicious Activity (Columbia)
The Dead 60s, The Dead 60s (Epic)
Dion, The Essential Dion (Columbia Legacy)
Natasha Bedingfield, Unwritten (Epic)
Ricky Martin, Life (Columbia) (labeled as XCP, but, oddly, our disc had no protection) | |
| |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
1 edit | said by gatzdon :Anyone know where there is a list of CD's employing this crap. I would like to hit all the review sites for those discs and add a comment with a link to the blog. FOund this today, hope this helps somewhat.
Trey Anastasio - Shine
Celine Dion - On ne Change Pas
Neil Diamond - 12 Songs
Our Lady Peace - Healthy in Paranoid Times
Chris Botti - To Love Again
Van Zant - Get Right with the Man
Switchfoot - Nothing is Sound
The Coral - The Invisible Invasion
Acceptance - Phantoms
Susie Suh - Susie Suh
Amerie - Touch
Life of Agony - Broken Valley
Horace Silver Quintet - Silver's Blue
Gerry Mulligan - Jeru
Dexter Gordon - Manhattan Symphonie
The Bad Plus - Suspicious Activity
The Dead 60s - The Dead 60s
Dion - The Essential Dion
Natasha Bedingfield - Unwritten
Ricky Martin - Life
Edit: To late, someone else got it already. | |
| 
WaxPhoto
I AM SAM
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Roanoke, IN
| Pot meet kettle BBR constantly lambastes press coverage of file sharing issues for framing the discussion in the context of "piracy." So whats with the "exploited by cheating gamers???" Not wanting Warden to spy on you doesn't make you a cheater!
That said, I don't know why anyone would install one kind of crapware to partially disable another...
--
To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle. -George Orwell | |
| |
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Pot meet kettle said by WaxPhoto :BBR constantly lambastes press coverage of file sharing issues for framing the discussion in the context of "piracy." So whats with the "exploited by cheating gamers???" Not wanting Warden to spy on you doesn't make you a cheater! I don't think BBR was meaning how you took it. I think they are taking the angle that already people have taken advantage of the software's presence to further their own purposes, not that with which it was software was intended. It's kind of like one bot taking over another bot's network.
It probably was a unfair generalization that users would use this DRM flaw to hide game cheats from Warden...I bet though I could count on 1 hand the number of users that have done this to hide something from Warden and were NOT cheating.
But I do agree that not wanting Warden spying on you doesn't make you a cheater.
--
"What gives them the right to come in and do this?" she said. - Lady complaining that she was getting FIOS in her backyard. | |
| | |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: Pot meet kettle said by cdru :said by WaxPhoto :BBR constantly lambastes press coverage of file sharing issues for framing the discussion in the context of "piracy." So whats with the "exploited by cheating gamers???" Not wanting Warden to spy on you doesn't make you a cheater! I don't think BBR was meaning how you took it. I think they are taking the angle that already people have taken advantage of the software's presence to further their own purposes, not that with which it was software was intended. It's kind of like one bot taking over another bot's network. It probably was a unfair generalization that users would use this DRM flaw to hide game cheats from Warden...I bet though I could count on 1 hand the number of users that have done this to hide something from Warden and were NOT cheating. But I do agree that not wanting Warden spying on you doesn't make you a cheater. If the program is designed to stop cheaters, and you don't want this program to scan your PC, then you are hiding something as far as I am concerned. If there is nothing to hide then there shouldn't be an issue with scanning the system. | |
| | | | 
Brian Peppers
@sympatico.ca | Re: Pot meet kettle Blizzard might steal your porn though! | |
| | | | |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs: | Re: Pot meet kettle said by Brian Peppers :
Blizzard might steal your porn though!
EEP! Now we don't need that do we!  ;):p:D | |
| | | | | | | | | 
bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
Santa Clarita, CA
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| Good statement, but you're wrong.
On my PC's, I hide everything I can, and restrict access to most everything else. Why? My personal information is nobody's business except for those I choose to give it to. A program that installs and operates in a stealth manner and reports to entities who have no right to my information is a big deal.
So yes, I am hiding something. I have a right to do it, too.
--
Televideo ergo sum.....I watch TV, therefore I am. | |
| | | | |
WaxPhoto
I AM SAM
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Roanoke, IN
| Re: Pot meet kettle said by bigunk :Good statement, but you're wrong. On my PC's, I hide everything I can, and restrict access to most everything else. Why? My personal information is nobody's business except for those I choose to give it to. A program that installs and operates in a stealth manner and reports to entities who have no right to my information is a big deal. So yes, I am hiding something. I have a right to do it, too. ^^What he said^^
--
To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle. -George Orwell | |
| | | | | AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by bigunk :On my PC's, I hide everything I can, and restrict access to most everything else. Why? My personal information is nobody's business except for those I choose to give it to. A program that installs and operates in a stealth manner and reports to entities who have no right to my information is a big deal. So yes, I am hiding something. I have a right to do it, too. And you have every right to hide all you want. What you don't have a right to do though, is enter a contract in which you agree to allow scanning, and then contest your contract after agreeing. It's a part & part package of the software, and demanding that to have your cake & eat it too won't get you anywhere.
