Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 05:38 PM EST

As if PJ ever makes them... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 05:39 PM EST

Authored by: tknarr on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 05:46 PM EST

I notice that the case the CD's in has the "Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo on it. This may put ColdPlay, the publisher and/or the retailers on the hot seat. I believe California is one of those states that doesn't allow the retailer and/or manufacturer to refuse to accept returns on defective products. If they're claiming it's a real CD, then by refusing to accept returns because it won't play on CDDA-compliant devices they may be opening themselves up to legal action in California. OTOH, if they say it's not a real CD then they're in the clear on that but by using the CDDA logo and putting it in with other real CDs they may be opening themselves up to charges of false advertising and consumer fraud. The retailers are the ones most likely to get bit by this first, unless they're willing to eat the returns or put the labels on the spot in court. To be honest, I think that's what it's going to take to get DRM off the shelves: putting the retailers and the labels in a legal bind that they can only avoid by segregating all DRM'd media off in it's own prominently-labelled section. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: pointwood on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 05:46 PM EST

I thought this was a relevant story - not sure if it has been posted before: In Motown v. Nelson, pending in federal court in Port Huron, Michigan (Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division), the defendants -- Mr. and Mrs. Nelson -- have made a motion for attorneys fees against the RIAA attorneys, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1927 for unreasonable and vexatious litigation and improperly interfering and/or obtaining false testimony from a prospective witness. Article on arstechnica.com. ---

Pointwood

JabberID: Pointwood@jabber.shd.dk [ Reply to This | # ]



RIAA lawyers bully witnesses into perjury - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 06:11 PM EST

Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 05:49 PM EST

"Don't like it? We don't care. Watch us sitting in our offices not

caring."



Watch my money, sitting in my wallet, not moving. Won't be paying the rent on

those fancy-dancy offices with MY cash. (Now if you're done looking at my

wallet, which is staying in my pants pocket, get your eyes off my butt.

Perverts.)



And all without breaking the law. No Coldplay songs in my collection. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: afore on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 05:51 PM EST

I am having problem ripping cds to put on an ipod because of the effects of this

stupid DRM. Using Suse 10.0 it is almost impossible to output and mp4 to put on

an ipod. Don't do any file sharing or anthing like that. I am having to update

the gstreamer to the latest version, of which there are no rpms for suse x86_64,

then get the appropriate plugins. Have to compile all of this and make rpms to

install. What a pain.



Art [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Tyro on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 05:55 PM EST

That's an excellent summary. If it weren't on Groklaw,

I'd suggest publishing it where it will be more widely

read.



I particularly like:

<i>

And as for their suggestion I turn on ActiveX and turn off

my firewall at the same time, ...

</i>

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 06:05 PM EST

The music companies need to create a new media (maybe a square aluminum disc)

and sell a player with it's own stand alone speakers and 110 volt wall plug(it's

only standard).

If you buy into this scheme then you can buy and play their music, otherwise

forget their music.

The rest of the world can foster a new music market by a new consumer demand.



The future > (Like who was Johnny Cash? Who was Elvis? They had some

samples of their music on the History Channel the other night.)

I guess the new world order will include new non-record contract performers.

That new guy Pelvis Eresley? yeah I got an mp3 of him. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Walter Dnes on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 06:16 PM EST

I don't quarrel with record companies' right to put all sorts of DRM on their

products, but I think that it's unconscionable that the customer doesn't find

out about the restrictions until *AFTER* they buy, with no right of refund.

While we're at it, this also applies to software EULAs.



Are there any laws being broken by these after-the-purchase disclosures?

(Probably varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction).



What can consumers do at a personal level? Maybe start reporting such

occurences to the local BBB, or complaining to government consumer-protection

agencies. In New York, maybe Spitzer might be interested in some thing like

this.



Another option might be to put up web sites with examples of such after-the-fact

restrictions. Just be sure to host them in faraway places out of reach of

US-based SLAPP suits. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Cassandra on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 06:19 PM EST

I own a perfectly legal CD copy of this album, and I've just ripped it into Oggs without difficulty. Ironically, I can't find a "Compact Disc" logo anywhere on the box either. And the music company logo on the box says "EMI" instead of Virgin. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 06:20 PM EST

PJ wrote:"Now let me say here and now that I believe in

keeping the law. That is what Groklaw is all about. And I

personally won't file-share until someone does something

about the current imbalance in copyright law and remembers

that fair use is also part of the law."



I want to comment it: 1. I read the sentences a couple of

times, because at first I thought I misunderstood you.



2. Filesharing is not illegal! It is a technic to share

files. And like ftp/html/telnet etc. a technic cant be

illegal. I dont want to know how many copyrighted files

where exchange with ftp and html. You can share all files,

which allow it to you, like all under GPL (or any other

licens which allow it to you), any file you created by

yourself and thereby have the copyright over it.



3. I got the imprssion you believe the RIAA-FUD that

filesharing is evil and all fileshareres breaks the law.



cu

cinspor [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: garrett on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 06:21 PM EST

PJ,



Thanks for giving equal access to those of us who can't see.



Distro: Slackware 102 browser: ELinks 0.10.6



---

Sco: the definitive source for not what to do in litigation. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: gmwhitehead on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 06:27 PM EST

PJ, your work on behalf of OSS users and anyone concerned about intellectual

property over the last few years has been amazing and (especially given that

it's been given at no cost!) astonishingly thorough.



I've not posted here before, but I've been an avid follower of Groklaw since

shortly after it began. By training, I'm a performing musician (that's where my

degree is, although I now work as a programmer). I'd dearly love for you to be

able to experience the subtle relaxation and yet intense emotional expression of

the Mozart Clarinet Quintet in full. As such I'd like to offer to buy you a

copy of it on CD, ideally (in the closest I've come to my perfect performance)

played by Jack Brymer.



I don't know if there's a way to discriminate one payment to Groklaw from

another - if not, and I hear nothing in response to this, I'll make sure to send

a contribution equivalent to the value of the CD doubled (plus extra :) ) to

Groklaw via PayPal. Here's hoping, and all the best for 2006.



G. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 06:34 PM EST

Since I do work in an area that they'd probably lump under "IT

Support", and actually have operational responsibility for our routers,

firewalls and other security-related systems, I may humbly suggest that speaking

to me or my colleagues to do what is suggested in that FAQ is likely to provoke

laughter. Not on the part of the person wanting the Coldplay music, either. That

strategy has zero probability of success in the corporate environment, even

(perhaps especially) in those environments that have numerous MS Windows desktop

systems. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 06:37 PM EST

I don't even press the shift key.

I simply removed autorun (a year ago) and since it wasn't because of coldplay,

it isn't even a copy protection bypass action :)



I hope this stuff installs something exploitable, so they will be sitting in the

next cell to Sony :)

[ Reply to This | # ]



Coldplay copyprotection *laugh* - Authored by: Jeff on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 07:59 PM EST

Authored by: Wol on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 06:38 PM EST

Actually, he didn't. He was quite wealthy. And while he had a lot of loans

outstanding, he was the lender, not the borrower. He was very poor at calling in

loans.



This whole myth is a ?Victorian? invention. The details of his funeral are

fairly accurate, and because this describes a victorian pauper's funeral, it was

assumed he was poverty-stricken. Actually, a funeral like that was *NORMAL* for

everyone below royalty, and that INCLUDES NOBILITY. A Duke would have been

treated the same as Mozart!



He had a pretty expensive farewell, and then his body was taken away to a

communal grave. It was unusual for people to follow the coffin to the grave, and

only Royalty could command a private plot.



Cheers,

Wol [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 06:50 PM EST

The ket to playing streaming media is to know what the address of the stream is.

Many internet radio stations obfuscate the stream address inside active X or

other junk.



