Slashdot Mirror

The US doesn't have a storage quantity tax.

There is one obscure and largely irrelevant semi-exception: CD-R disks come in two flavors 'Data' and 'Music'. The latter are priced with the you-worthless-filthy-pirate-scum markup, the former aren't.

This distinction is, uh, deeply relevant to all owners of "Consumer stand-alone Audio CD recorders". "Professional" ones are not affected. Much more importantly, computers are not affected and I'm pretty sure that "Consumer stand-alone Audio CD recorders" are approximately as rare as unicorns...

Each time you rip from a disk, the rip is slightly different.

True. CD has one "subcode" byte per six samples to store timing information for the 588 audio samples in each sector. The digital data from several lossless rips is the same; it just has a random amount (up to one sector) of silence before and after it because drives are allowed to let the subcode data drift slightly out of sync from the audio data. This leads to so-called jitter. But rip jitter doesn't interfere with the ability to identify the actual timing of the first note of a song.

The audio CD format uses error correcting codes. I don't believe CDR data formats do

Actually, Data CD's do employ error correction codes, it's far more robust than for audio CD's. The need for a bit exact copy, while audio can get away with a certain amount of interpolation ensures that.

It adds up to a 13% hit for the 'true' capacity of a CD. IE a 650MB data CD actually has 750MB of capacity, without ECC.

You can buy audio CD burners to hook up to your stereo system. These ONLY accept "audio" CDs. They will not accept "data" CDs for recording.

http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq01.html#S1-13

CDRfaq.org has a pretty good discussion of CD-R life with links to studies from NIST and Kodak and a variety of other people. The article also suggests (without quoting its sources) that CD-Rs might last longer than pressed CDs. Can anyone confirm this?

It's also worth noting that although the researcher here said that CD-Rs would only last 5 years, many manufacturers claim that their CD-Rs will last 75 or 100 years. Maybe the truth is somewhere in between. Personally, I have CD-Rs from 5 and 6 years ago (remember when MP3.com sold burned-to-order CDs?) and they still sound fine.

Sorry it took so long to respond. Here's your FAQ:

What is the difference between "music" and "audio" CD-R's?

Yes, there is. There are a few different versions of this, but the general idea is to intentionally put bad data in the tracks (or the TOC) that would be error-corrected out by an audio CD player, but cause a CD-ROM to fail while attempting to read it. Some modern CD-ROM drives still have trouble with this type of copy control. Since the error correction layers have been subverted, the tiniest scratch will usually render the CD unplayable.

More info here: http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq02.html#S2-4-3

The NIST site that hosts the article you mentioned has some tips on specific media types, but trying to buy them in small retail quantities isn't alway easy. There's rarely any guarantee that on opening two identically packaged boxes from a media company you'll end up with identical media.

For some anecdotal info (and links to even more anecdotal info), check out the section 7 of the CD-Recordable FAQ

http://www.cdrfaq.org/

To add one more statistically questionable story to the pile, I know several recording studio techs who swear by Mitsui. They're a little more expensive than generics, but you can buy 50 or 100 disc pack from the company itself (or an official distributor) and be reasonably sure of what you're getting. I've had only good experiences with them myself.

But then I've had very few bad experiences so far with any media, and all of those have involved generics with gummy printable labels applied to them, and all were given to me by other people. (My own paranoid technique is to label disks only with a non-alcohol based felt tipped pen.)

On the other hand, if you're goal is archiving the irreplaceable (rather than just stuff that will be expensive to replace), it's hard to beat a pair of hard drives which contain flac (or, if disk space is cheaper than processor time wav) files and checksums for every file. Every year or two you plug in each drive and make sure all the files are good, and when it starts to become hard to find systems that will interface with your old drives, you transfer everything to new ones. When you can pick up a 200 gig ata drive and a USB hard drive enclosure for well under a hundred bucks, it's hard to argue against that sort of strategy. You could do the same with DVDs or even CDs, of course, but checking them becomes a manual hassle.

In any event, make two copies of everything so that if one goes bad, you are likely to have a backup. Keeping one somewhere other than your house doesn't hurt either.

Sorry, not true. This particular kind of DRM doesn't break the CD spec. Other kinds of "copy protection", such as SunComm's MediaCloQ, do violate the CD specification and are technically not CDs. But schemes which are based on autorun trojans, like the scheme in the article or like SunComm's MediaMax, don't violate the CD specification at all.

