[scrypt]

No, and I don't think you're going to see that capability mentioned in a review that appears in/on anything other than a web board or a Linux convention bathroom stall, Mr. Bloggs. Think of the copy-bust bonus as error-correction unfettered by c-protection schemes. If anyone wants to loan me a Cactus disk to test with my new Plextor, do feel free.

Here's a bit of typical testomony from cdfreaks.com:

"I've ignored the existence of any audio cd protection since this morning when I bought the new Max Gazzè cd. . . . I examined the cd: it had a data track with a crappy player, some dlls and a big file named yucca.cds. . . . By that time I also noticed the 'This cd uses audio copy protection' or something on the cd cover. I started searching over the internet and came into some articles, but none of them clearly stated how to break the damn thing. The only thing I knew from the stuff I've read was that my only chance was CloneCd (which I have, ver 3.1.1.0) and the PlexWriter (which fortunately I have as well, the 16/10/40A). Alright, now what you all have been waiting for, the output. I made a CCD image with the defaults, no problemo. I wrote the image on a CDRW, no problemo. Then I used Audiograbber on this one which really seemed the exact copy, but surprise, it ripped all of the tracks no problemo! Conclusion: I've made a perfect-non protected and rippabble copy of a Cactus protected Audio CD with CloneCD and a Plextor (which of course was really important for the reading part)."

The first person who mentioned Plextors to me in protection-ignoring capacity was the guy who built a friend's computer two years ago. His handiwork, a Pentium tower, seemed a futuristic stylin' beast back then, with its blue light visible in the custom-cut window (which you can now buy pre-cut into virtually any mass-produced CPU case). The builder was rather less stylish: a chubby pimpled Brooklyn denizen who seemed unneccesarily concerned that homosexuals might "check him out" if he attended a fetish party with my friend after swiftly erecting Big Blue. "I don't think you'll have to worry about that," my friend replied whilst smirking uncontrollably. (I myself might have stifled a chuckle.)

Days after that ludicrous interlude, I spoke with three other non-Mac-user friends who verified the Brooklyn-based-builder's Plextor assessment. I also found references to the Plextor's sinister skills on various web boards.

In a minor key: Since cooldrives.com had issues (and a rather curt saleswoman), I chose to buy my fw/usb2 enclosure from another vendor. Half of me regrets it now, but I picked a silver-and-black plastic case over the aluminum jobbo, which will look less industrial (unfortunately) and will cool the burner less but proved twenty dollars cheaper, will blend spiffily with the black Plextor and various see-thru devices atop my tower, and boasts a stronger power supply -- which will be nice if I choose to replace the Plex with a DVD-R at some later date.

One other distinction: the aluminum case has RCA outs, the plastic case, a miniplug.

Here are the two enclosures back to back: plastic and aluminum.

ESBuy's tech support answered my pesky questions with the patience of Vishnu himself. I would feel comfortable recommending ESBuy (so far, at least). UPS Ground shipping was free but will probably result in my getting the enclosure next week.

 

[JMS]

I don't see a good reason why people should be so heavily against copy-protection unless they intend to pirate the music, which it sounds like that is everyone's intent here. Some blame the recording industry for charging outrageous prices. Remember, they're charging outrageous prices because you're paying outrageous prices. It's a capitalist system. You fight the monopoly by boycotting them, by buying from smaller labels, by suing them for anti-trust violations, etc., not by breaking the law. Sorry to say this, but it is you guys who are on the dark side.

 

[scrypt]

I insist upon my right to make copies of a CD that I myself have bought. The purpose of my so-called piracy? Not to wear out my original copy.

I also insist upon my right to copy bought CDs onto my portable music devices. Keep in mind that I've already paid for my music. What potential sale am I quashing by making copies other than a redundant sale to myself? What loss can disgustingly wealthy companies like EMI and BMG claim, since they've already gotten my money once -- the stomped opportunity to extort more money from the hapless?

It isn't fair to manage boundless audio space as if it were fixed real estate. It isn't fair to restrict the private use of commercially recorded sound.

Here's a bit of transcribed hypocrisy that ought to clear things up for you:
http://tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk/~nick/UnionDebate/

Note that CP schemes can meet with real opposition outside the States. This is because the rights of consumers are not always overlooked in less conglomerate-strangled climes.

