Backstreet Boys "Never Gone" Copy Protected, MediaMax Protection Gets Trickier |
  |
Backstreet Boys "Never Gone" Copy Protected, MediaMax Protection Gets Trickier |
 Jun 14 2005, 20:39
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 350 Joined: 25-January 04 From: USA Member No.: 11500  |
The new Backstreet Boys album "Never Gone" is protected with the MediaMax software. However, the protection has gotten trickier by installing itself upon displaying the license agreement even if you disagree with the agreement.
If you allow the MediaMax software to even show you the license agreement when you insert the Backstreet Boys "Never Gone" album the MediaMax software will automatically install itself without your consent regardless of whether you accept the agreement or not. If you let the software agreement show because you didn't know the CD was copy protected do the following: Click Start, Run, and type: command Now type in the following: net stop sbcphid del %systemroot%\system32\drivers\sbcphid.sys The driver will now be disabled and you can rip your CD fine. To disable the autorun function so this software can never be installed on your again go to this web site and following the instructions: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q155217/ I am fed up with these labels messing with my fair-use rights like this. I buy the album, I should be able to rip it without hassle. And I'm pretty sure that since it installs software automatically without my consent that there could be legal problems for BMG and MediaMax. This post has been edited by Teqnilogik: Jun 14 2005, 21:01 |
 |
 
|
|
Jun 14 2005, 20:42
Post
#2
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 509 Joined: 26-February 04 From: S.F., Utah Member No.: 12282 |
This is also true of the new Dave Matthews Band CD.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2005, 21:17
Post
#3
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 100 Joined: 6-November 01 Member No.: 419 |
This has gone a bit too far.
-------------------- Marius the Mad
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2005, 21:20
Post
#4
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 2090 Joined: 29-June 02 From: Boston Member No.: 2427 |
[/sarcasm]Too bad. I was gonna rush out an pick up this disc.
Er, wait, nope. Maybe if they used some C2 corruption, it could actually make the disc sound better! [/end sarcasm] -------------------- "You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight." Neil Peart 'Resist'
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2005, 21:21
Post
#5
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 2090 Joined: 29-June 02 From: Boston Member No.: 2427 |
QUOTE (mtm @ Jun 14 2005, 04:17 PM) This has gone a bit too far.  Yeah!! I can't believe they let the Backstreet Boys release another CD. -------------------- "You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight." Neil Peart 'Resist'
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2005, 21:31
Post
#6
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 100 Joined: 6-November 01 Member No.: 419 |
lol
 But stil... 
-------------------- Marius the Mad
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2005, 21:40
Post
#7
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 27-May 04 Member No.: 14369 |
Isnt this kind of information illegal, since it helps to break drm
 ? It makes me wonder where HA is hosted.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2005, 22:13
Post
#8
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 344 Joined: 8-December 01 From: Indiana, U.S.A. Member No.: 608 |
QUOTE (johny5 @ Jun 14 2005, 03:40 PM) Isnt this kind of information illegal, since it helps to break drm ?Not really, since the method described only helps you to stop and remove software that was installed without your permission in the first place. The disabling of autorun is simply an option offered by Microsoft. Regards, Madrigal |
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2005, 22:27
Post
#9
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 120 Joined: 13-May 05 From: Albuquerque Member No.: 22035 |
QUOTE (johny5 @ Jun 14 2005, 02:40 PM) Isnt this kind of information illegal, since it helps to break drm ? It makes me wonder where HA is hosted.No, but this behavior just might be: QUOTE (Teqnilogik @ Jun 14 2005, 01:39 PM) the MediaMax software will automatically install itself without your consent regardless of whether you accept the agreement or not. It would be funny to see a class action suit. Poor Dave Matthews actually strikes me as one of the Good Guys (you can buy some of his live albums for download as flac files on his website), yet shoots himself in the foot with stuff like this and his bus driver dumping human poop in the river last year... Mark |
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2005, 22:34
Post
#10
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 569 Joined: 4-January 03 From: Scotland Member No.: 4415 |
I'm not sure why this bothers people.
