Copy-Protecting CD
Jul 24, 2001 at 4:05 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 13

KR...

Curator of the Headphone Lust Museum
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Posts
9,534
Likes
31
This can't be good, from http://www.stereophile.com :

Copy-Protecting CDs Begins

By Jon Iverson



July 23, 2001 — In what is intended to have the biggest impact yet on the thriving "rip, mix, burn" lifestyle, Macrovision has revealed that several record labels have been secretly putting its copy protection system onto new CD releases since around March of this year (see previous report). The process, called SafeAudio, is a Macrovision registered trademark and is intended to prevent the copying of CDs, or tracks from CDs, onto CD-R discs and computer hard drives. The technology was developed jointly by Macrovision and TTR Technologies.
While it is not intended to completely prevent copying, Macrovision claims that the SafeAudio process adds a special type of distortion (see below) to the CD during the mastering process at CD manufacturing facilities, which then reveals itself as periodic "clicks and pops" in the digital copy. The company also announced July 10, that it has entered into agreements with Toolex, Eclipse, DCA, and DaTARIUS to develop the tools necessary for mastering and testing SafeAudio-encrypted discs worldwide.

Macrovision's Brian McPhail says, "As a result of these new partnerships with the key mastering and test equipment providers, music labels and publishers will find that they can replicate and distribute SafeAudio-protected CDs in facilities throughout the world. Our strategy in 2001 has been to focus on building the worldwide infrastructure to support rapid deployment of SafeAudio, as soon as the labels and publishers give the green light on SafeAudio."

TTR's patents reveal that in the SafeAudio system, "grossly erroneous values," or bursts of digital noise, are added to the signal, forcing a regular CD player, whose error correction can't usually handle such extreme digital hash, to cover the gaps of bad data with data from before and after where the distortion occurs. But when copying the audio file to another device, like a PC's hard disc, the extreme digital values are said to overwhelm the computer's ability to transfer the data properly, leaving annoying noises in place of music.

Of paramount concern to audiophiles will be whether or not the process can be detected with careful listening as the CD player struggles to fill in the missing gaps. Macrovision only says that "the SafeAudio solution meets the combined objectives of playability (where the original audio content can be heard with no discernable reduction in audio quality) and effectiveness (where a satisfactory level of copy protection is provided). Macrovision is supporting ongoing evaluation and test programs with several major music labels."

Which labels are involved in the testing is still a mystery since the company cites non-disclosure agreements when asked to reveal specific names and CDs. Macrovision's Miao Chang says that "they [the labels] don't want to influence the listener's potential experience." Macrovision claims that during the last several months of testing on an unsuspecting public, there have been no significant reports of complaints from consumers, even though, the company reports, one title has so far seen sales in excess of 100,000 units.

In addition to the added audio distortion, what is troubling for music fans is that the process prevents copying audio files for personal uses such as "mix" CDs, hard-drive or PC based music systems, and conversion and transfer of audio files to portable music devices such as MP3 players. According to the Audio Home Recording Act, consumers cannot be sued by copyright holders for creating personal use copies of legally procured music, but it is unclear whether the right to make copies is itself protected. As GartnerG2 analyst P.J. McNealy, quoted at News.com, puts it, "There might be consumer expectations here, but there is no legal right."
 
Jul 24, 2001 at 5:18 AM Post #3 of 13
Quote:

....the extreme digital values are said to overwhelm the computer's ability to transfer the data properly, leaving annoying noises in place of music.



That's just friggin' great. I'm just pleased as punch that I'll be unable to successfully digitally archive whichever CD's I pick up now or in the future that happen to have this crap on it.

Same damn thing happened to me trying to copy my Sopranos DVD's onto videocassette so I could bring it with me to the cottage that has no DVD player to watch it with family/friends. Macrovision technology screwed that idea up royally, making the taped version absolutely impossible to watch. So I had to buy the friggin' set on tape too.

You cats know I don't often swear on the forums, but this ***** just pisses me off to no end. I understand that piracy is a problem, but fer cryin' out loud, I paid almost $100.00 for that Sopranos DVD set, and I should be able to friggin' tape it to watch it on a VCR if I damn well please for that price. I figure if I want to start using the DVD's as a master copy to sell off a bunch of pirated VHS tapes, then I face the risk of being arrested, fined, and sued for doing so. But that's not what I want to do -- I just want to be able to watch the set I bought at a place that has no DVD player.

Listen, I fully expect some of you to come back with arguments about how if I buy a paperback book, but want the hardcover too, I have to buy the hardcover too. Etc. Etc. That is a valid argument to a point. But at the end of the day, what ticks me off most is the fact that companies would put crap on my CD's that forces error correction to kick in. That it also prevents me from digitally archiving my music successfully just adds to my ire.
 
Jul 24, 2001 at 5:31 AM Post #4 of 13
Won't that kinda like kill off the DIGITAL recording possibilities of MD too...