If you don't want to be scanned, don't use scanning apps...just that simple. Nobody is forcing you to use the software(s) in question. | |
| | | | | |
bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
Santa Clarita, CA
·AT&T Yahoo
| Re: Pot meet kettle Fair enough. Now please show me, right off the CD or DVD packaging, or in a EULA from the media itself, that states the company, by virtue of my installing the software, has the right to scan all areas of my PC. If they reserve this right, then it had better be very clearly defined in said EULA. If they do not clearly state it, then they had better stop scanning. Sorry, but I don't use products from entities that grant themselves the right to information I deem private. This has nothing to do cheating at a game. It has everything to do with my privacy.
--
Televideo ergo sum.....I watch TV, therefore I am. | |
| | | | | | | AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: Pot meet kettle said by bigunk :Now please show me, right off the CD or DVD packaging, or in a EULA from the media itself, that states the company, by virtue of my installing the software, has the right to scan all areas of my PC. For WoW, that EULA shows up prior to installation, after installation, and after patching, that details that they may have access to memory-resident program access. It even then says if you disagree, to uninstall, and return to point-of-purchase. The EULA also might be addressed in writing in the manual too (in fact I'm sure it is).
For most other software, the EULA is also avaliable in both the instruction manual(s) and agreed to before installation. I have seldom seen commercial software that doesn't have it listed.
"Clearly defined" however, is in the eye of the beholder. Apparantly however, these EULA stipulations are currently "clearly defined" in a court of law, at least until someone successfully challenges it. I'm sure if anyone, the EFF would love to jump on a case where software activities haven't been outlined in their EULA...but I haven't heard of such actions in a while now. | |
| | | | | | | |
bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
Santa Clarita, CA
·AT&T Yahoo
| Re: Pot meet kettle OK then. I'll simply say that if it is clear, then you install at your peril. If they use legalese to hide their intentions, it falls under the deception category in my book. Sorry, but if they need to twist words that way to implant spyware on my machine, there is something wrong with the way they do business.
--
Televideo ergo sum.....I watch TV, therefore I am. | |
| | | | | | | | | AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: Pot meet kettle said by bigunk :I'll simply say that if it is clear, then you install at your peril. If they use legalese to hide their intentions, it falls under the deception category in my book. I dunno. The use of Warden to me has been clear as a WoW player. It's not disguised in "legalese" as in so much as, "my inherant ADD makes me not want to read so many words," kinda thing. It's in there, but Blizzard (like many companies) has so much legally-required crap to put in their EULA, it gets lost to all but those of us which actually read their agreements. | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| Re: Pot meet kettle It's even publicly available:
»www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/
Terms of Use:
E. In order to assist Blizzard Entertainment to police users who may use "hacks," or "cheats" to gain an advantage over other players, you acknowledge that Blizzard Entertainment shall have the right to obtain certain information from your computer and its component parts, including your computer's random access memory, video card, central processing unit, and storage devices. This information will only be used for the purpose of identifying "cheaters," and for no other reason.
Warden doesn't function much differently than anti-virus software. The primary difference is in alerting Blizzard if your machine is using a "cheat" program in conjunction with the game. Same basic methodology that Punkbuster, Cheating-Death, and Valve Anti-Cheat have been using for years. | |
| | | | | | | |
3-D
@69.15.x.x
| Is the EULA available during the course of the sale in a store? If not, then it's not a valid contract. This is part of contract of sale laws according to discussions I've had with friends that are lawyers or law students. You MUST have the opportunity to negotiate the terms or at least read the contract. If I walk to the store, and see this product on the shelf as my method of finding out about it, I have no way to read, negotiate, or even ACCEPT this contract before exchange of money.
From all I've read, this constitutes an invalid contract, since all you agreed to with your money was what was presented before the sale: i.e. pretty pictures and promise of gameplay in exchange for the sale cost plus a monthly fee.
Reasonably, how can anybody expect anything more of you as a consumer, eh? What if car manufacturers tried this? Would people tolerate it? How about the real estate industry?
"Oh hey, now that you've moved in under one contract you've already paid forand agreed to, we're putting this other totally different contract in place that you have no choice but to accept. Of course, it's totally slanted towards us, and your only alternative is to move out of your house/return the car. At a 15% 'restocking fee', of course."
