[mc whak]

I feel your pain stuartr. I got that "Sorry for leading you on" BS about two months ago. Everytime I see her I just want to bitch-slap her.

 

[Beagle]

I could see making a copy of something that is out of print. But I have always gotten by with one copy, and taking it to the car, or using it in a portable or whatever. A CD is pretty portable.

People think that they are "getting" the record companies by stealing and copying music. But you are really "getting" the music fans who have always honestly bought their music. If they lose money through lost sales, they will make it up somehow, probably by raising CD prices, sticking it again to the honest consumer.

So perhaps we should all steal or boycott everything we pay too much for? Can you steal your automobile insurance or boycott them? Go steal your gasoline? Or why not steal your groceries? I'm sure someones making a nice profit on those $5 boxes of dry cereal. Or "get back" at McDonalds or Starbucks for charging 300% markup over cost of manufacturing by making your own. Funny, nobody thinks twice about those corporate ripoffs; they are lined up 30 deep waiting for a stupid cup of overpriced coffee. Yet they think they are paying too much for good sound. So they boycott it and settle for sonic crap. How does this help our cause?

If it's available, buy it. If it's out of print, make as many copies as you can and give them to people, since the record company obviously does not care about that title.

 

[CaptBubba]

Here's my understanding of how these "copy protection" scemes work. They insert unreadable bits into the Digital Audio (DA) stream. A normal cd player does not have the kind of error checking and control that computer cd-rom drive has and also HAS to run in real time, so when it comes to these errors it just keeps on going. But when a cd-rom reads the DA track it checks for errors and when it finds one trys to go back and read it, and if it cannot it then gives a read error (and the record companys hope this read error will either cause a corruption of the ripped track or make the cd-rom give up altogether).

If the above is right, then this s actualy relativly old technology. Computer CD-ROMS use unreadable sections to foil copy attempts. Geeks, as beowulf noted, find ways around everything. The solution to the problem of fake unreadable bits is called RAW reading and writing. Basicly the cd-drive reads everything without trying to correct the errors.

Using this technique it should be possible to rip DA from copy protected cds. If there are still eroors I'm willing to bet it won't be long before a program comes out that can take the RAW DA stream and remove the errors as they come through. Nobody can stop the Geeks on their home turf.

 

[morphsci]

I believe you misunderstood. I only rip copies of CD's that I already own. I do feel that CD's are in general overpriced, but I do not make copies of anything I have not bought. So even the OOP copies are from CD's that I own. I am not advocating ripping copies of someone else CD. I am really making backups of my CD's and using them for everyday use with the originals as "archival" copies.

As far as CD's being portable, that is true. However as an experiment please come down to SC in August and sit in a closed automobile at 3:00 pm. It's not an easy environment even for a CD. I would prefer not to subject my originals to that stress. Plus we now have the aluminum eating bacteria to worry about. Digital backups are looking better and better.

 

[Beagle]

morphsci, only my first paragraph was in response to you. The rest of it was just my sermon for the day...

 

[cajunchrist]

Quote:

Here's my understanding of how these "copy protection" ...

I prefer to use the term 'copy restriction' since 'copy protection' doesn't really mean anything.

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

'copy protection'

As in "copyright protection"

 

[morphsci]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beagle As in "copyright protection"

As in "preventing me from making legal backups" protection

 

[beowulf]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beagle People think that they are "getting" the record companies by stealing and copying music. But you are really "getting" the music fans who have always honestly bought their music. If they lose money through lost sales, they will make it up somehow, probably by raising CD prices, sticking it again to the honest consumer.

I have seen this argument for years. It seems it is still used. But it is a rather weak analogy. You cannot really duplicate an apple or a box of Cheerios without causing material loss to the owner. You can however, duplicate digital data. If Gandhi runs away with a Porsche 911 Turbo, the owner loses it, but if Gandhi clones some Cactus-Datacrap Protected CD from, say, EMI, with his recorder someone donated, EMI doesn't really lose anything because he didn't have money anyway, only a freeware copy of some cloning software and a couple crackers.

Still... I know enough to know that these arguments usually lead nowhere, and besides, I guess I can't use the Gandhi example since the poor man isn't around anymore, so I won't bother.

 

[beowulf]

While we're at it, here are the latest news. Don't worry... I have yet to see some decent protection coming out of Macrovision. Your backups are safe.

Macrovision officially announces SafeAudio Version 3
Sunday, 20 January 2002

Macrovision Corporation announced that its SafeAudio(TM) Version 3 Audio CD Copy Protection solution is now available for worldwide implementation. SafeAudio Version 3 will be showcased at MIDEM 2002 Cannes, France. January 20-24.
SafeAudio is a 100% software-based, audio copy protection solution for music CDs, jointly developed by Macrovision and TTR Technologies . SafeAudio ensures excellent playability across all playback platforms and causes unauthorized copies to lose their entertainment value.