Hmm... that blows... that blows hard
frown.gif
 
Jul 24, 2001 at 5:33 AM Post #5 of 13
Quote:

Originally posted by Duncan
Won't that kinda like kill off the DIGITAL recording possibilities of MD too...

Hmm... that blows... that blows hard
frown.gif


I totally agree, man.

Don't even get me started, Dunc. As you can probably tell from my last post in this thread, this whole thing just ticks me off.

mad.gif
 
Jul 24, 2001 at 4:56 PM Post #6 of 13
THEY ARE KILLING DIGITAL MD!!!!!

mad.gif
mad.gif
mad.gif
mad.gif


bastards......

(sorry)
 
Jul 25, 2001 at 12:32 AM Post #7 of 13
from http://www.stereophile.com :

Watermark Patent Awarded

By Jon Iverson

There appears to be nothing more important to the music business today than controlling the distribution and use of digital content on the web and in the home. Proprietary schemes to prevent or control the use of audio files have become hot commodities and valuable assets for many companies. Liquid Audio recently announced that the US Patent Office has awarded the company a patent (#6,219,634) for its watermark technique used for distributing secure digital music files.
The company says, "This newly patented invention covers a technique for embedding and detecting watermark data within an audio signal in a computationally efficient way. The optimum level for the watermark signal is determined using mathematical algorithms that require significantly less processing power than other techniques. This greatly increases the watermark decoder's ability to detect the watermark inside recorded music."

The new watermark patent is for one of several music distribution technologies developed by Liquid Audio. The company was awarded a patent last December for a territory restriction technology, which enforces regional copyrights by determining a user's location based on the geopolitical territory of the user's Internet Protocol (IP) address (see previous story).

In addition to its last watermark patent, last April Liquid Audio revealed that it had received another patent (#6,209,094) covering a technique for embedding watermark data in an audio signal that, the company states, is robust and cannot be removed without destroying the music. LA also claims that the watermark is "imperceptible and cannot be heard by the music listener."
 
Jul 25, 2001 at 12:35 AM Post #8 of 13
here's an article about these things, yet again from http://www.stereophile.com

Musically Degrading

By K. Gilmore, July 23, 2001

Macrovision has revealed that they have provided copy-protection technology to several major music labels, and that some watermarked CDs have been in stores for the last four to six months. They would not say which titles are watermarked, but they say the watermarking is "all but inaudible" when played through an ordinary CD player. However, music "ripped" digitally from a watermarked CD will have annoying clicks and pops in the signal.
So, there you have it. The record companies are trying to limit piracy, but they are also limiting the legal right of fair use. There are several reasons why this is a terrible idea that is doomed to fail:

1) This technology will not limit piracy at all. Pirates merely have to digitally record the analog signal to obtain a pristine digital copy that can be copied a billion times with no loss of quality.

2) The technology will limit fair use by making it more difficult for ordinary consumers to store their own collections digitally, make backup copies of treasured discs, or make compilation CDs. All of these activities are legal and protected under fair use. Making the product harder to use will not endear the labels to their customers.

3) Any technology that degrades the music is a step in the wrong direction. If Macrovision claims that the watermarking is "all but inaudible" on an ordinary CD player, they are in fact admitting that it is audible. On a high-end audiophile playback system, the watermarking is likely to be all too audible. The big loser is the music lover.

So, this will not stop pirates, but it will degrade the music and make it harder for consumers to use and hear their music CDs. It may also have the effect of creating a hot trading market for "clean" digital versions of watermarked releases—precisely the result the record companies do not want.
 
Jul 28, 2001 at 2:33 AM Post #9 of 13
I hate this copy protection garbage as much as Jude.
mad.gif

I make copies of my cds for use in my portable. That way my originals don't have to take the abuse of being out in the elements. But this and any other copy protection can and will be defeatable. We will just have to wait for the right software to come around. Of course this doen't help those with stand alone audio-only burners.
frown.gif


You know that this is all part of the napster fallout.
Damm those mp3s!
wink.gif
 
Jul 28, 2001 at 2:39 AM Post #10 of 13
The ironic thing though... How crap MP3s are (you have to be honest... they aren't too hot)... you probably wouldn't notice this "distortion" that the companies will be putting on there CDs anyway... definetly, as that one report says, the Hi-End Audiophile is losing out
frown.gif
 
Jul 28, 2001 at 4:00 AM Post #11 of 13
Grrr.......I feel so ripped off whenever i hear about this....and dunc is right. Most people won't even know. DAMM!

I hope sony isn't doing this too......... they created MD - it would be strangling their (not Philips'
wink.gif
) greatest audio innovation since ...... they came up the WALKMAN originally....

mad.gif
frown.gif
 
Aug 20, 2001 at 2:36 AM Post #13 of 13
neil - you wanna check that article again? Ya know, just to make sure it's what you meant?
biggrin.gif
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top