Somehow, I can't see that flying. Why should software, music cds, or any other widget be any different?
I speak against it with my dollar that they don't receive. I've not purchased a Sony DRMd product or Blizzard game for years now (ever since the bnetd incident, in Blizzard's case). How about you? | |
| | | | | | | | | AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: Pot meet kettle said by 3-D :
Is the EULA available during the course of the sale in a store? If not, then it's not a valid contract. This is part of contract of sale laws according to discussions I've had with friends that are lawyers or law students. You MUST have the opportunity to negotiate the terms or at least read the contract. If I walk to the store, and see this product on the shelf as my method of finding out about it, I have no way to read, negotiate, or even ACCEPT this contract before exchange of money. If this is true, then why hasn't any lawyer done a class-action assault against big names (ie. Microsoft) for big money for undisclosure? For such a "clear and cut case", it doesn't make sense if nobody's snatched this "guaranteed win" of a case.
said by 3-D :
"Oh hey, now that you've moved in under one contract you've already paid forand agreed to, we're putting this other totally different contract in place that you have no choice but to accept. Of course, it's totally slanted towards us, and your only alternative is to move out of your house/return the car. At a 15% 'restocking fee', of course." There is no restocking fee involved. You've returned the product in terms with what was specified, and you get your money back. Should you find yourself at a retail chain that's unwilling to cooperate, you either:
A.) Communicate with the software retailer. (explain that you don't agree to EULA, and store will not take back)
B.) Dispute charges with your credit card company.
Again, this would be interesting casework if it were to escalate from that. However, seeing as how software EULAs have been around since I can remember in computing, and I have yet to see a successful contestment to such...I'd say they're here to stay, and valid.
said by 3-D :
I speak against it with my dollar that they don't receive. I've not purchased a Sony DRMd product or Blizzard game for years now (ever since the bnetd incident, in Blizzard's case). How about you? I personally haven't found too much from the major music labels worth buying, and I'm currently a vivid WoW player. I have no qualms about buying Blizzard products, however, I am hesitant about buying RIAA-endorsed products. Such is my decision, and my right as a consumer. | |
| | | | | | | | | | VirtualLarry
Premium
join:2003-08-01
| Re: Pot meet kettle said by AquaBlaze :If this is true, then why hasn't any lawyer done a class-action assault against big names (ie. Microsoft) for big money for undisclosure? There was a woman in Cali that sued, based on the fact that many of these contracts weren't disclosed until after buying and opening the box. I'm not sure of the outcome, I think that they paid her off to settle, because the big publishers were afraid of losing the case.
said by AquaBlaze :There is no restocking fee involved. You've returned the product in terms with what was specified, and you get your money back. Should you find yourself at a retail chain that's unwilling to cooperate, you either: A.) Communicate with the software retailer. (explain that you don't agree to EULA, and store will not take back) B.) Dispute charges with your credit card company. I don't understand why you would even think that those would be necessary, if you belive that the EULA is wholly and completely binding.
Of course the truth is, it's NOT binding, certainly not on 3rd-parties. A hidden shrink-wrap EULA cannot be binding on individual store's sales policies, especially since those stores are not a material party to the contract. Most EULAs are written carefully with regards to the "refund clause", and state IF possible (a very big if) in regards to returning the software to the place of purchase for a refund. You see, attempting to say that one could, unequivocably, return the software for a refund, would be an attempt to bind a third-party (the store), to the terms of the EULA (which purports to be between the publisher and the end-user, and which could be considered fraudulent, and thus another means for voiding the EULA as a contract, and the publishers don't want to risk that happening.
What SHOULD happen, in the case of software purchases, is that the store REFUSES TO SELL those software goods, without an explicitly-signed EULA agreement by the purchaser, after reading over and agreeing to it with the store, with the store acting as the SALES AGENT for the software publisher, rather than a simple RESELLER of SKUs. That would in fact make the store a binding party to the EULA, and give it validity as a sales contract.
But no store or publisher has wished to "do things correctly", because it would be a slight hassle to both retail sellers and retail purchasers of shrink-wrapped software goods. It would also give retail stores quite a bit of power and leeway, acting as sales agents for the publisher. Yet a real signed software purchase agreement and contract of that sort is the NORM for custom-written software. | |
| | | | | | | | | VirtualLarry
Premium
join:2003-08-01
| said by 3-D :
Is the EULA available during the course of the sale in a store? If not, then it's not a valid contract. This is part of contract of sale laws according to discussions I've had with friends that are lawyers or law students. You MUST have the opportunity to negotiate the terms or at least read the contract. If I walk to the store, and see this product on the shelf as my method of finding out about it, I have no way to read, negotiate, or even ACCEPT this contract before exchange of money.