Version 3 offers the following new features:

New patent-pending ``AudioLok(TM)'' technologies offer increased protection and finely tunable multi-level security options Support for multi-session CDs with third party Digital Rights Management (DRM) options, allowing ``fair use'' by consumers on PCs and digital audio players Enhanced mastering, verification and testing tools requiring no change or addition to existing production lines ``Compatibility has always been Macrovision's highest design goal and in SafeAudio V3 we have achieved this. With over 15 years of experience in copy protection, Macrovision has developed the wide spectrum of copy protection strengths needed by the music industry. The breakthrough with SafeAudio V3 is the ability to selectively implement different levels of security using our `AudioLok(TM)' technologies, by track if needed. SafeAudio V3 offers an integrated copy protection solution that supports DRM technologies,'' said Brian McPhail, vice president and general manager of Macrovision's Consumer Software Division.

Macrovision's SafeAudio Reseller Program enables CD replicators to provide the SafeAudio V3 copy protection solution to their music customers who want to purchase replication services and audio CD copy protection from a single source.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by beowulf I have seen this argument for years. It seems it is still used. But it is a rather weak analogy. You cannot really duplicate an apple or a box of Cheerios without causing material loss to the owner. You can however, duplicate digital data. If Gandhi runs away with a Porsche 911 Turbo, the owner loses it, but if Gandhi clones some Cactus-Datacrap Protected CD from, say, EMI, with his recorder someone donated, EMI doesn't really lose anything because he didn't have money anyway, only a freeware copy of some cloning software and a couple crackers.

And I have seen the above argument for years, as justification for everything from MP3 trading to software piracy. But that's all it really is -- justification. If you get software or music without paying, you are stealing. You are gaining the use of something without paying for it, and you are removing a potential customer from the pool of potential customers.

The usual response here is "I was not a potential customer, cuz I never would have bought it anyway." Well, you're still a potential customer, even if you never plan on buying. You can't say with 100% certainty that you wouldn't have bought the software or music -- after all, you valued it enough to steal it, right? If you had absolutely no desire for it, you wouldn't have needed to steal it.

Sorry for being so harsh, but I've developed software, and I have friends who are musical artists. I get tired of the BS arguments that "it's not really stealing" and "no one got hurt." They're just irrational justifications for people to help themselves not feel bad about ripping other people off.

 

[cajunchrist]

If copy restriction catches on, I absolutely insist on return policies being changed at retail outlets. If the record companies will no longer have to be concerned about copying at home, I demand the right to return music I am not satisfied with, like I can do with virtually every other product.

 

[stuartr]

Well, I agree with MacDEF...but the point is, this violates the Home Recording act, which is the only reason I am concerned about it. As I said earlier, I don't use MP3's, nor do I take burnt cds from friends, but I very much enjoy making mix cds from my own music for personal use. The only way I can do this is with my cd burner on my computer. As for software and music piracy, I think there should be a better system of trial periods for music and software, that way you can decide if it is worth keeping. Other than radio play (which most of my music does not get), I have no idea of hearing new music other than buying it. I am lucky enough to be able to do this to a reasonable extent, but for those who cannot, the MP3 is a very tempting alternative --- another reason for its success. In the end, I am all for paying out the buck for the music I like, but I don't want to pay for something if I listen to it once and then use it as a frisbee...

 

[morphsci]

I have to agree with stuartr and cc on this one. How can the record labels institute copy protection and still collect royalties on recording media? The way to combat piracy is to provide real quality and an appreciation for their customers. Unfortunately "copy protection" only serves to Piss-off legitimate customers. I have never ripped anything from a CD that I do not own, (not even from a CD that my wife bought), I only use ripping for making compilations and backups, period. In the U. S. at least I have that right. I realize the record labels are not obligated to allow copying, but then I am not obligated to buy products from them either.

This whole situation has many similarities to the software piracy wars. In most cases the software piracy protections were primarily to support products which had relatively low quality for their price. The way to mitigate (not eliminate) piracy is to provide a product with good value. Otherwise it just becomes a war of attrition with legitimate consumers caught in the crossfire.

 

[Beagle]

Right on MacDEF...

Quote:

but if Gandhi clones some Cactus-Datacrap Protected CD from, say, EMI, with his recorder someone donated, EMI doesn't really lose anything because he didn't have money anyway, only a freeware copy of some cloning software and a couple crackers

Unfortunately, it is not only poor people who steal. In fact, they are probably in the minority here. An entire generation is being weaned (via the internet) on getting everything for free, the equivalent of being spoiled rotten.

Nothing worse or more dangerous than people used to getting something for nothing.