Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Music Industry Forcing WMA standard?

CmdrTaco posted more than 12 years ago | from the why-doesn't-this-surprise-me dept.

Music 549

CtrlPhreak writes "Cnet news.com has a story up stating that the music industry is considering having cds that contain the un-rippable tracks as well as the windows media formatted files with limited uses ala Microsoft's digital rights management. Just one more brick in Microsoft's continuing monopoly..." And another format that I can't play back. Hope this one dies fast.

cancel ×

549 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

At least it's better than ogg (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374194)

Ugg Vorbis. Oh yeah, FP!

Re:At least it's better than ogg (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374247)

I "re:"-ward you with a crystal arm brace.

Now please, recite the Oath of Slash Dot flame bait association with your host Greta Van Suchbitch.

FALSE ADVERTISING at ThinkGeek (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374284)

Those Dmitri T-Shirts aren't FREE!!!!!

I'll bet they carry that $20 "free" upgrade from Apple, too.

BBC Live: Bush thanks FEMA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374302)

Goddamn that FEMA executive looks scary.

GWB is like a dwarf next to him.

Who'da thunk it? (2, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374204)

Computer users show themselves unwilling and unable to comply with existing copyright laws, is it really any big surprise that the copyright holders would find a surer method of protecting their IP?

Information only 'wants' to be free insofar as its creator wants it to be free.

Re:Who'da thunk it? (1, Flamebait)

Snootch (453246) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374218)

Information only 'wants' to be free insofar as its creator wants it to be free.

It also only "wants" to have fair-use rights as much as a certain piece of copyright law wants it to, but would they listen to the voice of the law? Nah, we have lawyers, why do we need to?

Re:Who'da thunk it? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374236)

"Fair use" does not include unlimited redistribution rights, which Napster and clones zealots have accepted as fact. If a "personal rights manager" allows you to listen to music that *you* purchased on devices that *you* own, what kind of "fair use" are you deprived?

Re:Who'da thunk it? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374316)

An excellent question.

If you have a device that protects the IP rights at home and another such device in your car, what rights are you deprived of?

"I don't want to buy another device!". Too bad. Blame the pirates.

Re:Who'da thunk it? (3, Insightful)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374318)

Actually the problem is that I didn't purchase my "device to play the music" that I do purchase. I just finished converting 199 CDs to mp3 for playback on a home built mp3 rack system. Of the 15 gigs (perhaps 2500 tracks) of MP3s that I have, there are a few dozen tracks that I have stolen. If the industry will cave in on their unreasonable ideas, I'll go out and buy a CD for each track that I have illegally.

Yes I do know that most people who have MP3s have collected them via the net. But that doesn't change the situation I'm in.

Re:Who'da thunk it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374351)

I have illegally

So, you have illegal tracks. Please refrain from making arguments in this case.

Re:Who'da thunk it? (2)

egomaniac (105476) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374364)

Yep, my wife has something like 12GB of MP3s on her machine. 99.9% of them are ripped from CDs we own.

The remaining 0.1% she snagged from the net solely to avoid buying an entire CD for the one song she was interested in (nevermind the dozens of CDs we *did* buy for the one or two songs we care about...). And they accuse *us* of piracy. Brilliant.

Re:Who'da thunk it? (3, Interesting)

kevin@ank.com (87560) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374367)

When I write 'Information Wants to be Free', I'm not trying to anthropomorphise Information. What I mean is rather that information itself is intrinsically freely copyable; that efforts like laws or copyrights that restrict that copying are running against the most prominent features of the information itself.

From that the reader is meant to deduce that applications which do allow free copying of data will out-compete those applications which restrict data by virtue of their better adaptation to the real characteristics of the information.

So you write:

Information only 'wants' to be free insofar as its creator wants it to be free.

But this only sidesteps the argument, painting in a disagreement where none exists. The real argument is this: 'The creator of information who allows his work to be freely copied has information that is much more valuable than a creator offering similar information but who attempts to restrict the copying of that information.'

This looks familar (1)

Tebriel (192168) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374206)

Gee, wasn't this part of a story yesterday????

Re:This looks familar (2, Funny)

sulli (195030) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374395)

the story wasn't copy-protected, so it was copied and replayed

First logged in post (-1)

Igloo Boy (522309) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374207)

!!! FLIP !!! Get it in ya, AC Avenger!

