It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Sony/ BMG Now Accused of Copyright Infringement!

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Sony's recent debacle with the DRM is not going to die a quiet death. It seems that the code that Sony used to protect it's cd's from being copied contains copy protected code, at least that is what Jon Lech Johansen, better known as DVD Jon contends. Finnish software developer Matti Nikki, has uncovered multiple components of the DRM software that reference LAME open source MP3 code Code in the LAME application is licensed under the lessser GNU General Public Licence (LGPL).
 



www.pcpro.co.uk
If Sony BMG was hoping that the controversy surrounding its copy-protected CDs was going to die away, it was reckoning without infamous hacker Jon Lech Johansen, better known as DVD Jon.

It seems that the XCP software from UK company First4Internet that Sony had been using to prevent unauthorised copying of its music CDs, until it agreed to recall some 4.7 million discs, contains code 'infringing the copyright of several open source projects', Johansen notes in his blog. This includes code that he himself wrote for VLC, a free cross-platform media player.

The code was uncovered by Finnish software developer Matti Nikki, who also discovered other copyright violations.

'Multiple software components on the CD have references to the LAME open source MP3 code,' he wrote in an email. His findings have been substantiated by others.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This is a great example of the pot calling the kettle black. Sony seems to think that they do not have to follow it's own rules about copy protected material.
What they have done is stuck a near fatal blow to their and the RIAA's agenda of protecting themselves

Related News Links:
www.riaa.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Sony's press release does NOT mention this as part of its VIRAL...
Sony CDs Are Putting SPYWARE on Your Computer
SCI/TECH: 'Bots' for Sony CD Software Spotted Online
(submission) (business) Sony recalls copy-protected music CDs

Mod Edit: Fixed Title

[edit on 11/18/05 by FredT]




posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Great find!


And VERY funny. So Sony was caught. Love it.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
heck, not only did the infringe the copyright, but they did so by not having to do the simple and costless act of stating that they were using the code! When a person violates the RIAA copyright, they're avoiding having to pay for the dvd, which is far more 'costly' than merely stating, in one of their documents, that they used this open source code.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
It took me nearly an hour to submit this news article.
It took that long for me to stop laughing and to wipe the tears from my eyes

I am against piracy but I am also anti RIAA. The reason that I am against them is that their argument is that it is stealling from the artists. This is "technically" true. Unfortunately, what they forget to tell you is that the artist gets pais laess than 1 cent from the sale of a cd. The rest of the cost goes to to the record company, who by the way make up the RIAA



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
The reason that I am against them is that their argument is that it is stealing from the artists. This is "technically" true. Unfortunately, what they forget to tell you is that the artist gets pais laess than 1 cent from the sale of a cd. The rest of the cost goes to to the record company, who by the way make up the RIAA


not true. each individual contract is different. a lot of the time, it is closer to $.25 and all the way up to $1.50 or more if the artist can offer the label a low risk investment! (the beatles are an example - in the later years at least.)

regardless, you are acting as if the record label walks away with $15.75 from a $16 cd. NOT TRUE. record shops mark up product around 100%. so do distributors.

so, from a $16 cd, the store makes $8, the distributor makes $4, the manufacturer charges $.50 or less and only makes maybe $.05
- %.10, the artist makes $.50 or so....

this leaves the label with $3 profit. OR DOES IT?

typically, for every one band that sells decently well, there are 10 - 12 bands on the same label who are not selling almost anything. therefore, the risk that a label takes is barely, if at all, covered by this amount. also, they funded the whole project to begin with!!!

it would be like a broke manager of mcdonalds asking an investor for $1,000,000 to start their own restaurant and expecting to make all the profits!!!! yeah right! like that would happen! the investor would expect to not only make their money back, but also get a return for taking the risk.

my point is, that the labels are not terrible people. THEY ARE BUSINESSMEN. and without them, there would not be any "popular" music. artists like the beatles would never have been more than a great garage band and you wouldn't know their name today!

but to defend the artist's side, please keep in mind that all the debt incurred by the artist must be paid back from their portion of the cd sales before they will see a penny. if everyone boycotted labels in order to spite them, no artist would ever get out of debt and they would all give up and good music would exist only in the minds of the artisans, and would not reach our ears.

please be considerate to real life business and don't act so self-righteous when you are not the one risking millions of dollars at a time on the most notoriously immature/unreliable group of people around. in fact, in business logic, record labels are extremely high risk, low return investments and those who start/run record labels should be thanked, not put down.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Can we please just stick to ignoring the facts and only post our unfounded opinions?

thanks
lol



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Does this mean anyone who distrubuted this software can argue that they were using their own right of free-distribution under the license agreement and cannot be sued for copyright infringement themselves?

---Pineapple



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   
the 'music industry' has been shafting artists since the fourties and fifties. sure, nobody loses ALL the rights to their work anymore, but there are still cases.
john fogherty was not allowed to play songs that he wrote. that is wrong. any 'laws' that allow that kind of travesty, are tyrannical.
not only do record companies steal the lion's share of profit(i disagree with nearly everything dasher said), but they pay ZERO percent of the cost for production. they are lone sharks and racketeers.
another huge leech on the muse of music is ticketmaster. you've got to take a bloody mortgage out to buy a concert ticket, these days. once again, it's not for the artists, it's for the hordes of parasites that live off the FANATICISM of popular culture.
i hate to think how many amazing talents have been lost to history because of the greed pyramid of the commercial music industry. to me, the phrase, 'music business' is an oxymoron.

[edit on 18-11-2005 by billybob]



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dasher
my point is, that the labels are not terrible people. THEY ARE BUSINESSMEN. and without them, there would not be any "popular" music. artists like the beatles would never have been more than a great garage band and you wouldn't know their name today!


Not entirely true.

While they might not all be terrible people, you are making vast generalizations.

Ani Difranco is a perfect example of how "the system" can be circumvented, by talented and driven artists, to a successful career in the music industry; so I would suggest taking your own advice and "don't act so self-righteous".

It's good to see sony getting caught again.

They lost my respect when it was found that the "critic", always quoted in their movie posters, who gave them great reviews was on their payroll.



[edit on 11/18/05 by redmage]



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Wow, that's just sad.
They stole free software and still have the gull to complain about people stealing from them.

Thats like taking a handful of money from the give a penny take a penny jar, or takeing all of the free samples from the deli isle in the convinence store.

Come on, its free for god sake!
Just be honest and mention that you took it!

Btw, had they mentioned they used the code they would have also disclosed that the DRM existed, which would have made it usless in the first place.

What ever happened to integrety? I'll tell ya, security took it's place!
I will gladly give up all of my security to be truely free.
A great man once said "Give me liberty or give me death!"
You can not compromise your liberty for security, to do so is death!



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
A fitting come-uppance for SONY. I hope they lose millions in a suit--hopefully more than they could possibly have protected by their ill advised scheme.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
not only do record companies steal the lion's share of profit(i disagree with nearly everything dasher said), but they pay ZERO percent of the cost for production. they are lone sharks and racketeers.
another huge leech on the muse of music is ticketmaster. you've got to take a bloody mortgage out to buy a concert ticket, these days. once again, it's not for the artists, it's for the hordes of parasites that live off the FANATICISM of popular culture.

firstly, you can disagree all you want, but it doesn't change the verity of my words. based on your statements, it sounds as though you may have been involved with or know someone involved with a "production" label which does not fund a RECORDING but will PRODUCE (as in musical direction) an artist and then take as much money as possible in the process. whether by cd sales or from a signing bonus, etc. a record label, by definition PAYS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF AN ENTIRE RECORD and it's outerlying components. otherwise, it would not be a RECORDING label.

the reason live show tickets cost so much is that since the industry has been slammed with thievery (online downloading), cd sales drop, the artists do not make enough to get out of debt AND make a profit, so they have to survive some how.

can record labels be equated to LOAN sharks... i guess some might blindly judge as such, but THEY ARE NOT THE ONES RISKING MILLIONS AT A TIME. if you had a million dollars to spend/invest, would you give it to some "aritist" (who are typically considered unreliable and "flaky") you have no close ties to so that they can spend it on album production, mastering, replication, advertising and a music video? with no stong promise of return??????!!!!!!!!!!! record labels are in most ways stupid business (unreasonably high risk). don't blame the music industry for trying to stay alive, when you buy food from corporations selling you the cheapest/most processed thing possible and thereby destroying our bodies from the inside!!!! there are greater crimes to whine about in this world!



Originally posted by redmage
Ani Difranco is a perfect example of how "the system" can be circumvented, by talented and driven artists, to a successful career in the music industry; so I would suggest taking your own advice and "don't act so self-righteous".


please don't use an exceptional situation to justify a point as a "reasonably obtained" path.

as for taking my own advice... i signed a 28 page recording contract/publishing agreement with a christian record label right out of high school. i then worked for the label while we were there for about 2 years. i have 20 or so internationally released album credits for graphic design layouts and our album sold many, many, many thousands of albums (we will never know exactly how much since we never audited the label). we surpassed what is considered to be the "line" that 80 or 90 percent of bands never cross. i have experienced more in my short 24 years than most do in a lifetime. i am not speaking self-righteously. i am speaking from experience.

know what i have to show for our small success?

memories. the label folded when the ditribution company kept going through take overs and mergers and just overall BS business deals. our second album never came out and by the time we had major label and mini-major label interest, the band seperated ways.

it's the way the game is played. and i am thankful for my time in the industry.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dasher

firstly, you can disagree all you want, but it doesn't change the verity of my words. based on your statements, it sounds as though you may have been involved with or know someone involved with a "production" label which does not fund a RECORDING but will PRODUCE (as in musical direction) an artist and then take as much money as possible in the process. whether by cd sales or from a signing bonus, etc. a record label, by definition PAYS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF AN ENTIRE RECORD and it's outerlying components. otherwise, it would not be a RECORDING label.


they need to be reimbursed for 100% of those costs. for that financial loan, they take 50% of the profit. sounds like a loan shark to me.



the reason live show tickets cost so much is that since the industry has been slammed with thievery (online downloading), cd sales drop, the artists do not make enough to get out of debt AND make a profit, so they have to survive some how.


wrong. it is because ticketmaster turned ticket sales into a monopoly. remember pearl jam vs. ticketmaster? the price of tickets has gone up anywhere from 200 to 400 percent in the last thirty years. as soon as ticketmaster became really, really 'convenient' and had the sales for every major show in their grubby little hands, the prices started going up and up.
here's another question, why should the successful artists be required(in effect, not directly) to bear the brunt of a record company's losses? failed artists don't have to pay back their loans, and so the only money to absorb the loss comes from the successful artists.


can record labels be equated to LOAN sharks... i guess some might blindly judge as such, but THEY ARE NOT THE ONES RISKING MILLIONS AT A TIME. if you had a million dollars to spend/invest, would you give it to some "aritist" (who are typically considered unreliable and "flaky") you have no close ties to so that they can spend it on album production, mastering, replication, advertising and a music video? with no stong promise of return??????!!!!!!!!!!! record labels are in most ways stupid business (unreasonably high risk). don't blame the music industry for trying to stay alive, when you buy food from corporations selling you the cheapest/most processed thing possible and thereby destroying our bodies from the inside!!!! there are greater crimes to whine about in this world!


just because i have a headache, doesn't mean my back isn't sore and i'm not depressed about being out of work(three hypotheticals. i actually feel great)
i do blame the music industry for wanting to stay alive, because they have killed a great body of art by creating a power pyramid where only the chosen can succeed. don't you find it funny that that tom petty song, 'the last dj' actually got BANNED from airplay? maybe there was too much profanity in it.


know what i have to show for our small success?

memories. the label folded when the ditribution company kept going through take overs and mergers and just overall BS business deals. our second album never came out and by the time we had major label and mini-major label interest, the band seperated ways.

it's the way the game is played. and i am thankful for my time in the industry.


did ya get a day job? give up on music? industry too fickle? feel like you were robbed?



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dasher
please don't use an exceptional situation to justify a point as a "reasonably obtained" path.


Again, I would have to say take your own advice and "don't act so self-righteous" as well as "don't use an exceptional situation to justify a point as a "reasonably obtained" path".

Your claim that there would "not be any "popular" music" is rediculous.

I simply pointed out a valid example of how "the system" can be circumvented by talented and driven artists, there are others as well; and with the advances in technology it has only become easier since the days that Ani, and others, have done it.

I would argue that the quality in the industry would actually go up without big business prepackaging lip-syncing overproduced "tarts", to sell more sex, if true artists/talents took more initiative in the process.

Now "credible" agencies want the "tripple threat", actor, musician, and writer/director, and as long as you look the part and have moderate talent in one of the above, they'll take care of the rest.

Alas, people are not "in it for the music" as often now as they are out to make a quick buck.

They believe a big label signing is there "ticket home" to the promised land.

Even your own story in the christian music industry shows the way business can corrupt the process; "the label folded when the ditribution company kept going through take overs and mergers and just overall BS business deals." so again "don't act so self-righteous".


[edit on 11/19/05 by redmage]



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Well guess what we have the Internet now and the RIAA Record companies know they are a dying breed. Will Popular Music disappear? As much as I hope it will, it will most likely not disappear ever. Self-Publishing and Micro-Niche Record Companies will catch the ball the RIAA dropped(the independants are already doing better with efficient internet distribution and their profits have been stedily rising) and ALL of the independant CD's I've purchased in the past year don't even have a hint of idiotic DRM schemes.

The Point is not what they've done for us 50 years ago, it's what they are doing in the hear and now that's pissing quite a few people off.(Including the Department of Homeland Security now it seems
This is all because of Sonys Trojan Horse that infected some of their machines thus rendering them vulnerable )

[edit on 19-11-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
did ya get a day job? give up on music? industry too fickle? feel like you were robbed?

your ignorance is quite humorous and frustrating and i refuse to continue arguing with someone who is not willing to learn from experience. but nevertheless, i thought this last question should be answered simply due to the irony of it! i now own and operate a recording studio. i work with artists DAY IN AND DAY OUT. most of the "destruction of good music" happens when musicians (WHO ARE USUALLY FLAKY AND UNRELIABLE) cause their own demise!!!!! but, i suppose you and redmage know better!! BWAAHAHAHAHA!!!!

in fact, yesterday i mastered three different albums and today will mix 1 album, start the graphic layout for the cd replication and also master a seperate album as well. BUT WHAT THE HELL DO I KNOW ABOUT THE MUSIC INDUSTRY? HAHAHA.


Originally posted by redmage
Your claim that there would "not be any "popular" music" is rediculous.

I simply pointed out a valid example of how "the system" can be circumvented by talented and driven artists, there are others as well; and with the advances in technology it has only become easier since the days that Ani, and others, have done it.

with the advent of the internet, popular music would be fairly likely to grow, but even then, not to the degree of the megabands of today. there would be no solid way for artists to make a consistent buck and it would end up collapsing in on itself. look to the seattle music scene for example. everyone switching bands, starting new ones and giving up on the old one. it all just becomes a game where you have to pick one musician and follow their exploits in the industry. "bands" as we know it would be uncommon.

how many popular internet icons are there? star wars kid, etc... they are not making a dime on any of it (excluding civil law suits).

compare a pop artist to the great painters who never had a thing in life and only had success in death. is that a better alternative!!!!!


Originally posted by redmage
Alas, people are not "in it for the music" as often now as they are out to make a quick buck.

They believe a big label signing is there "ticket home" to the promised land.

and you blame the record industry for artists wanting to "get rich or die trying?" let's not take blame for ourselves, lets blame anyone else like a true american!


Originally posted by redmage
Even your own story in the christian music industry shows the way business can corrupt the process; "the label folded when the ditribution company kept going through take overs and mergers and just overall BS business deals." so again "don't act so self-righteous".

we walked away with no debt and a whole helluvalot of experiences. that is much more than most bands can say. most bands on our label couldn't sell albums if their life depended on it. and a lot of times, they did rely on it to survive!! you know who housed them when they toured this side of the country. and fed them. and bought many things they needed. and never saw much of anything in return!! THE LABEL. i am quite happy to let things go and just be happy that the profits from our sales went to keep these other bands afloat for a time. that is the industry!! one band to every 10 - 12. we experienced it first hand, and it is the normal industry business process. i am just not bitter about it as though i thought i am deserving of anything special. but i guess that i am "oh so self righteous."



