Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Macrovision CD Protection Bypassed

Posted by timothy on from the as-if-it-wouldn't-be dept.

LoPan writes: "The defective CDs that have recently arrived on the market have already had their copy protection broken according to The Register. What I'd like to know is if the discs do not conform to the Red Book standard, and if so, can they actually be sold as audio CD's, with the logo? Are they marked, warning consumers that they're buying a defective product?" The cdfreaks article referenced by the Register article tells you all you need to know. It's Windows-centric, but give it a few weeks and I bet cross-platform answers will show up.

5 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. CD Freaks Got It Wrong. by chefmonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting
    In reading the CD Freaks article, I'm fairly certain that they haven't figured out a way to rip the tracks; at least, not correctly.

    The earlier article sited on /. (I can't seem to find the damn thing right now) didn't say that attempting to rip protected disks would result in an error; it said that you'd end up with bursts of static. This technology works by placing bursts of static in the audio stream and marking them with a wildly wrong checksum. Audio CD players will interpolate over these bursts. Data CD readers will read the static in and (except for some models running at 1x) ignore the checksum altogether.

    The driver that CD Freaks points out is kind of cool; it means you don't need a dedicated ripper any more. The article, though doesn't indicate how it gets around the problem with the ECC codes being missing.

    Given this, and given knowledge of the way that CD-ROM drives work, I'd bet anyone here dimes to dollars that the CD Freaks "solution" won't be any more effective at circumventing the copy protection than any other CD ripper.

  2. Re:congratulations, you are now a criminal in the by nanojath · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Interesting question - if you fail to label the CD in any way, how is one to say they have encountered an "encryption method" (for which the creation of a "circumvention device" is a violation of the DMCA) rather than a "stupidly fucked up CD," for which the creation of a "repair technology" is simply the perogative of the discerning consumer.

    Gets into interesting territory: in general, I know, an ignorance of the law does not preclude one from being prosecuted for breaking it ("gee officer, that's a COCA bush?! And here I thought I was makin' SALT down in my basement" will not get you off the hook), although it may be considered in sentencing (as long as you're not facing a mandatory minimum, natch)... Yet this seems to be a case where ignorance could justifiably be grounds for questioning whether the law even applies. Are these CDs really "encrypted" in the first place? Bollocks, I say - they just have a bunch of junk on them. Teaching your computer to ignore bad data on a CD is hardly decryption.

    I think Macrovision is well aware of all this. They were floating them to find out a)how long it takes the story to break b)how big of a public stink about it would occur and c)how long it would take for audiophiles and compunerds to come up with a fix for the problem.

    Answers:

    a: practically instantaneously

    b: only among a sadly tiny cadre of the technological intelligentsia c: not long at all. Thank you for playing, better luck next time!

    --

    It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

  3. Titles please? by sdo1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have yet to see any titles of these so-called protected CDs. Until I see a title, I don't believe any of it.

    -S

    --
    --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
  4. Here's what I'm trying to say and ask. by AtariDatacenter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't think my last post did an elegant job on it. We all know that the code that allows you to bypass the Macrovision CD copy protection is a DMCA violation. That should be obvious.

    But isn't it just as much of a violation to bypass the Macrovision copy protection via sampling an audio stream, or recording the analog stream to another device?

    By doing so, you are bypassing their mechanism to prevent the CD from being copied. And nothing in the DMCA says that it has to be 100% effective against all means of copying.

    So does that make analog copying a violation because you are bypassing the digital protection?

  5. Be honest now.... by Rackemup · · Score: 4, Interesting
    How many people didn't see this coming? Don't be shy, raise your hand if you actually BELIEVED FOR A SECOND that this copy-protection scheme would work...

    I think it's funny that they introduced these special CDs onto the market in the first place. People buy CDs for the high-quality music, and then they go and release this "copy-protection" scheme that purposly screws up the data so bad people can't copy the music to their computers.

    Here's a little knowledge-nugget© for you record-producer-type people, some of us rip songs from CDs into MP3 format because it's WAY more convenient to listen to. That doesnt mean I'm going to share the data with the world just to spite the record companies... I know there are people who no longer buy CD's because the music is so easy to find online (and they should be punished for doing this), but I've actually bought MORE CD's in the past year or 2 because I had listened to the music online first.

    Instead of trying to find a way to prevent people from using the CDs that they've bought at a normal store, how about figuring out a way to encourage online users to support the bands who actually make the music....