Re:First logged in post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374307)

BAH! Your pathetic attempts were foiled again by, not one, but TWO! of my loyal AC minions. Go back to that Yahoo! "B4ck57r337 B0yz" chatroom you've got bookmarked until you're ready to play in the big leagues.

-The AC Avenger

WMA is a resource hog (3, Informative)

Red Aardvark House (523181) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374209)

I have a somewhat old computer (Pentium, 233MHz) running with 256 MB of RAM. WMA lags, skips and generally does not sound good.

MP3, on the other hand, plays back clearly.

Re:WMA is a resource hog (1)

KaiserSoze69 (515441) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374224)

Well THATS the point. I mean, you obviously can't be running a recent Microsoft OS on THAT hardware. Then you a brand spanking new computer, something new and quick to run the new OS that Micro$oft has for you ;-)

Better get a new P4 2Ghz and about a gig o' ram for that!

Re:WMA is a resource hog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374273)

P4 2Ghz and about a gig o' ram

*drool*...

I've got a problem too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374227)

I have a 386SX/25MHz/2MBRAM with a 20MB Winchester HD. I keep running out of disk space when I try to install Windows 2000. Those MS products really suck. I never had this trouble when installing RedHat 1.1 - clearly a superior product.

Re:WMA is a resource hog (2)

spectecjr (31235) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374265)

I have a somewhat old computer (Pentium, 233MHz) running with 256 MB of RAM. WMA lags, skips and generally does not sound good.

MP3, on the other hand, plays back clearly.


I have a Nomad Jukebox (which doesn't have a fast enough CPU to update its LCD display in anything like real-time when playing back MP3s or WMAs), and both play back absolutely fine.

Certainly, the CPU requirements for both seem about equal. Probably the biggest CPU hog you've got is all of the flashy visuals from Windows Media Player being transferred across your bus - which WILL cause problems with your sound card.

Simon

Re:WMA is a resource hog (1)

rabidcow (209019) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374310)

Certainly, the CPU requirements for both seem about equal. Probably the biggest CPU hog you've got is all of the flashy visuals from Windows Media Player being transferred across your bus - which WILL cause problems with your sound card

I don't think so. Two years ago at least, playing wma vs mp3 using winamp (no visualization running), wma always took more cpu time. What's more, for my cheap (free) 90 MHz Pentium laptop I had to downsample the wma for it to run, but the mp3's ran fine. (probably automatically dropping bits)

Now they've probably improved the codec somewhat, but since when have Microsoft products become more efficient over time?

OH, come on. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374266)

It's a MODERN, higher compression rate. Try getting that much compression out of ogg or mp3. You can't do it. If you could, it would have just as much trouble decompressing it. How about playing a DVD on your machine with software decoding?

Try installing Gnome 1.4 and Nautilus on your machine and see how light and nimble it is. Trouble? Well golly shucks, maybe your 5 year old computer might need to be replaced to use fairly modern software.

Duh.

Re:OH, come on. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374338)

Or try running *efficient*, well written software, like QNX... Hey! It works!

Maybe modern software ain't all it's cracked up to be?

'sides, you can easily get better compression out of mp3, just lower the quality ;)

The world has written off Pentium owners, deal (3, Interesting)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374394)

Its called planned obsolesence.

One solution (3, Funny)

SpanishInquisition (127269) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374210)


cat /dev/random > /dev/audio

Only listen to white noise, stop enriching those pigs.

Re:One solution (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374252)

Two suggestions:

1) Use /dev/urandom so the random seed isn't depleted.

2) Modify that line to redirect the output to let the guys at the MPAA and RIAA know other formats are much simpler. cat /dev/urandom | mail jackv@mpaa.org

Yep, that should work.

Re:One solution (5, Funny)

tuffy (10202) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374349)

If I listen to /dev/random long enough, eventually some piece of copyrighted music will result.

And then I'll get arrested for violating the DMCA.

:)

Re:One solution (3, Funny)

dattaway (3088) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374378)

Its been mathematically proven also if you listen to /dev/random long enough you will be able to hear the Complete Works of William Shakespere in Dolby Surround Sound Stereo, and violating Dolby's patent in the process. Enjoy!

WAKE UP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374211)

Fuck, Taco, why don't you wake up???

I hate Windows too, but I have to use it once in a while. If you don't use Windows at all, how the hell can you make such broad statements against it all the time??

WMA has been out there for a while... like years. It sucks. And, once again, it shows that it really is an US vs THEM (them being the corporate monster). If you've never heard of it until now then I have to say your views on the subject don't matter much.

(how long will this take to make it to -1 Flamebait?!?)

In case you hadn't noticed... (2, Insightful)

Snootch (453246) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374259)

WMA has been out there for a while... like years

Perhaps you should wake up. This story ain't about this tech, it's about the industry considering putting WMA on the CD and then saying that it's "computer-compatible" (read: "Windows-compatible"), thus preventing CDs from working with free/open source software. That's news. And if it ain't, it sure is Stuff that Matters ;-)

Oh, and a couple more things:

If you don't use Windows at all, how the hell can you make such broad statements against it all the time??

He's not. He's criticising a company's monopolistic practices - and he, along with the rest of the Free Software crowd, has been victim enough of it to write freely about it.

What about Mac? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374309)

"putting WMA on the CD and then saying that it's "computer-compatible" (read: "Windows-compatible")"

What about Apple? I keep seeming them used in movies and on TV, they must be in wide use. Are you saying that the RIAA is going to let M$ pull a fast one like that?

fuck (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374212)

you. and you too.

Re:fuck (1)

psyberlenk (123820) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374232)

If Microsoft wasnt so gay and supported other Operating Systems with Windows Media I would tend to follow the drift it would be better.. but when they are closed standard bastards and wont support nothing out side of Windows... how can people suport WMP... It may have its advantages but if your not running windows your support kinda lacks due to microsoft's unwilling to share...

Re:fuck (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374243)

no...

fuck YOU

fuck you fuck you fuck you

Re:fuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374352)

what about me?

From Taco's comment: (0, Offtopic)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374217)

And another format that I can't play back. Hope this one dies fast.

Time and time again, you have said that you have a window's partition, Taco (playing Black&White, and lots of other times). Admit to having it, say "Its an inconvience to play" instead of "I can't play". You won't be condemned here for being honest(besides the trolls, which is unavoidable).

A little honesty here would really go a long way.

Re:From Taco's comment: (1)

DahGhostfacedFiddlah (470393) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374339)

I think he mean "play back while using my computer as usual". Can't do that.

Re:From Taco's comment: (0)

seann (307009) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374341)

maybe his windows partition randomly stops working (BSOD) and does not boot anymore?
Like mine.

Re:From Taco's comment: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374377)

Having a MSWin partition does not mean being
able to play all WMA media. For one thing, MS
put a firm roadblack to Version 7 player
access unless you are at Win98. Common sense
may be another roadblock to installing that
monster.

For another, there is a very persistent and
annoying "digital rights management" bug in
WMP, the official solution to which involves
registry tweaking. There are apparently some
sticky bits which keep the player from playing
_any_ content under a complicated set of
circumstances. I long ago struggled for a long
time just to hear my "free" download of
Dionne Warwick's re-recording of "Walk
On By", which I so richly deserved. I have
"taken care" of this problem repeatedly
(although not in time to hear Dionne),
and things were alright for a while,
but a recent, legal live Radiohead download,
just a few weeks ago from RollingStone.com,
failed due to the same bug.

Whenever I eschew common sense and
download "protected" WMA, I just pray for the
best. I wouldn't dream of paying in advance
for protected WMA content.

WMA .... (5, Insightful)

taniwha (70410) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374220)

Leaving a large bunch of pissed but brilliant programmers out in the cold just has to be a bad idea (just look at CSS) don't these music industry bozos ever learn ... if they choose a DRM system that's supported everywhere far fewer people will have the incentive to break their encryption - and it's not like they're in the music player software biz

What about CSS? (2, Funny)

Macint0sh (514571) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374308)

What about CSS? Are you calling CSS a bad idea? You little...!

Re:WMA .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374396)

What brilliant programmers are you referring to?

You mean the ones who hang out on /. all day?

No more epic albums (5, Interesting)

[amorphis] (45762) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374225)

Putting monopoly/copyright issues aside for a moment, requiring a WMA version means you lose at least 10% (at 128Kbit), which means that the maximal length would be more like 70min instead of 78min.

This would change the artists presentation of the music itself.

Re:No more epic albums (1)

turbine216 (458014) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374269)

so you put it on two discs...

Re:No more epic albums (1)

Skorpion (88485) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374314)

How many albums you know use the full 78 (wasn't it 74?) minutes? I transfer quite a lot of my (legal) CDs to minidisc and I found most of them will fit on a 60 minutes disk. The only album I could recall that required 80 minute MD was Dire Straits Sultans of Swing.