Anything which uses technical means of copy protection is not a CD.

Not true. There is exactly one type of copy protection allowed by the Red Book standard (in fact all implementations have to adhere to its technical specification, whether they enforce it or not), and it is a variant of SCMS.

Basically, SCMS defines whether a source is copy-restricted or not, as well as whether it is an original or a copy. The idea is that anyone can make at most one copy of a copy-restricted original, but not a copy of a copy-restricted copy. See also here.

A distinction was made between consumer-grade (stand-alone) CD copiers (which should always obey SCMS) and professional CD-writers (which were not required to obey SCMS). Strangely, CD-writers attached to computers were treated the same way as professional units (presumably to allow users to copy-restrict their own work).

This strange treatment of computer-attached CD-recorders, combined with most recording software ignoring SCMS altogether in case of direct CD-to-CD copying seems to me the root cause of the current problems with non-conforming copy-protected CD's.

It is an interesting question whether either or both parties are violating the DMCA. I think that either CD-reader/CD-recorder manufacturers should have disallowed ripping of audio-CD's altogether, or they should have output a DRM-ed data format which can only be written to audio-CD's again by software compliant with SCMS.

There is an enforced tax in the US on CD Audio media... but not on CD Data media.

Since both are essentially the same, guess which you normally buy?

That is why I buy only 'data' grade cd's (oh, and avoid philips of course) you just have to do a little research before you get a burner. Might I suggest a trip over to ---> http://www.cdfreaks.com/ or maybe a little preresearch first ---> http://www.cdrfaq.org/ FragHARD or don't frag at all

This is a sadly common CYA issue, and is done more to demonstrate they've been actively protecting their patents and copyrights than anything else.

I read on some forums some people try to find exceptions to the protection of copyrighted work to justify the legality of PxScan/PxView/PxLinux. Actually, there is no copyrighted work use in our code whatsoever. The copyrighted code of Plextools is not available anyway, and 100% of Alexander's code or my code is entirely original. So there is no copyright issue here. They try to make us believe that communicating with the interface of the drive is protected though. The interface is an MMC-3 SCSI compliant, which is a standard of communication. All burning software use APIs that lead to communicate this way with any burner. The SCSI chain we use to send commands to the drive is standard. The MMC3 specifications are publicly available for people who want to write their own CD burner software (see http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq06.html#S6-6) which is a perfectly legal task. BTW, other recording software under free license exist, such as cdrecord (by Joerg Schilling), and the code is available. Similarly : in Adobe Photoshop, you can directly send commands to scanner to scan an image and import it into your application. The Plextor claim would be similar to a Scanner maker sueing Adobe for simply accessing to their scanner, despite the SCSI commands to trigger the scan are through a standard communication interface. I hope this makes the things clear, and that even if PxScan was commercial, proprietary, shareware, it would be 100% legal. By the way, the GPL license is a commercial free-software license. It does not forbid selling the code, however, it guarantees the openness of the code by forcing any code modification to be released to anyone getting the binaries.

I have to wonder how true the results of Alcohol 120 really are though. (Note that I've not used it, so I can't really say).

From the CD-Recordable FAQ:
"Two components that many users of these programs always take as gospel are Media Manufacturer and Dye Data. These two readings are next to worthless.

The reason for this is that many CD-R manufacturers (like CD- Recordable.com) purchase their stampers (the nickel die that all CD-R substrates are molded from) from 3rd party sources. These 3rd party sources (either other disc manufacturers, or mastering houses) encode the data that these 'Identification' programs read, at the time that the original glass master is encoded. The 'Manufacturer' information that is encoded is usually the name of the company that made the master. Since stampers made from that master will be sold to disc manufacturers the world over, all of discs that those manufacturers produce from those stampers will contain the same 'Manufacturer' information. Information which is obviously quite erroneous and irrelevant. Very seldom will the 'manufacturer' information encoded on a CD-R actually tell you anything other than who made the original master. [...]

The second piece of data (the dye type) is also dubious. Because most master/stamper configurations are designed to be matched to specific dye types (Phthalocyanine, Cyanine, Azo, Etc), the 'Dye' information that is encoded when the master is produced indicates the type of dye that the master was designed for. This of course, does not assure that the manufacturer that buys and uses this stamper will be using it with the dye that it has been designed for. It is quite possible that a stamper/dye combination is used by a CD-R manufacturer that contradicts the 'dye' information encoded on the master. Therefore that information becomes as potentially misleading as the 'Manufacturer' data discussed earlier."

The only reliable piece of information in the "ATIP" region is the disc length. See section (2-38) for further remarks."

-- Joe

Here it states that HP made this technology- and this article was posted in March! http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq02.html#S2-42

Subject: [2-42] Can I draw pictures on a disc with the recording laser?
(2004/03/09)

If you've ever looked at a recorded CD-R, you've probably noticed that the recorded and unrecorded areas have a different appearance. This is usually visible as a slight change in color. By controlling the write laser it's possible to mark the disc in a way that is meaningful to the human eye rather than to a CD player. Unfortunately, the level of control required to do this isn't achievable without firmware support.

In mid-2002, Yamaha announced "DiscT@2" (disc tattoo). This allows moderate-resolution (approx. 250dpi) graphics to be drawn in the parts of the disc that weren't recorded. Yamaha claims to get 256 shades of color (green, blue, or whatever color the disc happens to be), though it works best on dark blue azo discs. For more details and some pictures, see:

*
http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/02q3/020927/in dex.html
*
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/akiba/hotline/20020 622/etc_disctat2.html

Yamaha left the consumer CD recording market in February 2003, and the technology quietly disappeared.

In March 2004, HP announced a different idea: flip the disc over, and burn a design on the label side. This requires a modified drive and special media, but offers the possibility of high-resolution labeling without ink or adhesive labels. The technology, dubbed "LightScribe", is described on http://www.lightscribe.com/.
-M

CDs can be made for $1-$2 per disc in quantity. Throw it in a jewel case, slap on a certificate of bugginess, and you might be up to $3.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the SecuROM/SafeDisc methods do *not* produce valid Redbook CDROM standard CD's.

(A small nitpick: "Red Book" is audio CD standard. But I know what you meant anyway - Yellow Book, ISO 9660, and other confusing things =)

Well, I do get weird results from isovfy from some SecuROM-protected CD-ROMs (isovfy isn't very well documented, I have no idea what the hell all these numbers mean, but lack of "No errors found" is more than a bit damning)...

nighthowl:~$ isovfy /dev/cdrom
Root at extent 15, 2048 bytes
[0 0]
23: 58 5a26 57611 Flags=(4) RRlen=14 [AA]
15: 56 9242 1950 Flags=(4) RRlen=14 [AA]

(Warcraft III disc)

Though apparently not always:

nighthowl:~$ isovfy /dev/cdrom
Root at extent 13, 2048 bytes
[0 0]
No errors found

(Neverwinter Nights playdisc (CD3), SecuROM)

nighthowl:~$ isovfy /dev/cdrom
Root at extent 15, 2048 bytes
[0 0]
No errors found

(Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark, SecuROM)

Here's what I know to be an unprotected disc:

nighthowl:~$ isovfy /dev/cdrom
Root at extent 17, 4096 bytes
[0 0]
[100 180]
No errors found

(Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri: Planetary Pack for Linux)

...so I guess Vivendi is far more evil than Atari =)

So at least the ISOs are all right. Which is logical, because you can copy the errors in ISOs anyway. There's probably errors in the physical layout of the disc, and I don't have tools to check that (except maybe cdrdao, and I don't have the disk space to dump Warcraft to right now).

And yeah, relying on disc errors is stupid anyway, the whole concept that you could rely on an error is flawed =)

I recall hearing something like that too, years ago, but of course it was just a vague promise from a marketing department and not a written contract.

It's illuninating to compare the costs. You can get actual aluminum CD's (NOT CD-R's) made for less than a dollar each in quantity 1,000 or even a lot less as I found below.

Inexpensive blank cassettes are maybe USD 0.50 in quantity and high quality blank cassettes are twice that, and that's before going through the duplicator.
Here are a couple of places to get prices:

http://www.tapewarehouse.com/ for CD-R blanks and blank cassettes. ISTR they'll do duplicating of cassettes as well, you may want to look for their prices.

http://www.wisdomedia.com/regcdrom.html Prices on mass-produced CD's, USD 0.51 each for 1,000 to USD 0.35 each for 50,000. Putting them in a jewel case and shrinkwrapping each might double that, but it's still cheaper than cassette to make.

The higher retail price of CD's over cassettes is of course because of the perceived quality of CD's being higher. It obviously has nothing to do with their actual cost.

Back in the '60's through '80's, LP's cost more than prerecorded cassettes or 8-track cartridges for the same reason: The actual manufacturing may not have been more, but (with a good turntable) LP's had better sound quality, so they could command a higher retail price.

Amazingly, blank CD-R's are now substantially cheaper than blank cassettes. The percieved quality of CD-R's, in spite of their fragility compared to pressed CD's (see http://www.cdrfaq.org/), has much f the public enchanted and the big record labels running scared.

What is ironic is that at least two large companies, Sony and Philips, make and sell both commercial CD's and CD-R/W drives.

That's incorrect.

Fadden's CD-R faq will tell you that any solvent-based product is not good for the CD. Personally, I just write on the hub or the plastic case of the CD.

CD-RWs are expected to last about 25 years under ideal conditions (i.e. you write it once and then leave it alone). Repeated rewrites will ccelerate
this. In general, CD-RW media isn't recommended for long-term backups or archives of valuable data.

The rest of this section applies to CD-R.

The manufacturers claim 75 years (cyanine dye, used in "green" discs), 100 years (phthalocyanine dye, used in "gold" discs), or even 200 years
("advanced" phthalocyanine dye, used in "platinum" discs) once the disc has been written. The shelf life of an unrecorded disc has been estimated at
between 5 and 10 years. There is no standard agreed-upon way to test discs for lifetime viability. Accelerated aging tests have been done, but they may not provide a meaningful analogue to real-world aging.

Exposing the disc to excessive heat, humidity, or to direct sunlight will greatly reduce the lifetime. In general, CD-Rs are far less tolerant of environmental conditions than pressed CDs, and should be treated with greater care. The easiest way to make a CD-R unusable is to scratch the
top surface. Find a CD-R you don't want anymore, and try to scratch the top (label side) with your fingernail, a ballpoint pen, a paper clip, and
anything else you have handy. The results may surprise you.

Keep them in a cool, dark, dry place, and they will probably live longer than you do (emphasis on "probably"). Some newsgroup reports have complained of discs becoming unreadable in as little as three years, but without knowing how the discs were handled and stored such anecdotes are
useless. Try to keep a little perspective on the situation: a disc that degrades very little over 100 years is useless if it can't be read in your
CD-ROM drive today.

One user reported that very inexpensive CD-Rs deteriorated in a mere six weeks, despite careful storage. Some discs are better than others.

An interesting article by Fred Langa (of http://www.langa.com/) on http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.j html?articleID=15800263&pgno=1
describes how to detect bad discs, and discusses whether putting an adhesive label on the disc causes them to fail more quickly.

By some estimates, pressed CD-ROMs may only last for 10 to 25 years, because the aluminum reflective layer starts to corrode after a while.

One user was told by Blaupunkt that CD-R discs shouldn't be left in car CD players, because if it gets too hot in the car the CD-R will emit a gas that can blind the laser optics. However, CD-Rs are constructed much the same way and with mostly the same materials as pressed CDs, and the temperatures required to cause such an emission from the materials that are exposed would
melt much of the car's interior. The dye layer is sealed into the disc, and should not present any danger to drive optics even if overheated.
Even so, leaving a CD-R in a hot car isn't good for the disc, and will probably shorten its useful life.

See also http://www.cd-info.com/CDIC/Technology/CD-R/Media/ Longevity.html,
especially http://www.cd-info.com/CDIC/Industry/news/media-ch ronology.html about some inaccurate reporting in the news media.

See "Do gold CD-R discs have better longevity than green discs?" on http://www.mscience.com/faq53.html.

CD-RWs are expected to last about 25 years under ideal conditions (i.e. you write it once and then leave it alone). Repeated rewrites will ccelerate
this. In general, CD-RW media isn't recommended for long-term backups or archives of valuable data.

The rest of this section applies to CD-R.

The manufacturers claim 75 years (cyanine dye, used in "green" discs), 100 years (phthalocyanine dye, used in "gold" discs), or even 200 years
("advanced" phthalocyanine dye, used in "platinum" discs) once the disc has been written. The shelf life of an unrecorded disc has been estimated at
between 5 and 10 years. There is no standard agreed-upon way to test discs for lifetime viability. Accelerated aging tests have been done, but they may not provide a meaningful analogue to real-world aging.

Exposing the disc to excessive heat, humidity, or to direct sunlight will greatly reduce the lifetime. In general, CD-Rs are far less tolerant of environmental conditions than pressed CDs, and should be treated with greater care. The easiest way to make a CD-R unusable is to scratch the
top surface. Find a CD-R you don't want anymore, and try to scratch the top (label side) with your fingernail, a ballpoint pen, a paper clip, and
anything else you have handy. The results may surprise you.

Keep them in a cool, dark, dry place, and they will probably live longer than you do (emphasis on "probably"). Some newsgroup reports have complained of discs becoming unreadable in as little as three years, but without knowing how the discs were handled and stored such anecdotes are
useless. Try to keep a little perspective on the situation: a disc that degrades very little over 100 years is useless if it can't be read in your
CD-ROM drive today.

One user reported that very inexpensive CD-Rs deteriorated in a mere six weeks, despite careful storage. Some discs are better than others.

An interesting article by Fred Langa (of http://www.langa.com/) on http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.j html?articleID=15800263&pgno=1
describes how to detect bad discs, and discusses whether putting an adhesive label on the disc causes them to fail more quickly.

By some estimates, pressed CD-ROMs may only last for 10 to 25 years, because the aluminum reflective layer starts to corrode after a while.

One user was told by Blaupunkt that CD-R discs shouldn't be left in car CD players, because if it gets too hot in the car the CD-R will emit a gas that can blind the laser optics. However, CD-Rs are constructed much the same way and with mostly the same materials as pressed CDs, and the temperatures required to cause such an emission from the materials that are exposed would
melt much of the car's interior. The dye layer is sealed into the disc, and should not present any danger to drive optics even if overheated.
Even so, leaving a CD-R in a hot car isn't good for the disc, and will probably shorten its useful life.

See also http://www.cd-info.com/CDIC/Technology/CD-R/Media/ Longevity.html,
especially http://www.cd-info.com/CDIC/Industry/news/media-ch ronology.html about some inaccurate reporting in the news media.

See "Do gold CD-R discs have better longevity than green discs?" on http://www.mscience.com/faq53.html.

Not quite. See here and here. In the US, only the "music" CD-Rs are taxed. The only reason to buy those is for a personal CD recording device anyway. Stick with data CD-Rs and you're fine.

Not quite. See here and here. In the US, only the "music" CD-Rs are taxed. The only reason to buy those is for a personal CD recording device anyway. Stick with data CD-Rs and you're fine.

Essentially, anything hydrogen-bonded is O.K.: water, alcohols of various sorts

Sharpies use alcohol-based inks.

The CD-R FAQ indicates that Sharpies should be okay.

I assume you're just joking? It's phtalocyani n e not cyanide

CD-R FAQ

Yes, if they are claiming, and can prove, that DirectCD infringes, then it's likely that UDF also infringes. If UDF infringes, a lot of the packet-writing DVD software is affected (but probably not batch-oriented writers like cdrecord). Unfortunately that's still a major PITA since it means doing the ``build tree, make isofs, burn isofs'' sequence rather than quicker UDF on-the-fly burning.

some UDF basics

Does it matter? Yes. Is slower always better? No.

Rather than re-hash this, please see:

Subject: [3-31] Is it better to record at slower speeds?

Quick summary: higher speeds require a different "write strategy" than slower speeds. Different media formulations are optimized for a particular write strategy, so writing slower than the optimal speed can actually produce inferior results.

The choice of media and recording hardware has to be taken into consideration. In any event, this has relatively little to do with disc deterioration. A disc that's better to begin with won't show the effects of physical deterioration as soon, but if the top lacquer coat isn't as close to air-tight as materials allow, it doesn't matter how you write the disc.

According to this CD-Recordable FAQ entry , "it depends".

Philips licensed the logo for their use; it's up to Philips to decide if they're in breach of that license agreement.

And Philips has in fact decided to warn the labels about the use of the logo on non-conforming discs.

I dispute the notion that you have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

The CD-R FAQ, section 2-4, lists the major CD copy protection methods in use. Thus far, I have concentrated on the "static" method, for which I could find the most evidence of potential violation of the Red Book specification.

I also dispute the notion that anything you've said here is even remotely true.

I have presented evidence by linking from my comments to web pages containing evidence. It's your turn to present the flaws in the evidence to which my comments link.