From all I've read, this constitutes an invalid contract, since all you agreed to with your money was what was presented before the sale: i.e. pretty pictures and promise of gameplay in exchange for the sale cost plus a monthly fee. Wow, someone with clue. An increasingly-rare occurance these days. Fact: Most shrink-wrap adhesion "contracts" violate basic contract-law principles, such as the "Meeting of the minds" - a chance to REVIEW and NEGOTIATE the contract, BEFORE the SALE. Note that an actual SALE of goods, transfers certain rights to the purchaser, including the rights of USE, even of copyrighted works, and the attempt to impose a further contract (of adhesion), at the point of installation of said software onto the computer, without those terms being disclosed and negotiated at the point of sale / as part of the software copy purchase contract itself, would generally be considered invalid under contract law. Note that purchasing a genuinely-made and sold copy of a copyrighted work, also grants an implied license to that work under basic copyright law, so you don't need to willingly assent to an otherwise invalid after-the-purchase EULA "contract" in order for your purchased software to be legally licensed, as per the law itself. No matter what the publisher says - copyright law does NOT grant the publisher carte blanche to re-write copyright law as they see fit via after-the-fact EULA adhesion contracts. Insufficiently-versed lower courts may not have enough of a clue about the truth of copyright law, or may not be willing to challenge the commercial status-quo of the marketplace enough to agree with this, sadly. "The System" is often complicit in violating the legal rights (under copyright law itself!) of the purchaser of software goods.
However, the fact that online gaming, and online services in general: 1) Ask you to agree to the EULA while online, requring assent to access their services, and 2) require assent as a condition of providing continued online services, may give them a much stronger legal footing than in the case of require non-online shrink-wrapped software good purchases. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
etr
@swbell.ne
| Re: Pot meet kettle Fact: Most shrink-wrap adhesion "contracts" violate basic contract-law principles, such as the "Meeting of the minds" - a chance to REVIEW and NEGOTIATE the contract, BEFORE the SALE. Note that an actual SALE of goods, transfers certain rights to the purchaser, including the rights of USE, even of copyrighted works, and the attempt to impose a further contract (of adhesion), at the point of installation of said software onto the computer, without those terms being disclosed and negotiated at the point of sale / as part of the software copy purchase contract itself, would generally be considered invalid under contract law. This all makes sense, but where they don't do so already, the media companies can probably get around this issue by including a small-print sentence saying that use of the product is subject to a EULA that is enclosed in the box and available at a given URL or mailing address.
To my own rather ignorant (in legal matters, at least) mind, the role of the retailer seems to be the most interesting. What gives the retailer the right to broker these licenses, and what power do they have in negotiating with the buyer? If the retailer doesn't own a license (under copyright or otherwise), how can they charge me money for a copyrighted work? If the retailer has a license under EULA, what prevents that retailer from selling me the goods outside of the EULA? (Of course, if people didn't get to use software after buying from a retailer, they wouldn't buy there. Likewise, if a retailer started selling software under copyright, the publisher would stop dealing with that retailer.)
These aren't idle questions. They cut to the heart of what the retailer can and can't give you. For example, if the retailer has the right to negotiate the license, what would happen if you bought while wearing an EULA amendment T-shirt? Or, better yet, what if you paid with a check with the URL of a EULA amendment? In both cases, I'd picture an amendment that states that it takes precedence over any shrink-wrap or click-through EULA, strikes any restrictions on the user aside from those established by copyright law, and establishes a friendly state as the jurisdiction for any contract dispute.
The clearest way for the publisher to get around this is for it to have a contract with the retailer spelling out exactly what the retailer is allowed to do. If the retailer grants terms its contract with the publisher forbids, the publisher sends the end user to the retailer to have him or her make amends. (In more concrete terms, if you buy something from a fence to learn that it is stolen, you have to surrender the property to the owner without charge. To get your money back, you have to go after the fence.)
Of course, you could get cute and have a third party buy your software for you under contract requiring that they do so only when they can get the EULA amendment in effect. In the event of a dispute, you'd still have to surrender the license directly to the publisher, but the publisher would have to surrender your money directly to you. (After all, the fact that they received money through a proxy does not change the fact that they have money that belongs to you if the contract is not valid. Your proxy does not impinge on your rights any more than the retailer does the publisher's.)
Of course, this would lead publishers toward a direct sales model, in which case you'd probably have zero recourse to negotiate. (The publishers would only accept payment methods that would not allow for attached terms, and the agreeement-on-a-T-shirt trick wouldn't work for someone ordering over the web.) In short, we'd eventually wind up back where we are now.