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dasher

Originally posted by billybob
did ya get a day job? give up on music? industry too fickle? feel like you were robbed?

your ignorance is quite humorous and frustrating and i refuse to continue arguing with someone who is not willing to learn from experience. but nevertheless, i thought this last question should be answered simply due to the irony of it! i now own and operate a recording studio. i work with artists DAY IN AND DAY OUT. most of the "destruction of good music" happens when musicians (WHO ARE USUALLY FLAKY AND UNRELIABLE) cause their own demise!!!!! but, i suppose you and redmage know better!! BWAAHAHAHAHA!!!!

in fact, yesterday i mastered three different albums and today will mix 1 album, start the graphic layout for the cd replication and also master a seperate album as well. BUT WHAT THE HELL DO I KNOW ABOUT THE MUSIC INDUSTRY? HAHAHA.


don't be frustrated. it's just text floating around in a virtual enviroment.

major label recordings, or independents? cause independents are going to stomp the majors. it's about time, i figger.
boy, you're really slamming artists here. you seem to put yourself on some kind of none flaky pedestal from which you survey all the lower life forms. i know a bit about the business and have some experience myself. professionals are not flaky, nor tardy, nor unprepared. i am willing to learn from my own experiences, not yours. you could be an autobot programmed by sony, for all i know.
i know many great artists who gave up on 'the business' and got day jobs. the music industry is controlled by the same dark hand(satan) that controls the rest of the world's corporatocracy. everything is controlled, and the sheep have no idea. the symbolism and the unfolding of the plan can be seen in EVERYTHING. it takes a great deal of mental gymnastics to get 'out of the box'. i, however, don't get frustrated when people can't see the puppetmasters strings, or the unfolding plot, or their own yokes, placed there at birth by the secret oligarchy(all caps in name, and social secrurity/insurance number make for a corporate body to be BOUGHT, OWNED and SOLD as chattel).
whatever. keep on rockin', dude.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Dasher, you seem to know a lot, but it would be nice if you named names. It is easy to to talk about the music industry in the abstract. Also, those who attack you seem to really know little of the inside workings of the big bands and the small. The bands all try to make it big and get to the "big show" and that is the name of the game for them.
The record companies are just in it for the big bucks as they shoule be. That is the name of their game. So both the artist and the record companies are working at the same game.
Don't believe what they say, just what they do.
Both the artist and the record companies will do anything to protect their profits. If you don't see that, you will never undrstand why they do what they all do.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   
here is my site:
www.theEastGate.net...

i don't name drop usually so i will not go into detail...
one of the members of linkin park used to be in a band on the same label my band was. i saw quite a bit of legal paperwork when the label we were on was being THANKED by his attorney for releasing him from his contract.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dasher
popular music would be fairly likely to grow


Exactly, and who says we need it to grow "to the degree of the megabands of today".

That's part of the reason that we have the "prepackaged lip-syncing overproduced "tarts", to sell more sex".

As for a "consistant buck", it's called touring with quality material to build a fanbase; if you make it (good) they will come.


Originally posted by Dasher
it would end up collapsing in on itself. look to the seattle music scene for example. everyone switching bands, starting new ones and giving up on the old one...."bands" as we know it would be uncommon.


Pure opinion and nothing more.

Hot "scenes" will always come and go, and "superbands"(velvet revolver, etc.) and people "switching bands, starting new ones" is nothing new or isolated to Seattle.

Ever hear of Genesis, Collins and Gabriel both went on to successful careers.

Or how about The Eagles, Crosby Stills Nash and Young, or The The Traveling Wilburys.

I hear Robert Plant did OK after Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd survived after Waters left.

Lineups shift and change, it's nothing new, always has happened and always will.


Originally posted by Dasher

Originally posted by redmage
Alas, people are not "in it for the music" as often now as they are out to make a quick buck.

and you blame the record industry for artists wanting to "get rich or die trying?"


No, I blame the record industry for/because "I would argue that the quality in the industry would actually go up without big business prepackaging lip-syncing overproduced "tarts", to sell more sex".

Though I do love how your site says, "and are willing to put the music before your pocketbook".


I don't consider many popstars "artists" anymore than I would consider McDonalds as five star dining.

Now it's more of a "my brother/sister did it, I wanna too" situation.

They're models, not musicians.

Just look at the Spears', Carters, Simpsons, etc. these are todays "megabands".


[edit on 11/20/05 by redmage]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join