Putting monopoly back on track, these guys at least learned one thing - you can't have copy protectionwneh the client can do all things he wants. So they are pushing trusted client architecture (which is what Microsoft names Digital Rights Management). And you won't be able to do this on Linux because you can't have trusted (from the content provider) environment in open system.

Time to cough up some $ for windows license (all my machines are running Linux exclusively with the noble exception of one PalmOS machine :-)).

Alex

Re:No more epic albums (2, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374359)

> How many albums you know use the full 78 (wasn't it 74?) minutes?

And hey, isn't the fun of MP3 the fact that you can get the 5-10 minutes worth of music in the 78, 74, or 55 minutes on the CD that's actually worth listening to? ;-)

Re:No more epic albums (2)

[amorphis] (45762) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374391)

How many albums you know use the full 78 (wasn't it 74?) minutes?

I think about 10% of my collection (of 300) are longer than 75 minutes. The one I was thinking of was Tool's recent album Lateralus [cdnow.com] , which would be very different without the 5 minute outro at the end.

Re:No more epic albums (3, Funny)

sulli (195030) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374375)

Hey, there had to be some benefit!

High Speed Analog Dubbing (4, Offtopic)

ers81239 (94163) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374230)

I think that most of us understand the concept that anything that is playable is copyable. I first don't really understand how they can write the disc in such a way that a CD player from 1995 can play it, but that the cracker community can't write a device driver for.

Aside from that, you know how your old tape player had High Speed dubbing? I wonder if someone could rig a CD player to play that way, and then capture the sound digitally and slow it back down. That way you don't have to wait the full length of the CD. Its not so easy as ripping is right now, but I'll bet it wouldn't be too bad. It could probably even figure out where songs started and stopped just like old tape players!

Unrippable == Unlistenable (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374271)

Ok.

Am I not the only one who thinks that, if you can get a signal out of a CD (be it digital or analog), that the music is therefore RIPPABLE. The ONLY way to make it impossible for me to copy a song is to make it impossible for me to listen to the damn thing.

If I can hear it (copying to my brain) then I can copy anywhere else. If they want to make it impossible to play on my computer... oooh ahhh I'll plug it into my non-computer CD player and pipe it into my computer.

Come on, this repeated topic is getting old and pointless.

Sure they can do that (5, Insightful)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374390)

They just label the cracker who writes the driver a terrorist (Legislation's in the works, don't say it can't happen) and hold him indefinitely without bail. Do a couple of people that way and the rest of the community will shut down so fast it'll make your head spin.

Deal with it. (2, Insightful)

akgoel (153089) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374233)

And another format that I can't play back.

By using Linux, you are exercising you're right to choose. And apparently, you choose not to want to play WMA. If it's that big a deal for you, you always have the right to choose again. Freedom does not mean that your "choice" has all the pros and none of the cons.

Re:Deal with it. (2)

nanojath (265940) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374389)

Garbage. He's not asserting some right, he's simply pointing out the facts: that this format is tied to a proprietary operating system and that means it doesn't play on his equipment. Explain to me why you think this is a good thing.

In similar news (0)

dozing (111230) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374235)

I'm developing a special addative for the eggo waffle folks which make the waffles resistant to heat unless you use a GTE toaster.

DRM= Digital Rights Missing (3, Funny)

dafoomie (521507) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374240)

Every day we lose more and more rights... A little here, a little there. Though, I doubt if they can stop me from taking my audio out and recording that... Oh wait, they'll just make sure new sound cards and stereos no longer have audio out, and the ones that do, cd's wont play on.

This is not a "right" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374383)

Please, there is no "right" to a rippable CD. At a time when real rights are under attack (e.g. Ashcroft wants to detain immigrants indefinitely without trial) I think it's important to keep a sense of perspective.

What would be involved in breaking wma? (1, Redundant)

smartin (942) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374241)

Is this rely hard? Has it already been done?

Toilets marketing (3, Funny)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374242)

I have a right to make personal copies and refuse to buy protected CDs," reader Steve Groen wrote in an e-mail to CNET News.com. "If Hollywood had invented the toilet, it would be five times as expensive and you'd pay $1 every time you flush."

Sums it up pretty good for me.

These guys are simply criminal. send them to afghanistan for re-education

Re:Toilets marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374287)

send them to afghanistan for re-education

Perhaps we could test our anti-terror weapons on them.

