I Bought a CD, not a Licensing Agreement

[Are_grits_groceries]

I Bought a CD, not a Licensing Agreement
*this is not mine, its quotes from a comment and found via gcn1*

It is sad but predictable to see John Prior (Letters, August 10) trotting out the old fallacy about music that we buy a product encumbered with a licence.

Let us walk through my most recent purchase. I strolled into the store, located the CD I was after, paid for it in cash and left. At no stage was I asked to sign a licensing agreement - not even a post-sale agreement like those for software. It was a simple transaction of cash for a physical product.

”No,” cries the music industry, ”you are bound by the licensing agreement that you did not sign and that we cannot produce for inspection.”

Fine - let’s suppose I now have a licence for personal use applying to all the CDs I own. I should be able to take advantage of that. A CD I bought 10 years ago now has a scratch down the middle so that five of the 10 songs refuse to play. Luckily for me, this problem is solely with the physical medium. After all, my licence for personal use should allow me to reacquire ”my” content, especially since it is digital data and can be reproduced an unlimited number of times at virtually no cost.

http://everythingrandom.net/post/182101960/i-bought-a-cd-not-a-licensing-agreement

Hmmmmmmmmmmm... Interesting idea.

[unc70]

1. No you bought a copy of a published work encumbered by a copyright

You really need to read understandable articles at the Copyright Office's web site. It clearly explains ones rights and the restrictions.

BTW it appears that both the original article and the LTE do not understand how the current copyright laws work.

[MattBaggins]

2. Nope he bought a CD

[KharmaTrain]

3. You're Only Buying The Aluminum Foil & Plastic

In theory when you purchase a recording...be it a CD, DVD, music or movie, you are only paying for the physical disc the recording is pressed on. That's what you own. The content is copywritten and your purchase is an agreement is "leasing" the music or whatever for private use. Now the question is what constitutes private use. If I record it onto another CD or cassette (anyone remember those) and only use it in my car...now that's considered "fair use" but not making a copy for a friend or putting it on a file sharing network.

[BR_Parkway]

13. So I'm paying for the paper in the book, but not the words? I'm only

"leasing" the story? I can't resell that book? or give away? Because I acquired some license agreement when I purchased a book?

If not, why is this treated differently from the copywritten recorded music?

[dustbunnie]

15. You can resell your cds as well. You just can't make a million copies of them.

Same deal as books. Buy a painting and you can resell it. But you can't make copies of it and sell those.

[Rosco T.]

69. Actually the Record Companies have been trying to STOP the resale of used CD's...

.. for several years now, since they don't get a 'cut' of the sale.

[Celebration]

19. It isn't

You may not xerox the book and give it to people.

Sure you can sell a used book. Is the music industry trying to bring up that tired old argument about not selling used CDs? That is hogwash. Nevertheless, it would be illegal to make a copy for yourself and then sell it.

[Celebration]

20. It isn't

You may not xerox the book and give it to people.

Sure you can sell a used book. Is the music industry trying to bring up that tired old argument about not selling used CDs? That is hogwash. Nevertheless, it would be illegal to make a copy for yourself and then sell it.

[KharmaTrain]

23. Yep...You Bought The Paper & The Binding...

If you take a book and copy it verbatim then put it on the internet or print it, you are violating copyright. It's basically the same on almost any consumer item you buy...you're paying for the material but the technology and content is owned by the copyright holder. Again, there's fair use...where you can quote several paragraphs or play a few seconds of the music without violating this copyright, but when it can be interpreted that you are trying to profit from that work (and in the opinion of the RIAA putting files on a network is such a move) you have violated the implied "contract" when you purchased the product and "leased" the content.

[whyverne]

4. I love it! Interesting argument.

I bought a CD "how to" course on eBay. It was used when I got it. So I figured I'd copy and put it back on eBay.
eBay sez, "No, you can't do that! Copyrights and all."
"But I bought it on eBay."
"Well we didn't catch them, we caught you."
"What about all those other used CD's you're selling there. Do they have different copyrights?"
Hands over ears, "Oh say can you see?"

Copyright is a very interesting legal conundrum.

[onenote]

6. this is rather curious since the resale of a licensed cd is permitted by law

its called the "first sale" doctrine and its why you can re-sell books, etc. as well.

[unc70]

8. Glad at least someone else understands copyright laws

I have repeatedly posted about copyrights here and elsewhere. The other posters on this thread probably still have not visited the copyright site.

I will make it even easier for them:

http://www.copyright.gov


The other recent copyright discussions involved the alleged "sex tape" of Rielle Hunter and the baseless claims by Young that it was abandoned property. Since that tape is unpublished, Young has no basis for his claims. If it had been a published work, then he would have rights to personal use of his copy, but not things like broadcast rights.

[DainBramaged]

5. I long ago gave up buying their license crap

and realized file sharing is appropriate.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. File sharing is theft and you are stealing from Union members

You who spew about who drives what. What utter, pure hypocrisy. If you are going to rip off Union people to have their work for free, you need to drop your wailing about being a huge Union supporter, because you are a selective union supporter.
It is no appropriate it is illegal. It is theft. If you do not wish to pay, you and your family should make entertainments for one another, or use the public domain.

[dustbunnie]

10. Absolutely agree, and you're 100% correct!

All these people who would look at you stunned if you suggested that you should be able to walk into a car dealership and drive off with a car you didn't pay for, (or left a token donation for what you thought it was worth) think it's perfectly okay to steal from artists, producers, etc.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Some are promoting theft who on other days claim that we

all must purchase new American built UAW cars because of Unions. Well the artists being ripped off are Union members, and the rules about payments are Union rules.
The same set of file sharing creeps often complain about the quality of music and filmed entertainments today. As if the large scale theft is not a part of why the quality is so low. As if shoplifters do not keep prices higher. As if artists are naturally inclined to live without money, and yet create wonders for the ear and eye, free of charge. As if those royalties and residuals are not tied to the health insurance of artists, and their families.
Must be fun to rationalize great and constant theft while at the same time claiming the highest of high grounds.

