Registered: Nov 2001
Location: somewhere you're not.
Posts: 218

LONDON (Reuters) - Technology buffs have cracked music publishing giant Sony Music's elaborate disc copy-protection technology with a decidedly low-tech method: scribbling around the rim of a disk with a felt-tip marker.

Internet newsgroups have been circulating news of the discovery for the past week, and in typical newsgroup style, users have pilloried Sony for deploying "hi-tech" copy protection that can be defeated by paying a visit to a stationery store.

"I wonder what type of copy protection will come next?" one posting on alt.music.prince read. "Maybe they'll ban markers."

Sony did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

Major music labels, including Sony and Universal Music, have begun selling the "copy-proof" discs as a means of tackling the rampant spread of music piracy, which they claim is eating into sales.

The new technology aims to prevent consumers from copying, or "burning," music onto recordable CDs or onto their computer hard drives, which can then be shared with other users over file-sharing Internet services such as Kazaa or Morpheus MusicCity.


trying to ban file-sharing is like trying to ban winter.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2001
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 987

ha

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2002
Location: any place you aren't
Posts: 32

quote:

---

Originally posted by naughty jewel
[i]"I wonder what type of copy protection will come next?" one posting on alt.music.prince read. "Maybe they'll ban markers."

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 10178

i agree copy protection is futile, but it still amazes me how many people think it's ok to steal other peoples work, and the people in the right, the copyright holders, are assholes for trying to protect their property.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 10121

I can't believe you are without perv points.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Dumbfucksville!
Posts: 12164

So, you [Dingle], as I, believe that Napster was basically stealing money from the composers, publishers and authors?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Beyond Mason-Dixon Line
Posts: 16165

quote:

---

Originally posted by MstrG
I can't believe you are without perv points.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 1574

nevermind that they've been stealing from us by pricefixing/gouging for years, right? If they didn't charge absurd amounts, the demand for piracy would never have become as huge as it is.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: somewhere you're not.
Posts: 218

i'm torn on the issue. i probably wouldn't have bought a LOT of the CD's that are sitting in my room without downloading their songs first on the computer.

but, then again, a part of me knows it's wrong. i can download an entire album within thirty minutes or so without paying a cent. *shrug* you must admit that on some level.... that's not right. but i still have a shitload of mp3's that i'll never pay for. i'm a hypocrite.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Dumbfucksville!
Posts: 12164

Nips, why do you make the determination as to what price a CD should be? Does this give you the right to copy a CD and pass it on to the whole world for free?

What if you thought Stephen King's next book was too costly. Could you scan it, and post it on the internet for all to print out, thus depriving the creator his due?

I see it this way: We all want stuff for free and we will RATIONALIZE our thievry around it. Some will rationalize that the record companies are gouging the public, and some will rationalize that they wouldn't have purchased the CD anyway.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: somewhere you're not.
Posts: 218

quote:

---

Originally posted by GoFuckYourselves!
I see it this way: We all want stuff for free and we will RATIONALIZE our thievry around it. Some will rationalize that the record companies are gouging the public, and some will rationalize that they wouldn't have purchased the CD anyway.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Beyond Mason-Dixon Line
Posts: 16165

quote:

---

Originally posted by naughty jewel
uh huh. two guys i know go around shoplifting in barnes and nobles and other stores and make up some bullshit about how they're fighting the MAN and big bad corporations who screw people over anyway and blah blah blah.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: somewhere you're not.
Posts: 218

actually, now that i think about it, i think they're b&b's long-lost inbred cousins from the south.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Cnafilornia
Posts: 405

Proselytizing.

Imagine a world where people's inalienable rights extend over to include things like food, shelter, clothing, and equality.

Equality.

Imagine a world wherein artists and athletes perform for the sake of the art or sport rather than raw profit.

(I wonder where John Lennon might have stood regarding the concept of "file-sharing.")

Whether you believe in a concept as wishful and ephemeral as that or not, it's pretty hard to deny that the "Napster problem" speaks pretty clearly regarding the modern INDIVIDUAL'S core perspective on capitalism. What I mean is that, as individuals we simply don't buy into it. At heart, we don't recognize the master/servant mentality that capitalism implies. Concepts such as placing "prices" on land, time, and even music, are so fundamentally unnatural that we'll gladly disregard them if we're provided with a venue wherein we're protected from the harsh repercussions that our current concept of society demands for such transgressions (i.e. jail, fines).

I don't pretend to know whether that's a result a deeply inculcated narcisissm, or some nod toward a secret inner knowledge that somewhere out there, there's a better way. I'm hoping for the latter.


Sorry for squeezing myself in your thread, NJ.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: somewhere you're not.
Posts: 218

never apologize for speaking your mind. especially in one of my threads...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: my mother's bloody womb
Posts: 7128

communist!