Rule of thumb; if it's got any "Copy Protection" on the official pressed CD - it's not music worth listening to. -------------------- http://www.animarecordings.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2005, 22:41
Post
#11
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 27-May 04 Member No.: 14369 |
QUOTE (Funkstar De Luxe @ Jun 14 2005, 01:34 PM) I'm not sure why this bothers people. Rule of thumb; if it's got any "Copy Protection" on the official pressed CD - it's not music worth listening to. Its not always visible on the outside if it has a protection on it, and some shops are really reluctant to take a cd-look-a-like back. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2005, 01:04
Post
#12
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 1394 Joined: 20-December 01 From: seattle Member No.: 693 |
keep the dual disc for the dvd and have one of those damn *NIX zealots copy it for you.
the "copy protection" doesn't apply to us inferior people. later -------------------- RareWares/Debian :: http://www.rarewares.org/debian.html
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2005, 01:16
Post
#13
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 25-February 05 Member No.: 20147 |
QUOTE (johny5 @ Jun 14 2005, 01:40 PM) Isnt this kind of information illegal, since it helps to break drm ? It makes me wonder where HA is hosted.How in the world can "information" be illegal? ss. -------------------- http://www.informationaddiction.com
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2005, 04:14
Post
#14
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 21-February 05 From: Effingham, IL Member No.: 20018 |
Does the holding the shift key in while putting the cd in not work with these cd's? I just wondered.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2005, 05:39
Post
#15
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 132 Joined: 10-January 05 Member No.: 18966 |
QUOTE (johny5 @ Jun 14 2005, 04:40 PM) Isnt this kind of information illegal, since it helps to break drm ? It makes me wonder where HA is hosted.Its illegal to distribute illegaly. Its not illegal to counter this type of bullshit for your fair use rights QUOTE (snookerdoodle @ Jun 14 2005, 05:27 PM) It would be funny to see a class action suit. Poor Dave Matthews actually strikes me as one of the Good Guys (you can buy some of his live albums for download as flac files on his website), yet shoots himself in the foot with stuff like this and his bus driver dumping human poop in the river last year... Mark yeah, that was a really shitty day for the band  But seriously, DMB does shoot itself in the foot for many reasons. I think their management doesnt have the bands interest in mind, and Dave is known to be overly humble to the point where he lets others do things for him.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2005, 05:41
Post
#16
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 147 Joined: 26-December 03 Member No.: 10708 |
QUOTE (johny5 @ Jun 14 2005, 12:40 PM) Isnt this kind of information illegal, since it helps to break drm ? It makes me wonder where HA is hosted.It's a virus by any definition, so even the strange corruption of law that is the DMCA can't be used to attack somebody disseminating this info. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2005, 08:34
Post
#17
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 27-May 04 Member No.: 14369 |
QUOTE (riggits @ Jun 14 2005, 08:41 PM) It's a virus by any definition, so even the strange corruption of law that is the DMCA can't be used to attack somebody disseminating this info. QUOTE How in the world can "information" be illegal? If its a virus or not, it can also be a DRM protection. I dont believe there is a law in the USA that allowes to crack DRM when it has virus like activity. Im no lawyer, so plz dont try to convince me what is allowed and what is not. Im would just use some caution when dealing with this kind of subjects. the third hit from google: "Copy Protection Company To Sue Student For Revealing Shift-Key Bypass" No matter what happens, no matter if you're right or wrong, it still sucks to bo sued. Fortunately i dont live in the USA and in my country they dont have record companies paying senators, or any of those crazy laws (well atleast they arent enforcing them) .EDIT: 4th hit on google: SunnComm Technologies Reverses Decision to Bring Legal Action against Princeton Researcher This post has been edited by johny5: Jun 15 2005, 08:36 |
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2005, 09:14
Post
#18
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 175 Joined: 27-May 05 Member No.: 22324 |
QUOTE (Madrigal @ Jun 15 2005, 02:43 AM) Not really, since the method described only helps you to stop and remove software that was installed without your permission in the first place. The disabling of autorun is simply an option offered by Microsoft. Yeah maybe they (MediaMax and cohorts) should sue Microsoft. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2005, 09:24
Post
#19