[dustbunnie]

14. Yep, again exactly!!

I've said it before, but I think maybe people rationalize this kind of theft especially, because of a basic lack of respect for what artists, songwriters, actors et al do. They don't consider writing or performing a ditty "real" work. Either that, or they immediately conjure up an image of the very few who've made it big and have millions to blow and think... "why not take from them? They don't need my money." That's of course not taking into account the majority of artists and hundreds of thousands of people involved in the process who just get by or make a decent living like everyone else. I just can't fathom the mindset otherwise.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Political Heretic]

54. They artists aren't the ones being "ripped off"

Many, many, many artists stand with those opposed to arcane copyright laws and the ridiculous policies of the recording industry. Many.

Artists make the overwhelming majority of their returns from concerts, while getting royally screwed on profits from album sales. Nothing makes me happier than the many major labor artists who have produced and distrusted albums free for download despite dispute from their record labels in order to make the statement.

[mainer]

93. Not every artist can get performance venues. Or fill a giant hall.

The only way they can make any money is off CD sales.

[sendero]

100. If you can't make money from a show..

... you will never make a dime releasing a CD through normal channels.

[JoeyT]

22. The car argument is both common and fallacious.

If you walk onto a car lot and take a car, the dealership is out a car and will have to purchase another car to sell in its place.
The music analog to that would be shoplifting a CD, not downloading a song. You can argue that it costs a sale, but you'd be hard pressed to show that even half the people that download a song would have bought the CD had they not downloaded the song.

I suppose if the artist had a deal with the record label where they had to personally pay reverse royalties on songs that were downloaded it would apply, but I've never heard of a deal like that and I imagine no one else has either.

[dustbunnie]

27. You don't like the argument because you don't think of a song/book/script as a product.

Which it most certainly is. With hundreds of people, not least of which, the artist, who work very hard to make those products and bring them to market.

The analogy depends on which kind of mindset you belong to. Because a song is a product, same as a car, vegetable, or toothbrush, those who think songs should be "free" or worthy of nothing more than a discretionary donation, should then also believe the same of a car or a vegetable. They are all products so they should be free for the taking.

Here's another analogy for you: Thousands of unionized workers build cars. They depend on the sales of cars for their jobs, just as do all the artists, editors, musicians etc... who work to put out their product - a cd. Now someone comes along and buys a honda... then decides he's going to make thousands of facsimilies and give them away. Nobody would accept that, least of all the car workers who've now found themselves out of a job, since the market is flooded with freebees. But it's "just a song" to people who don't respect the arts and don't think of producing art as real work.

You didn't really want an answer to the "hard-pressed" comment did you? You just pulled that comment and those numbers out of a hat, so it isn't worth discussing. You have no idea what people would or wouldn't buy.

[JoeyT]

32. Of course I consider it a product.

It's absolutely a product. Where the analogy fails is when cars are stolen, the car must be replaced. (Same holds true for vegetables and toothbrushes) The cost of the materials, shipping, etc are all lost. When a song is copied, no money is actually lost, at least not in the same manner. One is losing a product without receiving money in return and you can't sell that product to anyone else without the expense of making a new one. The other is possibly losing the sale of a product. I'd actually compare it to creating a painting and trying to sell the original print while a guy down the street is creating fakes and selling them at the same time for less money. He's not forcing you to replace the original every time he sells a fake, but he is helping prevent you from selling your original.

Funnily enough, I'm a musician too, so I do respect the arts. Though it's a hobby, not a career. I'm nowhere close to that talented. (Even giving it away I'm probably overcharging.) Not only that, but I constantly mock the "OMFG they sold out!" crowd that cry when artists want to get paid for their work. My disgust with the music industry actually stems from them ripping off consumers AND artists. Personally, I'd love to see every artist in the world start selling their songs online. It'd allow them to control the content, the medium, the distribution, and the rights, while preventing a thousand middlemen skimming all the money off, so which they could use to lower the price of the songs, so both the artist and the consumer win. (Or just to make more money. Either way the artist would be better off.)

I didn't actually give any numbers for the amount of sales lost, but the reason I say that is because many of the people that pirate music have thousands if not tens of thousands of songs they've downloaded. I've even heard of people with hundreds of thousands. I'm thinking they probably don't have that much discretionary income. That's why I say not every download is an actual lost sale.

I do think P2P and torrents to download music/games has a valid use, if people actually only used it for that, and that's try before you buy. Of course we also know how well the honor system works most of the time. I use it regularly for games. If I play a game for half an hour and like it I go buy it. If I don't like it I delete it. In that case downloading DOES cost them a sale, but not the way they think it does. (And I only started doing that after about the tenth unplayable $50 game I bought in a year.)

[dustbunnie]

39. But your analogy of the guy who duplicates someone's paintings is the same as my honda example.

If someone undercut Honda by doing that, you'd hear SCREAMS by people here on DU as well as out on the street. I say that because I've seen the threads. And even looking back at the first example, yes you are losing out on tangibles when a song is copied. Or when a book is illegally duplicated. There are shipping, materials, cover design, marketing costs that go into selling a cd just as there are to selling a car. They're both products -- same deal.

But what I'm getting from you is more a sense of disgust with record companies and the like and you're right, they do gouge people. But that's no reason to cut off our noses to spite our faces. Since you're a musician yourself you should know that. That has NOTHING to do with depriving an artist of his or her rights and essentially stealing the bread out of their, and their families', mouths.

It's almost impossible to judge what happens when people pirate music. Perhaps the geeky music dude who wouldn't spend two pennies on music he can steal instead might offer some of his stash to someone who absolutely would have paid for a cd instead. Pirating is like a virus. Once it starts, it spreads way too far and wide.

[mudplanet]

24. I might buy this argument if you could sit down at your computer and make a new car in three minutes

at virtually no cost.

Copyright is a legal issue, which implies it is what we agree it is.

We agree that if you get in my car and drive off without my permission you've stolen it, mostly because I no longer have the use of it.

If I still "had" it and could use it and sell it, why would I care if you also had one and could use it and sell it?

If the copyright issue of music and movies is so "clear", then why don't artist's get royalties every time their paintings and sculptures are resold and copied?

