chuao
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2004
- Posts
- 30
- Likes
- 0
This is kind of opinionated and maybe in the wrong forum, but I'm in kind of a mood and I feel like ranting.
Like, why is it that DVD-A and SACD have the strongest copy protection yet known to man? I'm really upset because I'd love to build a DA converter for SACD and just about any decent DAC chip you get these days can do 24/96 but neither DVD-A nor SACD lets you copy the files to a computer so you can upload them to a little DAC board...I'd have to buy a SACD player and a DVD-A player just to put a low-jitter clock module in, as if I could afford several thousand dollars worth of gear to potentially destroy.
Now, I don't believe for a second that it has anything to do with protecting the profits of DVD-A and SACD sales, because they're both multi-gigabyte formats...how many people would want to download all that for one CD's worth of music when the MP3 is 150 MB? and who, having payed for one of those players would be interested in saving $5 or $10 by getting a pirated disc? It's first of all about establishing precedent in the market and the courts, intimidating everyone (like, I know it's illegal to even discuss HOW one MIGHT go about extracting unencrypted SACD or DVD-A data so I won't even ask about that here) but if you read the sticky on the sources forum, it it almost implies it's not even allowed to discuss the legality of the law banning the discussion of how to extract data illegally, and that's just going too far. It's literally a first ammendment issue.
The way I see it, these laws are just allowing the music business to go right on making stupid idiotic business decisions that will cost society money (cuz their lost profits are lost taxes) and worse, do priceless damage stifling culture. For instance, if they made even the slightest effort to convince people that good sound really is worthwhile, and used the advance of technology for at least a little improvement in quality in the mass market (no SACD and DVD-A do not count) then they would probably win over a bunch of people. Then, they'd say "I don't want to download this mp3, because it sounds bad and I want the full-resolution thing."
But instead they beef up the copy protection on thier non-durable delicate little discs, so even if you just want to back it up you can't, and when the transport in that $2000 player you bought breaks you have to pay them another $500 to replace it until they run out of stock, and then you're just going to have to sit on top of your $5000 pile of junk (that's one SACD player and one DVD-A and a new transport for both) and cry over your $1000s worth of SACDs and DVD-A's that you'll never hear again.
So, anyway, that's my rant. I'm just going to have to make some sort of binaural recording hat and my own AD converter and start bootlegging the LA philharmonic.
Like, why is it that DVD-A and SACD have the strongest copy protection yet known to man? I'm really upset because I'd love to build a DA converter for SACD and just about any decent DAC chip you get these days can do 24/96 but neither DVD-A nor SACD lets you copy the files to a computer so you can upload them to a little DAC board...I'd have to buy a SACD player and a DVD-A player just to put a low-jitter clock module in, as if I could afford several thousand dollars worth of gear to potentially destroy.
Now, I don't believe for a second that it has anything to do with protecting the profits of DVD-A and SACD sales, because they're both multi-gigabyte formats...how many people would want to download all that for one CD's worth of music when the MP3 is 150 MB? and who, having payed for one of those players would be interested in saving $5 or $10 by getting a pirated disc? It's first of all about establishing precedent in the market and the courts, intimidating everyone (like, I know it's illegal to even discuss HOW one MIGHT go about extracting unencrypted SACD or DVD-A data so I won't even ask about that here) but if you read the sticky on the sources forum, it it almost implies it's not even allowed to discuss the legality of the law banning the discussion of how to extract data illegally, and that's just going too far. It's literally a first ammendment issue.
The way I see it, these laws are just allowing the music business to go right on making stupid idiotic business decisions that will cost society money (cuz their lost profits are lost taxes) and worse, do priceless damage stifling culture. For instance, if they made even the slightest effort to convince people that good sound really is worthwhile, and used the advance of technology for at least a little improvement in quality in the mass market (no SACD and DVD-A do not count) then they would probably win over a bunch of people. Then, they'd say "I don't want to download this mp3, because it sounds bad and I want the full-resolution thing."
But instead they beef up the copy protection on thier non-durable delicate little discs, so even if you just want to back it up you can't, and when the transport in that $2000 player you bought breaks you have to pay them another $500 to replace it until they run out of stock, and then you're just going to have to sit on top of your $5000 pile of junk (that's one SACD player and one DVD-A and a new transport for both) and cry over your $1000s worth of SACDs and DVD-A's that you'll never hear again.
So, anyway, that's my rant. I'm just going to have to make some sort of binaural recording hat and my own AD converter and start bootlegging the LA philharmonic.