|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 151 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 5 of 151:
| 
Oct 1 22:47 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 6 of 151:
|
Oct 2 18:15 UTC 2003 |
A decline in file trading is one way of measuring success for the RIAA.
But it won't help them unless it's accompanied by an uptick in music sales.
|
krj
|
|
response 7 of 151:
|
Oct 2 21:02 UTC 2003 |
CD sales have rocketed upwards since the lawsuits were filed.
Last night I stopped at a Borders to peek at Billboard, which carries
the weekly Soundscan CD sales numbers in their print edition.
The RIAA's 261 lawsuits were filed on September 8, and the Billboard
dated Sept. 27 contains sales data for the week ending Sept.14 -- not
quite one full week after the lawsuits hit the news.
Sales week ending Sept. 14: 10,239,000
Sales same week, 2002: 9,947,000
So, year-ago sales were up 2.9% for the week following the RIAA lawsuits.
Now, sales were up for the week ending Sept. 7, too, at
10,111,000; so sales were already running high before the
filing of the suits.
Today's USA Today reports that Big Music is on a roll. I assume this
story represents Soundscan data for the week ending Sept. 28.
Sales for the week are 12.5 million CDs, up 17% from the same week in
2002. It's the third consecutive week of rising sales. My guess,
from looking at the Billboard sales graphs last night, is that this
was the best week for Big Music sales in two years.
"The gains likely have more to do with all the hot arrivals than the
clampdown on the Internet's illegal music traders." Outkast, Dave
Matthews, Limp Bizkit and R. Kelly lead the parade of happy sellers.
But there is nothing here to suggest that the RIAA's interests are
not being served by the lawsuits, and nothing to suggest that a mass
consumer boycott is looming.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2003-10-01-music_x.htm
|
tpryan
|
|
response 8 of 151:
|
Oct 7 00:43 UTC 2003 |
I would agree that it more a function of who is releasing
CDs at this time this year compared to this time last year.
Maybe the 17 year old is separating music that was always
there (before he became aware of it) and what is arriving in the
record store within his purchase power lifetime--it's his music.
/tpryan raises his hand as another with a good size 45, LP and
CD collection.
|
goose
|
|
response 9 of 151:
|
Oct 7 15:04 UTC 2003 |
Right, although his 'collection' is interesting. I doubt there is anything
that is more than three years old in it. Maybe a couple, but not many. In
his world, and those of his friends, pre 2000 is "so old". He's way into rap,
and while I love the early days of rap, I'm not so interested in the current
styles. I cannot, at all, get him interested in the evolution of rap. No
sense of history. ;-)
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 10 of 151:
|
Oct 8 01:04 UTC 2003 |
There is a generation gap after all.
|
goose
|
|
response 11 of 151:
|
Oct 8 02:53 UTC 2003 |
You're telling me. ;-)
|
krj
|
|
response 12 of 151:
|
Oct 9 21:56 UTC 2003 |
From Monday's news:
I can't help it, this news item put a HUGE smile on my face.
About two weeks ago there was a surge of media publicity about the
new Sunn Comm anti-copy technology which BMG was going to start using
on its new CDs. The first disc to contain this new copy-prevention
system was Anthony Hamilton's "Comin' Where I'm From." I know
nothing about Mr. Hamilton or his music, I've never heard of him
before. The CD was released in late September.
Monday's report, which originates with a Princeton
University graduate student, is that the system depends entirely on
loading a device driver which scrambles the sound from the CD audio
tracks. It is trivial to defeat for Windows: load the CD with the
shift key depressed to stop the CD from auto-execing, that's it. Or,
select the given device driver (it's in the Princeton article, grab
it fast before it's suppressed as a DMCA violation) in Windows Device
Manager and unload it.
Or, find a friend with a Linux machine, or some other Unix variant,
or an older Mac.
Copies of the copy-protected tracks are reported to have been on
Kazaa within hours of album release.