Internationally, every country deals with copyright issues differently. In England, a writer gets a fee every time a book is checked out of a public library. Why doesn't Tom Clancy get a cut every time a used Clancy novel is sold in a used bookstore in this country?
How far are you willing to go with this? Are we going to force the sale of used DVDs, CDs and books underground?


On the one hand, I see a lot of sense and fairness to the idea that artists should receive compensation for their products. On the other, I see attempts at overriding authoritarianism in dealing with how I dispose of my property and have some sympathy with the concept that "information wants to be free."

I'm strongly pro-union. But if the union you're talking about is about the protection of outrageous incomes for performers, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

[Romulox]

25. I think you make a VERY important point here:

Which is this: people tend to assume that the origin of a person's right to profit off of an idea/song/software/etc. originates from "the sweat of their brow" ("Natural Right"). This is obviously not so when you consider the points you made above.

In reality the purpose of copyright is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (Article 1, sec. 8, US Constitution) , not to reward the creators of intellectual property. With that in mind, the boundaries of copyright law should always be up for debate.

That said, the OP is wrong; they've purchased a licensed work on a piece of physical media. And you are way off base to refer to "outrageous incomes for performers"--perhaps Little Wayne or Lady Gaga or Nickelback and their ilk may make "outrageous incomes".

Bands like Nada Surf, Young Fresh Fellows, or Yo La Tengo do not.

[eeyore]

26. Outrageous incomes?

You must be thinking of bands like Bon Jovi and Aerosmith - megabands. The average musician has a day job just to make their art. I know artists with major label contracts who literally must have another job - and no, it has nothing to do with their "celebrity lifestyle".

Musicians make money from touring, and almost always lose money on their recordings. The system is broken, and no one knows how to fix it.

[dustbunnie]

28. Your last line speaks volumes of what it's really all about for you.

Lots of people think hundreds of thousands of artists should be screwed in the ass because a few make millions. It's pure envy, yet the people from whom you want to extract that pound of flesh to assuage that hateful envy are those who make a living just the same as everyone else.

PS: It takes a lot longer than 3 minutes to write, perform, and produce a new song. It takes a lot longer than 3 minutes to write a book or produce a work of art. Jesus Christ!

[mudplanet]

30. I might buy this argument if I could reproduce an exact copy of the car

at virtually no cost.

Copyright is a legal issue, which implies it is what we agree it is.

We agree that if you get in my car and drive off without my permission you've stolen it, mostly because I no longer have the use of it.

If I still "had" it and could use it and sell it, why would I care if you also had one and could use it and sell it?

If the copyright issue of music and movies is so "clear", then why don't artist's get royalties every time their paintings and sculptures are resold and copied?

Internationally, every country deals with copyright issues differently. In England, a writer gets a fee every time a book is checked out of a public library. Why doesn't Tom Clancy get a cut every time a used Clancy novel is sold in a used bookstore in this country?
How far are you willing to go with this? Are we going to force the sale of used DVDs, CDs and books underground?


On the one hand, I see a lot of sense and fairness to the idea that artists should receive compensation for their products. On the other, I see attempts at overriding authoritarianism in dealing with how I dispose of my property and have some sympathy with the concept that "information wants to be free."

I'm strongly pro-union. But if the union you're talking about is about the protection of outrageous incomes for performers, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

[Sebastian Doyle]

36. On the other hand, if the RIAA owned car dealerships....

They would probably send the repo man out to steal your car the minute you installed any after-market equipment. Add a little Slick50 in that next oil change? Sorry, you just violated the "licensing agreement".

[Occulus]

37. I and many, many others experienced the exact same thing, only in reverse.

I posted on it below.

This crap has to stop, and I'm not talking about piracy. I'm talking about publishers taking money out of my pocket and leaving me with an unusable or broken product. The measures they're taking only legitimize piracy, because their measures only affect paying customers.

[dustbunnie]

40. Okay, sure that's fine. But that has nothing to do with stealing from artists.

Your beef is with all the bottom feeders and sharks that feed off the efforts of creative people. It doesn't make sense to punish the artists for what corporations and business people do to their product.

[Occulus]

41. No, my beef is with those who are trying to protect the content.

It makes even less sense to take the money of paying customers while at the same time crippling the product such that only the non-paying "customers" are able to fully use the product as intended.

That is what makes software piracy a morally and ethically acceptable choice. The protections- especially SecuRom- actually interfere with the operation of other unrelated products. It is unconscionable, it is unacceptable, and it is why piracy is bigger than ever.

Until artists and content creators begin to refuse that the publishers utilize such protections on their products, they deserve the losses that will occur. I'm sick and tired of being a legitimate customer who has more problems with the purchase than those who pirate software and music have. And we never, ever know there will be problem until we buy and install said software.

It's a racket, and it only serves to legitimize software piracy. If the artists are suffering for it, they need to be the ones to make the noise to the publishers, because once a company has my money as a consumer, they could give fuck-all about my problems with the product. I have submitted support ticket after support ticket for these sorts of problems, only to be told to do things I always do as a matter of course- update drivers, run a virus scan, etc., etc.

The onus for making sure these things don't happen is not on me as a consumer. I'm not being paid to beta-test. I'm not being paid to submit bug reports. I'm not being compensated for loss of hardware functionality. I'm not their fucking employee. I want the product to work as intended, not to install a rootkit that cripples already functioning software and hardware. Pirates have none of those concerns.

I expect more as a consumer, but I don't get a legal choice in the matter. Explain to me, please, why I shouldn't pirate software in the face of this..... this out-and-out scam.

edit: I give two very widespread and specific examples below, one of which is an ongoing issue this very moment. Read my post downthread.

[dustbunnie]

42. Hello, you're talking about a GAME!!!

I'm talking about music and books. And might as well throw art into the pile too. The writers, musicians, and artists don't deserve to have their work stolen.

Um, and when it comes to games, the onus is on you the consumer. Good lord, what big huge clout do you think some poor, geeky game creator, impoverished, possibly alcoholic writer or hovel-living painter have. They are as much the victims of corporate greed as you are. But yeah, stealing from these people is really going to show "them."