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 16-May 03 Member No.: 6649 |
QUOTE (johny5 @ Jun 15 2005, 02:34 AM) QUOTE (riggits @ Jun 14 2005, 08:41 PM) It's a virus by any definition, so even the strange corruption of law that is the DMCA can't be used to attack somebody disseminating this info. If its a virus or not, it can also be a DRM protection. I dont believe there is a law in the USA that allowes to crack DRM when it has virus like activity. This puts antivirus companies in a no-win position. I think we can all agree that this software fits the classic definition of a trojan. If antivirus companies try to block it, they'll be violating the DMCA. If they do nothing, then they are providing a blueprint for virus writer to bypass their sanners: disguise your payloads as DRM. Ultimately, the only solution may be for antivirus companies to relocate outside the US to escape this insanity. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2005, 12:36
Post
#20
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 3353 Joined: 6-July 03 From: Sachsen (DE) Member No.: 7609 |
I love it - copyprotection fitting the definition of a virus. But to be fair: wouldn't the definition of a virus require, that it can spread more than one time? i mean, if it would be a virus, then it should be able to continue spreading, once installed on the PC. Whops, i shouldn't have said that - the major labels may even consider doing that :)
-------------------- I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2005, 12:55
Post
#21
|
|
 dBpowerAMP developer Group: Developer (Donating) Posts: 2208 Joined: 24-March 02 Member No.: 1615 |
>wouldn't the definition of a virus require, that it can spread more than one time? i mean
Yes, a more apt description would be malware - where you have recieved something and gotten something nasty attached with it (intentionally by the creator). -------------------- Spoon http://www.dbpoweramp.com
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2005, 15:23
Post
#22
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 120 Joined: 13-May 05 From: Albuquerque Member No.: 22035 |
QUOTE (Lyx @ Jun 15 2005, 05:36 AM) I love it - copyprotection fitting the definition of a virus. But to be fair: wouldn't the definition of a virus require, that it can spread more than one time? i mean, if it would be a virus, then it should be able to continue spreading, once installed on the PC. Whops, i shouldn't have said that - the major labels may even consider doing that Just FYI - you've described a "worm." This could definitely be fairly called a "virus," IMHO. A Computer Virus Definition Speaking as a *NIX person  , I disable autostart on my wife's XP box, yet an album by Garbage with a video on it cranked up automagically anyway. It still let me rip it with EAC, but after reading this thread I gotta go see if any new, er, "Services" are running.  Mark |
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2005, 17:32
Post
#23
|
|
 Group: Super Moderator Posts: 2405 Joined: 26-July 02 Member No.: 2796 |
I find it rather funny that the distinction between the RIAA and malware producers (much like Sharman and its ilk) is starting to blur at least with respect to the software they produce and the legitimacy of their methods.
-------------------- "Euphony" is properly pronounced as: "you phony".
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2005, 17:45
Post
#24
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2257 |
QUOTE (Funkstar De Luxe @ Jun 14 2005, 09:34 PM) I'm not sure why this bothers people. Rule of thumb; if it's got any "Copy Protection" on the official pressed CD - it's not music worth listening to. This is simply untrue. While I listen to a lot of small independent labels, and prefer the music they produce, there are still a couple of folk I like whose record companies copy protect their discs - often in one country but not in another. I don't include the Backstreet Boys in the list of things I like but nevertheless the poster's point is still valid. I can certainly think of plenty of discs which are not IMO worth listening to where the record company doesn't use copy protection. -- Baxter |
|
|
|
 Jun 15 2005, 22:10
Post
#25
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 422 Joined: 31-October 03 From: Europe, CZ Member No.: 9571 |
QUOTE (snookerdoodle @ Jun 15 2005, 06:23 AM) Speaking as a *NIX person Is that possible? , I disable autostart on my wife's XP box, yet an album by Garbage with a video on it cranked up automagically anyway. I mean when you have disabled autorun in OS what can infect your PC?To play a video you don't need to run the application which starts with autorun of the CD, do you?  QUOTE (snookerdoodle @ Jun 15 2005, 06:23 AM) It still let me rip it with EAC, but after reading this thread I gotta go see if any new, er, "Services" are running. I hope you'll find nothing!
-------------------- Sorry for my poor English, I'm trying to get better... ;)
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist." |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd November 2009 - 06:44 |
