Blogcritics: Comments on Buyer beware: Velvet Revolver's debut album, released today, is copy-protected

Comment by Cpt. Willard

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 05:47:27 EST

I see your point, I'm not an ipoder so I didn't consider that road. Perhaps I am a dreary 80s throwback too! And no it's not a great album but I really do think in time they could make some great music. At any rate good luck to you and the ipod.

Comment by Tom Johnson

Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:43:31 EST

Captain Willard, the excitement is killed off by the fact that people aren't allowed to listen to the album where they feel like it. As an Ipod user, being prevented from copying an album makes buying that album a non-issue: it won't happen. I won't buy copy-protected discs on principle - I know how to get around the copy protection (if you read the site I linked to in the main article, you would too.) Luckily, I'm missing absolutely nothing by not owning Velvet Revolver's album - it's a dreary 80s throwback, and a poor one at that. I suspect the next VR release will be much better than this first one, what do you all think? Well, it can't be much worse than this one.

Comment by Cpt. Willard

Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:21:45 EST

Geeez! What ever happened to the excitement surrounding the release of your favourite bands' new c.d.? Just go and buy the dam thing, smoke a few joints while listening to it and don't fret over the fact that you can't copy it! The record industry is a right load of crap and will continue to find ways of rubbing the buyer raw. At least be thankful you don't live here in England where we pay higher prices for music than anywhere in the world! LONG LIVE THE BOOTLEGGERS!! I suspect the next VR release will be much better than this first one, what do you all think?

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 20 Mar 2005 01:07:07 EST

But despite copy protection Velvet Revolver remains unlistenable garbage. Dave

Comment by Victor Plenty

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:39:25 EST

Copy protected discs punish people who DID pay for the music. They pay their money and they end up with a broken product that does not work properly. People who download illegally are the ones who never have to worry about copy protected discs, because someone always breaks the copy protection and puts the digital files on the file-sharing networks. In other words, copy protection achieves the exact opposite of its stated goal. It punishes people for legitimately buying music, and rewards people for illegally downloading music. That is the big deal with it. It's just plain damn stupid.

Comment by sydney

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:34:21 EST

Shocker, your just wrong. THe music industry does not need the labels to make money. The labels are the middle man, and now the internet is replacing them. Their are other alternatives to selling art, than the current system. And besides, most bands bennefit from downloading (this is well substantiated). Increases exposure. More fans is where their real money is. This provides all sorts of buisness opoortunities, including increased ticket revenue, sponsership, and memrobilia sales (cross-marketing etc). Besides, bands want to heard. If they're being heard, then they make a very decent living. The only bands that stand to loose money in these situations are the metallicas and the britney spears types who sell tens of millions of copies. BEsides, when record companies are bending us over a barrell, fucking us in the ass, and taking our hard earned money, why shouldn't we level the playing feild. It was record companies that decided 10 songs was worth 25 of our hard earned dollars. Thats ludicrous. IF thats what we have to pay for music than I only have the option of listening to three or four bands a year. IS that how art should be distributed?

Comment by Shocker

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:33:01 EST

Oh yeah, I bought this disk cos I love Guns 'n' Roses AND V.R. and it works fine in all my cd and dvd players.

Comment by Shocker

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:43:39 EST

What the fuck is the big deal with copy protected disks?? U buy the album because you like the music, and want to support your favourite band/s. Downloading the music from the internet is what's fucked up the music industry. If everyone downloaded illegal copies then the artists would not get their royalties from it and would go broke therefore it wouldn't be worth their while to make music in the first place. Who gives a shit if a disk is copy protected, it's to try and stop fuckers like you lot from ripping them off. Grow up and pay for the privilege of listening to them. And another thing - CD prices would come down if everyone actually paid for them rather than downloading them.

Comment by Brandon_C

Mon, 7 Mar 2005 00:34:17 EST

To get around the DRM: 1. Right-click My Computer, hit properties. 2. Hardware Tab, hit Device Manager 4. View -> Show Hidden Devices 5. Under 'Non Plug and Play Drivers', find 'SbcpHid'. Right click on it, hit Properties. 6. On the Driver Tab, hit Stop. 7. Now you're rocking. Rip away, my friends.

Comment by Allen

Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:26:08 EDT

While Musicmatch crashed Itunes worked just fine.

Comment by TDavid

Thu, 17 Jun 2004 20:49:00 EDT

Looks like the copy protection is having no effect on sales, Tom

Comment by TDavid

Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:17:32 EDT

And I should add that what I suggested is a totally legal method of listening to this Velvet Revolver CD without paying them any money directly. Yes, indirectly, the artist is being compensated by the monthly Napster fees, but let them all fight over 10 bones a month from a zillion people, I don't care. For 120 buck a year it's one of the best ever ways for music consumers to preview tons of music. No more wasted money on CDs that suck.

Comment by TDavid

Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:14:07 EDT

Tom - I think you missed what I was saying. If one is already paying for the monthly Napster service then this CD is available, in its entirety, for local play without paying for any songs separately :) As for lossless files, I don't care about that for hearing on my computer whether I would like the songs or not. I use these services to preview albums and most people already listening on lowend computer speakers don't care about this either because you can barely tell the difference with crappy speakers. Now for those with high quality Bose and/or other high end speakers, yeah, then that makes a big difference. Sampling music before buying is why I use these online services though and anybody using the Napster service doesn't need to pay anything extra. That's what I'm saying.

Comment by Tom Johnson

Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:20:19 EDT

The problem there is, of course, that Napster/Itunes/Rhapsody/etc. only offer up crappy lossy-compressed files. Why anyone would ever, ever pay for those, I can't imagine. Until these services decide to start carrying lossless file-types like FLAC/APE/SHN, you're wasting your money. Like I said above, the problem isn't that there is copy-protection we have to work around - it's obviously easy to thwart. The issue here is that the label doesn't want me to have a duplicate copy of VR's album, and that's not only unfair, it's violating the copyright law's fair-use policy. Buying this album sends the message that we don't mind being told we can't keep a legal, lossless copy of the discs we pay for. That, my friends, is absolute bullshit.

Comment by TDavid

Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:45:39 EDT

Napster also has this CD available for listening for streaming and/or download (ten bones a month or you can take a free trial).

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:27:27 EDT

Excellent discussion - thanks for starting it Tom, and thanks to all for contributing. Posts like this have actual, immdiate REAL LIFE ramifications and it's great to see people share information to help each other out.

Comment by Brent

Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:30:37 EDT

While I do think that copy-protection on a CD is BS, there are other ways to fix this problem and still pay for your music. Rhapsody and ITunes both have the album for legal download and I know Rhapsody has no copy protection (not sure on ITunes since I despise non-CD quality compression). I bought the CD and it works fine in all 6 DVD players in my home (3 computer, 2 home, X-Box), my car stereo, and my ancient Sony 6-disc changer.

Comment by Metal Slim

Tue, 15 Jun 2004 12:14:53 EDT

Thanks for your support Tim ! I hope others will post on these message boards as well.

Comment by Tom Johnson

Tue, 15 Jun 2004 00:20:41 EDT

Metal Slim, I commend you - you got right raked over the coals on the VR message board. Maybe something you can bring up if this all starts up again is that you are attempting to send a message about how you feel about copy protection. Think about this: the copy protection only hurts the people who paid for the music - not the people who are downloading the illicit copies. Since both you and I now have declared that we will not buy this album with copy protection, who has really been hurt here? Only you and me. File-sharers are still going to find this album, and we will be without. Legitimate sales of this album were lost due only to their label's insistence on using this half-assed protection scheme. I don't care how easy it is to get around this copy protection - it's the principle of the matter. Sometimes you just have to stand up for something you believe in. If you feel strongly, stick to your guns. Maybe you'll affect others who might otherwise have not even paid attention. I, for one, am convinced that the copy protection "warning" sticker is purposely designed to look like a copyright warning, something that most people will not notice. And after this weekend, I have proof - a friend of mine looked at the CD and didn't take note of the text under the band name on the sticker until I explicitly pointed out the actual words about copy-protection. This is what the label is banking on - that people will unwittingly buy this album and bolster their stance that people don't care about the copy protection. I think it's deceptive. I expected to see a fairly large-sized font that read "COPY PROTECTED" but instead something found what looks like legal jargon in 6 pt. text. They've covered their butts by putting it right on the cover, but they've taken steps to minimize it, that's for sure. It's deceptive, plain and simple, and I will not have my money going toward something like that.

Comment by Metal Slim

Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:12:29 EDT

Thanks for this story. I agree totaly. I have been posting to Velvet Revolver's Message board under the heading; BOYCOTT THIS CD ! To help, go to VR's Site: http://www.velvetrevolverforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5199&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 GNR's site: http://www.velvetrevolverforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5199&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Comment by Shelli

Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:44:46 EDT

This whole business about copy-protection is sickening. It makes me wonder if the overpaid record execs put any thought into the psychology of what they are doing? I mean, I wasn't planning on burning copies of this particular CD until I found out that they were trying to make it "impossible". Now I am burning copies of the VR CD for all of my friends and relatives (LOL). Well, actually just my sister...Came out good, too!

Comment by Tom Johnson

Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:48:48 EDT

Looks like it, thanks Eric!

Comment by Eric Olsen

Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:06:42 EDT

does this work?

Comment by Amanda6035

Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:11:11 EDT

OH HELLLLL YEAHHHH!!!!! That link to fix the problem actually worked! I was able to copy the VR cd into mp3 format, and with realplayer, make another audio cd, or make an mp3 cd. YEEEEEAH. Did the music industry REALLY think they could stop us? I mean, after all, if they didnt make the price of CDs so incredibly high with the ridiculous overhead, (and we all know it only costs like $2.00 to make a cd, but yet, they charge us $15.00 for it) people wouldnt be so inclined to copy. Maybe one day they'll learn.

Comment by Amanda6035

Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:11:03 EDT