[superduperfarleft]

43. *cough*

http://www.pcworld.com/article/123362/sony_ships_sneaky_drm_software.html

[dustbunnie]

49. And? Sorry, I fail to understand your point. n/t

[Occulus]

50. Oh Jumping Jesus Christ on a trailer hitch

From the Wiki:

The Sony BMG CD copy protection scandal concerns the copy protection measures included by Sony BMG on compact discs in 2005. Sony BMG included the Extended Copy Protection (XCP) and MediaMax CD-3 software on music CDs. XCP was put on 52 titles and MediaMax was put on 50 titles. This software was automatically installed on Windows desktop computers when customers tried to play the CDs. The software interferes with the normal way in which the Microsoft Windows operating system plays CDs by installing a rootkit which creates vulnerabilities for other malware to exploit. This was discovered and publicly revealed by Mark Russinovich on the Sysinternals blog. Other operating systems were not affected.

As a result, a number of parties have filed lawsuits against Sony BMG; the company ended up recalling all the affected CDs; and greater public attention was drawn to the issue of commercially-backed spyware and rootkits. Additionally, further investigation revealed that Sony had created its copyright protection software, in part, using LAME code written by Jon Lech Johansen, violating the GNU General Public License.

[Occulus]

48. Talk about not getting it.

Okay, let me spell this out for you: my argument applies to all forms of digital media, because those same protections are used industry-wide. Go Google "Sony rootkit" if you believe otherwise. And, no, the onus is not on me as a consumer to be aware of undisclosed software silently installed on my system without my consent which then causes incompatibilities with existing software and hardware drivers (or prior versions of the same protection software) that the publisher refuses to acknowledge even exist. There is no disclosure of things like SecuRom, no complete process to remove it, and no way to "fix" online activation issues if the problem lies on the other end.

A rootkit is a rootkit, be it a music CD, a whole operating system, or a video game, and it is unconscionable to make it the consumer's responsibility when it is the act of the publisher that creates the problem. If it were up to me, these sorts of protections would make the product unfit for sale and the companies involved would be heavily fined.

And with the advent of things like Amazon's Kindle, I'm talking about books, too. In case you didn't know, legitimately paying customers had their copies of Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm deleted without notification because of a licensing screwup that was the fault of an Amazon supplier. So, yeah, my argument still applies and I'm going to stand by it.

[dustbunnie]

53. Talk about not getting it -- you've gone on a whole tangent not related to the OP

The OP is about buying a CD or a book and then infringing on an artist's rights by putting it out there and basically giving it away free to thousands or millions of people.

It's theft no matter which way you look at it. That's my point.

Your beef is about something else entirely and you shouldn't have replied to my post in the first place since it has nothing to do with what you're so pissed off about.

[Occulus]

58. Nooooo, my beef is with the methods of protection against what the OP is suggesting.

My objections are directly related to the OP and the general argument regarding prevention of unauthorized copying, more specifically to the extent publishers will go to in order to prevent said copying. Those protections, all too often, restrict legitimate use, including but not limited to use as intended.

"It's theft no matter which way you look at it. That's my point. "

No, it is not. It is copyright infringement, which is, by definition, not theft no matter which way you slice it. My complaint regards the myriad ways content publishers will utilize in order to prevent that infringement, which is directly related to the argument being made in the OP; specifically, that applications such as SecuRom or the Sony CD rootkit (a music CD, which is what the OP specifically mentioned) actually cause demonstrable harm to unrelated hardware and software.

"The OP is about buying a CD or a book and then infringing on an artist's rights by putting it out there and basically giving it away free to thousands or millions of people."

Yes, and my argument has to do with the ways publishers attempt to restrict that same behavior, and the potential damage those methods can do to those who actually are legitimately paying customers who do not otherwise have a dog in the hunt.

[dustbunnie]

89. But then you should have replied to the OP, not to me.

I think the content publishers suck as much as you do. I have no respect for the way these corps do business and wouldn't shed a single tear if they were removed from the process. As I said, they're bottom feeders. But that doesn't mean that the answer is to stick it to the artists just to fuck the content producers. And if it ends up with artists getting totally screwed, then we'll be one step closer to Idiocracy, with the only stuff being produced, complete schlock. Why would anyone spend a lifetime starving, just to give away art that will line someone else's pocket. They won't.

On to the next. Technically the term IS copyright infringement. You're right. I guess it's important to make that verbal distinction to avoid feeling guilty about taking someone's work without their permission. Suppose there were no copyright infringement laws. So I write a poem, and it gets published by some little press. Some entrepreneurial genius who's one day going to be heading up a greedy corp, for now has a website with a $10 a year subscription. In exchange he makes my poem, and the works of hundreds of other people available to anyone and everyone out there who pay him that yearly fee. Call it what you want, but to me, it would feel the exact same way and have the same impact on my life if someone came into my house, removed all my belongings and sold them on the street. I call that stealing.

[mainer]

95. Your CD's and books are all broken and unusable?

Then you have a right to return them for those that aren't broken. I don't get your problem with publishers and producers.

[Occulus]

105. I've explained the problems I have with their protection methods in excruciating detail

in my other posts on this thread. But, to repeat myself:

The problem I have with protection methods being used by publishers of content, be that content music, eBooks, or software (in my case, mostly games) is that, all too often, the protection methods employed either produce undesirable effects with other, previously fully-functional features of the end-user's PC or, more often, makes the product unusable out-of-the-box, with no unusual action taken by the end user.

I expounded, below, on my own problems with Bioshock and Bioshock 2. In the case of the first game, the original Bioshock, the publisher's protection method actually made it nearly impossible for reviewers (for example, those at IGN or Gamespot) unable to provide an accurate review, because they are obliged to install the game on multiple hardware configurations. This would normally involve five to ten separate and distinct installs of their editor's copy. 2K Games initially only allowed three installs over the lifetime of the retail copy. Game magazine editors were not pleased with this, to say the least.

In the case of the second game, Bioshock 2, the problem lies with Games for Windows Live. In that case, the game is impossible to patch, period. The patch is delivered via GFWL, which appears to be broken for this title. Disabling my firewall and actually uninstalling my virus scanner does not improve the situation, nor does opening the relevant ports on my router. The game simply fails to install the patch. Had I not found a standalone version posted by a Steam forum member (which in itself may be a copyright violation!!), I wouldn't have been able to even save my progress in the game.