RIAA terrorists (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374361)

Thats a fucking scary thought.

Monopoly? Not on talent (5, Insightful)

idiot900 (166952) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374246)

I'm a DJ at my university's radio station. It is de facto station policy to not play anything by really well-known artists - i.e. Britney Spears will never come out of our transmitter. And there is no lack of "underground" music for us to play - music published by labels that aren't part of the RIAA juggernaut and aren't implementing these ridiculous copy controls. And a decent amount of it is of higher quality than anything I've heard from the major labels. Point is, there is plenty of good music out there if you don't want to be screwed over every time you buy a CD.

Re:Monopoly? Not on talent (1)

grepnyc (442959) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374363)

Why not give us some links to labels or artists?

pressure/grep

rm -f /bin/laden

who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374248)

WMA isn't that much different than mp3s. Just find a player that doesn't have that digital copyrights blah thing on it. Besides, when's the last time you bought cds?.. I know i haven't in a while.

Osama Bin Goatse (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374250)




* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *
g g
o / \ \ / \ o
a| | \ | | a
t| `. | | : t
s` | | \| | s
e \ | / / \\\ -- \\ : e
x \ \/ --~~ ~--| \ | x
* \ \-~ ~-\ | *
g \ \ .--------.__\| | g
o \ \_// ((> \ | o
a \ . C ) _ ((> | / a
t /\ | C )/ OSAMA \ (> |/. t
s / /\| C) BIN | (> / \. s
e | ( C__)\GOATSE/ // / / .\ e
x | \ | \\__// (/ | x
* | \ \) `---- --' | *
g | \ \ / / | g
o | / | | \ | o
a | | / \ \ | a
t | / / | | \ |t
s | / / \/\/ | |s
e | / / | | | |e
x | | | | | |x
* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *

why not a standard?? (4, Redundant)

turbine216 (458014) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374258)

why not use a NON-proprietary standard instead of MP3 or WMA???? Why does everything have to be so controlled and so restrictive? They've obviously got a decent idea here (putting compressed digital copies of the CDDA tracks on the same disc as the music), but they've got their heads up their asses in the implementation.


The RIAA managed to accept and OPEN standard known as Red Book for production of CD's...why can't they just create another OPEN standard for digital music for use on PC's and portables?


(All rhetorical questions, naturally...everyone knows why they aren't doing it...)

Re:why not a standard?? (1)

PinkStainlessTail (469560) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374286)

why not use a NON-proprietary standard instead of MP3 or WMA???? Why does everything have to be so controlled and so restrictive?

To quote a famous bank robber: "Because that's where the money is."

Re:why not a standard?? (3, Insightful)

turbine216 (458014) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374317)

that's absolutely right...but i just cannot fathom WHY the RIAA would think that restrictive practices like this would actually INCREASE their profits. Proprietary standards might be "where the money is" in their eyes, but it seems like they don't even realize that the CUSTOMERS are where the money is REALLY at. They push bullshit measures over on the unsuspecting public, and just expect them to eat it up.


I've seen some really STUPID business practices during the past ten years, but i SWEAR TO GOD there have been none more idiotic than those of the RIAA. They are literally shooting themselves in their feet OVER and OVER AGAIN, and they act like they don't even realize it!!!

Re:why not a standard?? (1)

PinkStainlessTail (469560) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374376)

i just cannot fathom WHY the RIAA would think that restrictive practices like this would actually INCREASE their profits.

My (rather ill-formed) opinion is this: to the RIAA (and its ilk)proprietary standards=control and control=security. If you're secure and in control, then you must be financially viable. Leaving the customer with lots of choices and flexibility might mean more profits, but it also means a loss of control.

This is barroom/armchair psychology and logic of course, but it does answer a question or two in my mind.

Re:why not a standard?? (2, Insightful)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374305)

> why can't they just create another OPEN standard for digital music for use on PC's and portables?

Because the problem of making un-hackable music formats is so far unsolvable. So when they ask 'open standards groups' and their own programmers to do it the answer they get is 'We can't figure out how to do it.' Then Microsoft tells them 'we have a solution to all your problems. Just sign here...'

They are desperate to maintain tight control over every bit of content, and they see in Microsoft a similar philosophy and desire. So they sign...
While the technical community says 'but it doesn't work right... it stinks... it introduces more problems...'. But as I said, they are desperate and Microsoft is promising.