In terms of copyright laws, our democracy is being undermined by loopholes: its becoming a mere democracy on paper. Even now, corporate lawyers and lobbyists are atttempting to extend ownership laws past the accepted seventy years. (Note that even Korea is saying no to that ruse.) Who would benefit from that extension -- dead artist or fourth-generation CEO? And what if certain vile sponges managed to extend ownership for a few hundred years? Just think of the fallout: Shostakovich(TM).

 

[Watchdog]

The record companies are assuming that all CD-R's sold are to pirate music.

I burn copies I already own to play in the car. That way if the car gets broken into I still have the original.

They assume you're guilty and don't give you a chance to prove you're innocent.

I hate record companies.

At least now that I have a home and portable MD, I can still copy via analog if I can't digitally. But if normal players have no problem, then I will still be able to record via the optical connection.

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by JMS I don't see a good reason why people should be so heavily against copy-protection unless they intend to pirate the music, which it sounds like that is everyone's intent here. Some blame the recording industry for charging outrageous prices. Remember, they're charging outrageous prices because you're paying outrageous prices. It's a capitalist system. You fight the monopoly by boycotting them, by buying from smaller labels, by suing them for anti-trust violations, etc., not by breaking the law. Sorry to say this, but it is you guys who are on the dark side.

http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showt...threadid=19558

 

[jessica00]

yeah yeah, they're evil, they want money, they have money, they dont NEED money. they want higher stock prices, etc.
as george carlin once said "**** them in the ass with a big rubber dick"

 

[scrypt]

Quote:

Originally posted by jessica00 yeah yeah, they're evil, they want money, they have money, they dont NEED money. they want higher stock prices, etc. as george carlin once said "**** them in the ass with a big rubber dick"

Interesting use of gendered vindication, as we Parisians are wont to observe.

I direct you to leer through the picture window of your stately digs, Miz Jessica. See that black mirrored skyscraper two miles to the left? Well, I'm on the roof right now, and let me tell you, that EMI veep couldn't be suffering a worse fate if he were lost in a Malaysian latex farm among male-hustler-addicted cyclopes on yohimbe bark. Squeal like a 24 kbps mp3!

(In the words of a friend: you can't see my clitoris because I don't have one.)

 

[jessica00]

is it just me or did that whole thing make no sense?

 

[BDA_ABAT]

Wanting money is not really the issue (or at least the whole issue). Everyone WANTS money. The record companies are working furiously to make sure that they get as much money and as much power as they can. And power/control is really what they are after.

Interesting how CD sales go along in tandem with Napster use. Once Napster starte to bite it and eventually died, so did music sales.

If the record companies were smart, they would realize that file sharing was the worlds best marketing technique. Of course, that would mean that the companies would also have to offer something in addition to just the music to make sure people continued to buy high priced discs. But, that runs squarely against their primary purpose.... power and control.

Once they realized that people could deliver music directly to their audience, they feared (correctly) that their livelihood was in jeopardy. What value does the company provide an artist/band? Do they allow the artist/band to develop as they did in the past? If an album/CD doesn't do well, do they keep the group on and let them grow creatively? Not anymore.

Without providing the artist or the consumer much of value, they are screwing themselves. The last gasp that they have? Making everyone into a CRIMINAL, twisting existing laws and implementing new laws to protect their power/control.

The dark side indeed.

Bruce
(BTW: I've never downloaded any music content)

 

[scrypt]

Quote:

Originally posted by jessica00 is it just me or did that whole thing make no sense?

Yes, it is just you. (Actually, several other people here could affirm you're not alone in feeling that way.)

But that's no excuse. After all, one is never too young or old to appreciate Thomas Lovell Beddoes, Oscar Levant, S. J. Perelman, Mallarme, Ovid, Monthy Python, John Webster, Derek Pell, Max Jacob, John Hawkes, Thomas Browne, Gilbert Sorrentino, Robert Desnos or Charles Lamb.

Those writers/extemporizers are the reason I'm not alone, either (in using language that's quirky and arcane, at least).

Farbeit from me to mock anyone else's mode of expression. But the same courtesy should be extended to my self-expression as well, don't you think?

All the best to you.

 

[RickG]

IMHO, "wanting money" is not the issue here. In reality, you provide a product that's in demand, and you are compensated. The real problem is people wanting "something for nothing".