Then there's the infamous Sony rootkit, which Sony installed to PCs which simply played particular music CDs. This rootkit enabled virus and trojan vulnerabilities that would never have existed if the end users had never put the music CD in the drive. Needless to say, Sony did not disclose this information prior to the insertion of the CD into the drive, thereby deliberately (and silently) exposing legitimate, paying customers to system vulnerabilities related to their own anti-piracy protection scheme. Sony was sued for this, and eventually recalled all affected titles, as well as gave a refund to affected users.

Furthermore, it is a known issue that some versions of SecuRom (used as an anti-piracy measure for several commercial video games and other software) are incompatible with previous versions of SecuRom used in previously published games and software, causing unreliable CD-ROM drive performance issues, including the breaking of the ability of those drives to burn CDs of any kind. None of these undesirable performance and compatibility issues are disclosed by the publishers prior to installation of the game in question.

It is nearly impossible to uninstall SecuRom once it is on one's drive. This is a feature, not a bug.

None of these issues can be solved by getting a new copy of the exact same software, and in some cases, simply reinstalling the software over itself may cause different issues depending on the end user's hardware configuration. None of these known issues are disclosed prior to install, even in the EULA, and, perhaps most importantly, all of these issues can be completely and fully avoided by downloading pirate copies devoid of the protection software in question.

Once again: the only people being hurt by the anti-piracy protection methods being put into place for myriad forms of digital media are the paying customers. This fact, all by itself, makes piracy of the media in question not only attractive, but in fact the only acceptable option if one wishes to leave their system free of the silently-installed rootkits and trojans being used to prevent software and digital media piracy while at the same time enjoying the product a great many people put years of their lives into. That's a shame, but it is, in the end, the publisher's fault.

Content protection against piracy has gone too far, and publishers and content providers need to rethink it before they go bankrupt trying to prevent it. Example: I will never buy a "Games for Windows Live" title again. I've been burned once, and I won't let it happen twice.

As an amusing aside: Sony once created an anti-piracy measure for music CDs which resided on the outer track of the CD. This made the CD "uncopyable" and, in some cases, on some hardware, completely unplayable. One enterprising computer geek found the solution, though: the protection scheme Sony used resided on the extreme outer track of the CD. The anti-copying scheme Sony spent millions of dollars to license ended up being defeated by drawing a circle around that outer track with a $.59 felt tip marker.

[DainBramaged]

45. Another PC nazi claiming the high ground

Merry Christmas to you to....

PS

I haven't like music since Pink Floyd broke up, so you can see how long it's been since I shared foles.

Thanks for jumping to judgment and condemning me.

[dustbunnie]

57. I wasn't talking about you, but take it personally if you must. n/t

[DainBramaged]

62. I did.

[dustbunnie]

92. Well that's added wrinkles to your face, not mine so it's all good. n/t

[DainBramaged]

97. Cya

another click on the red x for posterity and pompous cornholioes.

[Political Heretic]

70. Pink Floyd.

Was one of the most influential bands of my music life, or maybe life in general.

Absolutely amazing music. :)

[county worker]

52. What was going on back in the 50's when artists like Muddy Waters did not get paid for their records

Were the current laws enacted after that?

[MilesColtrane]

16. +1

[WeDidIt]

29. File sharing is NOT theft, it is copyright violaiton

Two different things.

[Romulox]

33. +1 for getting the details right. nt

[Occulus]

35. Read my post below.

Anti-piracy measures do nothing at all to stop piracy, and only affect paying customers. There has never been an anti-piracy measure that stopped software pirates, and there probably never will be, but ever-increasing lockdowns on legitimate copies are harming legitimate, paying customers, and do so almost every time. That fact robs your argument of all of its legitimacy.

If you think differently after reading my post, you're simply being unreasonable. There is no reason paying customers should have to deal with the issues I outlined below; pirated copies are stripped of the protections and do not suffer from those issues. Furthermore, the issues I described were the fault of the publisher, not me, the end user, yet I was the one who couldn't use the product properly (and still can't!) because of anti-piracy measures, in spite of the fact that I am a paying customer.

People who pirated the software I described below did not have the issues I had as a paying customer, full stop. They could play both those games immediately, without issues. I, as a paying customer, could not. In the case of Bioshock 1, I literally could not use what I bought at all until 2K fixed their issues related to their anti-piracy measures. That is completely unacceptable and there is no justification for it.

Explain that to me. Tell me why it's okay for paying customers to suffer what software pirates do not. I expect I'll wait all afternoon, because there's no reason for it. Those aren't the only titles I've had similar issues with; Spore and Mirror's Edge, two other titles I paid for that utilize online activation of some sort, had similar issues out-of-the-box. Their pirated clones did not.

The more software companies try to lock down their products to prevent software piracy, the more the legitimate users will suffer for it. They are the only users that suffer for it. This is why filesharing and piracy of games has been so rampant. I don't understand why copyright apologists don't get that.

[DainBramaged]

44. Merry Christmas

:puke:


I said it was appropriate, so in your hast to condemn me you accuse me of theft?

Nice oh purer than thou....

[Political Heretic]

51. Union people are not being hurt by file sharing.

I'm sorry - do it, don't do it. Believe its morally right, believe its morally wrong. Whatever.

But don't drag unions into this to make your argument, because its utter bullshit.

You show me a single shred of data that indicates that unions are even remotely affected by any supposed revenue loss from file sharing and we'll talk.

This is a rich corporate problem, and its entirely in the domain of the bosses, not the workers. The bosses are the ones crying about money out of their pocketbook, so don't start bringing unions into this shit.

[Romulox]

61. Musicians and songwriters are union members. nt

[Political Heretic]

64. They're not being "hurt"

by file sharing.

[Romulox]

68. Some are, some are not. It's not nearly as simple as a binary choice.

Many (perhaps most) artists make no money whatsoever from CD sales in the world of major label publishers.

But I buy very few such CDs. Artists are undeniably hurt by file sharing if they self-publish or are indy artists with a more equitable contract.

