Sony being evil

[Chaerophon]

He started acting like an ass not me.

Besides Im right and I think everyone here knows it - they just dont feel like pissing on Doc again.
[right][snapback]94176[/snapback][/right]

Ghost,

I don't think that anyone made a claim as to who was right and who was wrong.

--C

[Doc]

Near as I can tell, the current batch of copy protection stuff is worthless.

On my compy, when I stick in a copy protected music CD to rip it in to iTunes, and it has copy protection, when I load it in to the machine, two CDs will appear on the desk top. They will say Audio CD 1 and the second will either say Audio CD 2 or have a bunch of gibberish as a title. I drag one of them, some times the first, but usually the second with all the gibberish to the trash. It "ejects" the CD. Once I do this, the CD acts just fine and I can access the internet music data base and get all the track listings, art, etc, and rip the CD to mp3. Doing this, I have been able to rip CDs, even those meant to be protected and "impossible" to rip.

A quick resource check of the second CD usually reveals that it is a type of Windows document, meant to be invisible, which is why my Mac can't read it and why the CD protection doesn't work on my machine. And why it shows up as two CDs on the desktop. One is a music CD, the other is a ghosted software CD image burned on to the first.

One thing is evident. Music CD protection is targeted at Windows users. They don't take the fringe dwellers seriously enough to even bother with including a file that would fubar our machines.

[Guest]

edited

[Doc]

edited

[Guest]

edited

[Doc]

Oh, it should also be noted, and it's been a couple of years, that Apple refused to sign on to the digital big brother movement that took place. I don't remember the exact details, but Apple refused to include software in the OS that would cooperate with digital protection schemes with out the users knowledge. Steve Jobs called it "spyware" and "malware" and refused to comply with the new standards. Microsoft quickly snapped up the chance to comply and even figured out how to make more money off of it. I don't remember how much it was, but Apple got fined millions of dollars for refusing to cave, and had to go to court. In fact, if my memory serves me right, it caused a bit of bad blood between Sony and Apple, who had been long time companions. Apple even refused to allow the firmware update that would make Sony based drives in Macs comply with the new standards, which caused a great deal of grief. Apple moved to other drive manufacturers, like Matsh-i-ta (Spelt to avoid the filter, which shouldn't apply here) which seriously hurt Sony and cost them an untold amount of money.

And that's the real issue here. Some companies think that every consumer needs to be baby sitted, constantly watched, and carefully controlled. They go out of their way to spy on consumers and find ways to worm in to their lives. And they get people like Microsoft to create backdoors for them in the OS to allow them to do this. In return, Microsoft is allowed to make more money hand over fist in the deal, and usually manages to find a way to get some use of the software for themselves. They assume that all of their users are halfwits, dimwits, criminals, pirates, thieves, and good for nothings that must be protected from themselves at all costs. During the Napster witch trials not one single Mac user or Linux user wound up in court busted for swapping music. This caused the industry some real panic and made them make unreasonable demands that these "alternative OS vendors" clean up their act and comply with the standards being established, and these demands were promply met with raspberries and jeers. In a very telling court testimony, it was even said that it was impossible to track file sharing activities over a Mac because there was no back door created to allow it. Lots of ugly telling things were said at the time and the RIAA had tantrums and fits over the fact that there was a sizeable chunk of the population completely immune to their schemes.

Which makes Sony's current move a real bone headed blunder, seeing as how they are one of the leaders that try to clamp down so tightly for total control.

[Guest]

I dont disagree with any of that.

But when you load software from people who you trust there is always a chance that they could be tricking you and putting something extra in there. Sure Macs are safer than PCs sort like fire fox being safer than explorer(not the same but similar) but its unreasonable to say normal people cant be tricked into loading malware - even on a Mac.

[Griselda]

edited
[right][snapback]94199[/snapback][/right]

Ghostiger,

I don't see anybody here raising concerns over whether it's you or Doc who is right in this case. But I do see several people requesting that this thread not be derailed by bickering. It's not welcome here, regardless of the "rightness" of your position.

Thanks.

[Doc]

I dont disagree with any of that.

But when you load software from people who you trust there is always a chance that they could be tricking you and putting something extra in there. Sure Macs are safer than PCs sort like fire fox being safer than explorer(not the same but similar) but its unreasonable to say normal people cant be tricked into loading malware - even on a Mac.
[right][snapback]94203[/snapback][/right]

Ah, but there is the heart of the issue of WHY malware doesn't work on a Mac.

Lets assume that somebody goes through the trouble of writing a malicious bit of software for the Mac. That part can be done.

The tricky part is making it work. See, Windows comes prepackaged to spy on you. There are several programs ingrained in the OS that call back to the mothership and report what you are doing. They also auto update your OS, in the background, often with out you knowing about it. People who make malware and spyware for Windows take advantage of the software abilities already present in the OS to do their dirty work. There are so many open backdoors and hidden exits already available that it's easy for some malware author to jack an already existing route out. It's just a matter of picking which one to use. Or a really clever person might make a program that uses several, so it's harder to track.