For instance, this web page states: "According to the Red Book standard, the BLER count for a disc must be less than 220. In practice, an average BLER of 50 is more acceptable ... A Burst Error is defined as seven consecutive blocks in which the C1 decoding stage has detected an error [... and] constitutes a Disc Failure." I have presented the evidence; what do you not accept about it?

You are an idiot, therefore nothing you say should be listened to.

"You are a coward, therefore nothing you say should be listened to." See how that sounds?

The onus is then on you to prove that you are not, in fact, an idiot.

What do you think gives me such a burden of proof? I'd guess you don't get along with others well in real life either if you think everybody is an idiot by default.

So far, you've blown it.

id.i.ot n. "A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers" (American Heritage® Dictionary). Given that I have scored 130 on an IQ test and received a B.S. in computer science from a reputable engineering school, I don't see how I match this precise definition of "idiot". If you claim that this definition is in error and that I match some other precise definition of "idiot", please state such a definition, along with why "idiots" under your definition should not be listened to.

doesn't know how to read Google's help page, maybe?

You claimed that Google would phrase enclosed in quotation marks as an exact phrase. Then why does Google's help page state: "Search for complete phrases by enclosing them in quotation marks"?

If you continue to argue without providing evidence against what I have mentioned in this thread, then you are a troll, and I can find all sorts of reasons not to listen to trolls.

CD-R and CD-RW are quite different... the reflectivity from a CD-RW is much lower than CD-R, so while an old player can read CDs and CD-Rs just fine, it needs automatic gain control (AGC) in order to read CD-RWs.

Most DVD players can read CDs but not CD-R(W) because of the difference in the disks. CD-R's organic substrate absorbs shorter wavelengths, which is what DVD uses. CD doesn't.

I could keep paraphrasing, but the info in question is in the CD-R FAQ. The relevant sections are 2-12 and 2-13.

CD-R and CD-RW are quite different... the reflectivity from a CD-RW is much lower than CD-R, so while an old player can read CDs and CD-Rs just fine, it needs automatic gain control (AGC) in order to read CD-RWs.

Most DVD players can read CDs but not CD-R(W) because of the difference in the disks. CD-R's organic substrate absorbs shorter wavelengths, which is what DVD uses. CD doesn't.

I could keep paraphrasing, but the info in question is in the CD-R FAQ. The relevant sections are 2-12 and 2-13.

CD-R and CD-RW are quite different... the reflectivity from a CD-RW is much lower than CD-R, so while an old player can read CDs and CD-Rs just fine, it needs automatic gain control (AGC) in order to read CD-RWs.

Most DVD players can read CDs but not CD-R(W) because of the difference in the disks. CD-R's organic substrate absorbs shorter wavelengths, which is what DVD uses. CD doesn't.

I could keep paraphrasing, but the info in question is in the CD-R FAQ. The relevant sections are 2-12 and 2-13.

Read this and follow the link to here. For the second article, this is the most informative section.

In addition, with CDs, you need to order a significant number.

Not anymore.

jerrytcow is essentially right. Check the cdrfaq, and mod accordingly.

-Puk

Norton A/V comes as a bootable cdrom, and you can make a set of rescue disks that you can use. I suppose you could also make a bootable cdrom (Nero does that) with the vdefs on it, and use some autoexec file to do a batch scan of the system using the latest defs from the CD. So simple even a janitor could do it!!!

-D

Of course, blurring that party line, Apple just bought Emagic, publisher of several pro audio production and mastering tools -- including WaveBurner Pro, my choice for audio CD mastering and IMHO a ton better than Jam. I actually bought Toast with Jam but returned it due to (1) crossfade limitations and (2) WaveBurner Pro having a far better visual interface.

WB Pro does audio mastering right, but I still need a good tool for data burning; I was going to just get Toast sans Jam, but with this DRM news I may be shopping for an alternative.

It would appear that some already do write serial/id's to your burned media.

http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq02.html#s2-26

Regards,
AC

Slashdot won't post my articals but they'll post moronic jibberish like this. Read Andys FAQ.

"CD-Recordable FAQ">

what you're saying is that once something has been created once, that because we are capable of copying it, that the creator can not reasonably expect to be rewarded for his work.

Yes, that is what i am saying. If I write a song. only the activity of writing it should be compensated - not the use of it after it has been performed/written. The * act * of creation should be compensated. Simple. If i was a carpenter, would I collect a fee for every comfy-night you spend in bed??? NO!

It is exactly the same, patents and copy-written material are not magic. If they exist then the work required to create them has ceased. It is in the past -- what makes these things so special that their control, and the 'right' of the builder causes such a pile of ill-logic and nonsense as copyright and patent law?

You sir are a LEECH.

And you excrete dogma without a mite of critical thought. You are a PUPPET.

It's precisely this sort of attitude that Copyright is designed to thwart.

No, copyrights were granted to people to protect them from printing press owners. Copyright was granted to a person so he could sell his works. Capitalists have, by making themselves legal-persons (amongst other plutocratic-borne legislation in the USA), granted themselves copyrights... the concept was built to protect a person from publishers. Not publishers from people. Dont try and pretend this is not the case, it is indisputable and intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise. This discussion is not a debate -- as in public debate as an exercise -- are you honestly presenting this as your opinion?

removing the incentives and rewards of creating will lead to a decline in creation.

Untrue. Intellectual Property was created all through time -- it is society itself... without copyright and patents the mechanisms through which people would have incentive would change. Was Matisse given a copyright? Mozart?

RIAA is trying to protect itself, and it's monopoly on the distribution of music, they're not attempting to foster the creation of music.

Agreed.

but that doesen't justify deliberately flaunting the law, nor taking away from the creators the rightful earnings.

Actually it does. Civil disobedience is an act of a free society. If 50%+1 of the population decides to ignore a law it should be changed - the consequences are ours to reap. If it proved true that creation ceased when copyright ended (it wouldnt) then the people would pay the consequence -- or make a new offer to potential producers. Not being a 'producer' in this dynamic doesnt mean we are with out rights. If the persons (like yourself) willing to accept this construct + the creators ("artists" (or RIAA))
But that is how (im sure you would agree) a democratic and free society should work. Im not suggesting the USA is this place, but that is another issue, and a much bigger problem.

When you say "I copy all my music CDs", you're committing piracy plain and simple.

No, by law, in Canada I am fully entitled to do this. My government has changed the construct of copyright to encourage the act. It is not "piracy".

http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq03.html#S3-33-2
http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#copy_for_friend s

If you don't PAY for it, and you don't get it via available LEGAL means, you're still not entitled to STEAL it.

Life is not about money. Watching a movie or listening to music has zero effect on the producer (no incremental cost) - what part of this basic problem with the capitalist-economics of copyright are you not understanding?

1. crack the cover open, and install a jumper across the sensor that reports when the top is open.

2. boot the system with a real PS game.

3 at the appropriate time, pop open the top, and swap in your copied game.

Done with the correct timing, the system reads the copy protection info from the real disk and then boots with the copy.

P.S. Who ever claimed that you won't be able to get recordable 80mm cds, you are way off base. The disks are available NOW, and are not much more expensive than regular sized blanks. The 80mm disks are also able to be recorded in many tray based cd recorders. They are mostly intended for use in your portable mp3 player, but I bet there will be another soon.

Duh...to answer my own questions (and perhaps those of a few others) I found this blurb at cdrfaq.org...

[At] the bottom it has some VERY useful information, including a little utility called cdrid [www.gum.de], which identifies WHO REALLY makes the cdr disk.

The CD-R FAQ disagrees with youspecifically "[2-33] Who really made this CD-R blank?" which says you learn significantly less than you think you do from these CD-R ID routines which report information read from the "ATIP" region.

Typically, I buy Sony CDRS from staples... they're pretty cheap and work good.

Unless Sony makes their own CD-Rs (which I doubt) you can't tell what you are buying. Again I refer you to the CD-R FAQ.

[A] Plextor 24x burner is only about $150 now...

But the comparable Lite-On 24/10/40 IDE CD-RW burner is half that price. It has the same features as the Plextor 24/10/40 and is only slightly slower at some tasks than the Plextor 24/10/40 (a few seconds slower in tests where the Lite-On trailed the Plextor, not anything significant). If you find this difference to be an issue I'd say (1) you're overstating the difference and (2) in some tests the Plextor wasn't as fast as the Ricoh MP7200A.

The Plextor is probably a fine drive if you are willing to ignore its cost. The Lite-On is giving you better than 90% of the speed of the Plextor at half the cost, hence the Lite-On is a better deal for the money. Plextor's day in the sun has ended. They should make their firmware free software to compete. As far as I know nobody makes firmware that is free software (even though they all should).

[Make] sure your drive supports BuRN proof or something similar.

Actually if your system is configured correctly you don't need it, even with IDE burners. You might find it hard to avoid paying for the technology since so many drives currently on the market have burn resumption technology. But for sub-US$100 drives, the price isn't a big deal.

[At] the bottom it has some VERY useful information, including a little utility called cdrid [www.gum.de], which identifies WHO REALLY makes the cdr disk.

The CD-R FAQ disagrees with youspecifically "[2-33] Who really made this CD-R blank?" which says you learn significantly less than you think you do from these CD-R ID routines which report information read from the "ATIP" region.

Typically, I buy Sony CDRS from staples... they're pretty cheap and work good.

Unless Sony makes their own CD-Rs (which I doubt) you can't tell what you are buying. Again I refer you to the CD-R FAQ.

[A] Plextor 24x burner is only about $150 now...

But the comparable Lite-On 24/10/40 IDE CD-RW burner is half that price. It has the same features as the Plextor 24/10/40 and is only slightly slower at some tasks than the Plextor 24/10/40 (a few seconds slower in tests where the Lite-On trailed the Plextor, not anything significant). If you find this difference to be an issue I'd say (1) you're overstating the difference and (2) in some tests the Plextor wasn't as fast as the Ricoh MP7200A.

The Plextor is probably a fine drive if you are willing to ignore its cost. The Lite-On is giving you better than 90% of the speed of the Plextor at half the cost, hence the Lite-On is a better deal for the money. Plextor's day in the sun has ended. They should make their firmware free software to compete. As far as I know nobody makes firmware that is free software (even though they all should).

[Make] sure your drive supports BuRN proof or something similar.

Actually if your system is configured correctly you don't need it, even with IDE burners. You might find it hard to avoid paying for the technology since so many drives currently on the market have burn resumption technology. But for sub-US$100 drives, the price isn't a big deal.

[At] the bottom it has some VERY useful information, including a little utility called cdrid [www.gum.de], which identifies WHO REALLY makes the cdr disk.

The CD-R FAQ disagrees with youspecifically "[2-33] Who really made this CD-R blank?" which says you learn significantly less than you think you do from these CD-R ID routines which report information read from the "ATIP" region.

Typically, I buy Sony CDRS from staples... they're pretty cheap and work good.

Unless Sony makes their own CD-Rs (which I doubt) you can't tell what you are buying. Again I refer you to the CD-R FAQ.

[A] Plextor 24x burner is only about $150 now...

But the comparable Lite-On 24/10/40 IDE CD-RW burner is half that price. It has the same features as the Plextor 24/10/40 and is only slightly slower at some tasks than the Plextor 24/10/40 (a few seconds slower in tests where the Lite-On trailed the Plextor, not anything significant). If you find this difference to be an issue I'd say (1) you're overstating the difference and (2) in some tests the Plextor wasn't as fast as the Ricoh MP7200A.

The Plextor is probably a fine drive if you are willing to ignore its cost. The Lite-On is giving you better than 90% of the speed of the Plextor at half the cost, hence the Lite-On is a better deal for the money. Plextor's day in the sun has ended. They should make their firmware free software to compete. As far as I know nobody makes firmware that is free software (even though they all should).

[Make] sure your drive supports BuRN proof or something similar.

Actually if your system is configured correctly you don't need it, even with IDE burners. You might find it hard to avoid paying for the technology since so many drives currently on the market have burn resumption technology. But for sub-US$100 drives, the price isn't a big deal.

You typically can't find good quality CD-Rs at the major computer stores and you definitely won't get good prices on them. They don't have the lowest prices out there, but I've been pretty happy ordering 100 lots of 80 min Mitsui unbranded silvers from american digital and haven't burned a coaster or had a CD-R go bad yet. Hunt around and I'm sure you can find some better deals online.

... rjs

The more RIAA forces us to use DRM, the more MP3s will slip through their fingers

The more RIAA forces us to use DRM, the more MP3s will slip through their fingers

Actually it's only with unrecorded CDRs that you have to worry about that 5 year span. As long as you treat them well (eg: not stored on a windowsill) you'll do just fine using normal quality CDRs. See:

http://www.cd-info.com/CDIC/Industry/news/media-ch ronology.html
http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq07.html#S7-5

I'd say there's still some concern with just how long they will last, but apparently it'll be more than 5 years.

Someone will always find a way to get around any sort of copy protection.