[Political Heretic]

79. Quite literally none are.

In the bizarre event that some unsigned artist would even get files on the net to be shared.... the "cost" of albums that such bands hardly ever even charge for (because at that stage they are using them as self-promotion to book gigs, where they actually make money - would be completely offset by the benefit of exposure.

That's the interesting thing about sharing.... major label artists aren't hurt by file sharing because they aren't making any money off their albums, just touring and merchandise. While small artists are hurt by file sharing, and in fact many upload their songs for free, because they need exposure, hype and good word of mouth.

The only thing file sharing hurts are the profits of record labels.

Seriously... we could still discuss whether people should or shouldn't be breaking the rules/laws whatever. But I'm just not moved at all the the "you're hurting those poor starving artists" arguments when most artists (expect for Metallica, lol) say "uh no, we're fine on that front."

[Romulox]

Nonsense. I purchased a self-published CD recently. If I had dled it, the artist would've lost

money.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

104. I don't think you've thought that through far enough.

The step I think you're missing is that since filesharing reduces the amount of profit a record company can make from a song, it also reduces the amount they'll be willing to pay to musicians for the right to legally reproduce that song.

Filesharing may not hurt today's musicians much (I suspect you're oversanguine about even this part of the argument, but I'm not confident). But it most certainly will make it harder to make a living as a musician tomorrow.

[Romulox]

18. I could give a damn about record companies, but musicians are workers too...

I buy CDs because I like music and want the bands I like to succeed.

[DainBramaged]

46. So because I think file sharing is appropriate I'm one of the bad guys now?

The rest of the bomb throwers in this thread can go (insert APPROPRIATE WORDS HERE).

[Romulox]

59. Not any more than I'm a "bad guy" for disagreeing with you.

:shrug:

[DainBramaged]

73. True

:hug:

[Romulox]

88. You and me are a lot alike in some ways.

We are always ready to fight the good fight. Never change, brudda! :thumbsup:

[bridgit]

7. Then why don't people buy bootlegs? What's the difference? Ease of strolling? Production values?

http://thepiratebay.org Ten years ago, people weren't always thinking along those lines but today, due to much of the digital manipulation refer to; they have indeed bought a Licensing Agreement according to BMI/ASCAP and others though more importantly the people that contractually signed the people someone cares to listen to while keeping them in rooms at The Ritz, the lifestyles they're accustomed to and bowls full of green M&M's it just wasn't always spelled out because people weren't always thinking along those lines as much of it was implied - like poison *wouldn't* be in the Tylenol but all of that has changed and then some who'da thunk it

Copyright infringement is big business - billions of $'s - so the next most reasonable extension seems clear: walk into a store, any store; find whatever you want - CD's, shoes, rib-eye steaks, bath beads whatever - hold them in your hands try them on simply declare them yours and walk back out the door done

If this is the land of the free they keep crowing about let's put that to the test too

[Bluenorthwest]

11. How fun to speak of rooms at the Ritz.

When the fact is that most artists who live in part via royalties and residuals barely make a living at all. A few, in most any biz, do get 'the Ritz' but the legal protections are there not just for them, but for the vast working majority, who need that income for health insurance, food, rent and other basics. That is the fact.
When a person rips off an artwork or entertainment, they are stealing from rank and file workers, not just from the top dogs. Might as well take the cash from a busker's hat as she sings on the street if you ask me.

[bridgit]

34. When I worked in the music industry, I dealt with The Ritz People

from time to time though The Ritz really isn't where the fixation is when before many of them got there I showcased them out of motel rooms into modest venues under contract-specific understandings regarding image control and the protective cohesion of that image as a copyrighted matter (even though he likely deserves it, you can't just push John Mayer up there in a lime green Cat in The Hat hat or you'll both be dealing with The Cat and that's that)

Then arraigned their tour incidentals & production materials limos, CC's...rooms at The Ritz; then went on tour with them where I got to play den mother to some really sweet, brilliant artists and some dopey ass deadbeats that rarely made the bus on time unless someone tossed a glass of cold water in their faces but more importantly out front where the big bucks spread like deviled ham

I'm SAG/Equity and have been since I was a teen. My Equity people found a discrepancy in my hours reported and agreed to; as a theater lighting tech & consultant and determined 3 theater groups underpaid by $28,000 over time. We arrived at a structured settlement. Yes, my union did it for me but also for a larger issue involving the copyright-able nature of unionized services

I've had more than a few people tell me straight-up: that because I am in performing arts, and love the theater, that I should be willing to do what I do for free - free - no compensation...they are the ones that get a special view of me and my backside walking away I presume they are still there trying to juke others out of their money too

[Romulox]

17. The OP is just categorically wrong. What else need be said?

And you do have a right to make a copy of media you have legitimately obtained a license for--but those copies may be used only for your personal use.

So the OP is wrong in its sense of defiance, as well! :wow:

[Political Heretic]

67. You are such a strange fellow.

Your positions on things seem to be all over the map.. :shrug:


EDIT - I did the stupid your/you're thing on accident...sigh.

[Romulox]

94. I don't know how to respond. I am earnest, even if I'm a fool...

If I were an AD&D character, my alignment would be Chaotic Good.

[Political Heretic]

99. My alignment is chaotic good as well, though I tried to deny that for ages haha

You're just interesting is all - no offense meant.

I see you're comments on a diverse array of subjects and I haven't yet identified the unifying theme. :)

[JoeyT]

21. My sympathy for the music and

the game industry went out the window when they started installing rootkits, phone home software, mislabelling retail boxes, limiting the number of installs and especially anything involving SecuROM. (SecuROM is made by Sony, who also was one of the biggest offenders with the rootkits on music CDs.)

I don't personally pirate, but like I said: No sympathy.

[Occulus]

31. Ooh, let's talk about that little detail.

I just got Bioshock 2. It's a fun game, parts of it are tough as nails, the map design is superb, and it's all in all a great sequal.

BUT...

Even the Steam version (which is what I bought) utilizes Games for Windows Live. GFWL requires you to get a username and password for their service, even if you have Steam.