 

[scrypt]

Quote:

Originally posted by BDA_ABAT Once they realized that people could deliver music directly to their audience, [record companies] feared (correctly) that their livelihood was in jeopardy. What value does the company provide an artist/band? Do they allow the artist/band to develop as they did in the past? If an album/CD doesn't do well, do they keep the group on and let them grow creatively? Not anymore. Without providing the artist or the consumer much of value, they are screwing themselves. The last gasp that they have? Making everyone into a CRIMINAL, twisting existing laws and implementing new laws to protect their power/control.

Excellent points, Bruce. I agree with you 92%. Their desire to restrict the recording capability of consumers also impacts on musicians, which is not an accident: they want to keep both ends from connecting without them. They're looking to create sonic legalese.

The only point of yours I question is whether such companies are screwing themselves more than their consumers in the long run. RCs often seem to be seeking a median point between absolute power and temporary loss of business. In pessimistic moments, I tend to think the biggest companies are ready to suffer poor sales for a long time if the payback is utter domination.

Really, who would tolerate this in other matters of property? What if landlords were able to employ apartment space copy protection? "We have your digital bodyscan. If you try to sublet or add a roommate, the two of you will be able to live there technically, but until you agree to pay twice as much rent, your electricity and heat will cease to function and your satellite-controlled doorperson will admit random strangers into your bathroom every fifteen minutes."

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by RickG IMHO, "wanting money" is not the issue here. In reality, you provide a product that's in demand, and you are compensated. The real problem is people wanting "something for nothing".

I'm a big fan of test drives for free - or at least test drives in exchange for listening to advertisements. This model used to work better on broadcast radio than it does these days and internet radio was stillborne.

For some people mp3 sharing programs were used for test drives, for others they were used for theft. We've debated the merits of this already.

Fair use of a compact disc I've legally paid for including the ability to rip music to listen to streamed from my hard drive at work (or for others in their mp3 players in their car or iPods) is something I very much care about. The record labels have a legal right to do whatever they wish with products for which they own the license but if the versatility of a product is crippled, the liklihood of my purchasing it will be decreased.

Of course, for me, I see this as an excuse not to buy stuff I was already weening from. I already think more highly of some of the smaller labels than the larger ones and there is a wealth of music on Telarc, Chesky and Reference Recordings that I can explore rather than spending my money with EMI and BMG. The copy protection issues may not alone sway me but they'll definitely be considered, especially if the tradeoff doesn't come in exchange for a high resolution version (SACD, DVD-A).

 

[bearwise]

The record companies favorite ploy is to assign the drop in cd sales to the expansion of transfer of digital copies, whether Mp3's from Napster or a ripped disk from your buddy, always ignoring the possibility that some (most?, all?) of the drop could be due the the burgeoning amounts or lame-ass swill they try to foist on their customers (and the letters that started this thread show how much they truly care for their customer base).

I agree with Kelly 100%, ignore EMI and BMG, there is tons and tons of music becoming available on smaller labels, or music being produced and distributed with out the big boys at all. If they had any brains at all, they would realize that their true long term danger isn't college kids (or us older kids) ripping CD's, but the possibility that they may become irrelevant to the artists AND the customers.

 

[scrypt]

I agree with Bearwise in sentiment but not in practice. I, too, dislike most of what's on larger labels. However, boycotting EMI is not enough. Leftist activists and rightist libertarians fail to take into account the lobbying/lawyering power of extremely large corporations, which is why Nader and Perot proved ludicrously off-course. Even millionares don't have the power to challenge the legal/political aims of dominant forces in the so-called free market.

Hillary would never have gotten pilloried for mentioning national health care if the drug companies et al. had not held the reins of political/media power. Consumer choices didn't matter, nor did so-called liberals in the so-called liberal press. On the national level, money is speech, and speech is the luxury of the wealthy. The press is the plaything of the rich, like everything on that level.

There is little difference between an oligarchy and a monopoly when any small group is allowed to control too much. Over two thousand lobbyists in DC (who *don't* have term limits, BTW) are doing their best to restrict your rights at this moment. And few politicians are interested in stopping them any more.

Suppose we do concentrate on buying music from smaller labels. Well and good, but it doesn't exactly cripple the resources of BMG, EMI or Sony. If copy protection becomes law (with the excuse of supposedly protecting the artist), then smaller labels will have to employ it as well.

Keep that in mind when the next election comes around. Do your best not to support politicians who have a history of whittling away your rights. Next time you read about some senator who's pro-copy protection, remember the name and do your best to support someone else (who has a prayer of winning). The sad reality is that you only have two choices: your own rights or those of Fox, Turner, Sony and the rest. You're voting for them or you and don't kid yourself.