Re:why not a standard?? (1)

javilon (99157) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374355)

What bothers me is that they are scared enough to transfer control of the music distribution business to Microsoft.

Before they have any time to look at it, MS will have control of _their_ distribution business.

It is disturbing that they prefer that instead of working out that their model doesn't work any more.

Just use Clone Cd (3, Informative)

cheekymonkey_68 (156096) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374262)

Use a bit by bit copier such as Clone CD if you use Windows.....

Anything burning software that copies the cd bit by bit should be safe untill they build copy protection into the cd burners. (a la macrovision on VCR's and even thats useless if you get a signal booster)

Anyone having problems doing backups should visit game copy world [gamecopyworld.com]

Buy only indie and bootleg music. Boycott the crap (2, Insightful)

aphor (99965) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374263)

If you buy music to listen to on your computer, and that requires ripping to mp3 or Ogg/Vorbis, then these new fangled MS crippled CD's are worthless to you. Don't trade your $15.00 for a worthless CD. Buy bootlegs instead. Buy old (used) CDs where you can.

If you think about it, how much archive quality music does the RIAA membership put out in a year? Most of it is one-hit-wonders and teeny-bopper crap. Hip-hop, electronic, and rock music all have big underground and indie (non-corporate) scenes. Musicians should all be producing their own discs for sale via pay-pal anyway.

Holdin' the microphone up to art (1)

PinkStainlessTail (469560) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374267)

...Microsoft itself seems less than absolutely bullish on the efficacy of copy-protected CDs. Committed pirates will eventually find a way around any digital protections, even if it is simply "holding a microphone up to the speakers," said Jonathan Usher, group product manager for Microsoft's Digital Media Division.

Hmmm. Weirdly honest coming from MS.

WMA is crap (2)

sulli (195030) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374270)

Guess it's time to hit the used CD stores again. Will these idiots EVER learn?

Alternate article... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374277)

An article that is very similar to this one, yet a lot more informative is at TacoInspector.com [tacoinspector.com] .

To sum the story up: (1)

imgaming.com (321216) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374290)

"I think this is a glimpse of the future," said P.J. McNealy, a digital-entertainment analyst with GartnerG2, a division of research company Gartner. "This meets both sides' needs. It gives people the compressed audio (to play on computers), and it protects copyrights."

Obviously not meeting everyone's needs. MP3 is the current standard, and by which, means EVERYONE can listen to it. WMA, or wimpy music audio does nothing for ppl on older PCs, Linux boxes, and most likely even older Macs

"I think the reality here is that none of these (CD copy-protection) techniques is going to be successful in the long term," said Jupiter Research analyst Aram Sinnreich. "They're fraught with technical difficulties, and if they did surmount those, they would meet with a severe consumer backlash."

No protection scheme is 100% Everything can and will be cracked, given enough time and will power.

"I have a right to make personal copies and refuse to buy protected CDs," reader Steve Groen wrote in an e-mail to CNET News.com. "If Hollywood had invented the toilet, it would be five times as expensive and you'd pay $1 every time you flush."

Obviously, the best (!!) and wide-spread opinion around.

Used CDs and Bootleged concerts (1)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374298)

screw em... Purchased 2 ACDC CDs and one Megadeth CD from the Pawnshop for 9.00, and downloaded bootleg concerts from Eric Johnson and Led Zepplin from alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.bootlegs over the weekend, ever since clsoing up Napster I went from purchasing 50 NEW CDs last year to one this year (not counting those I purchased directly from the artist at the concert)

I now have 8 gigs worth of bootleg material that cant be purchased anywhere

I bet the sticker on these CD's will read: (1)

albamuth (166801) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374304)

"This CD features Anti-Terrorist Protection" :P

The more they say... (1)

Tviokh (315844) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374313)

...that it "can't be cracked", the harder people are going to try to crack it. If, for nothing else, simply to prove them wrong.

Re:The more they say... (0)

the_other_one (178565) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374348)

So the solution is to encrypt it with ROT13 and impose a penalty of life in prison for attempting to crack it.

An interim solution... (1)

xtermz (234073) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374326)

I know this will get modded down to -1 and i might as well grab my asbestos suit.... but how hard is it to just take the line out from a 'compatible' cd player and put it into the line in of your sound card , and rip to mp3... ?