So, I installed the game and it told me "ZOMG PATCH AVAILABLE!!1!11!", so I went ahead and told it to download and install the patch. It would download the patch, but then at the end of the download, it said "ZOMG PATCH UPDATE FAILED!!11!1" and gave me error code 0x80096010. In the end, I wasted three days of my time trying to track down a fix, and finally had to download a standalone version of the same patch. This wasn't an official download site, either- someone on the Steam forums, not even associated with Valve, 2K Games, or GFWL- had to post the patch elsewhere, without authorization from any of those companies, just so I could fully use the game I paid for.

The irony? That act probably violated copyright laws, too!!!!!

Now, Bioshock 2 has been pirated to hell and gone from the day it was released. So was the first game, in fact. I could download both right now from any number of torrent trackers. Instead, I went legit and paid for both of them.... and got crap for my trouble, not because the game itself is a bad game, but because the protections against piracy BROKE THE GAME for me and a whole hell of a lot of other people.

The same sort of thing happened with the first Bioshock; initially, it was limited to three lifetime online activations. Yes, that's right- when Bioshock 1 was first released, you could only install it a maximum of three times, ever; the installer downloaded a core component from 2K, who would deny it after three installs. Eventually, that was raised to a "generous" five installs, and when the howls of protest didn't stop, they lifted the restriction entirely. Even so, the activation/core component download failed for me the first several times I tried to install it, and it was days before I could get the problem (which was with 2K's servers and not my PC) fixed. I didn't even buy the first one online; I bought it retail. The online, Steam version of Bioshock 2 has actually been worse in that respect.

Not one iota of this behavior was disclosed at time of purchase for either game. Oh, they told me about the online activation, right enough- they just didn't tell me it might fail in spectacular fashion and break my product for me.

Here's my point with all this, and I want all the people crowing about how baaaad and eeeeevil copyright violation and software piracy are to pay fucking attention, because I'm only going to say this once:

If I had pirated both Bioshock 1 and Bioshock 2, I would have been able to play them flawlessly, without any of the problems I described above, from the day I pirated them.

The measures that were taken, with both these two games and many, many others, only affect legitimate users and have no effect on pirates or piracy. In fact, such measures, when they fail for (or install rootkits that cause other problems for) legitimate, paying customers buying any form of digital media, make software piracy an ethically and morally correct choice.

This is the last "Games for Windows Live title I will purchase. It is not the last GFWL title I intend to play. In the future, I will avoid paying for what I know to be, not a defective product, but a defective anti-piracy measure. If I want a GFWL title in the future, I might pay for it, but you can be certain I will also be downloading the pirated copy and installing that instead of the legitimate copy, just so I can avoid being unable to play a game I actually paid for. I'm not alone in this conclusion; the Steam forums for Bioshock 2 are spattered with posts from people saying the exact same thing. Publishers and content owners better be listening; if they keep rootkitting my system and failing my legitimate purchases for me, I just might decide to stop paying for anything they publish, period.

[JoeyT]

38. Yep.

Worst of all, you've got SecuROM, which is virtually impossible to remove.
Formatting the drive is the only way to actually get rid of some of the files.
And it's been known to screw up CD/DVD writers and destabilize the OS in general.
http://www.reclaimyourgame.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56&Itemid=61

I knew about the Bioshock 3 install limit, though I never had a problem with it. I bought the game about a month after it came out and promptly cracked it and created a registry backup so I didn't have to worry about it. (Strangely enough, some people *still* insist this is immoral!!!111 illegal!!!!11111 piracy!!!!!! Even though I bought the game and still have the box/disk/manual.)

[Political Heretic]

56. Bioshock 3? Are you from the future!!!

OMG

:scared:

[JoeyT]

103. Nope, just used the words

the wrong way round maybe. I probably should have said "The 3 install limit on Bioshock." ;)

[Political Heretic]

55. It's an example of how ridiculous the entire system is.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

72. Ahh, rootkits. I've still got one on my computer two plus years later.

Virus scans consider it a threat, but cannot remove it. Nothing's gonna get that bugger out of my system but a complete wipe of the drive. And yes, it was from Bioshock.

Hey Occulus, have you heard what Ubisoft is doing now?

Internet connection will be required for Assassins Creed II the entire time you play it. If you lose your connection, the game shuts down. Period. And you lose any progress from the last save point.

It's said they've pared that down a teensy, tiny bit, but I doubt it. If they keep this up, I'm not going to buy Deus Ex 3 when it comes out.

Oh, and check out Portal. Valve has done a few updates recently that are...intriguing.

[Occulus]

76. And the pirates will have that fixed within 24 hours of release.

They'll intercept the information being sent to the servers, examine that, and write code for their custom .exe that will send that information to the loopback device instead, thereby tricking the code into thinking it's sending and receiving information to and from the server, when it's really just coming right back to the PC.

I think such has been tried before by another title, and was a spectacular failure, but I can't remember which one it was.

[Romulox]

60. So go to gamecopyworld.com and get a fixed .exe. Not everything has to be that complicated.

:shrug:

[Political Heretic]

65. That violates copyright laws.

[Romulox]

71. Fair Use is a complete defense to copyright infringement. nt

[Political Heretic]

75. That does not fall under any definition of fair use legally imaginable.

[Romulox]

78. Um, pardon me? Of course it does. Fair Use involves a 4 part inquiry with no one factor being

determinate. The inquiry must be conducted on a case-by-case basis. So you cannot say that a use is categorically "not a Fair Use" in this manner. Nor is there a list you can check against to make such a pronouncement.

See 11 USC sec. 107.

[Political Heretic]

80. I'm saying that I disagree with you. And I don't believe a fair use claim would hold up in any court

You have your opinion on what would fall under fair use. I have mine. Neither of us can prove much of anything on that front.

Yes sorry - my last post was to absolutist. I mean to say that I can't imagine a claim to fair use for hacking a games .exe file with a hacked version not authorized by the game company as "fair use."

[Romulox]

81. I can respect that you disagree, but unless you can be more specific

as to why you think this or that use should be categorically deemed "not a Fair Use" there isn't much room for this discussion to move forward. :shrug:

[Political Heretic]

83. I may have answered that on edit above... don't know if you saw it or not.

[Romulox]

87. Didn't see it until just now. Here's the text of 17 USC 107, if it is of interst to anyone.

Anyhow, I'm definitely not a copyright absolutist. I think it's an area open for debate. And my only sympathy is for the artists.

