Post by Mark P. FishmanThe same, of course, applies to computer software. If enough consumers
stopped buying software that requires "activation", or that treated them
as if they were stealing it and needed policing, ... etc. It's not going
to happen. There are enough people in the world who *don't care* that
the ones who do care can't make a significant impact.
You say that we can't make a significant impact? Rubbish. Sony stopped
distributing audio discs which had the XCP anti-copy protection,
recalled millions of the discs, and offered to exchange the discs for
normal CD versions:
http://news.com.com/Sony+recalls+risky+rootkit+CDs/2100-7349_3-5954154.html
In the software world, consumer backlash recently caused Ubisoft to drop
the Starforce anti-copy protection mechanism for all future products:
http://www.ferrago.com/story/7585
Post by Mark P. FishmanAnd therin lies part of the problem with returning them to the store: in
the USA, at least, these discs do not claim to *be* CDs -- they do not
carry the "Compact Disc - Digital Audio" logo. If you buy a disc without
that logo, you have no legal basis for complaining that you can't do
everything with them that you could do with a CD. Legally, you've been
informed before purchase.
If the packaging is such, and the placement in the store is such, that a
normal consumer would be fooled into believing that they were purchasing
a CD, you do have a legal basis for complaint. If you ask the sales
clerk for a Coldplay "CD" and he hands you something which is anti-copy
protected, then you have a legal basis for complaint. If the ad in the
paper describes the product as a "CD," you have a legal basis for
complaint. If the sign in the store says "$14.99 CD sale," then you
have a legal basis for complaint. The record companies stopped using
the "Compact Disc - Digital Audio" logo for three reasons:
1. Philips threatened legal action against them for putting the logo on
discs which had anti-copy protection.
2. The five major labels were hit with a class action lawsuit in 2002
for using the logo on discs which had anti-copy protection.
3. Use of the logo cost money.
At the time when such discs were first coming out, I had a 45 minute
talk with an attorney for Philips. I encouraged him to pursue legal
action against those who used the logo on discs which did not meet the
Red Book standards. I explained that the record labels were looking for
a way to make consumers accept a new format with built-in copy
protection and that, by reducing consumer confidence in CDs, they could
convince consumers to "upgrade." Nothing reduces consumer confidence
quicker than "CDs" which mysteriously don't work on computers, don't
work in some home players, don't work in some car audio systems, etc.
Post by Mark P. FishmanA question you haven't addressed is, what do you do when the disc won't
play on your actual CD player?
Yes, I did. Return the disc. Or don't buy such discs in the first
place. And, based on your point, you could insist on the "Compact Disc
- Digital Audio" logo on all CDs that you purchase.
Post by Mark P. FishmanOK, so it's got badly-designed firmware. But I *must* rip these discs
and make audio-only copies in order to play them -- and if I want the
music I have very little choice about that, regardless of whether the
disc is intentionally copy-protected.
You do have a choice: You could choose to do without some music that
you want. We're not talking about food, clothing, shelter, or
medicine. I'm sure that there are people who won't buy Nike running
shoes, even if they really want them, because they disapprove of Nike's
use of child labor. (I'm not suggesting that these wrongs are of equal
importance -- just illustrating my point.)
You have another option: Depending on you own views on ethics, the law,
and civil disobedience, you could download the music from peer-to-peer
networks rather than buy the disc. Of course, if you are defeating the
copy protection on the disc, you have already broken federal law,
specifically the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
Post by Mark P. FishmanSo this discussion has a point. If the recording companies are going to
sell discs that are hard to play and hard to rip, we can have legitimate
reasons for doing those things anyway.
We already had legitimate reasons to exercise our "fair use" rights.
Making mix CDs, making copies to play in our cars, ripping them for use
on personal music players, and making backup copies are all legitimate
reasons to defeat copy protection. But it's still illegal under the DMCA.
Regards,
Fred Maxwell
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/IYOolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Official Exact Audio Copy mailing list: http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/
To unsubscribe send mail to: eac-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org
Drive Offset List: http://www.offsetbase.eac-audio.de/offset-en.php
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eac/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
eac-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/