On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 05:30:42PM +0100, Philippe Marzouk wrote: > On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 02:07:23PM +0000, Antony Gelberg wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 12:25:32PM +0100, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: > > > On Wednesday 31 December 2003 11:58, Antony Gelberg wrote: > > > > The back label mentions "digital copy protection", which I find > > > > rather worrying... > > > > > > Then, I would say, return the (C)D to the artist with a long letter > > > explaining why this approach is fundamentally flawed, and can only work > > > by controlling the senses of both the artists and the listeners. > > > Controlling *their* senses. > > > > > > That's what I'll do if one of my own favorite artists would end up doing > > > something like that. > > > > I've emailed their management company, for all the good that'll do. > > Funny thing is I saw the singer in Selfridges a couple of weeks ago - > > could have raised the subject if I'd known then. Happy new year all! > > > > I had the problem with one CD, I sent a snail mail letter to Virgin > about that and they sent me on non crippled CD. > > There was no mention of copy protection on the CD I bought. > > This is in France so YMMV. > > Philippe Hi Philippe, As a proponent against DRM, I'm very curious what the gist of the letter was that you sent and what was their reply. And particulary if the letter addresses the issue of 'copy protection'. I would like to know if Virgin would be responsive to our requests. That would definately lead me to support them. -Kev
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature