Slashdot Mirror
Sony Sells Defective, Damaging CDs in Eastern Europe
parvati writes: "Newscientist.com is reporting that a new form of anti-piracy technology for audio CDs could potentially damage audio equipment. The new system, called Cactus, developed by Midbar Tech (Tel Aviv), is similar to Macrovision's but prevents both CD-to-PC copying and CD-to-CD copying (Macrovision doesn't prevent the latter). Cactus adds fake control data that's not decoded by the original player but, when copied, is read as music and produces distortion. However, certain audio wave shapes have the capacity to damage the circuitry of the player and/or speaker equipment. Midbar has already sold unidentified Cactus-embedded CDs in Eastern Europe."
I'm hoping someone takes Sony to task over these CDs (though I don't hope someone gets their equipment destroyed). I'm sorry, but damaging customers equipment in the name of copy protection is just plain wrong.
Ironic since in the Supreme Court decision known as the "Betamax" case established the consumer's right to make copies for permitted use (in the USofA) and allowed the VCR market to develop. Sony was the party trying to establish the right to copy in that case. Now that they own the market....
sPh
The act of copying requires the use of the CDDA specification for CD-Roms and CD players.
That's raw data access. I can, if I want, mix real-time, the stream from the CD with any other sound source- and by copyright law I can.
If I can't do that, it's not complying with the CDDA spec and therefore isn't a Compact Disc- it's something that is sort-of one. If it's labeled as such on the package, then the disc is fraudulent or defective- take your pick.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
In order for the system to WORK, the CD player has to ignore the bad data. Older models may not do this. If you've got a fast enough machine, you're going to use the CDDA feature of your CD drive instead of the analog port for peak fidelity.
In either of those cases, it's going to hit a piece of equipment with an original disc.
Don't buy off on a fobbed off statement to the public about it won't harm things- think it through.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Bull. The problem can be any of the following:
There are lots of fair and legal ways to use MP3's. Interfering with them may not be illegal, but I expect damaging equipment is.
And wouldn't it be delicious if the audio equipment damaged was some brand new Sony gear? If Sony's not at fault because of the CD, then they're at fault in the question of "defective in materials or workmanship" under the warranty terms on the audio equipment and liable for the cost of repairs. Then as soon as it's fixed, you play that same CD they said wasn't faulty, and let them know they've got another repair bill to pick up. Lather, rinse, repeat. Eventually, you can probably invoke some sort of "lemon law".
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
will damage your equipmewnt while performing a LEGAL BACKUP you will win in court hands down. I do not know what the laws in Eastern Europe about Fair Use, but here in California selling that CD with a CD label on it makes them guilty of criminal fraud, possibly with intent to destroy property. If your PC and or equipment is worth 1500.00 then it can even be a felony here.
note IANAL, just a retired COP so don't bank on my advice.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I thought that "I cannot be played on record player X" stuff was just a hypothetical example...
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Well, it figures.
Don't get me wrong, every piece of electronic equipment that I own that can be made by Sony is made by Sony. (Okay, 4/5 boxen ain't bad).
It just figures that they would create a technology that would so damage one of their other products that you would have to buy the second product again.
The funniest part of the whole thing is this (funny as in cynical):
1. User buys new Yanni CD.
2. Sticks CD in Sony CD player, Yanni is so powerful that the CD player starts making crazy noise and then stops making any noise at all.
3. User goes out and purchases a new Sony CD player. (Hopefully not another 52k hi-fi edition)
4. User tries to play Yanni again. Good thing that he has the Sony warranty, but I'm sure the warranty doesn't cover damage by the encoding of their own cd's. (smart).
5. User realizes that the cd broke his player, yet Sony still will not acknowledge any fault on their part.
6. User tries to return the evil Yanni cd, yet Best Buy (and any other store, for that matter), will not accept returns of opened cd media. (who would want to copy Yanni anyways?
Yes, I love Sony... but they do seem to shoot themselves in the foot sometimes.
-S
Scott Ruttencutter
We Apprentice Developers and Designers
AUG 2001:
SonySoftVision today announced that they have introduced a new copy protection mechanism for CDs. The new copy protection mechanism prevents infected.. er, I mean.. "protected" CDs from being copied, both on PCs and on consumer CD players. The new protection, called "KickInDaNutz", has been secretly included on several thousand CDs which are targetted for North American distribution.
KickInDaNutz works by taking all of the music data and replacing it with random noise; or, in some cases, a computer virus. The result is a CD that, when inserted into a computer, causes the computer to email all of the MP3 files contained on its hard drive to the RIAA.
KickInDaNutz has the side benefit of making the CD completely unlistenable, even for those who bought it. According to a spokesman for SonySoftVision, "The customer gets fucked, but because of the 'no-return' policy at almost every CD store, they have no recourse to recover their money. In some cases, that customer might even buy another copy! The great thing is that they won't be able to tell beforehand which CDs are corrupted! Besides, if they want to listen to the songs, they should just turn on their radio where we can subject them to advertising."
The new copy protection does add a bit of overhead into the cost of CD production, according to SonySoftVision. This will force the price of CDs to rise to US$35.00.
Consumer response to this new form of copy protection is not expected to be negative, according to the experts. "Most consumers are used to paying exhorbitant prices in order to get one or two good songs per album; we're only reducing that number by one or two. Besides, some people might LIKE random noise."
In other news...
And considering what some people spend on Amps.... If you really want to test your theory, that it isn't possible, create some 'sound files' by encoding some unusual waveforms and try it on your stereo, in your car and on your portable CD player.
Go ahead.
I dare you.
I just *love* how anyone who wants to do any of the following is labeled a "pirate" by the music industry now:
-burn copies of cd's so it's not necessary to keep $1800 (100 disks) worth of original cd's in the car
-play cd's on high-end car audio head units that are really the more high-quality cd-rom drives and not the dumbed-down cd players that hav no problem with corrupt and missing data
-rip and encode 300 cd's and place on 30 mp3 cdr's for use with high-end car audio cd-mp3 players
-countless other activities
I would personally be very pissed of if I was one of the companies that have taken risks to bring portable mp3 players, cd copying software, car-audio mp3 players, and very high-end cd players to the market just to have them pissed on by the record industry's anti-piracy campaign of the week!!
what the hell ever happened to trying to please consumers??
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
Also interesting, the company's name "Midbar" means "Desert" in Hebrew. "Cactus" fits right in.
The trouble here is that only your 'illegal' copy could damage your system. Which is your fault, since Sony did not produce the CD, you did. More frightening than the copy-protection technology is the fact that the industry has long since forgone the notion of fair use. This is what we should be livid about ... like people who complain about getting a parking ticket. YOU parked there, knowing you would get one.
... I vohemently oppose ANY copy protection scheme. The fact that this one might (/might/) damage your equipment should you exersice 'fair use' of your CDs is secondary to the fact that fair use seems like an old bedtime story that every company out there is desperately trying to forget.
/didn't/ damage your equipment next week, they'd look like heros, and with respect to this case alone, no one would seemingly have anything else to complain about.
I don't care if the copy protection scheme makes my stereo taste like a 22oz prime rib steak
What really scares me is that we're making all this furor over the fact that it damages your stereo. If Sony were to licence a copy-protection scheme that
Oh wait, except the fact that Sony denies the existance of FAIR USE. Bah.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Sony has secretly tested Cactus by treating several thousand CDs sold recently in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, but the system was not set to cause damage on this occasion.
The shipping CDs aren't set to produce coppies which will damage equipment. The copy protection system would allow them to create such CDs, but it wasn't done on the ones they shipped.
Midbar has already sold unidentified Cactus-embedded CDs in Eastern Europe.
Until specific titles of CDs are given, I'm very dubious about all these weekly claims of releases, cracks and damages. It sounds like RIAA-sponsored FUD, not actual discussions of real technologies or real products or real damages of real equipment.
[
If they don't want people copying CDs, why do they sell this CD recorder?
Sony has secretly tested Cactus by treating several thousand CDs sold recently in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, but the system was not set to cause damage on this occasion.
I think that this paragraph in the article bothers me. If the system is set to cause damage, someone had to set it to do that, which means somewhere in the algorithm, someone changed
CauseDamage=0; to CauseDamage=1;
Mabey its just a typo - cause if it can be set to cause damage, then they're knowingly selling a defective product.