Of course, this scenario would still be a pain for publishers playing the OEM game... | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
BronsCon
join:2003-10-24
Cleveland, OH | Re: Pot meet kettle In response to the above unregistered user:
WTF? | |
| | 
Harddrive
Premium
join:2000-09-20
Norwich, CT
| said by WaxPhoto :
Not wanting Warden to spy on you doesn't make you a cheater!
That said, I don't know why anyone would install one kind of crapware to partially disable another...
Exactly. Why put crap-app #2 on your computer to keep crap-app #1 from spying on you? I'm doing nothing wrong to warrant crap-app #1 to tattle on me.
It may have to be with being paranoid. 'I don't want anyone watching me, therefore I will install everything/anything to prevent it.' | |
| | AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by WaxPhoto :BBR constantly lambastes press coverage of file sharing issues for framing the discussion in the context of "piracy." So whats with the "exploited by cheating gamers???" Not wanting Warden to spy on you doesn't make you a cheater! So...are you going to now go and rename every .exe w/ $sys$, to prevent Warden from seeing them? How far would you like to go in that exercise?
If you have a problem with Warden...don't use the product. | |
| | |
WaxPhoto
I AM SAM
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Roanoke, IN | Re: Pot meet kettle I don't have or play WoW, just making a point. | |
| | | | AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: Pot meet kettle said by WaxPhoto :I don't have or play WoW, just making a point. Which I don't quite get. People who play WoW have agreed to Blizzard's terms, which incorporates use of Warden for anti-cheating measures. If folks are honestly that concerned over potential privacy leakage, then they shouldn't use a product.
If you don't like the terms to an agreement, don't agree to them. | |
| | | | |
WaxPhoto
I AM SAM
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Roanoke, IN
| Re: Pot meet kettle »Re: Pot meet kettle
Its a stupid way to stop malicious software (warden), but it doesn't deserve the automatic "cheater" label.
--
To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle. -George Orwell | |
| | | | | | AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: Pot meet kettle said by WaxPhoto :Its a stupid way to stop malicious software (warden), but it doesn't deserve the automatic "cheater" label. I agree that most scanning/pre-emptive hack prevention software are not without their flaws, but it is the route Blizzard has chosen. My desire to play their game is more than my concern they may do something illicit with the data gathered...and so I play.
Plus, I wasn't insta-labeling people who contest "warden" or other anti-cheat devices out there "cheaters". There is a privacy issue at hand...but I see waaay too many people who feel they should tell Blizzard what to do. This is capitalism, after all, and if Warden honestly offended enough of the gameplaying populace as to affect their sales...you better belive Blizzard would drop it like a hot potato in order to recruit more subscribers.
As it is right now, it is a very hot game, and there are more than enough people willing to put up with Warden to enjoy the game experience. At the very least, Blizzard has detailed their actions, and hasn't lied about its intentions with the software...there haven't been any "surprizes". Contrast this with your average ad/spy/malware agency (who claim their program doesn't do anything, they swear!) and I'd say Blizzard is participating in fair business practices. | |
| | | | |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| said by AquaBlaze :said by WaxPhoto :I don't have or play WoW, just making a point. Which I don't quite get. People who play WoW have agreed to Blizzard's terms, which incorporates use of Warden for anti-cheating measures. If folks are honestly that concerned over potential privacy leakage, then they shouldn't use a product. If you don't like the terms to an agreement, don't agree to them. My point exactly, it's there for a reason, you agree when you install the software to the terms and them scanning for said cheats or what not. If there is an issue with this do not install the software. | |
| |
Harddrive
Premium
join:2000-09-20
Norwich, CT
| i dont care if its for any kind of program you may be running, game or otherwise. you should not be put into a position to share personal information on your pc with a stealthy scanning crap-app that calls home to mama that you didnt intend the game or program to access. companies should not be allowed access to your entire file structure just because you want to use their product.
but windows users run windows update, dont they. | |
| | |
See 7 replies to this post | |
IIIBradIII
Comm M-E-L Instr
join:2000-09-28
Greer, SC
| The ultimate hypocrisy This one has really pissed me off. Here I am, trying to be an honest joe - buying CDs, buying tracks off buymusic.com, etc - and this is the thanks I get? Give me a break Sony!
Just last week I bought a new track from buymusic that won't play on anything (can't retrieve its license). Tried on 3 different computers, two different networks - nothing. And will they do anything? Nope!
And now Sony decides to hack my PC when I insert the next CD I buy from them? I've had it.