Sure, you might have some lossy sound, but if you use quality cables and maybe clean it up with some noise reducing s/w ... it'll be about as good as a medium/high quality mp3....

Sure, we should keep fighting these fools , but in the mean time .... just rip it anyway with this method

I'll say it again. (1)

famazza (398147) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374328)

Sorry for saying it again. But I think it's pertinent yet.

my opinion [slashdot.org]

Money rules the world, and we must work all together so it won't happen never more. :o/

Much better than the legal enforcement. (1)

curunir (98273) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374333)

The music industry wants to maintain it's profits. It has two avenues it can pursue. It can try to put everyone in jail by paying for horrible legislation, or it can try to find some technological solution. It's fairly obvious that the first solution is a bad one and must be fought tooth and nail. But why does everyone on slashdot demonize the RIAA for choosing the second option. I am more than happy for them to choose that one, especially if it keeps them from pursuing the first further than they have already pursued.

IMHO, the record industry should be free to choose whatever crappy standard that they want, and I should be free to try to hack it. So long as I don't distribute their content, I shouldn't be breaking the law.

If you object to measures such as these, you lose credibility in the fight against unfair legislation and simply show that you don't want to pay for the content that you use.

What makes these unrippable? (3, Interesting)

actappan (144541) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374334)

Can't you still use analog rips?

Sure - it'll sound like crap - but how can they really make them unripable? Like most IP schemes, this won't stop actual piracy - just casual copying. While I'm certain that this casual copying is the vast majority of the violation - isn't a lot of it covered under fair use? I mean if I rip all my old cd's onto my nomad - Then stow them all in the basement - isn't that still legal?

I would be pretty pissed if I then had to use a restricted format to play them back. I generally don't use windows. Rebooting my system to play back a single song is not an acceptable solution. If you had to unplug your CD player and make a handful of software changes in order to play a single track wouldn't you complain?

I think we should all insist that they prominently print notice of the IP scheme on the cover (Warning: Contains IP Scheme that may be offensive to anyone with half a brain) Then simply refuse to buy anything that has that scheme. There may be more Brittany fans out there than there are geeks - but we've got more money.

WMA Player in Linux? (1)

peter_gzowski (465076) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374342)

I am soooo tired of the presumption that the only reason I want to rip something to mp3 is to illegally trade it. I just purchased a couple cds in the past week (one of them a Blackalicious cd that is incredible, hip-hop fans, check out this great underground artist), and I ripped them so I could listen to them at the office without carting the cds back and forth every day.

"The purpose of these releases is to test consumer satisfaction," said Macrovision President Bill Krepick. The labels "obviously don't want to do anything to turn off consumers...There's a lot of risk aversion right now."

Hmmm... Seems like this protection serves only to turn off consumers (I hope they don't place this protection on any Barry White albums). Those who don't rip don't notice a difference, and those who do have this annoying crap to deal with.

Also, I work in linux, and I don't know of a way to play WMA files in linux, although I've never tried to (never had a reason to...).

So sick of the attitude (3, Insightful)

nanojath (265940) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374344)

I am getting so sick of the attitude being expressed regarding pieces like this that this is just some grave injustice being handed down by the Music Gods. BMG, Warner and Sony are not the beginning and the end of music (well they might be the end...)


What new technologies (and the constantly increasing accessibility at any scale of technologies like burning CDs) present musicians and consumers alike with is the possibility of ditching the fat cat middlemen entirely, which would be fine since they do nothing for music but try to make everything a hit which turns 99.9% of everything they sell into indistinguishable, homogenized crap.


When you consider the global marketing potential that a little fearlessness when it comes to digital audio files and the internet presents the individual artist or band with, and the enormity of the cut that the parasitic media distribution conglomerates suck up between artists and consumers, it becomes clear that for artists and consumers alike copy protection is irrelevant.


All the industry frenzy over this issue has nothing to do with lost sales (which have been negligible) and everything to do with preventing independent concerns from commercializing and popularizing effective digital music distribution tools. Don't like this copy-impaired, we'll pick your compression format (and quality, natch) garbage? Write to your favorite INDIE record label or better yet your favorite unsigned, self- distributing or about-to-be-released-from-contract artists and tell THEM how you feel. They might actually give a rats ass and do something about it.

Stop spending all night in front of your computer. (1)

aeo (517448) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374347)

Go see live music.

Does it really matter? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374350)

If you must have music, there's always midi!