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.


http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

(emphasis mine)

[Occulus]

84. The fact that that site has been around literally for years

says a lot, though. They don't provide full games; they only provide .exe files that strip the requirement for a CD to be in the drive. You still have to have the full game, and the only people with a reason to use the site are paying customers, since pirates of the full game don't use the CD in the first place.

Since a drive failure or a scratch on a CD makes the product unusable as sold, I'd say it's fair use, especially when you take into account the right of a user to make one copy of anything they buy for their own archival purposes (something else I've repeatedly done in the past). In any case, gamecopyworld.com isn't costing anyone any money at all, since the files on the site are only useful to paying customers. That may be why they're being left alone.

[Political Heretic]

96. It says no one has the money or interest in trying to decide Fair Use in court.

That's what I love about Fair Use.

Lots of stuff that probably wouldn't hold up in court gets justified under fair use and no one wants to mess with the nightmare of trying to sort it all out.

I love that. :)

[Occulus]

106. How do you feel about emulators?

MAME, CCS64, Stella, NESticle, PSXEmu, PCSX2, DOSBox, and so forth?

Personally, I love them. Bringing old console (and computer) games to the PC is just.... well, awesome.

[Occulus]

66. Many of us usually do exactly that.

But that doesn't address the underlying issue, which is that music CDs, software, and even eBooks contain protections against the sort of copying suggested in the OP which have been shown to directly interfere with the operation of unrelated software and hardware.

My issue with Bioshock 1 and 2 couldn't ever be resolved by getting a fixed .exe, because the problem lies with the third-party software or server-side methods the publisher uses to prevent piracy. And it certainly doesn't address the issues people had with Sony's music CD rootkit.

Again, the only people who are hurt by protections against copying are paying customers. Those who pirate music, books, and software do not experience the compatibility or rootkit issues because those devices have been stripped from the product.

[Romulox]

74. You are right on with the "only people who are hurt...are paying customers..."

For years I downloaded whatever PC software I liked without a second thought about securerom. So I think you're right on in that point.

As an aside, I think Bioshock 1 is superior to 2, but I am only a few hours into 2...

[Occulus]

77. The map design is *superb*.

Really, really ridiculously good. That's to be expected; I think the Bioshock 2 lead designer is the same guy who did the "Fort Frolic" map in the first one, which was by all accounts (including my own!) really, really well done.

[Political Heretic]

82. I can't figure out why everyone likes Bioshock games so much.

I've tried to like Bioshock. I loaded it, three different times, and tried to play. 1 hour later, every time - I quit.

I just can't see what the big deal is. But I know people LOVE IT. I wish I did.

[Romulox]

85. It's OK. I can't stand the Metal Gear Solid "games" that everyone gets so orgasmic about...

And the "new" genre of RTS still baffles me (turn based ftw!)

To each his own, I say.

[Occulus]

86. Oh, several reasons.

The quality of design,for one thing; Bioshock is designed really well from a purely technical standpoint. Then there's the environment; the falling-apart art deco design of the city evokes an era that never really existed.

The voice acting is superb, which is really rare for a video game. The storytelling method- audio recordings spattered throughout the city- helps the player to slowly put together the puzzle of Rapture's fall. Additionally, the entire game, from beginning to end, is a dissection of Randian Objectivism gone wrong, which is always nice to see.

The first hour really doesn't paint the picture very well; you have to get to about the place where you fight Dr. Steinman (one of my favorite gaming moments ever) to really get a grip on how wrong Rapture is and was. I do have to say that the final boss fight felt forced to me, and wasn't really very well done, but apart from that, Rapture is a place I both wish did exist and am thankful it doesn't.

[DainBramaged]

63. Agreed.........

something those throwing stons in this thread have NO clue about.

[leeroysphitz]

90. When I buy a CD I'm Paying for the CONTENT. Id don't give a good god damn about copyright law.

I will use the content that I purchased on any device in any manner that I see fit and if that ends up making somebodies distribution model (monopoly) unprofitable I really do not give a shit.

[Javaman]

91. The history and arguments over intellectual property is a long one.

You are buying the medium, not the song. The artist still owns the song.

However, if you bought the original recording of the song and all it's rights, you may then do with it as you wish.

You then, after paying several million dollars for those right, make as many copies as you want, and distribute them as you please. Free if you like. I seriously doubt, unless you are a millionaire, that you will give it away for free.

All music you hear on the radio, sports games, tv shows, etc, those are all leased.

Want to make a movie but just need that amazing hit song by whomever? You have to lease it through ASCAP.

Remember how an artist recently got pissed off because the repukes were using it without an expressed agreement? They didn't go through ASCAP to get the rights. An artist can sue over the use of it's song by some scumbag repuke, BUT if that repuke goes through ASCAP and pays for the rights to that song, there isn't a whole lot the artist can do.

At the end of the day, you are still only buying the medium and leasing the actual work.

[cbdo2007]

98. I don't buy CDs. I borrow them from the Library.

[reflection]

102. I get all my music and movie from the library.

They have an incredible selection, actually.

[no limit]

101. You have a legal right to make as many backups of you media as your want

But you dont have a legal right to then distribute those backups.

[Javaman]

107. exactly, people don't understand artistic rights.

no one likes the record corps and their practices, but even record corps, at times, also lease music via ASCAP from various artists. And as such still have to charge for the music.

Like I said in an post above, "you are buying the medium but leasing the music".

I think what the early days of online sharing did, was feed into the "self entitlement" mentality of people who think music should be free.

That would be nice, but artists who work hard to create, record and perform those songs should be compensated.

However, I do have issue with record corps who buy up huge libraries of old songs and then charge out the ass for compilations of those same songs without compensating the estates or families of those same old (dead) artists. This is why I now only buy my music off line from either iTunes or from many of the artists (who still own the rights to their music) websites.

I refuse to fork out 15 bucks to a corp for a CD that has only one song that I want. Or further fuel the wealth of the music corps at the expense of the artist.