AfterDawn: News

DRM-crippled Switchfoot CD recalled

I you can remember back to just a few weeks ago, you will remember how we reported that Tim Foreman, member of rock band Switchfoot, had advised fans to workaround the Digital Rights Management (DRM) on the band's CD and even provided instructions. He also defended artists who have CDs that contain DRM, blaming the major record companies instead for the existence of the copy-limiting technology on music CDs.

Now it has emerged that EMI has recalled the CD due to the fact that the copy protection makes it impossible for fans to make any form of copy - at all. It was originally intended that the CD could be burned up to three times and now a CD is being produced that will allow the limited< number of copies. Fans will be able to swap their DRM crippled CD for a new version of it.



Also and most unsurprisingly, the web posting made by Foreman has been removed from the board which is hosted by Sony Music. Fans appreciate Foreman's concerns about the limitations imposed by Digital Rights Management. When a labels own artists speak out against DRM, that is big, because the labels claim they are protecting those very artists by using DRM.

Source:
The Register

Written by: James Delahunty @ 30 Sep 2005 22:47

• Previous article

• 754 more RIAA lawsuits

• Next article

• Toshiba confirms HD-DVD delay in U.S.

• 14 comments

• weazel200

  If more artists like him spoke out then maybe the record copanies would stop making DRM discs altogether.
  

  
  R.I.P. 1971 - 1996
  A TRUE LEGEND!!!!!

  30.9.2005 23:54 #1

• weazel200

  Double Post. Edited because Borhan9 told me to. :(
  

  
  R.I.P. 1971 - 1996
  A TRUE LEGEND!!!!!

  30.9.2005 23:54 #2

• arcanix

  No they wouldn't. They will just try to makke better copy protections.

  1.10.2005 02:20 #3

• fishbulb

  I applaud him for standing up for the fans on this one. The artists are going to get their money. Whether it's upfront, concerts, videos, appearances, or just plain royalties. People are still going to buy cd's. The thing the record companies have to worry about is putting out quality music by sincere artists and people won't have to worry about whether or not to purchase a cd not knowing if it's gonna have 1 or 2 good songs and crap filler for the rest. "Do what you love and love what you do." That's what the artists need to live by. And respect and appreciate the fans who can make or break them.

  1.10.2005 08:54 #4

• venomX05

  Score one for us...the ones who want to be able to DO WHAT WE WANT with our media that we buy.
  
  See...this is the same reason why I don't buy albums anymore...if you start to limit choices, you are going to limit profits. In time they will stop the bull$**t and give us back to right to sell, burn, or do anything we want with whatever we buy.
  
  What's next? Going to stop the production of blank DVD media?
  
  
  
  
  
  

  1.10.2005 13:04 #5

• pro`noob

  'When a labels own artists speak out against DRM, that is big, because the labels claim they are protecting those very artists by using DRM.'
  
  Well that just shows they arent protecting the artists, they are only protecting their ridiculously huge profits.
  
  I don't know who this band is but if their music is drm protected then this means there will be a lot less pirated copys easily available. This means that more originals will sell so this band should ask their managers for a larger ammount of money.
  How can they refuse if they are only using the drm to protect the artists themselves?
  Of course they will refuse - as the drm is really nothing to do with protecting the artist and they know it!

  1.10.2005 14:28 #6

• borhan9

  Quote:Now it has emerged that EMI has recalled the CD due to the fact that the copy protection makes it impossible for fans to make any form of copy - at all.Now that is the funnies thing ive heard in awhile :P They put the protection on and then they finally realise that its soo hard that not only can nobody copy it but they can't either :P haahahaahaha
  
  But what is funnier is they think just limiting the number of backups u can make of the original disc... wont stop listeners just making the copy and then make copies of the copy and also dont forget file conversion is also possible i.e. MP3...
  
  @weazel200
  
  edit your double post :)

  1.10.2005 14:33 #7

• pro`noob

  you can't convert a DRM file to mp3. You also cant just make copies of the copy like that. thats the whole point of drm.

  1.10.2005 18:14 #8

• borhan9

  @pro`noob
  Quote:It was originally intended that the CD could be burned up to three times and now a CD is being produced that will allow the limited< number of copies. Fans will be able to swap their DRM crippled CD for a new version of it.Thats what I was refering to im my post earlier...
  
  I hope that clears up with makin a copy of a copy.
  
  As u said u cant make a copy of somethin with protection... But if they limit the copies u can make off the original, u can just take the copy u just made and make another copy of it not worrying about any protection that will not be there on the backup u just made and even u can convert them to mp3 and that should get rid of the limitations...

  1.10.2005 19:51 #9

• pro`noob

  Maybe you found a way, but every time i try and convert to mp3 a protected file the program i am using will just come up with an error and skip conversion of the protected file.
  
  Also how can you make only limited ammount of copies from the tracks on the cd? you can't write back to the cd so how does the original file know how many copies have been made? :)

  2.10.2005 03:27 #10

• borhan9

  @pro`noob
  Quote:Also how can you make only limited ammount of copies from the tracks on the cd? you can't write back to the cd so how does the original file know how many copies have been made? :)The Recording company is claimin they are trying to
  do this not me... I am just sayin that if i wanted to beat them at their own game i would just make one copy then just use the copy i made to make future ones...
  
  The way i convert mp3's is through my sound recording program Magix Music Maker 7 and that does not give me probs...
  
  Depends what u use...

  2.10.2005 03:50 #11

• weazel200

  @ borhan9
  
  Look at my 2nd post which you told me to edit.
  
  Anyways. What is the point of EMI releasing a new version of the album with a limit of 3 copies per disc. Like borhan9 said, you can just make a copy of one of the copies you made and there will be no limit on how many you can do with the new copy.
  
  How ever hard the record companies make their Copy Protection someone always cracks it. Even if it means doing it by a secure analogue method.
  
  Record companies need to realise that some people dont want to buy CD's anymore and would prefer to download the songs/album legally without any DRM crap on it and file/files which sound smiliar as if they were buying the actual CD.
  
  The answer is staring the music industry in the face. All they need to do is create a service which contains as many artists music as possible, files encoded into LAME MP3's or another good lossless format, and without any DRM whatsoever in exchange for a reasonable monthly/yearly fee. And it would be up to the user to decide what they do with their music e.g. either burn to a black CD, transfer to a portable music player or leave the files on their computer.
  
  This would seriously crack down on piracy as people would be able to download as much as they want legally and the music industry earning a decent profit.
  
  Say the service cost £30 a month thats like the price of 2 albums bought from a shop. If 50 million people signed up that means the service would generate £125,000,000 (roughly $250,000,000 U.S. Dollars) a month. This way no one loses because the members get more bang for their back and the artists and record labels still reveive a healthy profit.
  

  
  R.I.P. 1971 - 1996
  A TRUE LEGEND!!!!!

  2.10.2005 10:30 #12

• Lethal_B

  Quote:If 50 million people signed up that means the service would generate £125,000,000i agree, weazel.
  
  but that only goes for us who really appreciate 100% quality sound.
  
  on bittorrent now, they do 90% of the albums in VBR and they are great, and they take like 5 mins to download. basically, people who download this stuff regularly and have no complaints aren't going to sign up.

  3.10.2005 03:13 #13

• weazel200

  People who download music with quality bit rates like VBR could possibly switch to the legal service as there would be more choice in artists and it would be legal. Everyone who uses P2P isnt 100% safe and could receive a letter from the RIAA or their own countries version of the RIAA at anytime.
  
  And for people who use legal services like iTunes and Napster they should be shown a comparison chart comapring the quality of the different bit rates. It would be like comparing VHS to DVD. Why pay for ok quality (VHS) when you can get better quality (DVD). And the decision would be theirs to make.
  

  
  R.I.P. 1971 - 1996
  A TRUE LEGEND!!!!!

  3.10.2005 03:28 #14