Copy protective CD's.
 

Whats your thoughts on the new Copy protective CD's?

the run down, these cd's have a specail encoding that will not let it run in your cd-rom or be copied. I forgot the singer, but something along the lines of Charley _____'s cd is the first to have the specail protection. Micheal Jackson's single also has it over seas. now does this break your right to make a back up copy of a cd/movie/etc. you purchase? whats your thoughts.


please, lets not try to get this thread closed.

It all about the benjamins

it's legal to burn a mix cd from CDs you own, right? this sort of protection makes that impossible. Bad idea imho :thmbsdwn:

I will defend my view point to use file sharing softwares like napster and morpheus...

pretty much i use it in the sense of a trail period. a share ware so to speak. I check out a band that i might not normally pick up on my own. usually i do not stick to what Commercial radio plays, since they are being pretty much run by the record companies, so only the elite and the choosen are really played. so that in itself kills my commercialized radio listening experience. so to get away from all that, i try to look for other smaller bands that might be up and coming, or that in general, have some sort of sound that they want to try. with these mp2 sites, i can try them out. If i do not like them, of course i will delete there music off my system, since i do not want to waste my hard drive space. no harm, no faul.

Now if i like a song, or a band's sound, i will be more implied to go out and buy a cd. sure i could just burn it, but there something about album cover art, and the original cd that a burn just doesn't have to it.

Now for the whole copying and ripping factor of a cd.. which this protection doesn't allow me to do anymore.


I, as the buyer of the product have the legal right to make 1 back up copy of it, just incase the original gets screwed up or something. that is my right. Now how can i really do this on the same quality of the cd if i can not copy it to another cd?

Sir there is no need to defend yourself. Team 7 can do whatever we want. :) But I do agree that we should be able to make a mixed cd. And there are a few companies out ther marketing the ability to do this. The record companies are moving to this format because they think they are losing $$$ from people downloading and not buying. But what they fail to say is that their sales have gone up since the whole MP3 trend hit.

I wouldn't worry about it. There isn't anything they can create to protect it that can't be hacked.

As far as I'm concerned if I bought the CD and I want to make a compilation CD of songs I should be able to without any problem. Also if I want to share those songs with my friends that should be my perogative also. Maybe if CDs were less than $10 I wouldn't care about copying or downloading but until that happes long live broadband and CDr. At my last check it costs less than $1 to press a CD and that includes packaging.

Good to see you soilder! Yes, sales on cd's actually went up last year, and this year they are looking like they are very much up there.

Possibly, record companies can realize that by trying out the product first, customers can and would be more willing to purchase cd's. opposed to the method before, listen to the one song the radio plays, and go into the store record unheard. which led to many just sour in the mouth about having tons of cd's with only one good song they enjoyed.

Thats my job as cheif of staff. I agree with you ;)

Creed's new album will be copy protected, I heard that from a rep for BMG at a trade show. It's the first BIG release with this technology.

I think that it has both + and - effects to it.

I just don't think the money that these companies are putting into these protection schemes outweighs any money lost due to potential piracy.

Also, I would hate to lose the ability to rip CD's I had legally bought into mp3's so I could use them any way I wanted.

Even if it's not hacked, it could be easily bypassed by routing the line-out from the CD player to a soundcard. How much do cards with digital audio in cost, anyway?

I was thinking pretty much the same thing. Of course, with enough effort, they could try to add a hidden signal to music which would interfer with proper playback... maybe something like Macrovision. I believe that this would require that the hardware companies redesign everything though. Someone would almost certainly come up with a way to get around it... but, at each step, the companies are making it harder and harder to do something that the consumer has a legal right to do. :(

If they aren't already, they should be labelled.

That way consumers could avoid them and write and tell the artiste(s) why.

I hate the idea of them. I heard a bit about them when I was interviewing with Sony. Some of their engineers were about to go learn all about the format.

Already been hacked, and no, not by real-time recording through a card either. It's a simple matter of having the PC recognize the tracks as .wav files. I've seen it done. :) As usual, the RIAA will end up shooting itself in the proverbial foot.

For all of you who say that hacks will always be available and usable, you should know that the RIAA, MPAA, and allied firms such as Real Networks are well aware of that. They've taken measures to address that existing problem.

Because the SSSCA is also "anti-encryption", a variation of it should have no problem passing in the anti-terror mood of the country. The uninformed mass of voters and congress will let it go through as one of the "prices" we have to pay for fighting terror. It's too bad that Circuit City couldn't market DIVX at this time with some sort of anti-terror angle; who knows, attach an "anti terror" angle to it and it would work.

You already know of the first salvo through the DMCA. Well, the SSSCA is progress right now as the next salvo. A variation of it will probably pass and become law just like the DMCA. What will make the entire system more feasible is the offering of bounties to turn other people in. There's already a "bounty-hunting" company collecting fees from the RIAA in a suburb city (Renton) down the road from where I live.

Anyways, the SSSCA (Security Systems Standards and Certification Act) working draft is displayed at http://cryptome.org/sssca.htm

You can find out more info about it via a search engine like Google by Clicking HERE

Lawsuits are already being filed against record companies because people are already having trouble playing some of these damn things in REGULAR CD players and computer CD-ROMs.

RIAA = Gestapo.

it'll be cracked in a month max

Couldn't a "poison the well" effort be done by consumers?

For example, theoretically speaking, if there was a website or usenet posting that listed all of the copy-protected CDs that were incompatible, this could serve as a buying list. It could be assumed that retail stores would accept returns of these copy-protected CDs (even opened) readily if they could not play on your CD player. So, people could buy these CDs, use a new "hack" to copy it, and then return it to the store for a full refund.

The real poison in the well occurs because normally retail stores don't accept returns of opened CDs, but in the case of protected CDs, they would. Sooner or later, the retail chains become FED UP with the returns and complain in turn to the RIAA member companies foisting this atrocity.

Is this a possible scenario?

Could these CDs be copied in a "Home audio" CD burner, such as the Philips dual try CD recorder? This way, the disc would already be 'burned', and then could be played in a CD-ROM, right???

I found the best way to beat it is:
1. Make a digital copy to my Minidisk player.
2. Plug my MiniDisk player into my sound card and make a digital copy this way.
3. Make MP3 (new copy protection comming very soon)
4. Make any mix I want now.

I know MiniDisk is not a perfect copy but it is going digital to digital to digital.

i can't imagine it'll be more than a few months till we're able to copy them. i like to copy my cd's so that i can keep the duplicates in my car. that way, if someone breaks into my ride and steals my music, i still have the originals.

The record companies are not going poor. Record sales have been great even during Napster's heyday. They have always been using this excuse ever since there have been copying medium like cassettes. Making copies like MP3 may only have hurt CD singles. When I downloaded MP3s, many of the files are inferior or take too long to download. Their still is a need for CDs.

Then there are artists like Garth Brooks who still finds the need to crusade against music copying when he's a millionaire many times over. I wouldn't even be interested in getting his music for free.

He and a number of other music artists were also against you loaning your CDs to friends, or some controversial article reported. I remember when he and some temporarily formed association tried to crusade against used-CD stores saying that they were illegal. At least they knew better not to publicly state that libraries were illegal although inside their tiny little hearts they may have believed libraries defrauded authors of their justly-due compensation.

Well, it appears the record companies may be in hot water soon.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...30&mode=thread

Napster brought this up in court. It appears they are using their copyrights to maintain a monopoly on music distribution and covering it by collusion with other record manufacturers (better known as racketeering). This is a big legal no-no. So big in fact, that the record labels could stand to lose their rights to the copyright completely.