"Please install this software which will stop you from using our CD-
Audio tracks on your computer. Please do not uninstall this
software. Thank you." I wonder how much BMG paid Sunn Comm for this
technological wizardry? :) :) :)
http://news.dmusic.com/article/8323
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/
|
mcnally
|
|
response 13 of 151:
|
Oct 10 00:05 UTC 2003 |
i'm typing this response in all lower case because under the dmca
my shift key is now an illegal copyright circumvention device and
therefore illegal to sell or possess.
:-o
|
scott
|
|
response 14 of 151:
|
Oct 10 01:17 UTC 2003 |
you had to use the shift key to make the colon in your emoticon. please
report to the riaa website to request your gps ankle bracelet.
|
other
|
|
response 15 of 151:
|
Oct 10 02:04 UTC 2003 |
And of course, the follow-up expected since this shiftkey stuff first
appeared: SunnComm is now threatening to pursue DMCA charges against the
guy at Princeton.
|
krj
|
|
response 16 of 151:
|
Oct 10 02:37 UTC 2003 |
It gets better. Hoo boy, does it get better.
SunnComm wants felony DMCA charges against John Haldeman; besides telling
everyone about the shift-key workaround, he removed the device driver
which SunnComm's software planted on his computer. ((Apparently you no
longer have the right to manage the software installed on your computer,
or even to know about it.))
http://news.dmusic.com/article/8369
http://news.com.com/2100-1025-5089168.html?tag=nefd_hed
The Cnet story also reports that SunnComm wants to sue Haldeman for
civil damages because his publication damanged their stock value.
SunnComm complains that Haldeman's analysis of the SunnComm copy-prevention
weaknesses is invalid because he did not know about all the goodies
SunnComm has coming up:
Sunncomm CEO Jacobs said, "said the company was also exploring a civil
suit based on damage to the company's reputation, since Halderman
concluded that the technology was ineffective without knowing about
future enhancements.
"Future versions of the SunnComm software would include ways that the
copy-protecting files would change their name on different computers,
making them harder to find, Jacobs said. Moreover, the company will
DISTRIBUTE THE TECHNOLOGY ALONG WITH THIRD-PARTY SOFTWARE, SO THAT IT
DOESN'T ALWAYS COME OFF A PROTECTED CD, he added." ((emphasis KRJ))
Now stay with me: we go sideways to another SunnComm press release
from this week about another product: a technology which somehow users
would install on their computers which would prevent CD-Rs (copies)
from being further copied.
http://news.dmusic.com/article/8367
As I read that earlier, I could not for the life of me figure out how
SunnComm would get this installed on your PC. The answer is in that
quote above: it will be packaged in third party software which you will
be tricked or compelled to install.
-----
So, let me re-spell this out in clear, plain language. I believe that
BMG, one of the five major labels controlling the RIAA, has
contracted with SunnComm to develop and deploy Windows device drivers
which consumers are to be compelled or tricked into installing on
their own machines, to cripple the machines' capabilities to
manipulate audio CDs. SunnComm, and by extension BMG, argues that it
is a felony offense to discover what these software drivers are, and
to uninstall them from your own computer.
The plan is the forced crippling of every Windows machine, backed up
by criminal sanctions if you try to undo it.
|
other
|
|
response 17 of 151:
|
Oct 10 03:31 UTC 2003 |
I certainly hope that MS competitors and press people are able to put the
pieces together the same way you did.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 18 of 151:
|
Oct 10 05:53 UTC 2003 |
re no. 14; I could have cut-and-pasted a colon, and if you try to compel
me to answer whether I used the shift key i'll invoke my 5th amendment
right against self-incrimination.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 19 of 151:
|
Oct 10 06:34 UTC 2003 |
I wonder how Microsoft will react to this? 'Twould seem that they would
consider these drivers part of the operating system, even more integral a part
than a web browser, and so might object to somebody wrecking them.
|
mdw
|
|
response 20 of 151:
|
Oct 10 09:37 UTC 2003 |
Presumably MicroSoft won't "sign" such device drivers? Users today don't
care who signs the stuff they install, but microsoft has already
implemented stuff to allow users not to install "untrusted" software not
blessed by official, ie, microsoft, sources, at least not without a
dialogue box asking permissions. Since Microsoft claims that only
"trusted" software has been tested and found not to break functionality,
this shouldn't be hard for them to discover.
|
scott
|
|
response 21 of 151:
|
Oct 10 13:35 UTC 2003 |
Holy shit! What happens if antivirus companies get into the act, since these
anti-copy drivers will essentially be Trojan horses?
Friends, we're definitely living in interesting times...
|
gull
|
|
response 22 of 151:
|
Oct 10 13:58 UTC 2003 |
Re #19: It wouldn't shock me to see MS including this in one of their
service packs, actually. For a price, of course... The details will be
buried in the EULA, and the service pack will be one that also fixes
some critical security hole.
Re #21: Seeing as most antivirus software doesn't detect adware, I doubt
they'll be interested in detecting this, either. Antivirus companies
tend to focus pretty exclusively on self-replicating code.
I can't wait for the fun when these drivers start causing conflicts with
other software. Imagine the interesting tech support calls companies
will get. Imagine them having to explain to their customers that the
software they sold them doesn't work because of a "stealth driver"
that's illegal to remove.
I'm also trying to imagine how I'm going to explain to my users why they
get an error about needing Administrator rights every time they put in
one of their music CDs.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 23 of 151:
|
Oct 10 16:08 UTC 2003 |
> I'm also trying to imagine how I'm going to explain to my users why they
> get an error about needing Administrator rights every time they put in
> one of their music CDs.
Be careful that your explanation doesn't reveal any circumvention approaches
or you'll be in hot water, mister.. We'll be watching you and the rest of
your DMCA-and-freedom-hating friends.
|
mary
|
|
response 24 of 151:
|
Oct 10 21:53 UTC 2003 |
I'm somewhat amazed by all the anger, astonishment, resentment, and
feelings of entitlement on the part of music buyers. The record companies
(and artists) make this music. It's theirs. Nobody is forcing you to buy
it or listen to it. If you think what they are doing is unfair or unjust
JUST STOP LISTENING TO AND BUYING THEIR MUSIC.
Six months into a boycott and I bet the recording industry would clean
up its act. But you guys are acting like junkies without a choice.
|
lynne
|
|
response 25 of 151:
|
Oct 10 23:28 UTC 2003 |
re 24: Not arguing with the boycott suggestion. But the suggestion that we
could be required to have secret drivers that we're not supposed to know
about and be criminally prosecuted for uninstalling them is really disturbing.
Once this is ceded, how long before they start exploiting it in other ways?
I think this is a terrible precedent to set. I'm a control freak; I won't
install anything that I don't actively need (in fact, I've uninstalled
Outlook Express at least six time in the past month because I don't want
it on my computer).
Hmmm. In fact, I pretty much boycott the music industry by default because
I don't often buy any of their crap.
|
gull
|
|
response 26 of 151:
|
Oct 11 00:02 UTC 2003 |
Re #24: Part of the problem is they've so far refused to label which CDs
are copy protected. I'd complain a lot less about it if there were
warning labels. Also, SunnComm has suggested they will start
distributing this hidden driver with other, third-party software, so you
could end up getting it without ever buying a CD. The idea of a hidden,
un-uninstallable piece of software that deliberately tries to interfere
with other software on the computer bothers me a lot.
SunnComm has backed off the lawsuit:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2003/10/10/news/8797.shtml
Their CEO says he decided there wouldn't be much benefit and he didn't
want to create a chilling effect for other researchers. The threat to
find sneakier ways to do this is still there, though.
|
scott
|
|
response 27 of 151:
|
Oct 11 00:30 UTC 2003 |
Re 24: Mary, would you be OK with, say, the hospital deciding to routinely
put tracking chips into people during regular surgery, and telling staff they
couldn't talk about it? That's a pretty drastic example, but it's pretty
similar to what SunnComm is pushing here.
|
dah
|
|
response 28 of 151:
|
Oct 11 01:16 UTC 2003 |
If you don't like it, don't use the hospitals.
|
russ
|
|
response 29 of 151:
|
Oct 11 01:51 UTC 2003 |
I see a big surge in popularity for Macs and Linux on the desktop.
|