On the Mac... There are no such back doors or hidden exits. There is nothing prebundled in to the OS allowing hidden access to invade your privacy. There is an auto update feature for the OS, but this is secure and encrypted and you know when it's running. There are permissions for bloody everything. There is not much that goes in or out with out the user knowing about it. And unless you specifically allow permission or click "ok" to run a process, there is no possible way for it to work. Believe me, people have tried. Each attempt has been a dismal failure. Which is why Macs are used in mission critical work and other high end jobs where security and dependability are vital. The only time Macs really become compromised is when somebody loads Microsoft products on to them. This is not a slam at Microsoft, it's just an established and well known fact. In the past, Macs, while immune to the effects of the virus, could still spread them if using Outlook Express. MS Office created HUNDREDS of security risks and dangers over the course of years. There were to many to count security risks using Internet Explorer on a Mac. Way back when people were still using System 7, OS8, and OS9, while the OS was subject to some instability and crashes, stability was greatly improved by keeping your Mac MS free. OS8.1, OS8.5, and OS8.6 in particular had some real issues with MS libraries in the system folder, and caused some serious stability issues. Even further back, with System 7, System 7.1, System 7.5 and 7.5.3, (and later system 7.6) these were some of the worst offenders in the history of the Mac as far as stability and dependability goes... These were terrible. Wretched. And yet, if kept MS free, they improved a great deal. There were even viruses back then on the Mac, and most of them involved MS in one form or another, with a few exceptions. (One of them being a type of worm that used Clarisworks) Now though, with the robust power of Darwin cored OSX, the Mac is pretty much bulletproof. (And to a lesser extent, even old reliable OS9 is still rock solid) The Hack a Mac contests prove this beyond any shadow of a doubt.

The Firefox / Internet Exploder comparison was pretty accurate actually and a good way of putting it.

[whyBish]

edited
[right][snapback]94199[/snapback][/right]

It's threads like these that make me glad I'm not a mod.

How empty this place would be :P

[Guest]

Be glad I am not a mod.

[Count Duckula]

Be glad I am not a mod.
[right][snapback]94285[/snapback][/right]

I'm editing myself so Griselda doesn't have to. <_<

Back in college I heard it was possible to use portable devices to share music, something about losing the encryption while on the player. Didn't pay much attention, as we found a loophole in the campus network to let Bittorrent through, but would that sort of thing be possible?

[Munkay]

Back in college I heard it was possible to use portable devices to share music, something about losing the encryption while on the player. Didn't pay much attention, as we found a loophole in the campus network to let Bittorrent through, but would that sort of thing be possible?

You mean this?

It's such a fundamental thing that it is impossible to make a CD that a legacy player can read and play, and yet the CD is actually copy-protected.&nbsp; What, no matter how perfect the encryption is, the absolute most you need is an old CD player with a digital out and a sound card with a digital in?&nbsp; Surely Sony knows this.&nbsp; And they can only go so far in making CDs that won't play on CD players.&nbsp; :rolleyes:&nbsp; Which means they are relying on people being ignorant for their copy-protection scheme to work.&nbsp; I have a feeling that the people who manage to bootleg these albums onto the P2P networks before the album is even released don't fall into that category of being hindered by a stupid pet trick.&nbsp; All it takes is one person to successfully rip a file without DRM riders and the whole world has it.

Cheers,

Munk

[Count Duckula]

You mean this?
[right][snapback]94322[/snapback][/right]

Not quite. Something about uploading songs from some online service to a portable player, and the song can't be transferred back off. Somehow somebody found a way to get it off.

Maybe I need to be more awake. :D

[Nystul]

Not quite. Something about uploading songs from some online service to a portable player, and the song can't be transferred back off. Somehow somebody found a way to get it off.

Maybe I need to be more awake.&nbsp; :D
[right][snapback]94448[/snapback][/right]

That would be DRM protection on compressed audio files purchased by download. That's a different ball of wax from copy protection on a CD. I don't pay money for mp3s (when I buy music I would like the full sound quality, the physical disk, and an album cover with a hot chick on it when applicable), so I haven't really looked into the whole DRM thing. I'm sure there are easy enough ways to get around it though. It's sad that you could buy a song in digital format and be limited in your ability to transfer it, or just download the thing illegally on P2P from someone somewhere in the world who has the CD, potentially get a better quality mp3, and be able to copy it at will.

[Guest]

The fun begins.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9991596/

[Occhidiangela]

The fun begins.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9991596/
[right][snapback]94524[/snapback][/right]

Oh, for the days of LP's and the matter of taping your favorite album onto a cassette tape. That at least wouldn't allow someone access to your online bill payer account . . .

PC's being a "one size fits all" tool carry the risk of being a one size fits all portal into one's life.

Use with caution, as with an automobile or a firearm. It is, in the final analysis, a tool. So is anyone who sends out a virus to the general public. ;)

Occhi

[Concillian]

Also, the copy-protection nasty software can be defeated by disabling the stupid autorun feature in Windows.&nbsp; It's as simple as pressing a "shift" key while inserting the disc.
[right][snapback]94173[/snapback][/right]

The first thing I do on a new Win 2k installation since it came out and started doing that crap (or maybe it was 98 or whatever OS started doing it) is to go into the registry and disable autorun on the CD/DVD drives.

I guess it comes from growing up with computers that an OS shouldn't be running executables indescriminantly. Maybe that's why Windows security is such a joke and spyware/adware is so prevalent. I would have thought that the email "viruses" would have made this more apparent than it seems to be.

Maybe I'm alone in thinking this, but my opinion is that user security as a whole is a larger issue, and that programs like WoW and Battlefield 2 should never need Administrator priveleges. That games need such high level priveleges is the bane of my existence, as I can't give my brother-in-law a machine with a restricted privelige account to ensure I don't get a call every week because his machine is clogged with junk like spyware, adware, or viruses.

[Doc]

You only think the autorun feature in Windows is turned off. For security reasons, and to protect you, the consumer from your own devices, there are backdoor abilities in Windows where the autorun can be accessed by certain programs. The "security" features use them, and many malware and spyware programs know how to mimic the protocol to allow them to access these hidden features. You see, Microsoft does not trust you and believes that it should reserve it self a key to let it self in the backdoor as it sees fit.

This is a slam at Microsoft, not peecees in general.

[Raelynn]

It's kind of funny that apparently someone has started using the DRM rootkit to hide the ripping programs from the anti piracy programs. They're using Sony's anti-piracy tool to help them bypass itself! :lol: