Slashdot Mirror
Restricted CDs Quietly Distributed
fantazem writes: "I was just browsing news.com and found this rather interesting article just posted. The article basically explains that Macrovision along with unnamed labels have released thousands of CD's with a new form of copy protection." This is a follow-up to this article. Whitfield Diffie noted that the identity of the restricted CDs can be ascertained by polling a large enough sample of CD-buyers; a good way to avoid these defective products. Anybody bought one yet?
You know what just scared me? That this is probably true, they just put in errors. Now doesn't this mean that if you do write a software based CD player that gracefully does error correction you will then be in violation of DMCA?
It isn't worked around by Vorbis, but it is handled correctly by Monty's other software: CDparanoia. It appears that this 'protection' only provides protection along with certian popular windows ripping applications which have sold out their users in order to prevent being sued. CDparanoia does not have this problem.
Use Free Software and don't worry about it.
- A.P.
--
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
I think that the DMCA requires that for a circumvention device to be illegal its primary purpose must be circumvention. There already exists a lot of software out there, such as cdparanoia, which was written to interpolate out the errors on CDs and I believe that their primary use has been to do this on normal (i.e., not brain-damaged) CDs. I doubt that the DMCA would make such software illegal as it serves a legitimate purpose in its primary use.
This raises an interesting point, though - wouldn't the music labels intentionally introducing errors onto CDs actually encourage copying? If I purchased a CD with errors on it I would use something like cdparanoia to correct the errors and then save the results on a CD-R as the results would be more resistant to actual errors that arise from scratches and physical jostling while playing in the future (this assumes that I liked the music enough to do this - my first inclination would be to return it for a refund). I would not have needed to make the copy had the CD been normal because the error correction capabilities would have not been degraded already.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and the above should not be taken as legal advice.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
Some [expletive deleted] broke into my car last fall and made off with about $600 worth of stereo equipment and about $600 worth of CDs (don't believe it when they tell you a detachable faceplate is protection against theft). Every single one of my favorite albums was stolen (and I stil haven't replaced most of them). The morning I discovered this, I swore I'd never keep an original CD in the car again.
BUT WAIT!! If the theif makes off with a copy of a legally-purchased CD, YOU are now responsible for illegal distribution! Horrors! The record company lost out on another sale because YOU made a copy!
Who cares that the theif wouldn't have bought it... it's a COPY and it's DENYING the recording agency the RIGHT to PROFIT! Somebody PLEASE think of the children!
What in the world are they doing modding up posts that say "I have one" and don't have any supporting data (like even a album title!?!?)
/. article from totally degrading to a "me too!" fest and a panicked shouting match of fears that big brother is coming: Don't post "me too"'s without at least putting the title of the disc so someone else can confirm it.
Here's a suggestion to keep this
And don't let all the unconfirmed "me too"'s stir the coals even more.
I'm glad I don't listen to any mainstream music.
But the point is, like "Microsoft Java" vs Sun, I believe Phillips[0] licenses the use of the CD logo on the packaging. In the same way that Sun chose to sue MS for calling their VM 'Java', Phillips could chose to withold the use of the CD logo on discs that aren't 'valid' CDs. Pretty much every CD I have has at least a tiny version of that logo on it...
[0] or the consortium that handles the technology - I don't remember if it's just Phillips, although looking through FOLDOC suggests it is.
--
the telephone rings / problem between screen and chair / thoughts of homocide
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
I was discussing this with a colleague yesterday, and an interesting question came up: are these new discs actually marked as CDs? Do they have the little Phillips' Compact Disc logo on them? If they are just relying on people assuming that the 5-inch silver disc is a 'real' compact disc, then what you should expect from this CD-like disc is your problem, at least to a greater degree.
Not that I am in favour of the 'protection', especially at the expense of the error correction - I too rip all my CDs straight after purchase.
--
the telephone rings / problem between screen and chair / thoughts of homocide
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
How long till cdparanoia will be declared an illegal circumvention device that breaks protection on copyrighted works and has the author jailed?
It just happened. It can happen again...
No. THe AHRA of 1992 says that copying music for noncommercial use using *the devices covered by the act* is not actionable. Computers are not covered by the act. The AHRA also says that digital devices must follow the SCMS (serial copy management system).
I'm not saying it's illegal to copy music, just that the AHRA does *not* give de-facto permission for people to copy music, even it it appears to at first glance.
There is a difference between something being 'not illegal' and being 'a right'.
ALl the act says is that you cannot be prosecuted for using a compliant device to copy some music; it does not say you have a non-infringable right to copy the music. Nothing in the act prevents them from making it technically difficult for you to copy music.
is it illegal for me to make copies (or partial copies) of CD's that i own for my own personal use?
No, according to the Home Recording Act of 1992, it's perfectly legal for you to make personal copies of CDs you own.
However, that same Act does NOT say that the record companies can't try to stop you from making such copies (through content control mechanisms) -- just that they can't sue you if you suceed. Of course, if you try to bypass these content control mechanisms, you're most likely in violation of the DMCA.
All of this may be moot as far as using your computer as a jukebox, however, since the courts still haven't decided whether or not a computer should be classified as a digital recording device (if it were ruled not to be so, it wouldn't be covered under the Home Recording Act).
There are no real difficulties in writing code to read over a ripped CD image, and do the interpolation in software.
I just hope that solutions to this come out soon (and, in particular, for Windows and not just linux), so that the record companies realise how pointless the scheme is and stop writing trash all over our fairly purchased music!
--indecision
If:
I can't download the (legally obtained) songs to my MP3 player
I can't make a backup copy in case my (legally obtained) CD gets that aluminum eating virus we read about
I can't listen to the CD at work on my laptop
I'll take it back to the place of purchase.
If enough individuals do this, the stores will be forced to spend their resources (time and money) with the returns (which take 2-3 times longer than a purchase).
If it happens enough, the stores will in turn be forced to work with the record labels to stem the flow of returns.
Why don't record lablels just ROT13 all the lyrics? Can't really hurt today's pop songs...
------------------------
Co-founder of GerbilMechs
Is this a portable player (or can you reproduce the results on a portable player)? If so:
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
What astounds me is the method they seem to be using to check if it affects the sound quality. There are no increase in returns therefore they seem to be inferring that the change is inaudable. It would be great if the drug companies tried this, "This drug is 100% safe, not one person who disn't know they were taking it, told us they died". Have they considered that maybe the sound quality is reduced, but the effect of this is to make people assume its just the way the band should sound, and resolve never to buy the next release (and tell their frends, etc)
>Macrovision has had copy protection that inserts
> noise and monkeys with your picture
This sounds like the best protection system ever. It turns everything into the last fifteen minutes of 'Congo'.
Did anybody with a restricted cd try to encode it with ogg vorbis yet? I suspect the distortions are manipulations that get enhanced by the mp3 encoder/algo/formula. Since Ogg Vorbis is supposed to be fairly disjoint from all the patented stuff, we might see that working. Anybody care to give it a go?
Stop the brainwash
It sounds like a good test for the record industry, "let's distribute a protected cd for free to see if anyone complains, and they can't return it because it's free".
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Couldn't someone sue them for this, since it's being done so discreetly? I know when I buy a cd I assume it conforms to the redbook standard(or whatever) and will allow me to rip it. I don't even listen to CDs anymore except in mp3 format--too much hassle compared to the incredible ease of making playlists on the computer, or 700 minutes of mp3s to a cd and listening to them in my mp3-cd player.
So, find out what CDs these are, and lets start a class action lawsuit. I bet you could get half of Slashdot in on it...
This raises the question: It is illegal under the DMCA to crack encryption no matter how trivial, but it is legal to make coppies of music for personal use. Does this mean that I would be within my rights if I were to develop a mechanism to copy and store streamed music from subscription music services such as are being developed now? - this assuming I could play the music that I hace coppied off of the streaming service...
This is why the DMCA is bad, under the "Fair Use" laws you have the right to make copies of music you have purchased for personal use. However, under the DMCA, if the music is encrypted, any attempt to break the code is illegal, even if it is for "Fair Use" purposes. Further any tool you use to break the code is also illegal even if it also has non-infringing uses, which might otherwise be protected under "Fair Use". This is the reason why it is thought the DMCA is not about copy protection, but control, greed, corruption and power.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
I bought a copy protected CD audio once. There wasn't anything special mentioned on the case or even on the CD itself. It played fine on my computer, but when trying to copy it with normal software (I tried with easy cd creator & cdrwin for windows and cdrdao for linux) the copy was full of pops and scratches (even in 1x) and didn't work in some cd players. And I know my cdrom drive & cd burner are not faulty because it's the first and only time I had troubles copying an audio cd.
However, I eventually managed to copy the cd by extracting all the tracks with cdparanoia under linux (with all the possible jitter correction options turned on), and then burning the wav files on a cdaudio.
Your mileage may vary, it worked for me but I'm not sure it will work for every kind of copy protection system on the market.
!
^_^
You need to watch your "TARGET=" tags. They're part of your URL, and your links don't work without manually removing it. (Note to everyone else: When you click on one of his links and get a 404 error, just delet the TARGET=_BLANK from the end of the URL and you'll get it.
Temper temper....
It's a basic fact of human psychology that people hate people who they see as more fortunate as them and love making excuses for it. So, if you're rich, no one will like you.
So you say, I choose to think otherwise. I am often surprised by the number of people around me who admire rich, successful people. Frequently I don't share their regard, less often I do. I base my opinion of these people on their actions, not their personal wealth. I would actually assertthat today's society breeds people who do admire personal success over most other traits. More is the pity.
If you're rich, everyone will assume you got there by lying, stealing, being dishonest, etc. (that rationalizes why they, themselves are not rich).
Many rich people really did get that way by dishonesty. If you don't see that from everything that goes on around you, why, perhaps you are blind? Yes, there are also some rich, successful people who have got to where they are whilst maintaining principles and standards. But they truly are in the minority.
That's also the reason why every loser on Slashdot hates all "evil corporations". Most people - especially the incompetent - simply cannot accept the success of others as being a result of their competency.
But life is not just about competency. It's also about what you use that competency to accomplish. If what you accomplish is to make the world a worse place, then that is a bad thing, even if you did it very competently and made lots of money doing it. This is the bit you seem to miss.
So you go ahead and defend your theft by pretending the music companies are dishonest and greedy while they'll go ahead and try to stop themselves from being robbed.
This story, and the threads I have read so far, art not about theft and robbery, but exploitation of the masses by the minority.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Agreed.
The technology takes advantadge of the error correcting technology built into every audio CD. This technology is what allows the CD to play well even with hundreds of minor scratches. I think that the error correction will try to compensate for loss of data up to a tenth of a second or something like that. What they do is they put hundreds of minor glitches that are able to be corrected for by the technology. The error correction technology works really well, and is no way even close to being similar to a wave file.
If I recall correctly, compact discs use a version called cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon code, or CIRC. The basic level of error correction provided for Audio CD is one uncorrectable bit out of every 10^9. CD-ROM provides additional protection for data (ECC/EDC ) reducing the error rate to one bit in 10^13 For those interested, there is this detailed description, along with this basic introduction.
The coding system is based on groups of bits--such as bytes--rather than individual 0s and 1s. That feature makes Reed-Solomon codes particularly good at dealing with "bursts" of errors: Six consecutive bit errors, for example, can affect at most two bytes. Thus, even a double-error-correction version of a Reed-Solomon code can provide a comfortable safety factor. Current implementations of Reed-Solomon codes in CD technology are able to cope with error bursts as long as 4000 consecutive bits.
Thus it is possible to put in a couple hundred bytes of junk data every second or that would be the basis of the copy protection, all without compromising audio quality.
That said, I can record any sound playing through my computer with the software I have. The Audio Quality will be very good, then I can burn direct to CD, or convert to MP3, or whatever. Of course, all that I use this for are the music tapes I have from when I used to record certain local bands in clubs professionally.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
The point remains that this is a pain in the ass.
And one more thing, correct me if I'm wrong, if those CDs have the Compact Disk Digital Audio (or whatever) logo on them yet they don't conform to the redbook standards (as they don't) we can sue the labels.
""The Audio Home Recording Act, a law passed in 1992, says that copyright holders can't sue people who are making personal home copies of music. But lawyers note that the act does not require copyright holders to make this power available to consumers. ""
Essentially they are now nitpicking the fight because they know they would lose. The question is, by their actions to make it harder to exercise our rights are they actually violating the right?
This has got to be one of the most anti-consumer actions I have seen. This is the actions of a true monopolistic entity. This is the type of activity that the Justice department should be jumping up and down about.
I don't know, but if I find out which labels use this process I know who I damn well won't buy a CD from.
and they wonder why people pirate music, sheesh
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The trick is you don't want to be worth the hassel. No store gives a crap about a yuppie food pellet ($20). They rake in a few million a year taking a 25% cut. But more importantly who wants to spend $75 on the wages of 3 or more employees to ruin the day of everyone involved and end up with a customer who hates them even more than they did when they felt they got ripped off? I think I can safely say no one in the US.
I suppose the best thing would be for every US living slashdot reader to write a letter to the FTC about this group of companies using their undue market influence to deny their 'customers' choice in the market place. Of course the other side is will this make downloading music more or less popular?
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
The human soul is the greatest anti-piracy measure in the known world, but no major company will use it.
If your customers like you, they will never steal from you, even if they're criminal men by nature. Anybody heard of the priest who walks around East L.A., wading in and out of gang shoot-outs, but nobody will touch him?
The problem of course, is that in order to be liked, YOU FIRST have to be honest. These greedy futhermuckers can't hide in sheeps' clothing anymore; the world has become too cynical.
My prediction? The bigger and badder the fatcats get, the sharper and nastier will come the replies! The truth is, even my own sainted mother can't convince herself that these assholes don't deserve everything they get.
--S.T.
Karmic Ocean -- Beware Sharks
Now on he the fiction (or is it?):
-----
Bow before my sig, for it is good.
Can I make illegal digital copies with this cd?
-No.
Can I make illegal analog copies with this cd?
-Yes
So, I CAN make digital copies with this cd?
-Yes
Can I make legal digital copies (to my own MP3 player)?
-No
Can I bypass this stupidity by adding a DA-AD conversion to my digital copying?
-Most probably, yes.
Wont this give me MP3 files with lesser quality?
-Most probably, no. Not if you do it right.
Sooo... What we have is an encoding method that will only bring inconvenience to the law abiding consumer doing his private copying?
-Yes
The real pirates will work around it, and the music will eventually end up on Gnutella or wherever anyway.
-Yes
Doesnt this smell awfully lot like the Win XP Product Activation stupidity?
-Definitely, yes
...um...like...a sig...
That said, I find it interesting, but not unusual for CDs and other media to be released, without mentioning that they're copy-protected. I suspect the reason is that most copy-protection schemes are temporal at best. They're sort of like locks on our doors and cars, they keep the honest man honest.
I found some interesting articles along this same topic:
- Copy-protected CD hacked--or is it?
- How to Create a Copy Protected CD
- BMG's New Copy-Protected Audio CDs
None of which come right out and state the obvious. With enough time, all copy protection schemes get hacked.healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
Games manufacturers used to deliberately place errors on the old 5 1/4" disks in order to defeat copiers. What happened? A variety of work-arounds were soon found (all for the genuine purpose of making only backup copies, natch, as those floppies really were rather delicate).
The favoured method, IIRC, was to use a duplication method called parameter copying. People worked out what they needed to do to get around the specific method employed on their favourite game, and then wrote a little plug-in which the copier could use to modify its copying methods for that specific disk.
As a side effect, interestingly enough, those errors often used to cause the 1541 disk drives a lot of grief. Depending on the error, the 1541 would get so confused that it would try to realign the read head by forcibly moving to the outside rail and banging very rapidly against the rail, causing a loud chattering sound. You could even get a program which would write a small loader program and lots of errors to a blank disk, causing the disk drive to play tunes by going through this realignment procedure and knocking the read head against the realignment rail at different speeds. It did this for all of 10 minutes until your 1541 died a noisy death...