I was just thinking about buying Radiohead's new cd (they sounded pretty
good at Glasto I thought) and notice it's got this copy protection thing.
Quick look around the net and this comes up:
http://www.papmag.net/cgi-bin/fronte...=story&sid=114

Are people really supposed to buy this stuff?!

Just have to make do with mp3s for now, which does rather defeat the object.
Literally.

And yes yes I will buy the LP but it's £19. Incoherent rant over.

Rob

I think it's incorrect to call these cd-like discs copy protected. Read
protected is more accurate.

It's a very strange situation - the only (legal) way for me to listen to
HTTT without clicks is to buy the cd, then throw it away and download the
mp3/ogg.

--
Jim H

"Jim H" wrote in message
news
I think it's incorrect to call these cd-like discs copy protected.
Read
protected is more accurate.

It's a very strange situation - the only (legal) way for me to listen
to
HTTT without clicks is to buy the cd, then throw it away and download
the
mp3/ogg.

Exactly how, in the eyes of the copyright cops, would what you
suggest be legal?
Surely, you would have to keep the CD as proof even if you never
actually played it.

Humm, that could be interesting - buy the CD, don't break the
cellophane, download the album from the Internet, wave two fingers at
the RIAA.



--
RobH
The future's dim, the future's mono.

just buy it then take it back saying its a faulty disc if it won't play

those in power will soon get the message

"RobH" wrote in
message ...

"Jim H" wrote in message
news
I think it's incorrect to call these cd-like discs copy protected.
Read
protected is more accurate.

It's a very strange situation - the only (legal) way for me to listen
to
HTTT without clicks is to buy the cd, then throw it away and download
the
mp3/ogg.

Exactly how, in the eyes of the copyright cops, would what you
suggest be legal?
Surely, you would have to keep the CD as proof even if you never
actually played it.

Humm, that could be interesting - buy the CD, don't break the
cellophane, download the album from the Internet, wave two fingers at
the RIAA.



--
RobH
The future's dim, the future's mono.

"Steven Templeton" wrote in message
...
just buy it then take it back saying its a faulty disc if it won't
play

those in power will soon get the message

I'm not so sure. They're simply relying on the majority of consumers not
being affected and sod the rest.


--
RobH
The future's dim, the future's mono.

"RobH" wrote in
message ...

"Steven Templeton" wrote in message
...
just buy it then take it back saying its a faulty disc if it won't
play

those in power will soon get the message

I'm not so sure. They're simply relying on the majority of consumers not
being affected and sod the rest.



¡Si, correcto!


Or, to put it another way, if 'audiophiles' (you know, the 'accuracy'
'mastertapes' and 'fidelity' boys) only buy the crap that is being pumped
out for Joe Arsehole then they have to put up with Joe Arsehole's standards
of 'acceptability'.....

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:16:32 +0000 (UTC), RobH nospam@nospam-echo-xray-
papa-charlie-oscar-november.co.uk wrote:


Exactly how, in the eyes of the copyright cops, would what you
suggest be legal?
Surely, you would have to keep the CD as proof even if you never
actually played it.

Humm, that could be interesting - buy the CD, don't break the
cellophane, download the album from the Internet, wave two fingers at
the RIAA.

Well, most my experience with 'copyright shopping' is from software. My
statement was certainly true for software. Not certain if it's exactly the
same for music, but I'll lay down my theory...

When you buy software what you actually pay for is the right to use that
data, not the disc itself, so if you scratch the cd a lot of software
companies will send you a new one for free, or allow a download.

With an audio cd you are buying the right to listen to that music at will,
by whatever means. This is why you can legally store an mp3 on your
computer if you also have the cd. So just possession of a downloaded mp3
isn't illegal, if you have the disc. AFAIK it IS illegal for someone to
distribute (inc share on p2p) copyrighted material without permission, but
downloading from p2p is no crime - they can only get you for owning the
data without the right to do so.

It's a grey area. For example, if you buy the vinyl do you have the right
to download a digital copy for listening on your iPod? You've already paid
the artist for their effort in making the music, I don't see why not.

Ideally I'd buy most my music 'on nothing' - I'd pay some amount to the
artist/producer/promoter for their efforts but not the media it comes on,
which to me is nothing more than packaging.

I still buy vinyl for those sit back and just listen moments, because
analogue HiFi demands a physically distributed medium - long distance
transmission and home recording of analogue audio just isn't realistic.

But the distribution model for digital audio isn't comparable in these ways
- you CAN realistically transmit and record with home equipment. I can
download a 640meg wav in 2.7 hours, or the mp3 equivalent in a few minutes,
at a cost of pennies. The idea that data must be put in little boxes,
driven about in vans, and sold on expensive real estate for the transaction
to be valid is too stupid for words.

--
Jim H

I'm not so sure. They're simply relying on the majority of consumers not
being affected and sod the rest.


Interestingly, the site of the company (can't find the URL now) that came
up with this copy protection technique boasts that it will 'only' cause a
1% returns rate. I suppose we can take it 1% of music buyers are either
audiophiles or tech savy.

--
Jim

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
"RobH"
wrote in
message ...

"Steven Templeton" wrote in message
...
just buy it then take it back saying its a faulty disc if it won't
play

those in power will soon get the message

I'm not so sure. They're simply relying on the majority of consumers
not
being affected and sod the rest.


¡Si, correcto!


Or, to put it another way, if 'audiophiles' (you know, the 'accuracy'
'mastertapes' and 'fidelity' boys) only buy the crap that is being
pumped
out for Joe Arsehole then they have to put up with Joe Arsehole's
standards
of 'acceptability'.....
What point are you trying to make?


--
RobH
The future's dim, the future's mono.

Care to give some examples. Have you actually had to do this?

A fem times. Sometimes discs have been lost, sometimes installations
corrupted.

Microsoft are (suprisingly) very good at this; they used to send
replacement discs for free, provided you could provide proof of holding a
valid product key. I think this may show a general change in attitude, in
light of the iminent .net pay-per-use software payment experiment, in which
all copying is legal.

The idea that you are buying a product key and not a disc is beconing
popular. Id software's cdkey system is suposedly impossible to backwards
engineer (from billion of algorhythmically chosen keys a few million are
randomly selected as 'valid') On Quake III you can share a product key with
a friend, but only ane of you can play online at once. When I bought Q3A
2nd hand on ebay I told the guy to not bother sending the cd, just the
piece of paper with the key on it.

Recently, I was asked for £10 to replace a bought GTA3 disc. I choose not
to take them up on this, instead I downloaded it. I'm confident this was
not illegal. One thing I noticed is that most computer games companies
charge more to replace a console game than a pc one.


It's a grey area. For example, if you buy the vinyl do you have the
right
to download a digital copy for listening on your iPod? You've already
paid
the artist for their effort in making the music, I don't see why not.
I doubt any the record companies would agree with you.

No, but then they don't decide the law.


Ideally I'd buy most my music 'on nothing' - I'd pay some amount to
the
artist/producer/promoter for their efforts but not the media it comes
on,
which to me is nothing more than packaging.
I think there is something to be said for this approach but, like Linux
distros, pay a nominal amount for the media (if it is physical that is).

Sure. I think £5 is maybe a fair price for an album, or £7 if you want it
on physical media. But noone can tell me that it costs £10 to produce a cd,
or £20 to put an old film on DVD. Not while I have a whole desk draw full
of AOL CDs!

One thing that gets me is how people will pay more for a film on dvd than
they used to on VHS, given its cheaper to make! Dabs have a DVD-rom drive
for £22 - as much as a single film in some stores.

I have boxed Redhat that I paid for in the days before I had broadband. If
you want your music 'on' somthing that's fine, I'd just rather not have to
buy ANOTHER cd rack!


I still buy vinyl for those sit back and just listen moments, because
analogue HiFi demands a physically distributed medium - long distance
transmission and home recording of analogue audio just isn't
realistic.
I dunno - R3 live broadcasts can be pretty good but if you're not a R3
listener...

True! I listen to the jazz sometimes. I'll mostly flick between 3+4. I'd
say that my tuner reception is near cd quality. The point I was making is
that when only analogue recording was avaliable there'd have been no way
for you to recieve a broadcast and then record with acceptable quality to
listen to at will, nor to choose what you listen to. Therefore the record
company was necessary as a middleman between you and the artist.

Problem is that I don't see anything on the horizon that will cater for
people that want proper high fidelity sound.

A wav (pcm) file at cd quality is not so big by todays standards, you could
store maybe 200 albums on a cheap hard drive. A few hours download on
broadband, maybe half that with lossless compresion. I've heard talk of
SACD rips to 5.1 ogg vorbis, but am yet to listen for myself.

The biggest barrier IMO is noisy computer fans. That's why I built a silent
pc.

--
Jim