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Dumbfucksville!
Posts: 12164

John Lennon would have been worth maybe a billion dollars, had he lived. I'm sure he would have given a lot of it to worthy causes and charities, but I feel that even he would not have wanted his artistic output PIRATED.

Artists deserve to be paid as long as their work is for sale.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Beyond Mason-Dixon Line
Posts: 16165

quote:

---

Originally posted by redguard
. . . Whether you believe in a concept as wishful and ephemeral as that or not, it's pretty hard to deny that the "Napster problem" speaks pretty clearly regarding the modern INDIVIDUAL'S core perspective on capitalism. What I mean is that, as individuals we simply don't buy into it. . . .

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Cnafilornia
Posts: 405

J E B, I very want my glass to be half-full for a change .

You speak a harsh truth, but I still love you.

I hope you've been well,
redguard@blackvault.com

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Beyond Mason-Dixon Line
Posts: 16165

quote:

---

Originally posted by redguard
J E B, I very want my glass to be half-full for a change .

You speak a harsh truth, but I still love you.

I hope you've been well,
redguard@blackvault.com

---

On these things, we will always agree, old friend.

Amen.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

haha that's funny.

On this whole issue I say this. One of the main artists that brought about all the shit on this issue was Dr Dre and he is the biggest fucking hypocrit in the world. He made his money from sampling ergo stealing and then to have the cheek to tell people not to 'steal' his music is a bit rich.

On the point about file sharing, it is a very powerful political tool that I think can stop the price fixing that goes on. And beleive me it does, you would not beleive the price we in Europe pay for cds as a result of price fixing. Let alone the disgusting implementation of region coding by the very same firm in relation to DVDs. Region coding has been done precisely for price fixing purposes.

I agree with the Foo Fighters Dave Grohl, who, when asked, what he thought and felt about people sharing his music said: 'What the fuck do I care I have enough money already'

The problem with this whole issue, and particularkly copy protection, is that they have changed the rules governing fair use. It is my right to copy a cd for my own purpose and use. They are saying it is not now, and that is bullshit. They are effectively saying, if you want a copy of this cd for you in car mp3 player then tough. If you want a copy of this cd for your in car cd player then go out and buy another one. To that I say 'FUCK YOU' I have my fair use rights and Sony you can fuck right off up your own arse.'

N.B. Sharing is turned off on all my p2p programs. The reason? Bandwidth.

edit: Public Enemy sold more copies of their album as a result of the publicity they gained from giving it away on mp3 three days before the release. Smashing Pumpkins did the same.

The way royalties is paid for music is ludricous btw. Andrew Ridgley (ex Wham) earns 70K per year alone from the George Michael hit 'Carless Whisper'

Last edited by philjit on 05-22-2002 at 09:06 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Dumbfucksville!
Posts: 12164

Is your OWNING CDs a necessity, as bread would be?

Having the political views that you do, you remain consistent.

(Being a staunch capitalist, I, too, remain consistent.)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

Originally posted by GoFuckYourselves!
Is your OWNING CDs a necessity, as bread would be?

Having the political views that you do, you remain consistent.

(Being a staunch capitalist, I, too, remain consistent.)

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

This is what I am talking about GFY

quote:

---

Time to rewrite the DMCA: By House Representive for South West Virgina Rick Boucher.

The American public has traditionally enjoyed the ability to make convenient and incidental copies of copyrighted works without obtaining the prior consent of copyright owners. These traditional "fair use" rights are at the foundation of the receipt and use of information by the American people. Unfortunately, those rights are now under attack.

In 1997, motion picture studios, record producers, book publishers and other content owners came to Congress with a simple proposition: Give us a law that will stop pirates from circumventing technical protection measures used to safeguard copyrighted works, and we will release all sorts of exciting new content in digital formats

At the time, libraries, universities, consumer electronics manufacturers, Internet portals and others warned that enactment of the broadly worded legislation would stifle new technology, would threaten access to information, and would move us inexorably towards a "pay per use" society. That day is now close at hand.

When Congress considered the content community's anti-circumvention proposal, I put forward a series of amendments intended to preserve the fair-use rights of consumers. My colleagues and I feared that broad application of the proposed new anti-circumvention law would threaten the viability of the fair-use doctrine in the digital age.

Unfortunately, as so often happens, Congress paid more attention to the loudest voices in the debate. In writing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, Congress made some important, but ultimately modest, changes to the original proposal. And we persuaded ourselves that we had achieved a rough balance of interests. But in the end, Congress agreed to a fundamentally flawed bill, which created the new crime of circumvention--a crime divorced from over a century and a half of respect for the fair-use rights of consumers.

The DMCA, as enacted, quite clearly tilted the balance in the Copyright Act toward complete protection and away from information availability. In the three years since the law was enacted, we have not seen the promised new digital content. Instead, we have seen a rash of lawsuits; the imprisonment by U.S. authorities of a Russian computer programmer who had come to the United Stat