--
»www.FS2004.com Remember, there are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots. | |
| 
fegul
Premium
join:2004-08-23
united state
| Getting punished for going legit I've already had to remove this crap off machines, and let me tell you, its a PITA. I'm just absolutely astounded that they would screw with your system for buying the product! Instead of preventing copy protection, it encourages piracy.
--
|Networking Help|My Blog| | |
| |
anonpronman
@dsl.net
| Re: Getting punished for going legit I get my music from Usenet. If i like something i buy it. If i don't like something it gets deleted.
I'm using Linux so i don't get the option to use Itunes or the other Monthly Programs.
The Monopoly has a firm hold doesn't anyone understand or see this?
Do you CAre? You should | |
| | | 
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY
·Optimum Online
| Re: Getting punished for going legit said by anonpronman :
I get my music from Usenet. If i like something i buy it. If i don't like something it gets deleted. Same here, Usenet exposes me to lots of new music, which I do the same as you..I'm slowly buying the albums from artists' music I enjoy, and albums I cannot find on there.
I found a new place locally, it's called Looney Tunes, and it has many artists that I like there. Every now and then, they have unsigned bands play in the store.  | |
| | | justinw2116
join:2005-11-10
Round Rock, TX
| If any of you have NERO 6 I encourage you to go out and buy the CDs that have this copy protection on it, and make exact-copies of the disc. Nero 6 Ultra Edition will still make a playable disc with their crap exactly as their disc has it. Then return the opened CDs with a legitimate reason that they would not work. And get free music while ripping off only the SONY people who did this. | |
| | | | | 
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Re: Getting punished for going legit AT least Starforce is removable... I have the Removal Tool. It does remove the crap.
Sony BMG didn't step in it, they fell face first in it! 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| 
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
2 edits | My 2 Cents Personally, I think DRM has gone too far. In fact, I also believe that the DMCA is Unconstitutional on the grounds that it interferes with interstate commerce. Let one of those RIAA jerks sue me and we'll find out their sharks' tailfins aren't as big as mine. I am working on posting a "friend of the court" brief to help people these morons are suing. Email me at rachelalicehunter@gmail.com for me to send a copy to you. I'm not ready to yet, but should by the end of the week. It will also include a provisio for a defence against RIAA lawsuits as well. | |
| | Cetera
join:2005-08-15
Denver, CO | Re: My 2 Cents Can you just post it here, or somewhere else where we could have access to it? | |
| | |
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
| Amicus Curiae for DMCA Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Re: Amicus Curiae on the DMCA, “Fair Use,” and Copyright Infringement
History of the Law
The United States Copyright protection derives its legal authority from Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution with the following language: “The Congress shall have Power” and “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;…” From here, the U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §§ 101 - 810) and the Patent Law (§§ 101-103 of Title 35) gains its federal authority to grant authors and inventors protecting authorships and creations. The “Betamax” decision (Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 104 S. Ct. 774, 78 L. Ed. 2d 574) of 1984 allowed personal copying of broadcast media. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 is the newest law governing the changing times of legal protection and our great technologically changes.
Our Statement
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 Teardropfilms Entertainment Corporation intently believes brutalizes the “Fair Use” doctrine (especially the Betamax case authored by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984 with Sony v Universal Studios), gives inherent rights were no history of such establishment has been achieved, and prevents further scientific discovery and achievements in a variety of intellectual property areas.
The Betamax Decision and “Fair Use”
The Betamax decision established many principles: “"The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration. In Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127, Chief Justice Hughes spoke as follows respecting the copyright monopoly granted by Congress, 'The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.' It is said that reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius." United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 158 (1948).
“Fair Use”
This is not, however, the end of the inquiry because Congress has also directed us to consider "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Section 107(4). The purpose of copyright is to create incentives for creative effort. Even copying for noncommercial purposes may impair the copyright holder's ability to obtain the rewards that Congress intended him to have. But a use that has no demonstrable effect upon the potential market for, or the value of, the copyrighted work need not be prohibited in order to protect the author's incentive to create. The prohibition of such noncommercial uses would [p.451] merely inhibit access to ideas without any countervailing benefit. (Cf. A. Latman, Fair Use of Copyrighted Works (1958), reprinted in Study No. 14 for the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Copyright Law Revision, Studies Prepared for the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 30 (1960): "In certain situations, the copyright owner suffers no substantial harm from the use of his work. . . . Here again, is the partial marriage between the doctrine of fair use and the legal maxim de minimus non curat lex."