Could someone at the DOJ please look at this? (4, Interesting)

M_Talon (135587) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374356)

If this isn't a clear cut case of Microsoft using its monopoly power to cut into and eliminate competition from other markets, I don't know what is. We're not talking software anymore, we're talking the future of music distribution. This should not and could not happen if our antitrust laws have any power. Allowing WMA to be used here is definitely the wrong answer, as it allows Microsoft to say "Oh look, now you need a Windows machine with our Media Player to listen to tracks on your computer". If it was a general standard, this wouldn't be so bad. However, M$ is not known for general standards. They're known for embrace, extend, extinguish.

In my view, this boils down to "PR" (4, Interesting)

garoush (111257) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374358)

It's amazing to see how those "big" companies (MS included with there "activation tech.") put a lot of energy and resources to go after such a small percentage of the market segment.

Yes, I can copy a CD for a friend of mine as I have the tools and the means to do it with my PC (not that I will), but hey, for every one CD-copier out there are over 100s tape-copiers. And those tape-copiers do it more often than CD-copiers -- its far more easier. So why aren't those music industry clones going after the tape-media rather than the CD?

My answer to my own question is simple: CD is high tech, while tap is not. Thus, doing it in the CD market, creates more "noise" in the media which leads to more reorganization.

Will this severely weaken the industry? (5, Insightful)

sulli (195030) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374360)

Okay, we all hate the RIAA and their stooges in the copy-protection business. Still, here they are, and this is their latest salvo in their war against fair use.

However, it may be a huge double-barreled shot at their feet. Here's why: Ripping MP3s is already mainstream. When they ship these crippled CDs, and the word gets out that you can't rip them or you have to go through some user-hostile WMA download every time you want to add tunes to your jukebox, sales will drop.

And, as others have noted here, indie bands won't behave this way (why should they? MP3 trading will help spread the word about their tunes). So they will get a sales boost from users who may not give a shit about IP and fair use but certainly care about ease of use.

Don't believe me? Look at the commercial failure of Sony's Music Clip. It fell flat on its face because customers wanted the standard (MP3) not something else that required many extra steps to use it.

So, as for the music industry: fuck 'em. If they want to sell useless drink coasters for $15, and wonder where a big segment the buyers went, let them take the financial hit. Just don't invest in any of the big five, and you won't personally pay the price. Maybe now is the time to short Vivendi-Universal, for example.

letter to record company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374362)

dear record company,

give it up. i will do whatever i damn well please with the music i buy. if you keep trying to restrict me from doing this, i will discontinue buying your products.

sincerely,

your customer

WMA playable under Linux (2, Insightful)

DennisZeMenace (131127) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374365)

And another format that I can't play back

Actually, you can play wma files under Linux using the avifile tool. avifile is a brilliant piece of software engineering that works directly with the Windows DLL (a-la-Wine). It will play back DivX avi and most Windows Media Player formats.

Having said this, it will only work for x86 Linux, and still leaves a lot of people stranded with their systems. It's definitely another way to strengthen Microsoft's monopoly. Really disgusting.

DZM

MODERATORS ON CRACK (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2374370)

Don't you LOOOVE the taste of a crack hit, you fucking idiot moderators.

Screw you all!!

Microsoft is great (0)

nick_burns (452798) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374373)

for me to poop on! I'm just waiting for someone to write new CD drivers to play these CD's that won't play on a computer. Not only that, but there is technology such as having optical outputs and inputs on CD and computers that will allow someone to simply playback the CD and record it on a computer with almost no loss in quality. No microphone and speaker necessary. And that will surely be better than the WMA tracks that they'll put on the computer. I highly doubt the quality on the tracks will be anything above 64kbps.

EULA for MediaPlayer (5, Informative)

dackroyd (468778) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374385)

To use the 'secure' version of MediaPlayer you have to agree to Microsoft being able to install any software they like, and disable any other programs.

From the EULA agreement for MediaPlayer 7.1:

Digital Rights Management (Security). You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ("Secure Content"), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update.

Does anyone else have a problem with this ? Every C.T.O. in the world should be alarmed at Microsoft being able to download and run any code they feel like, as well as switching any other programs off that they don't like.

Why, Oh Why Microsoft?? (1)

PinkBird (317418) | more than 12 years ago | (#2374386)

The thing that really just pisses me off is that it IS "another fine M$ product".
Why couldn't they use a third party vendor. If M$ keeps it up, they will be a monopoly! HAR!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?