To listen to Classic FM for example point your media player to

mms://audio2.musicradio.com/classicfm



gxine is a very nice player for listening to internet streams and comes with

many of them preconconfigured, although it does have trouble with the BBC

streams for which I use kmplayer.



delboy711

anonymous because I still cannot log in. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 07:03 PM EST

I looked it up in my old Koechel Verzeichnis:



KV 581

Quintett ("Stadler-Quintett") for clarinet, two violins, viola,

violoncello

Composed 29 September 1789, Vienna

Mozart-Verzeichnis 112

Performed on 22 December 1789, Vienna (Anton Stadler played the clarinet)



It has four movements:

1. Allegro

2. Larghetto

3. Menuetto

4. Allegretto con Variazioni



A sample mp3 of the second movement can be found on:

http://www.bambergerstreichquartett.de/hoerbsp.htm



You can buy a recording, for instance, at:

http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/hnum/3655078

(EUR 5.99 in Germany)



I found a free recording via Google at:

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~ushankar/recordings/index.html

(look for K. 581); the recording quality is not very good

but one can get an impression of the music. The musicians

are not bad.



Perhaps someone with a recording can send you mp3's :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 07:10 PM EST

Actually I make that one group! It has been so since the days of Bill's first Basic interpreter. :-) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 07:15 PM EST

...that record stores put CDs like these into a special section titled

"Music that may or may not work on your playback device. It is does not

work, we are not responsible and will not accept this product for a return or

refund".



Then just wait to see how many schmucks there are out there who actually pick up

one of these CDs and purchase it. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 07:15 PM EST

>Surely you can't sell something you know doesn't work and

>then refuse to take it back. Can you? In the Brave New

>DRM World, they think they can.



As Joseph Heller put it:

Catch-22, the old woman repeated, rocking her head up and down. Catch-22.

Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we cant stop them from doing.



What the hell are you talking about? Capt. Yossarian shouted at her in

bewildered, furious protest.



Didnt they show it to you? Yossarian demanded, stamping about in anger and

distress. Didnt you even make them read it?



They dont have to show us Catch-22, the old woman answered. The law says they

dont have to.



What law says they dont have to?



Catch-22. The old woman said. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Latesigner on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 07:19 PM EST

I wonder how long it will take before the eliminate all the "paying

customers".

I won't be buying this cd and yes, before you ask, I was a potential customer.



---

The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: hcg50a on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 07:24 PM EST

It used to be you could ... go to a record store and listen to a song to see if you wanted to buy it. ... And I don't remember the last time I went to a record store, if they even call them that any more. In my town they call them bookstores, and they sell CDs and DVDs, as well as regular, old-fashioned cloth and paper-bound books. A very limited selection of CDs can be listened to using headphones. I actually have made decisions not to buy and to buy after listening to some CDs this way. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: ALAN SWINDELLS on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 07:25 PM EST

I disliked most of Mozart for years, and still find his juvenilia - well,

juvenile - anything up to his early teens really, but now I love much of his

later stuff. If you want to find a legally downloadable sample of the Clarinet

Quintet I can't a.t.m. help, but if you go to href="http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/"> click on CATALOGUE by Composer, find

the section headed Litolff - Pärt, scroll down to Mozart, you will find listed

all their currently available CDs (none of them with nasty DRM), many of them

with downloadable samples in MP3 or Real format. The Clarinet quintet is their,

but there is no sample of that disc. Samples tend to be between 3 and 10 minutes

long, so you can get a good idea of what you are in for if you buy the record. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 07:29 PM EST

I don't like to break te law. I never copied a cd. I don't buy a cd 's the last

5 years.



I don't mind if people wan't to earn money with music.

But I find it un exceptable how the greedy music company's and some few greedy

artist hijaked our culture.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 07:30 PM EST



Be curious to see how this affects Coldplay's sales. The only thing to do is

wait to see if this hurts revenue. Nothing else will matter.



Restricting play on PC's is one thing. But preventing it on car units may be

quite another.









[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 07:31 PM EST

... it should help to get it out of their system quicker.



(Excepting any more rootkit silliness)



If they carry on as they are then in the next 1-2 years three things are going

to happen:



1) Anyone half techno-savvy will continue to ignore their pathetic attempts to

shoehorn DRM onto the CD standard (more people than they'd like don't put ~any~

CD into their PC without holding down the shift key first);



2) They'll massively piss off the rest of the music-buying population by

preventing them playing their bought CD on their chosen CD player. And remember,

Philips still call the shots on what can, or cannot, be sold as a "CD"

or "CD player"!;



3) Their CD sales will continue to tank.



Now in theory they could carry on, year after year, blaming their declining

fortunes on the "evil pirates". Except that's not going to happen.



Why?



Because in the near future they're going to try to use that excuse to screw the

artists (more than they do already).



They're going to tell Madonna or Britney or, indeed, Coldplay that they can't

afford to pay them the royalties they're accustomed to - because no-one wants to

buy their CDs anymore.



All their fans are evil pirates who just want to download their songs for free.



The "moment of clarity" that will then occur will, I'm sure, be both

painful and far reaching!

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: sonicfrog on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 07:51 PM EST

Coldplay Indeed. It's the consumer who is left in the cold. I am a musician and an avid music lover, and I like will NEVER buy a CD with any copy protection software installed. I find it completely offensive having my use of a product I supposedly "own" being limited and monitored as if I were a child. Instead of adapting to the realities of new technologies, the bigs are doing all they can to hamper the ability of the consumer to freely use the produce and at the same time doing nothing to hamper the massive amount of waste and graft and greed that typifies the recording industry. The are alienating the very consumer whos dollars they need to survive. The RIAA has filed suite against both XM and Sirius Satelite services because they want a bigger cut of that pie. And don't forget, the ASCAP sued the Boy Scouts a few years back for singing copyright protected songs around a campfire. Now they are are going after websites that print the lyrics to songs. It's a world gone mad! A bigger problem the record companies now face but ignore is that artists are no longer at the mercy of the record companies to produce AND distribute a good quality album. If you want free new music, check out My Space Music or AudioStreet.Net for tons of free music, and stuff to buy, where the $$$ goes to the artists. My [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 08:01 PM EST

Always search from the most common (as in well known) to least common items ie.

Mozart.... search

.....search within results for "Clarinet Quintet in A"

.....search within results for "mp3"



I was playing it after four clicks.



http://www.pristineaudiodirect.com/LargeWorks/Chamber/PACM012.php [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 08:14 PM EST

"I didn't want it enough to go to a store in meat space"



Hah I knew you were a geek pj but now the "meat space" quote confirms

that you are an *ubergeek*...



but thats ok as all the nice people are ;)



ps



I used Autopatcher December 2005 on a friends XPd PC and passed on the

"Upgrade" offered on DRM for WMP9/10 if you read the description it

was a "upgrade" which under certain conditions would allow 3rd parties

to spy on your PC! Incredible :/









---

"They [each] put in one hour of work,

but because they share the end results

they get nine hours... for free"



Firstmonday 98 interview with Linus Torvalds [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 08:20 PM EST

Your gripe about the DRM statement on Coldplay on MP3.com is a straw man

attack. If you had looked carefully, the DRM statement, which is in the

"help"

section, is listed for *ALL* downloads. It's not just Coldplay.



You need to do a little more research. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: joef on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 08:23 PM EST

Radio station WCPE broadcasts classical music 24/7 in a variety of streaming formats. See TheClassicalStation.org. Follow the "Listen Online link (Top of right panel). They have MP3 at two rates, Ogg Vorbis, QuickTime, Real Audio, and Windows Media. The service is brought to you by our friends at ibiblio. Of course, there's a lot of Mozart, but all the other composers, too. It's biased toward the 18th and 19th centuries, but there is a good bit from earlier and more modern periods. And they carry the Metropolitan Opera broadcasts on Saturday afternoons in season (not many stations do any longer.) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Kevin on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 08:30 PM EST

PJ's mention of Mozart (about whom she and I have opposite opinions; de gustibus non est disputandum) makes me think of how the UK's law is even worse than that of the US in terms of music rights. There, not only does copytight vest in the composers, lyricists, and arrangers of a piece, but even in the editors. Even though Mozart is in his grave these two hundred years, it is difficult to find an edition of his music that one can perform without owing royalties to some (perhaps anonymous) editor. The test case was Dr Lionel Sawkins's suit against Hyperion Records (follow the link for Hyperion's announcement that its future as a company is in jeopardy as a result of its loss of the case on appeal). There is a more extensive commentary in L a Follia. In the opinion of the trial judge - upheld on appeal - the "sweat of the brow" argument reappears: I am not persuaded that one can reject a claim to copyright in a new musical work simply because the editorial composer has made no significant changes to the notes It seems to me this is too rigid a test and not one which properly respects the reality of what music is. The question to ask in any case is whether the new work is sufficiently original in terms of the skill and labor used to produce it. In other words, if an editor puts in enough work on an edition, he acquires some copyright claim to the original music of the composer. This miscarriage of justice has even music editors offended. Sir Charles Mackerras stated : I am shocked and horrified that the very existence of Hyperion could be jeopardised through a legal misunderstanding of what is, after all, a very abstruse and specialised area. In the same article, composer John Rutter (one of my modern favorites; The Reluctant Dragon is hilarious, and his church music is sublime) is quoted as saying, "copyright was not designed to reward scholarship but creativity." I once believed that one way I could be sure that my music was legal was to play it myself, on my prized 1891 Steinway parlor grand from my library of printed classical music. Now, apparently, I have to screen the printed music, to make sure that the editions can be proven to be out of copyright. OK, I have a number of editions that old (I'm also an habitué of used-book sales.) Now, though, I come to worry. A fair number of the old printings contain some pretty egregious errors in the engraving, or give no editorial suggestions regarding, say, the interpretation of tempi, ornaments or phrasing. Am I perhaps guilty of unwitting copyright infringement if I make the same correction or adopt the same interpretation that some newer editor suggests? After all, I could have copied unconsciously from some other edition that a performer used, and that I encountered at a concert or on the radio. For some time I took one teacher's advice to heart: "Go to concerts. Listen. If you like what you hear, learn from it. If you don't like what you hear, you'll learn even more." For some of my favorite pieces, I'd have a hard time defending my position; I've heard dozens of artists perform them, and hope that I did learn from them. Britons need to lobby Parliament to get this precedent undone by statute. USAians need to watch out that the same nonsense doesn't appear over here. (I don't think that any of our copyright treaties make this British decision a binding precedent over here on the left side of the pond, but I am certainly none too sure of my position.) Helen Peate sums it up perhaps best: The judgment means that almost every edition of an out of copyright work will in fact have its own musical copyright because the law will regard it as 'original'. This will affect classical record companies and performers of classical music as they will have to seek (and pay for) a licence before performing or recording music from an edition. The judgment also means that the threshold for copyright and 'originality' is extremely low. Given that copyright subsists in every fixation of a musical work, this will mean that each time a musical work is recorded, that particular performance could be of an "original" musical work under UK copyright law. This gives rise to the possibility of performers claiming musical copyright in addition to performing rights - something the legislators surely did not intend. Citation for the judgment is [2004] EWHC 1530 (Ch). ---

73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin (P.S. My surname is not McBride!) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 08:36 PM EST

Check out magnatune.com. I haven't (yet) bought anything from them, but they

don't seem evil at all, and they have extensive previews.



http://magnatune.com/genres/classical/



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 08:38 PM EST

Have you tried Magnatune? (http://www.magnatune.com)This is a great company that

have a reasonable list of music (esp classical). I only ever buy music from them

and here's why:



1) You get to choose what you pay (between $6.00-$20.00) for an album.

2) You can here the entire album IN FULL before you buy.

3) If you buy an album, you can give it to 3 friends.

4) When you buy, you can download it as many times as you want 60 days after

purchase.

5) There are a range of formats, from uncompressed WAV's down to MP3's and OGG

files. There's a massive range of formats for every occasion and NONE of them

have DRM.

6) The musician(s) get 50% (no less) of what you pay magnatune.

7) Help for any problems is quick, friendly, and effective.

8) THEY CAN BE TRUSTED!!!



And all the above is an ethical stance.



PJ, you might not like Bach because he has more notes than Mozart, but if you're

curious, try Lara St John's 'Bach Violin Concerto's'

(http://magnatune.com/artists/albums/lara-bach/). She's a brilliant violinist. I

had to persist a bit to get used to Bach, but now I play his stuff every day,

but you might get on with some of Philharmonia Baroque's stuff. They do the

Seraglio music (the link is http://magnatune.com/artists/albums/pb-mozart/ and

to listen to a high quality stream go to

http://magnatune.com/artists/albums/pb-mozart/01.m3u)



Since Magnatune arrived, I don't buy anywhere else and a whole new world of

music has been opened up for me. And the best thing is that it is entirely

ethical. The musicians get a fair deal (50% is way better than any record

company offers), you get the price and a range of formats, and you can listen to

the entire album before you buy!



Best of luck.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 08:45 PM EST

Phil Lesh & Friends

Audio Hosting Policy



Phil Lesh & Friends and our managing organizations have long encouraged the

purely non-commercial exchange of music taped at our concerts or offered on this

website. That a medium of distribution has arisen - digital audio files being

traded over the Internet - does not change our policy in this regard. Our

stipulations regarding digital distribution are merely extensions of those

long-standing principles and they are as follow:



No commercial gain may be sought by websites offering digital files of our

music, whether through advertising, exploiting databases compiled from their

traffic, or any other means.



All participants in such digital exchange acknowledge and respect the copyrights

of the performers, writers and publishers of the music.



This notice should be clearly posted on all sites engaged in this activity. We

reserve the ability to withdraw our sanction of non-commercial digital music

should circumstances arise that compromise our ability to protect and steward

the integrity of our work.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 08:47 PM EST

Here is what you do.



You make the music available to your fans on your own website. They download it

in "flac" format. (Fully Lossless Audio Codec). It's being done more

often these days by numerous bands.



Who needs corporate? We all know the answer to that question, don't we. Do bands

have any choice in the matter? Can they even so much as speak up? Could they put

their music on their own website, where you can pay THEM for it, then download

it in your preferred format (mp3 for dial-up people, for instance). Or perhaps

even order a CD directly from the artists? If they are locked into a contract,

probably not!



Hey, it's a job.



If you provide a quality product, you don't need DRM. Either people are going to

buy your music or they aren't. I would speculate that there is probably an

inverse relationship beween music listeners viewing your music as a quality

product and corporate being willing to sign you up for a contract.



Just make the music available in a high-quality, VBR 320 mp3 or flac, from your

website. Where people can pay YOU and then download it. If the music is a

quality product, filesharing probably won't hurt it. If the music is corporate

crap, filesharing will expose it.



Quality music is about so much more than money. There will always be people who

will be willing to pay good money for quality music. There will always be

wealthy people willing to contribute large amounts of money to musical societies

and so forth. Don't make it about money, Make it about a quality product. That's

really what music ought to be about.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 08:54 PM EST

Since PJ mentioned it, I'd like to point out two free-to-listen music sources, both of which are dear to my heart. The first is called iRATE radio. It's a free (as in speech), and is distributed under the GPL. It's a JAVA WebStart application which contacts a master server that contains URLs for free music files on the web. The server sends you these URLs, and your computer downloads the tracks directly from the artists' website (which gets around the whole 'distributing someone else's content' thing; you only download publically available music offered directly from the artist). The really interesting bit is that as it plays your automatically-downloaded music, you are able to give the music ratings, or bin it entirely. The next time iRATE radio talks to the master server, it compares your ratings against the ratings from other users to find people who seem to like the same things that you like. Once it finds some, it tries to provide you with more music that those people liked. The upside is that as you rate more music, iRATE does a better job of fetching you interesting music that you'll like. The downside is that every once in a while it will send you something that you'll really dislike. But the 'bin it' option is always there to immediately stop those tracks. Real radio stations could really use a button like that! Anyway. Each music track will tell you the license under which it was provided (almost always a Creative Commons license), and other information about the band, the website, etc. In this way, iRATE radio has introduced me to dozens upon dozens of bands and distributors I'd never heard of, both local and international, including my next favourite source: Magnatune has been mentioned here many times before, but is worth mentioning again; Extremely high quality music in many different genres, all of it free to listen to in its entirety at a reasonable level of quality. If you choose to purchase the music, you're free to download the music in whatever formats you like (including FLAC, uncompressed WAV, mp3 of various qualities, ogg vorbis, AAC, etc), you may request a printed CD be sent to you (for a slightly higher price), and what's more, you nominate your own price for the music; you pay exactly what you think it's worth ($8 per CD is suggested, but not enforced). I've bought about a dozen downloaded-albums from Magnatune, and have nothing but good things to say about them. Real class act. These days, Magnatune tracks can also be purchased via iTunes, and they operate several genre-based radio streams which are offered via iTunes, as well as via direct links from their website. Or you can just listen to streams of particular tracks or albums, if you're interested in listening to something more specific. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 08:56 PM EST

So, if I go into a shop and play something I wrote myself (I've done this

before) then how does the money the shop payed to enable me to "publicly

perform" this piece get to me, the copyright owner?



Cheers & God bless

Sam "SammyTheSnake Penny

PS I'm actually feeling physically nauseous contemplating this [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 09:01 PM EST

Why bother buying Coldplay CDs if they're going to do this? Just listen to someone else. After all, everything sounds like Coldplay now... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Tufty on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 09:02 PM EST

>

Oh, great. That leaves me out totally. Do they think the whole world uses

Microsoft software? Or is that someone's goal?

<



PJ, I can't belive you asked that last question after all this time. :0



>

the RIAA will have to kill me, maybe by throwing me into the RIAA moat with the

man-eating crocodiles

<



You'd be safe then ;)



>

You can try temporarily disabling your firewall or speaking to your Company's IT

support to see if they can resolve this.

<



Don't even dream of asking me this in my technical role, we have crocodiles down

here and they ain't fussy eaters.



>

Make sure you have Windows Media Player Series 10.

<



The one I'm not allowed to have as I use Win2k so the only way I can play this

is to spend $500 on software, completely reinstal my machine and probably have

to buy a new machine to support the bloatware.



>

Make sure Active X is enabled.

<



Err, the one you just disabled to get round the latest vulnerability?



>

You can let Coldplay know how you feel, by the way, because Skype is offering a

contest -- whoever leaves the best message will win an opportunity to talk to

the band over Skype:

>



You think you will get through on this subject? Shine on.



Message for the music industry as I am sure they will read this column for

feedback.



I do not pirate music, I do not download music, I do not steal music. I copy to

a blank CD to play the music I have purchased or put it on my server to play

myself - why? I LIVE IN A VERY, VERY DUSTY AREA AND I WANT MY CDs TO LIVE, SAFE

AND SOUND, IN THEIR CASES, IN A BOX, IN A CUPBOARD. At the moment I do not

purchase many CDs but when I do I will ensure they are not crippled or I will

not buy them. If you DRM them all, like this, goodbye.





---

There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!

Now I want its hide. [ Reply to This | # ]



PS - Authored by: Tufty on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 10:06 PM EST

Authored by: Bas Burger on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 09:43 PM EST

While the consumers side get's full attention, the artists side of DRM however

is hardly mentioned.

For artists things look more like this:



DRM is meant to lock-in artists and lockout audience.

DRM will be a double edged tool used to let artist know that they (the fat

execs) can lock away audiences from the artist once they are disposable, that is

after the first NOT superhit.

They will be pressured into signing off more rights for NOT being disposed and

slowly become a owned entity like in fudal times.



DRM is meant to manipulate both ends of the channel of which they try to stay

middle men of and set them and their rights up to each other.



What irritates me most about DRM is the sheer number of corrupt people that try

to force this through our throats,

somehow the memes in the corporate world is still that it's cool to be corrupt,

and the blatant arrogance which is displayed while doing this.



Real Hobbesian behaviour. I wonder how these Mercantiles took power from modern

economists...



Bas.



---

DIRECTUS ELATUS PERTINAX [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 10:12 PM EST

The last four paragraphs/sentences aren't written in good English and really

don't make much sense:



<<The first time that this program is used (in Windows automatic starter

software) it gets registered in Windows File. Thus, programs already

registered do not affect Windows operation.



Windows OS also uses the latest files.



This CD does not support MacIntosh PC software.



Except for manufacturing problems, we do not accept exchange, return or

refund.>>





"Windows OS also uses the latest files."

What exactly does this mean?



"... we do not accept ... refund."

Shouldn't that be "we don't issue refunds" ?



Who writes these things?



And what law department reviewed this policy and the insert before

approving it? As others here have already pointed out, the advice they give

about activating ActiveX controls and disabling firewalls sounds like reckless

endangerment to me. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Prototrm on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 10:24 PM EST

Let me get this straight.



The record companies see their demographics (adults with money to spend on

music) aging, so they dump Rock and Roll and replace it with Rap, Hip Hop, and

various forms of soft porn that appeal to a much younger crowd (teens and

pre-teens who pirate all of their music because they have better things to spend

their money on),



Then, they replace the 45 single with more expensive CD singles, thus reducing a

customer's ability to try music without spending a lot of money for the whole

record.



Finally, they give us a choice of a low-quality download that's heavily

play-restricted, or a CD that won't play on all equipment (or only plays if you

let it add a root kit).



Now their sales are down, and they're busy pointing the finger at everyone else

but themselves. Tell me something, are these people the same geniuses behind

SCO's Great Plan to sue the planet? Sounds like it to me.



Someone should clue these music companies in to what ID Software discovered back

when they introduced Wolfenstein 3D and the original Doom: give away a nice

taste of your product, free and clear with no restrictions, and rake-in the

money when people come knocking on your door to buy more of the same.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: tonyxfar on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 10:49 PM EST

One thing I have wondered about? Can they call this disk a "CD". I

thought

"CD" and "Compact Disk" were trademarks and the disk had to

obey the

standard to use the name. The last DMR disk I picked up (a "Nora

Jones" disk)

did not mention CD on the cover at all.



The retailer certainly used the term CD in their display so I suspect I had a

refund case under Australian law if it was not really a CD. (Fortunately, as a

Mac

user I was just able to ignore their scheme - through one of my machines did

have a problem with it). [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Prototrm on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 10:51 PM EST

PJ related her experience trying to find Mozart. Just this past weekend I had my

own frustrating experience trying to find a piece of music. I would have been

even more frustrated if these RIAA folks had their way.



I program computers for a living. Most of the time, I do so listening to music.

Sometimes its Yanni or Enya, but most of the time it's Trance music (for the

uninitiated, that's a type of techno dance music, not the name of a band). I was

listening to a European Internet Radio station, when a vocal caught my

attention. The MP3 tag didn't name the song, so I hit Google with some of the

lyrics. I intended locating the CD the song was from, with the intentions of

buying it on line. Unfortuntely, the group, Solarstone, doesn't have a CD with

the song I was looking for, "Speak in Sympathy", and that song turns

out to feature a guest singer on vocals. Rules that out, I guess, but I'll keep

checking back on the group's web site, just in case they release something I

find interesting.



If these laudible RIAA lawyers get rid of the lyric sites, they will be

protecting their golden IP at the expense of sales. Hmmm, hope the record

companies pay them in (DRM enabled) downloads.



But, you know, those darned people who are pirating the song lyrics are causing

the record companies lost sales, donchaknow! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: globularity on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 11:00 PM EST

Just one more thing in long list this industry has come up with, their real

skills are politics and deception, for years they have got away with paying

politcal bodies, stacking committies and ripping off the creators of the works

they claim as their own. They add little value to the artists work other than to

own a distribution channel and even that is managed poorly. When I was a

teenager I bought bootlegs (recordings from a distribution company other than

the one the artist is contracted to). It amazed me that the bootleggers could

make money producing better work with much smaller sales volumes, the arguement

that they wern't paying the artist royalties, doesn't hold as artist royalties

are ASFAIK less than 20% of the cover price and the artist bears many of the

production costs. for me it seemed that the artists should be furious with their

record company for not taking advantage of this market, not to mention the

superior mixing and production that some of the bootlegs had. I guess the music

industry doesn't really understand music. The other thing I did as a teenager

was record off the radio, some of the albums I ended up buying others I didn't

but I was far more likely to buy something that I recorded than something that I

had just heard thesedays the radio isn't worth listening to so I don't even own

one and I don't buy music any more either The other things what prompted me to

buy music was listening to it in the university record library and hearing it or

getting copies from mates (how else do you get to check out a new band) Instead

of accepting copying as a marketing cost the record industry employs people to

market their products my take on the industry is get rid of all the overheads

(marketing bribes to politicians etc) and choose a cheap distribution channel

like the internet, music is a commodity and should be priced as such. If they

had real competition like having no artist lock in this industry would have

sharpened its act a long time ago.



If I get back into music I will be looking for artists that direct market, I am

not paying an industry to bribe the politicians that I elected and whose wages

my taxes pay to further reduce my rights



---

"It's all about myths and conceptions" I think that is what Darl meant to say. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jsusanka on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 11:20 PM EST

this is exactly what microsft wants - they want yet

another illegal way to keep their monopoly going.



I guess they haven't learned from the first trial.



I just hope someone in the DOJ has some sense and is

looking at what is going on. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: blacklight on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 11:48 PM EST

I don't think that the record companies are competing: they sign exclusive

contracts with the artists, and their leverage on the artists is that they

control their distribution channel to the retail stores.



I believe that there is a need for an Internet-based portal that acts as a

marketplace for the artists to distribute their music. The intended result is

that both the consumers and the artists benefit, while the major record labels

starve. If the balance of power decisively shifts away from the record labels,

expect them to respond by fighting to weaken the copyright protections on the

artists' music so that they can pirate it.





---

Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat

them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 12:08 AM EST

So, I would be delighted to buy a cold-dead-play CD at bestbuy in Richfield MN

(2 blocks from BB HQ), and then return it opened for a refund.



Could someone who is a lawyer with LRM to practice in Minnesota care to advise

on the best way to ask for my refund, and how to document the exchange as a test

case for a class action in my state?



The 2-fer is to get Best Buy's attention.

Someone else can do the same for Wal(wekillyourtown)Mart.



-tom [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 12:26 AM EST

PlaysForSure - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 09:11 AM EST

Authored by: davcefai on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 01:18 AM EST

I rather like this one: ▪ You ripped the CD on the computer that you are currently using, but your licenses have been deleted. This typically occurs when you reformat your hard disk (such as when you perform a clean installation of Windows), but it can occur in other circumstances as well. To avoid this problem in the future, use the License Management feature of Windows Media Player to back up your licenses to a floppy disk (or other storage media) before you reformat your hard disk. Which translates into: This Operating System frequently trashes your installation. You lose your rights to the music when this happens. The fact that you paid for this piece of trash is your problem, not ours. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: grayhawk on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 01:20 AM EST

All these companies that are trying to prevent you from making a copy of their

CD's forget that there is plenty of recording software available that lets you

record directly from your sound card while you are playing their CD in a cd

player, or cd drive and have it convert the file to MP3 which you later can use

to burn another cd. Just like you record from radio or record an LP (everyone

remembers vinyl) to tape you can record your cd to your hard drive. Go Figure

folks, they aren't very bright now are they.



---

All ships are safe in a harbour but that is not where they were meant to be. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Pogue Mahone on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 02:34 AM EST

DISCLAIMER: I don't own a copy of the Coldplay CD, nor have I any intention of buying one. But that's not going to stop me adding my comments, so here goes ... ;-) This insert doesn't read like a license agreement to me - it looks more like a disclaimer. The kind of thing manufacturers put into their shoddy products to protect their backsides. In the wake of the Sony fiasco it's only to be expected. Some of the sentences don't make any sense whatsoever. The one beginning with the word "Thus", in particular, has no logical connection with the preceding sentence. I wouldn't mind betting that if you stick this CD into your Linux box you'll have no trouble ripping it. I haven't bought many CDs recently, but those that I have bought have ripped quite nicely thankyou. Sometimes I have problems in the DVD drive, but if that happens I try the CD burner instead - never had problems there... It also occurs to me that there's a simple way to get rid of the collecting societies. They only work because the number of producers is small compared with the number of consumers, so the way to destroy them is to increase the number of producers. Using the internet, everyone can be a publisher. Writing music is very easy - all you have to do is put a few assorted black splodges on some pre-printed stave sheets. Or use a notation program (lilypond, rosegarden etc.). I never said it has to be good music, and the definition of "good" is pretty subjective anyway. Put the results on your web site. You are now a music copyright holder, so you can apply to the composer's collecting society for your share of the booty. If you used notation software, you can transform it to midi. Play the midi on a synth program and redirect the output to a file. You are now a recording artist. Publish your works on your web site, and go and claim your share of the booty from the collecting societies that extort money for recorded works. If enough people did this, the existing state of affairs would break down and something would have to be done about it. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 02:56 AM EST

Not saying that Indian english is bad or anything, it's just that this document

reads more like a technical guideline than a license agreement, which could

simply be due to a subtle semantic shift that wouldn't be unusual once you cross

the line from west to east.



Nowhere in that document does it say what you, as a user, are allowed to do or

not do with the music on the cd. They would like you to assume that's what it

says, but it doesn't say that at all. The way it reads is as a list of technical

limitations of the cd, and that's not some kind of unreasonable stretching of

the meaning of the words. It actually does, to my reasonably educated eye, read

like a list of technical limitations, and not a license agreement.



bkd [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: JRR on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 03:48 AM EST

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Microsoft originally came to DRM reluctantly, but were presented with a difficult choice: play the game by the RIAA/MPAA rules, or be left out. They chose to play by the rules. Subsequently they seem to have discovered some benefits to themselves of playing the DRM game, and of the Trusted Computing platform required to fully implement DRM. I highly recommend Ross Anderson's Trusted Computing FAQ to anyone interested in the wider implications of DRM and Trusted Computing technology and legislation. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 04:51 AM EST

I though music from Mozart is supposed to be in the public domain? How can

content providers still claim copyight over such works? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 06:14 AM EST

I came to GROKLAW after watching the part of Lord of the Rings where Éowyn killed the Witch-King of Angmar at the Battle of the Pelennor Field. PJ seems to have returned in the same fighting mood. Mozart? I would suggest Wagner with helicopters. Alan(UK) [ Reply to This | # ]



Stinker! - Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 09:26 AM EST

Authored by: luvr on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 06:21 AM EST

There's quite a bit of reference to Microsoft in the article, and when I read: "with Microsoft in the monopoly position, it probably figures it can harass everyone else's customers into subjection" that triggered memories of some talk, a few years ago, about Microsoft wanting to change course and enter the media business. They had gotten involved in MSNBC, and the commentary had it that that was just a matter of "testing the waters." According to the comments, Microsoft was beginning to discover that there were limits to the software business - It couldn't keep adding features indefinitely (which would be mostly "bloatware" anyway), and expect that people would keep rushing out to buy new software versions when their current software did everything they needed. With a little forward thinking, Microsoft had come to the conclusion that the media business was where the real money could be made; I remember even reading something to the effect that Microsoft may want to turn itself into a media company, and deemphasise (or perhaps even quit?) the software business. Software would, then, actually become just the tool to support their media business - Which I now presume to mean their media monopoly position. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: nulleh on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 06:47 AM EST

Y'know, it's a sad day when a consumer is forced to break the law by purchasing

something.



All DRM does is to restrict what you can or cannot do with the music you

purchase. So why should I put up with that?



I own an MP3 player. It's not a brand named one (I'm not rich and I don't care

for logos. It plays music and I haven't had to sue the manufacturer because of

scratches yet) so it's not "supported" by the music pigopolists. That

is to say I am not "allowed" to copy music such as Coldplay's X&Y

to it.



Right, let's just put that another way:



I purchased a music disk (bet you can't find the Phillips CD logo on X&Y) on

faith on the basis that it would play on my device.

I purchased a music player on faith on the basis that it would play music I

chose to purchase.

I am not allowed to play music I have purchased on my device.



Why not? Well, obviously because I, as a music consumer, am an evil pirate and

by copying this album onto my player it will automatically be shared with the

whole Internet by magic and no-one else will ever by X&Y again.



Yes, I'm overplaying things a bit. Some die-hard fans (like me) will purchase it

to make sure the 27p the band gets actually gets to them. Some will buy it for

the artwork.



The world-view supported by the music industry is one that normally gets you a

Psych nurse and a course of anti-paranoia drugs. The policy makers obviously

need our help and pity as, once more, Care in the Community fails those Mental

Health patients most at need.



Sorry, just to re-itterate, as a consumer I should put up with a sub-standard

product with severe restrictions that _may_not_even_work_ becasue if not the

music industry will collapse.



Bye guys. Let's start again. X&Y will be my last "music disk"

purchase.



---

__________________________



Nullboy.



My opinions are my own. I value them highly but I can't blame anyone else for

them. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 07:56 AM EST

.. in the first part of the last century as a result of the invention of the "JO blocks" by the inventor Carl Edvard Johansson.



" ... and on March 13, 1933, the ASA Standards Committee approved American Standard Recommended Practice for Inch-Millimeter Conversion for Industrial Use, setting 1 inch = 25.4 millimeters exactly." (ref: http://www.sizes.com/units/inch.htm) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: ftclausen on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 08:53 AM EST

I suggest only using online music sites that offer DRM-free downloads, see this

article:



http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/guide/



(the box labelled "A Few Alternatives".)



Granted that these sites will not have as many mainstream artists but I think

the quality of music is definitely top and I have gained far more exposure to

what is on offer in my favourite genres. Rather than listen to the same tired

old pop they play on the radio everyday.



Fred. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 09:08 AM EST

My oldest son, a music teacher, gave me a copy of bond's "Born" album

(EMI) for Christmas. I love the album and have played it almost every day since

then. It sits right next to Ray Lynch in my CD rack.



I would now like to buy more of their albums, but don't want to get any with DRM

of any type. How do I look at an album cover in Barnes and Noble and determine

what types of DRM, if any, are embedded inside?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: elronxenu on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 09:18 AM EST

I find Digitally Imported quite good. They stream MP3s to you in a variety of genres and at a variety of bitrates. I've been known to listen to the Classical and Salsa streams, but also Goa and Trance. I would never have known about Goa music if it were not for www.di.fm Of course you don't get to choose what they play, so if you are looking for a particular piece of Mozart, better try www.archive.org instead. Another cool thing you can do is try www.shoutcast.com and search the roughly 11000 "internet radio" stations they list, for something which suits your mood. It's good that the internet has enabled "radio stations" to specialise somewhat. Of course these "stations" cannot reach millions of listeners (until we develop a streaming technology which works like BitTorrent) but the most popular stations on shoutcast are serving several thousand users at once. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 09:22 AM EST

Anyone heard of Nikka Costa? The first big grown-up CD from her: 'Everybody Got

Their Something' was a lot better than her latest and I could even buy it over

the counter. Sadly it also sounds very muffled and needs full treble to sound

remotely normal - but Hi-Fi apart it's got some good tracks.



Her latest "Can't Never Did Nothin" is not so good, still no one has

heard of her and I had to buy mine on ebay from China!! I got the Japanese

version as there is an extra track on it and I noticed it's also got exactly the

same copy protection notices on it as the Coldplay one.



Because most CDs are spoilt by excessive clipping in the mastering (e.g.

http://www.cutestudio.co.uk/data/Hi-Fi/CD/index.html)I do not have a CD player

anymore - I just rip them as WAV or mp3 and serve then using my own version of

Daapd in Debian to iTunes on my Mac, which de-clips the guilty tracks in real

time and prevents my pro-audio D/A from getting upset. Yes, half my CDs (which I

paid GOOD MONEY for) are useless in quality and can sound worse than a cassette

tape.



All the protection stuff was in Japanese on the sleeve note - so I visited the

Toshiba based web page it gave and got google to translate - it is the same

system. Eventually I tried to just GRIP it under Debian and it worked fine

except no CDDB info. In fact the WAV files seem fine (includes treble this time

and also not too much severe clipping).



What I found REALLY ironic is that they are protecting someones record who quite

frankly you cannot even buy over here, there is no merchandise and no DVDs,

ANYWHERE for her - it is quite the most appallingly miss-marketed person in the

history of pop. And they protect the her latest record - trying to stop me

listening to it even once! Doh! Doh! Doh I'm a teapot I'm a teapot lalalala

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 11:09 AM EST

This whole DRM things is an excercise in futility.



Industry claims this is necessary to protect their revenue. Their revenue is

falling faster now than before. Some protection that is.



Industry claims DRM protects their contect against piracy. Riiiiigghht....pull

the other one it has bells on it. Any competent audiophile can tell you more

than one way to record the content off any of these protected CDs. Here's a

question I would love to ask someone in the industry. "Tell me, you say DRM

prevents piracy, how does the inconvinience of using high quality analogue

playback equipment to source a master copy prevent a pirate? Such a pirate

would see the hour or two spent ripping and reproducing the CD as a minor

investment in time compared to the $1000s made selling the forgeries. Isn't it

true that DRM does nothing to prevent such piracy?" I think we already

know the answer to this.



DRM on music CDs and DRM encumbered MP3s are not targetting piracy, they target

the consumer. The consumer is restricted in terms of the playback device and

their fair use of the content in terms of making *personal* backups. This same

things is of course true for DVD, and the ever so wonderful and yet somehow very

pointless region coding scheme that does nothing more than inconvinience

consumers. Search Ebay and you'll find plenty of evidence that DRM on CD and

region coding on DVD are pathetic anti-piracy measures.



With regard to CDs there are any number of ways to rip the content from a

'protected' CD. The first thing any Windows user should do is permanently

disable autoplay on their computer, Google provides dozens of hits on how to do

this.



Next get a decent CD ripper, many are available. Often the very algorithms used

to allow CD playback to ignore scratches on the disks allow the rippers to read

'protected' content.



Alternately get a good audio CD player, a good audio cable and hook it up to

your sound card. Play the CD, record it to a high sample rate WAV format and

then down convert to MP3.



Do not purchase MP3s online, this will only encourage the RIAA into believing

that they are actually doing the right thing. MP3 files purchase online (or MP4s

at I-tunes) are typically of relatively poor quality, they are certainly not of

the same quality as an actual CD. Why would I pay a dollar a track for an MP3

or equivalent recorded at a paltry 128Kbps? It's a con trick of the industry,

selling an inferior product with sever DRM encumberance.



I may be going against the grain here, but buying an actual CD and ripping it is

the only way to go. I don't and will not give any kind of support to the RIAA

and it's brand of fraud and blackmail. I don't and will not give any kind of

support to piracy of copyright material. I do, however, reserve my right or

privilege to make a personal backup copy of anything I purchase. Until the

recording industry (and movies too) is willing to replace my damaged CDs and

DVDs at a nominal cost, I will continue to make backup copies when I can to

preservemy purchase. I paid for the disc, I paid for the licence to listen to

the content. If the physical embodiment of the content I purchase is damaged,

that does not alter my purchase of the licence to use it.



Digital Rights Management. A consumer translation : My Rights are being Managed

away and the industry is raising their middle Digit to me. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 11:42 AM EST

... is that Microsoft's advertising slogan "Plays For Sure" is nothing

but an admission of how bad the whole DRM mess really is.



Back in the days of vinyl LP's and plain old standards compliant CD's, it was

*expected* that the media would play on any equipment, and any media that failed

to play was considered obviously defective and could easily be exchanged.



Now that we have DRM, the expectation is that customers will have problems, and

Microsoft wants us to believe that their product is better because it supposedly

doesn't cause as many problems as some of the alternatives.



"Plays For Sure" is newspeak for "Doesn't suck as much".

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 12:12 PM EST

Thank you very much for purchasing this CD and helping the cause of "Anti-Piracy". The recordings in this CD have an anti-copying function. They cannot be copied into a PC. In order for you to enjoy high quality music, we have added this special technology. Actually, the part in bold is not exactly the truth as I would word it. If fact most of the paragraph falls short. Thank you very much for purchasing this CD and helping the cause of "Anti-Piracy". Probably the reason for purchasing the CD was the music, and without thought or regard to helping or hindering any particular cause. Seems someone is paranoid you will buy the CD and then steal it after you bought it. The recordings in this CD have an anti-copying function. It would be better worded - The recordings in this CD have an anti-copying frustration for the technically uninclined. They cannot be copied into a PC.

Well sorta true, I guess, but they certainly can be ripped to format of your choice, if you know how to avoid the frustration function. In order for you to enjoy high quality music, we have added this special technology.