Conclusion
Title 17 of the United States Code, § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
§ 111. Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions42
(a) CERTAIN SECONDARY TRANSMISSIONS EXEMPTED. — The secondary transmission of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission is not an infringement of copyright if —
(1) the secondary transmission is not made by a cable system, and consists entirely of the relaying, by the management of a hotel, apartment house, or similar establishment, of signals transmitted by a broadcast station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, within the local service area of such station, to the private lodgings of guests or residents of such establishment, and no direct charge is made to see or hear the secondary transmission; or
(2) the secondary transmission is made solely for the purpose and under the conditions specified by clause (2) of section 110; or
(3) the secondary transmission is made by any carrier who has no direct or indirect control over the content or selection of the primary transmission or over the particular recipients of the secondary transmission, and whose activities with respect to the secondary transmission consist solely of providing wires, cables, or other communications channels for the use of others: Provided, That the provisions of this clause extend only to the activities of said carrier with respect to secondary transmissions and do not exempt from liability the activities of others with respect to their own primary or secondary transmissions;
(4) the secondary transmission is made by a satellite carrier for private home viewing pursuant to a statutory license under section 119; or
(5) the secondary transmission is not made by a cable system but is made by a governmental body, or other nonprofit organization, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage, and without charge to the recipients of the secondary transmission other than assessments necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary transmission service.
§ 110. Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays41
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:
(1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made;
It is our assertion that the “Fair Use” doctrine allows individuals to make copies of CDs, Video Tapes, DVDs, and even any type of streaming media on the Internet for personal use only including “copies” for future use if the original is destroyed. If an individual can copy a tape of a television broadcast, why not streaming media on the Internet? It is foolish to transmit such media since the legal transmitting party is knowledgeable that such copying exists. The individual performing such a personal service, in Teardropfilms Entertainment Corporation’s opinion, is hereby authorized to copy our works as long as it is not used for the illegal purpose of selling or distributing copies except to themselves.
Under Due Process, we disagree that the RIAA and MPAA can secure the private interests of unnamed individuals they believe may be infringing upon their rights to ownership. Our company pledges to, unless great technological change happens that circumvents the Constitution, not subpoena records of unnamed individuals since private use of our materials is legal. In fact, if the original owner decides to sell our work and not retain it, we have no problem with such casual distribution as the law explicitly provides. In conclusion, the owner of copyrighted material should not be allowed to circumvent the personal use of the purchasers of such media. To do so would severely undermine our business to a magnitude that we cannot anticipate.
Rachel Alice Hunter
Chairwoman
Teardropfilms Entertainment Corporation | |
| |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Just wondering. Do you have any intellectual property law experience? A few BBR members do and they would probably like to put this brief to the test once you have it ready. Just thought I would prepare you. | |
| 
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA
·Mediacom
| Sony Sucks! If you wish to completely uninstall all of our DRM software, visit the
form below using the computer where the software is currently
installed. After submission you will be emailed a custom uninstall link within 1
business day (M-F).
»cp.sonybmg.com/xcp/english/form9.html
Your "Case ID" is: *******.
TIP: The uninstall request form will require an ActiveX plug-in. You may also need to temporarily turn off your pop-up blocker.
TIP: A non-ActiveX uninstall process is in development. However, until it is released, our online process is the only removal tool available.
If you prefer, or require a non-ActiveX solution, an
offline uninstaller is due to be released later this month at:
»cp.sonybmg.com/xcp/english/updates.html
So I guess they will offer it via simple download later this month. BTW I made a fake request and did not purchase music since 2002. | |
| aaron12345
join:2002-12-17
Falls Church, VA
1 edit | mac From the Sony Faq:
1. Will this disc play on my computer?
Yes. This disc is compatible with both PC and Mac.
PC Users: When listening to music directly off the disc, you must use the player provided on the disc. Attempting to play the audio on the disc (while the disc is spinning in the computer drive) with another player (i.e. Windows Media Player, Real Player, iTunes) will result in distorted sound.
Mac Users: This disc will behave like a traditional CD in a Mac.
So wouldn't you be able to just pop it into a freinds mac, rip it and upload or copy it like normal without protection, and all's well. Even though this might be possible, you shouldn't have to work this hard to do it and this junk still pisses me off - now I'm NEVER buying a cd from sony. I'd be interested to know if this would actually work though. | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Very dishonest It's one thing to prevent someone from distributing music on the internet and then it's another when you have companies like Sony doing something like this. I think it's very dishonest and even deceptive on Sony's part. Was going to buy a Sony laptop but thanks to Sony I will be looking someplace else. Sony will be out of the picture on anything I buy. | |
| denzilla74
join:2005-11-02
Anderson, SC | Love it!! That Sysinternals guy is just kicking Sony's ass for this. I LOVE IT!!  | |
| | TrueAudio2
join:2005-08-06
| Gilliat-Smith's of F 4 I Psychobabble »news.com.com/5208-7355-0.html?fo···start=-1
"No comments" - baloney
Reader post by: Wally Bass
Posted on: Wed Nov 02 19:23:09 PST 2005
Story: Sony CD protection sparks security concerns
>>"I think this is slightly old news,"Gilliat-
Smith said. "For the eight months that these CDs have been out, we haven't had any comments about malware (malicious software) at all."
