Copy protected CDs sending Macs in for repairs

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Check the article



<a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1023-912695.html"; target="_blank"> Apple: Play music at your own risk</a>



In my opinion, users should be going after the record labels, not Apple for the repair costs. The labels are protecting thier intellectual property by damaging our expensive equipment.



Besides, I would like to see what copy-protected labels would do to an album's sales.



Pres

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,227member
    Actually the Music Industry is violating our rights granted by the Home Recording Act. In typical American fashion there are so many contradictory laws(HRA versus Digital Millenium Copyright Act) that it's impossible to follow the "letter of the Law".



    [ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: hmurchison ]</p>
  • Reply 2 of 12
    scott f.scott f. Posts: 276member
    [quote]Originally posted by preston:

    <strong>In my opinion, users should be going after the record labels, not Apple for the repair costs</strong><hr></blockquote>



    From the reports that I've read... it is CLEARLY stated on the Music Discs NOT to use in a PC or Mac and all referrence to it being a "CD" has been removed from the packaging because it technically is NOT a CD.



    Sure... I agree that most people wouldn't read the "fine print" on a music CD... We've been using these things for YEARS... who needs directions, right...? You pop-it-in the CD player and hit Play, right...? Hey! Where is the disc...? It's not on my desktop...! [reads packaging] "Oh CRAP!"



    Unfortunately, it IS the consumer's fault (responsibility). The record company made the effort(s) to advise the consumer... either way... from the OTHER things I've read... the technology is EASY to thwart. Using a black "Sharpie" on the outer-edge of the CD where the "offending Data" is written has been successful for many people.
  • Reply 3 of 12
    prestonpreston Posts: 219member
    I think this is going to quickly become a very important issue as the portable music players become increasingly diverse. What these copy-protections do is limit our ability to play purchased music on our own, personalized hardware. Then, the record industry will no longer be able to consider it the "purchase" of music, it will be a "liscence" to enjoy the music on a specific device.



    What the record industry is doing is wrong. They are violating our rights to listen to our own purchased music, rather than trying to combat the illegal distrobution of music.



    This stems from the inability of the industry to fight p2p technologies. While they shut napster down, 10 systems replaced it. The industry's biggest mistake was shutting down napster before they had a for-pay system in place that competed with free technologies.



    This is the only way that people are not going to go out and just digitally decode, then reencode, then distribute music for free.



    All I can say to the record industry is " <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> "



    Pres
  • Reply 4 of 12
    My wife bought the latest Celine Dion and Jennifer Lopez discs (It was only in my Dual Gig long enough to copy it and burn a backup, I swear!) I didn't have any problems at all. I understand that most of the issues have arisen from the UK, but the J-Lo disc had problems in the US, as well. Both of her copies of the discs makes no warning that it is . I DO have a Superdrive, so maybe that was my work around.(Though, I did rip the J-Lo onto her iBook for her and it worked fine.) Here is an interesting wrinkle to this: the Jennifer Lopez disc is from COLUMBIA HOUSE CD CLUB. Some of theie discs have noticable degraded sound quality when compared to the retail version, so I would contend that they use a different pressing plant and don't have the technology. I understand the copy-protection is software based, it just seems a little coincidental.



    [ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Unfiltered ]



    [ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Unfiltered ]</p>
  • Reply 5 of 12
    burningwheelburningwheel Posts: 1,827member
    I've always heard Columbia House discs were not as good sound quality.



    also these copyright protected discs apparently have poor sound quality and the media itself is sub-standard from my understanding.



    i also thought i heard some have audible little clicks throughout the disc, though maybe i'm hallucinating i read this
  • Reply 6 of 12
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Most, if not all, of the copy protection mechanisms work by degrading the sound quality. The industry maintains that the consumer will never notice.
  • Reply 7 of 12
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott F.:

    <strong>

    it is CLEARLY stated on the Music Discs NOT to use in a PC or Mac and all referrence to it being a "CD" has been removed from the packaging because it technically is NOT a CD.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    This is a grey area. They SHOUD have stated that you risk DAMAGING your computer with it ... saying it "doesn't work" could simply mean that it will not play. People may still tryto extract the audio though.
  • Reply 8 of 12
    prestonpreston Posts: 219member
    I like that response, FLOOR. I believe that many important rights are being violated by these measures, and the record industry needs to be more upfront with the fact that they are putting out discs that are dangerous to people's hardware.



    I am wondering if there is any illegality in releasing products that look and act like CDs, take advantage of some players that use the CD standard, yet not others.



    Pres
  • Reply 9 of 12
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    If record companies inssit on this path, they're just going to tick off good paying customers.



    I've bought nearly 300 CD's (a good many of them since the advent of MP3) Do I have a few 'pirated' discs? Yes, less than a dozen. Did I buy all my discs new? Nope. I've bought over 2/3rds of them used (cheaper) from a couple of stores in the city. This doesn't include the number of discs I've bought for other people as gifts. So the record companies have gotten a lot of money out of me. If they want any more of it, I better not see these innane play-back protections on my discs. If they think I'm going to licence content on a per-play/per-device scheme, then I say the gloves are off. You've counted your last sale, and from now on I will promote "STEAL MUSIC, AND SHARE IT WITH EVERYONE!" I'll never buy another CD again, I'll buy them from pirates pressing bootlegs in their basement if I have to, but I won't buy anything that originates from a studio, execs, record companies and artists be damned. Sorry, but you willnot controll what I pay for.



    To those who think that this whole shift to a licensing model is somehow legit, let me ask you this. If I bought a book, would you consider it fair use for a lock to be placed on that book that required me to put in a dollar every time I wanted to read the book? Or if I had to pay extra to read the book while taking a shit, instead of laying in bed, or sitting at my desk?



    That's what these new music formats are trying to do, sell you the same thing over and over and over again. It isn't just copy protection, it's play-back control. You wanna sell me something new? Make something new that's worth buying! Record execs can kiss my ass if they think I'm buying the same thing twice!



    Better smarten up, cause this is a war you ain't gonna win.
  • Reply 10 of 12
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,227member
    [quote]Originally posted by preston:

    <strong>I like that response, FLOOR. I believe that many important rights are being violated by these measures, and the record industry needs to be more upfront with the fact that they are putting out discs that are dangerous to people's hardware.



    I am wondering if there is any illegality in releasing products that look and act like CDs, take advantage of some players that use the CD standard, yet not others.



    Pres</strong><hr></blockquote>



    These "Protected" CD's should not bear the CD logo as the Copy Protection on the Discs is a violation of the Red Book standard. Look and you will see that this Logo does not exist on CP discs.
  • Reply 11 of 12
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>



    These "Protected" CD's should not bear the CD logo as the Copy Protection on the Discs is a violation of the Red Book standard. Look and you will see that this Logo does not exist on CP discs.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    But they are filed with Digital Audio Compact Discs in every store where you find them.
  • Reply 12 of 12
    prestonpreston Posts: 219member
    [quote] These "Protected" CD's should not bear the CD logo as the Copy Protection on the Discs is a violation of the Red Book standard. Look and you will see that this Logo does not exist on CP discs.

    <hr></blockquote>



    This, I understand, but in my opinion, it's bullshit to exclude some Red book standard approveddevices, while allowing use on others.



    I think it's important to not lose sight of the fact that a lot of people (especially students) use their computers as media centers completely LEGALLY. Just because computers CAN burn and distribute mp3s, does not mean that there are not many users who are happy to play the audio off the cd, without ripping it. Same with DVDs, just because people will put a DVD into their computer and watch it does not mean that they will rip it and distribute a div.x!



    My message to the industry: if you want customers to stop copying music, publically develop the infrastructure to distribute it under a new, more secure format that can be easily distinguished from "legacy" media. Give the customer an incentive to upgrade their equipment by offering either increased quality or reduced price.



    Unfortunately, the dillema is that doing this will cost the major labels more money than they are currently losing on digital file sharing.



    Keep in mind, that especially in the United States, that the media is controlled entirely by the same companies that sell your music. Don't expect realistic statistics from these companies. The only losses reported by the major labels are in the areas of cassettes and cassingles. Of course they're losing money on outdated technology. The record industry makes a profit of somewhere in the area of $450 BILLION a year.

    I for one will not be taken advantage of by greedy companies that I am already supporting by legally buying their products. You are sitting in front of a machine with great media capabilities, there is always a way to work around half-assed, underdeveloped copy protection measures, so if you are annoyed with them, rather than buying the next overpriced major-label release, download it for free.



    Pres
Sign In or Register to comment.