I woulda been okay enjoying normal CD quality music. Otherwise I have real problem with the logic behind this weird sentence. Am I the only one? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 12:14 PM EST

I've done it many, many times. Those copyright-infringing lyrics websites have

sold a LOT of cds. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 12:17 PM EST

You know, this DRM thing seems doomed to failure, it's to inflexible and too

nasty.



I have an idea for a DRM scheme that actually could work, but it takes a little

effort on everyone's part, as well as some patience on the part of the content

industry.



Encryption.



Encrypt the content using a two key encryption scheme.



Give me, the consumer, a key device (a small bluetooth capable device that is

robust and waterproof) that stores my personal key.



When I purchase a CD or DVD the content is encrypted at the time of purchase

using my key and the industry key and burned to the media (or downloaded to my

computer).



The encrypted file is useless to me unless I use my key for playback. My PC,

audio player, video player car stereo, portable audio device can all request the

playback key from my key device, and play the track. If I take the disk or

whatever to a friends house, it will play there too, I just need to take my key

with me.



The encryption scheme and key technology needs to be an open standard to allow

for mass production without heavy license costs. The key length can be something

completely ridiculous to prevent easy real time decryption of media files.



Now, if my disk breaks I can get another easily, my purchase was recorded at

the store, a replacement can be burned in minutes.



Of course this protection scheme will eventually be broken, someone will make

un-encrypted content and try to sell it. However, most people are honest. Most

people will actually pay for things instead of stealing them. Making the legal

choice flexible and convinient to the consumer provides an easy choice to all

but those already inclined to do the wrong thing.



One last element is using the encryption model to bundle additional content,

that is only available to the keyholder on an interactive basis. This provides a

further incentive to purchase the legal way.



Now, this will never happen because the RIAA and MPAA are not patient enough or

farsighted enough to try it, not to mention Microsoft and Intel have almost a

vested interest in the current DRM technologies, where as this scheme would put

the control back in the hands of the consumer and the manufacturers of consumer

electronics. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 01:10 PM EST

Then you'll be able to make copies of your music. Even if it means taking the

speaker out wires into a jack that plugs into my old digital minidisk recorder.

The point is no one should have to go through that effort.



I'm sort of torn on this one. I hate to see users put through that, but every

time one of these DRM stories break site traffic surges on my online music site

where full non-DRM sample tracks are available under a CreativeCommons license.





It's a little disingenuous to complain too loud when record label stupidity is

boosting my user base. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: rweiler on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 01:18 PM EST

Back in Mozart's day, copying music was NOT a crime in any sense, though you

certainly weren't going to enhance your reputation as an artist merely by

reproducing somebody elses work. In fact, most composers learned their craft by

copying and extending scores of earlier masters. Lots of music credited to J.S.

Bach may have in fact been written by his sons, or others extended themes

created by Bach, and Bach himself copied and extended the work of his

predecessors and contemporaries. The most famous example of this is Charles

Gounod's version of Ave Maria which is based on the first prelude from Bach's

Well-Tempered Clavier. If you look at Bethoven's first couple of piano sonata's,

they are clearly derived from Hayden's work. Eventually, Beethoven develops his

own style and becomes a master in his own right. Given the extreme productivity

of composers before the existence of copyright, I'd not persuaded that copyright

laws do anything to encourage musical creativity.



Incidentally, the Goodman story is interesting. Goodman. like a lot of others,

made a pile of money by taking black music and making it accessible to white

audiences. To Goodman's credit, he was one of the first to employ black

musicians in his orchestra. Despite making a lot of money, he felt his clarinet

playing was substandard and made a significant effort to become an accomplished

classical player as well.



---

Sometimes the measured use of force is the only thing that keeps the world from

being ruled by force. -- G. W. Bush

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 01:22 PM EST

Well, that settles it.



I'm a pretty good music industry customer. I'm not opposed to buying CDs with

only one or two good songs on 'em (in fact, I've got a couple shelves of CDs I

bought just for one or two songs...) and I have enough disposable income to buy

several (more than 10) CDs a year.



I find new music by listening to radio. Good old FM.



Coldplay is one of those "sorta-like" bands. I've seen 'em on SNL,

heard 'em on the radio, and generally think their sound makes nice background

"white noise". Much nicer than Celine Dion or Metallica. (your taste

may vary) Because of this, they had been on my "pick up if in the bargain

bin" list.



With this DRM crap, though, I will absolutely never own a Coldplay CD. If I

ever need a Coldplay song to round out a "late 90's" mix for my mp3

player, I will use my AM/FM/Casette player (vintage 1984) to record an *analog*

copy, then digitize it to create an mp3.



Congrats, morons, you just lost a customer. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 02:09 PM EST

Hi, I was discussing issues of copyright and intellectual propery with my wife last night based of this article. This Coldplay fiasco is another example of what IP should not be. In fact, it is one of the worst examples I have ever seen. I wonder, however, what a "good" example of IP would look like? Unlike some within this community, I think that there should be some limits against free flow of information, just as there have to be some limits on free speech. An obvious example of the latter is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. The danger to community is so great that it outweighs the freedom of speech. And what about the rights of the author of music, software, etc.? It seems like he should be able to say, "I will only release this [art/software/etc.] under the following conditions". Obviously, in today's world, the supposed "rights" of the author [and, unfortunately, most often the RIAA, MPAA, etc.] are considered paramount and the "rights" of the public are considered inconsequential. Esepcially with the "rights" holders exercising money and muscle on Capitol Hill (in the US), it is an un-even, unfair, and unjust dynamic. I would like to see the laws change to release the stranglehold that some corporations have over ideas. I just don't know what I think they should change to. I just read that there is a new political party in Sweden that wants to abolosih ALL IP laws. I'm not sure that I think that course is wise. Lawrence Lessig asserts that there should be some IP rights, but that they have to be modernized to deal with the reality of the digital world (e.g., what good is copyright in a world where even loading an object on your computer is a copy). He states, and correctly so, that the country (the USA) is not yet ready for that kind of discussion (on what IP should and shouldn't be) because any time you challenge the current laws, you are labeled a "pirate". So, my open question to this group is what should "modern" IP laws look like? Do we have any good examples of "IP" now? Does copyright have a place in the modern world? What about patents in general? Patents for software? What kind of trade-offs do we having in protecting the producers and consumers of ideas? If you could re-write IP laws from scratch, what would they look like in your "perfect world"?





-- Seth N (sethjn -at- gmail.com) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 02:15 PM EST

Hey, this is a whole lot better than the garbage they used to kick out with all

this stuff on the CD and they didn't tell you. Now I know I shouldn't waste my

money on this crud, when they tell you up front. [ Reply to This | # ]



Except they don't tell you! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 05:10 PM EST

Authored by: Ninguino on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 03:29 PM EST

My daughter is 12 years old. She just got a CD this christmas, and of course she

tried to do what she does whith her new CD's, upload it to her ipod.



Well, this one was sony OMA (or whatever) thing, and there is no way to do it.

She doesn't have cd player, she doesn't listen the CD's at all, she only uses

the CD to purchase the music, and ipod is her only player



Now she has learned that not all CDs are created equal, some she can play and

enjoy, some others not, even if she has paid for them the same (or more). Her

learning: from now on she will be very careful selecting who produces the CD,

not only the singer. Of course Sony is in her black list. Life is hard, even for

12 year old teenagers! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 04:49 PM EST

So I don't sample music or download it, unless I paid for it first. Which does raise another point, now that I think of it. It used to be you could listen to music on the radio, or go to a record store and listen to a song to see if you wanted to buy it. Nowadays, the radio doesn't play anything I'd personally like to buy, no matter what part of the US I go to. And I don't remember the last time I went to a record store, if they even call them that any more. Have you tried CD Baby? Just about all the albums have songs that you can legally download (in non-DRM mp3 format) and listen to. They sell you ordinary CDs without the spyware and they offer a very wide selection of artists. The answer to DRM is to point-blank refuse to deal with anyone who uses it. There are alternatives. Encourage your friends. PS: it is bad to reinforce the mental association between sampling music and breaking the law. The law only protects the ability of the copyright holder to set license terms -- the details of those license terms are up for negotiation. Just because a few prominent copyright holders are dictating unreasonable terms does not make for any sort of legal standard that everyone else must follow. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 06:07 PM EST

nice isnt it that they do this , and imnal but isnt it fraud to seel somehting

that you cant guarantee work and dont know what it works with, how can such a

EULA hold up in say canadain law with our privacy laws so strong. (you must be

given written consent EACH time you use my inforamtin of enter my SPACE)

VERY STRICT LAW.