~z
sig?
Stay away from this stuff, I'm telling you!
--SC
You read fiction? I write it! Lemme know what you th
What happened to our right to back up our own cds? This technology assumes that any copying of the cd must be for piracy. And should they implement the 'damaging' factor (not currently used in the European trial) and it destroys audio equipment, I see lawsuits up the wazoo. Once again, the 'golden ears' say that it may cause some drop in fidelity. And of course I'm sure these cds aren't marked as copy protected, either.
It is illegal to do it yourself undef the most strict, Kaplanesque interpretation of the DMCA.
Circumvention itself is now illegal too. Fair use is illegal unless the content provider decides to not stop you.
Fair use is kind of pointless if the content provider can make it illegal for you to engage in it, even the DMCA claims to not hurt fair use right in one of its clauses, but the fact stands:
At least one judge (Kaplan) won't let that inconsistency or the Constitution stop him.
And as a Federal judge he can get armed marshalls to enforce a judgement, and take almost everything you own. Or, if you "profitted", lock you away 5 years like Dmitry Sklyarov (in this case the US broke SEVERAL international laws in the process - just like our "enemies" are known for doing).
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
There is a precedence. On the CD for P.D.Q. Bach's 1712 Overture, there is a warning that the waveforms caused by the sound of balloons popping near the end of the overture can potentially damage speaker equipment. IANAL, of course, but it seems to me it would be easy to show that anyone who makes a CD that could potentially damage equipment should place a disclaimer on the cover.
If I own a CD-CD copy machine (in the same spirit of dual tape players of old), will this prevent me making up my own compilation CDs for my own personal use?
Surely the implication is this protection will break the terms of the licence I have for my media (i.e. the right to make a backup, or a copy for personal use)?
The article IS true and such CDs are being sold in Czech Republic for at least 3 months. Here is one of them available in online shop. (It says the release date is 2000 but I think that's a mistake.) Dan Barta is very high profile singer/musician and the album sells very well (it's still at #11 in the charts). Note that it's in fact released by Sony Music. The CD cannot be played in any PC CD-ROM and - in fact - is not recognized as CD at all. The players/rippers act as if there was nothing in the CD drive. It cannot even be read with low level sector-read, the program simply says "there is no CD in drive". Believe me, I tried very hard with various ripping software... What is very interesting is that if you look at the CD, there are visible gaps about 1mm wide between the tracks, as on LP. The CD has a sticker with crossed-out cartoon computer looking sad and smoking, with the words "NELZE PREHRAT V PC" ("CANNOT BE PLAYED IN PC").
--- Frantisek Fuka (Yes, that's my real name and you have no idea how it's pronounced)
Well here in Ireland, it is not illegal to copy and distribute, it is illegal to copy and distribute for profit. If I want to, I can run off a copy for my own personal use (if you want the law references - give me a few days. My grandfather's law books are in storage. He was a TD (see congressman) so they were very up to date) If I cannot copy a disc for my own personal use, I can return the disc to the shop and by law I will get a refund (sale of goods act - not fit for purpose. It is a cd, I should be able to copy for my own use).
Off-topic: Nice thing about Ireland/Europe, the majority of the disclaimers on product licenses and manuals are illegal/ irrelevant. You cannot have your rights as a consumer under law removed/restricted by the licensing practised by a lot of american megacorps.
- This sig deliberately left blank. Nothing to see, move along.
I am not an electrical engineer, but I wonder, can this data be captured, made avaiable and reproducable in mp3 format, then inserted into say, Britanny Spears or BackStreet Boys MP3's, then 'made available' to teeny boppers everywhere, with the intention of damaging their equipment?
-Mynn the Museless
Face it, people are stupid, and the internet is the place where they all meet.
1. Buy a Sony CD recorder.
...OR...
2. Copy a Sony music CD using the Sony recorder.
3. Play the copied CD on your Sony stereo using stock Sony speakers.
4. Sue Sony when their CD blows their system.
Protest by not buying their music CDs anymore and avoid purchasing their music equipment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
CDs do not come with a EULA of any kind however. They do not say what my rights are and are not. I would assume I have a "right" to make a copy for backup purposes. I suppose Sony could sell me a CD saying "No, you don't have the right to make a copy of this", as if I buy the CD I agree to the terms.
...(since I haven't been told otherwise and as I pointed out is a right I have in similar media)...
You don't have the right just because you assume. Legally you don't have the right to copy a CD unless they explicitly give you permission, as often done on computer CDs.
Yes, you have the right to make a copy due to fair use; however, fair use does not guarantee any degree of quality, it just says you have the right to make a copy, and you can still make an analog copy to tape.
This is what came up earlier regarding copying DVDs and CDs.
Just because a similar media gives you the right doesn't mean all creations of the same media offer the same right; again never assume.
That "garbage" is called "New Country" and belive it or not, some people like it.
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
If you read the submission carefully, note that it says that copied CDs can cause distortion, and it is this distortion that can damage audio equipment - evidently, the original CD will not do this. I have no idea whether any of this is true, but all the hysteria here about suing Sony for 'defective' CDs seems misplaced : what is going to ruin any equipment are the copied CDs, so if anything is defective it is these copied CDs - not the originals.
I've become intrigued by all this CD corruption and decided to get a better look at it myself. So I've been looking for Philip's Red Book standard for CD-DA and the best link i got was this Philips site. To download the documentation you need to be a licensed company. Anyone has ideas for where to look?
SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped)
If you are a musician who self-publishes or publishes through an indie labek: it is officially time to start enclosing a little throwaway card in your self-produced and/or indie produced/distributed music CDs. Look, I've even written some helpful text that is (C) J. Hamlow 2001 but which I hereby license unlimited use in any and every capacity by anyone free of charge -change it, make it better, spread it around and spread the word: "Thank you for buying this audio CD. You should be aware that in an attempt to increase profits, compact discs are now being released by major record labels which have been engineered to limit your ability to use and enjoy your personal music collection. These CDs may interfere with the legal translation of audio files into formats such as MP3s, legal CD-CD copying for back-up purposes, may not play correctly on all of your CD players, and may even damage your audio or computer equipment when played. Because these CDs are not necessarily identified as different from a fully functional CD, you may inadvertently purchase one. If you do so, we urge you to return the defective CD for a full refund of the purchase price. In the meantime, please rest assured that this CD is fully functional for all the modes of playback you expect from your audio CD collection. Thank you again for your purchase."
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
That it is only possible to damage audio equipment with the (non-functional) COPIES!
At least the original product will not damage your system, so maybe the manufacturor will claim that they didnt sell a defective product!
As long as the original still sounds perfect and cant damage your audio equipment then is there really any chance of us being able to lodge a reasonable complaint.
What really worries me about these copy protection systems is the effect it will have on the durability of the disks. If they have already killed the error correction in some parts of the CD so badly that the played has to interpolate then you had better hope you dont get any dust/scratches near-by!
Microsoft's New Slogan: We're taking you somewhere today dammit, and you can't stop us.
I posted and all I got was this stupid sig
I am wondering here about my right to make a back-up copy of CDs I purchase. I scratch my CDs regularly because I am not careful with them.
Microsoft's software comes with a EULA (as does most other software) that says, among other things, that I MAY make a copy for archival purposes.
CDs do not come with a EULA of any kind however. They do not say what my rights are and are not. I would assume I have a "right" to make a copy for backup purposes. I suppose Sony could sell me a CD saying "No, you don't have the right to make a copy of this", as if I buy the CD I agree to the terms.
I however find it unfair for Sony not to inform me that they are selling me a CD which if I use the rights I assume I have (since I haven't been told otherwise and as I pointed out is a right I have in similar media) and make a copy, I will damage my equipment. I think this is potentially inviting lawsuits for damaged equipment (IANAL).
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
...class-action lawsuit?
IANAL, but Sony selling cd's that don't exactly conform to the CDDA standards (which is a whole other deal) and will possibly damage sound equipment under normal operation has got to be illegal underom SOMETHING.
And "unacceptable" to harm a consuer's audio equipment DELIBERATELY? Uh...yeah, that's about as unacceptable as them just breaking into my house and smashing my speakers with a crowbar.