Let me translate this.
"Since most people lack the skills of
Russinovich, no one else so far has been able to track any of the system failures that we have induced back to us. You see, we spent an extraordinary amount of time covering our tracks by cloaking things that people would normally able to see in their systems.
"As to the (probably thousands of) poor smucks whose CD disappeared due to our code, or who blue screened, or whatever, and who spend hours trying to figure out what was wrong, and then more hours rebuilding their systems - well - who cares. They didn't trace it back to us - it doesn't affect our bottom line."
I really love his attitude: "well, we knew that we screwed you eight months ago - boy are you guys dummies that you only now have figured it out."
Hopefully, a good case will be made against these clowns, and Sony will pay heavily though a class action suit, and in the marketplace. With a little luck, maybe someone will even do some jail time. | |
| | Nailbag
join:2001-10-16
London, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·Bell Sympatico
| Re: Gilliat-Smith's of F 4 I Psychobabble How about this:
Antivirus firm CA finds security risk in Sony's DRM rootkit
Posted by Quakester2000 on 10 November 2005 - 12:59 - Source: Zdnet
Kerry56 used our news submit to tell us that antivirus companies from around the world are now releasing tools to both identify and in cases remove Sony's DRM toolkit. With Computer Associates saying that it does much more than initially thought and that their software will remove it. Antivirus firms view Sony's DRM toolkit as a potential risk as it installs itself into the windows operating system and hides itself. The software is then hidden from the OS and any other programs on the system including antivirus programs. If exploited by marking a file with the same characters that hide its DRM from the system a virus could run undetected.
There have been a wide range of opinions from antivirus firms with Symantec which owns Norton Antivirus saying that its software will detect the DRM rootkit software but will not remove it. Instead it says that its software will give a link to Sony’s website that will show how to remove the program along with the patch that exposes the files.
Computer Associates on the other hand says that it will release software that will remove it after finding that the software did much more than stop the copying of protected CD's. CA found that Sony’s rootkit made itself the default player on the host system and sent back information detailing what cds you played along with your ip address. CA also found that wither or not intended the software makes it impossible to make a clean rip from non protected cds as it inserts pseudo-random noise into the MP3 file that makes it of poorer quality. Computer associates president said what was disturbing was the fact that the software gave no notice or approval as well as a lack of an easy removal tool.
Sony said it was investigating these c claims by Computer associates but had no immediate comments to make. The outcry comes 8 months after the first CD with Sony’s Rootkit was released in the US.
Antivirus companies are releasing tools this week to identify, and in some cases remove, copy protection software contained on recent Sony BMG Music Entertainment CDs. The software has been identified as a potential security risk.The Sony software, found on several of the company's recent albums, is triggered by playing one of the CDs in a PC. From the CD drive, the software installs itself deeply inside a hard drive and hides itself from view. This cloaking technique could be used by virus writers to hide their own malicious software, security experts have said.
There is a range of opinion among security companies about how much risk the software poses, from those who consider it no worse than an adware pest to those who view it as potentially dangerous spyware. Symantec said on Wednesday that its antivirus software would identify the Sony software, but would not remove it. Instead, it will point to Sony's own Web site, where users can get instructions for uninstalling the software or download a patch that will expose the hidden components."We're trying to reinforce here that we're not talking about a virus, or malicious code, we're talking about technology that could be misused," said Symantec Senior Director Vincent Weafer. "We're trying to work co-operatively."
However, Computer Associates, which has a security division, said on Monday it had found further security risks in the Sony software and was releasing a tool to uninstall it directly. According to Computer Associates, the Sony software makes itself a default media player on a computer after it is installed. The software then reports back the user's Internet address and identifies which CDs are played on that computer. Intentionally or not, the software also seems to damage a computer's ability to "rip" clean copies of MP3s from non-copy protected CDs, the security company said."It will effectively insert pseudo-random noise into a file so that it becomes less listenable," said Sam Curry, a Computer Associates vice president. "What's disturbing about this is the lack of notice, the lack of consent, and the lack of an easy removal tool."
A Sony spokesman said the company's technical staff was looking into the issues identified by Computer Associates, but had no immediate comment.The furore over the Sony software comes nearly eight months after the copy protection technique, created by British company First 4 Internet, was first released on a commercial disc in the United States.
| |
| | | |
|
|
More on Sony DRM Gone Bad