I see this as a way to protect us oh yah i see also the new vista is slowly

slipping more DRM into it as well... here we go in a few months time it wont

matter as millions will get stuffed right.

As the attorney general of the US said and for once i can agree, yah its your

music , but its my computer. YOU ARENT MESSIN WITH MY PUTER. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 07:38 PM EST

In struck me this morning that this whole DRM issue is moot. In actual fact the

music CD is extinct. The information has not filtered through to the forebrain

from the hind brain yet but the fact is it is extinct. It is a case of the tail

wagging the Dodo, if I may mix metaphores.



Why? How many people are saying that they no longer buy CDs, how many download.

The pod is king! It takes a certain critical mass for a technological revolution

where the price falls to an acceptable level and avaiability increases along

with choice. Expect to see portable CD players dissapear, forever, first. It is

becoming a pod world whether the record companies like it or not.



Who will buy DRM enabled CD players? Well, by the time you have replaced the one

in your lounge, the one in your car, your jogging one, the one in the home cine

set, the one in the boys room how much will you have spent to replace them all?

Just because they cannot play the new, wonderfull, protected ones. Then out

comes DRM II and they won't play that. Just how long willl consumers be prepared

to continue plunging hand into pocket.



As the price, availability, ease of use and ease of downloadability of pods

changes then they will naturally replace the lumbering CD as the new rulers. My

portable player, never less than 1 CD in diameter, will get replaced by a pod

not a CD player. Just look at the size for a start. Pods will become part of the

hifi replacing the CD as the CD has pushed out vinyl.



The music companies will be sidelined. Studios will rise from the ashes. Why?

Artists will use them to produce their own music that they will sell directly.

The studio will develop into a rapidly configurable, drop in shop that artists

can hire and walk away with a recording. Some musicians will produce at home

but others may want a couple of hours worth of the studio's pet orchestra. A

huge culture shift is about to happen.



The music companies will be left holding a bag of old catalogue material that is

declining in worth as musicians become forgotten. A whole new music scene will

rise, mammel like, from under the feet of the fallen dinosaur.





---

There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!

Now I want its hide. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 07:56 PM EST

I only buy music from sites that give it to me in un-DRM'd format (zunior.com,

bleep.com, etc). Yeah, I don't get the cold-play's and the mariah carey, but

frankly I am of the opinion that small time artists are higher quality because

they have to work harder, and I think they should be rewarded for it. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 09:18 PM EST

On the original site that I saw about this license, I also saw a photo of the

jewel case with the "CD" logo visible. I thought that Phillips, the

owner of the "CD" trademark, had declined to allow its use on silver

disks implementing DRM, as they did not adhere to the standards defining how

actual CD's are to store data.



1) Is this true?

2) How might it affect any of the statements about the validity of the license,

as the silver disk within was mis-represented as being an actual CD? [ Reply to This | # ]



My guess - Authored by: Altair_IV on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 04:42 AM EST

Authored by: energyman on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 09:45 PM EST

Mezmerize from System Of A Down.



The first thing I did: opening the auidiocd:// plugin of

konqueror and copied the whole cd as high quality

ogg's into my ogg-folder.



After that I took the cd out of the drive and put it

away safely.

This way I can jump around in the soungs, listen to

the same point over and over again without the fear of

damaging a drive or cd. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: davidf on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 04:36 AM EST

I find it quite odd that people think writing down a piece of music after

hearing it is some sort of magical or even remarkable feat. While it might be

for a 12 year old boy. It is not for a skilled musician. But then I have studied

music all my life.



As Richard Stallman pointed out in his lecture on software pantents, what a

professional in one field sees as common place and simple, others not familiar

with it see it as remarkable and uniuqe. That is a lovely myth about Mozart's

brilliance as a child. But for a musician writing down what he heard is they

same as a secretary taking dictation on a note pad or a court repporter being

able to acurately trancsribe the proeceedings by hand. While it is a laudible

skill, its not something that is totally uniuque. The Vatican, it seems did not

understand that what can be heard can be written down. It seems that Music

Publishers share the same short sightedness with the Vatican.



Other musicians of the time could have done the same thing,for example, Franz

Joseph Haydn. However they were to busy writing music for their own employers.

Haydn was employed for most of his life as the court composer for Prince

Nikolaus Esterházy. For an interesting account of Haydn's life, and of the times

in which both he and Mozart lived, read this essay:

< http://www.carolinaclassical.com/articles/haydn.html > .



Haydn himslef was concerned about owning the rights to the music he wrote for

the court and worked diligently to keep the rights to his work. He was also

concerned about people stealing his music and passing it off as their own. As

well, he had reason to be concerned that some composers were selling their own

scores as Haydn's work because they would fetch more money.



None of these rights issues are new it seems. By the way, Mozart and Haydn new

each other hand they both had great respect and admiration for the other.



cheers,



davidf [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Arthur Marsh on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 01:27 PM EST

For the benefit of PJ and everyone else, I did a search on http://www.google.com.au for Mozart's Clarinet Quintet K. 581 using the search string:

mozart "clarinet quintet" download

and found on the fourth results page the URL: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~ushankar/recordings/ which contains links to MP3 files of the music itself, which I have not downloaded, but verified as valid links using the the link checker at http://validator.w3.org/checklink, so feel free to browse, download and give the brave clarinetist who made these recordings available a thankyou. ---

http://www.unix-systems.org/what_is_unix.html [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 02:41 PM EST

It's remarkable how many posters miss one simple technological point: if there

is even one dumb CD player in the world that will play the Coldplay disc, that

means there is unencrypted Red Book audio on the CD. It isn't necessary to make

an analog conversion or to capture streaming digital audio on its way to the

sound card. All that is necessary is to configure the computer as a dumb CD

player, which on a Windows machine means turning off Autorun/Autoplay.

How can it be a violation of the DMCA to extract digital content that is not

encrypted and to which access is therefore not prevented by a technological

protection measure? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: dan_d on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 09:35 PM EST

100. Musical instrument shops must pay an annual royalty to cover shoppers who perform a recognisable riff before they buy, thereby making a "public performance". Forgive me for being crazy, but might not this fall foul of racketeering statutes? I mean, they're essentially saying, "we know your customers are doing public performances of our songs. We can't be bothered to prove it, but give us some cash and we won't break your kneecaps, er, I mean, sue you." Can that be legal? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 05 2006 @ 11:25 AM EST

I have not seen this posted in the thread or related ones. Sorry if it is duplicated elsewhere. One of Coldplay's competitors, 50 Foot Wave - a loud alternative band from Boston, recently distributed a new release called Free Music under the Creative Commons license scheme. Their reasons for doing so are interesting to read: "The band states its goal as simply to circumvent the 'money cycle' and get high quality (free) recordings into the hands of a maximum number of people for evaluation at their leisure." More details at their website. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Emu on Thursday, January 05 2006 @ 08:50 PM EST

Well know, since I do not own a seperate cd player at the moment (and have no

plans to buy one in the near future) and usually use linux for anything (bar

games that just wont run in linux), I guess I will just have to forgo the latest

crude from Coldplay. I did like 'Parachutes' and (to an extent) 'Rush of blood

to the head'.



Anyone ever noticed that most bands have good songs, get signed up by big labels

and they start releasing (mass-market) crude.



Also, just out of curiousity, when these bands release 're-makes' of old songs

(ie re-make of 'The Tide is High' by some girl group, 'What about me?' by that

Aussie Idol guy etc), does it re-new the copyright held by the labels? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 05:13 PM EST

I searched WorldCat and found a record for a recording put out by Deutsche Grammophon that includes Mozart's clarinet quintet in A Major. I can't find the same record on Open WorldCat, or I'd link to it; however, it's listed on Amazon.com. You might try seeing if your local library has a copy or if they can get it for you through interlibrary loan.



http://www.amazon.com/gp/pro duct/B00000IX73/ [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 12:35 PM EST