Slashdot Mirror
Still More 'Copy Protected' CDs
maniac11 writes: "This story describes new CDs planned on being released by Universal Music Group that sport anti-copying technology. Not much in the way of actual details, but a heads up on a new plan to foil." Same price, worse product -- higher sales! Universal seems to be the first company to commit to downgrading its entire lineup over the next six months or so.
you can't damage Audio DVDs in same way. Tolerance
will be much lower for data corruption.
These products should absolutely be labelled as "non-compatible" with the CD standard if they in any way are not compatible with other CD usages.
This includes playing on a computer. Many of the other "copy protection" schemes make it impossible to use them on a computer of any sort. Others degrade sound quality.
If they're not clearly labelled as such, I could see lawsuits over mis-representation of the product.
INIAL, IAJAMC.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
I think you are underestimating the impact CD burners in every cow box has had. I know people who are the dumbest red-necks you have ever seen that mix and burn their own CDs. Joe Public probably burns more CDs than the geeks do!
As reported a few weeks back, a woman has already filed suit for mislabeling of her CD. Haven't heard any updates on this though. Anyone seen anything else about it?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Seriously, I have bought maybe 15 cds in the past 3 years. Three of those were replacements of cds I'd have for years had been remastered, and the rest were by bands that allow me and others like me to freely record and trade their live concerts. Radiohead and U2 are two big name acts that have recently figured out that people who trade their concerts are more likely to buy their albums and attend their concerts than someone who doesn't trade.
Check out the links above, there is something for all tastes. There is plenty of music to be had for the price of your bandwidth and blank CDs.
A lot of the most interesting stuff is out on vinyl first or only (what all those uberhip DJs carry around in their milk crates). This is a trend we want to encourage.
sulli
RTFJ.
If the industry is losing billions to copying, and they've made it impossible, we can expect to see prices fall to say $4.99, right? Or were they lying about napster....
It's his right to burn a CD if he owns the music. The issue isn't with burning copies, it's with distributing them. However, the record companies don't want to deal with that fight, so they're taking the easy way out. By doing what they did, they unethically took away fair use rights for many people who aren't law breakers. In my opinion, that's boycott worthy.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
And I just spent $500+ on my spiffy Kenwood MP3 player. I guess I'll just have to get my MP3s to play in my car off those war3z sit3z and ftp3z.
Shame too, because all I was doing was making it more convenient to keep lots of music in my car. It also makes me happier as the person(s) who broke into my car is just a little more screwed since they won't be able to profit (oh, and not pay royalties) off the cds s/he stole.
So I take it this means that cd-duping is supposed to be eliminated ("more difficult")?
Really... I wonder when they're going to demand that used cd stores pay the record industries for the lost profits.
Idiots. All of them.
Bring in a laptop to prove to them that it doesn't play in your computer.
Most music stores I've seen have a sign posted: "If it plays here, it's not defective".
Bringing in a laptop probably wouldn't prove the case, as they'd pop it in their system and it would play fine.
However, you could eat up about 20 minutes of their time anyway.
This logo may be used on discs complying with the CD-DA specifications: the IEC 908 standard and/or the Philips-Sony Compact Disc Digital Audio System Description (the RED Book).
There are 12 different logos all with different requirements for permitted use. What I don't know is if these new discs would violate _every_ one of these standards resulting in the publisher's inability to use any "compact disc" logo.
Which, oddly enough, means it should be able to be READ in any CD-ROM drive, since basically every drive ever made is Redbook compatible. That's what the headphone jack in the front was for. If a CD doesn't READ in a drive, then it should not carry the CD logo.
However, as the astute have pointed out, that means nothing about being able to copy the data off the CD. But, what's to stop someone *cough*Linuxdriverdeveloper*cough* from tweaking the CD drivers to make it work? You want to call it encryption under the DMCA? I bet a lawyer could easily argue it's not true encryption, merely error introduction which the developer corrected. That should make for an interesting fight.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
Now with these new CDs, because they're copy-protected, a ripper for them violates the DMCA. So these new pieces of software which allow the contents of a CD containing copyrighted music to be converted into a plain old ordinary computer file are wholly illegal. Which is kinda odd, really, seeing as how they do the exact same thing.
I know that's nothing you didn't aready know, but I just thought I'd get it off my chest.
If there's one thing this argument needs, it's a catchy label. If copy-prevention on CD's get slapped with a 'downgrade' label, it'll be dead before it gets any momentum. Joe Sixpack will NEVER stand for it and the media will have a field day demonstrating car stereos and home computers balking at the latest N'Sync CD.
We should push this rhetoric HARD.
Let's not forget about Dave Matthews Band. They had the foresight to pass on several offers from record companies because they wanted one of them to guarantee them the right to allow their fans to record concerts and swap songs. For that reason, while I have not bought a new CD in months, and don't intend to, I will make a small exception to my boycott and buy them -- assuming they don't allow copy protection to be foisted off on their CDs, in which case, I'll have to take a pass on that, too, since I almost exclusively listen to them on my box while working.
Am I bad for business? I've bought every album, some more than once because of mishap, plus their bio CD and a pair of DVDs (one was videos, one was a concert). I've also been to two of their concerts and would gladly go to another, and snap up their professionally recorded live albums eagerly.
What's to prevent someone from producing CD-ROM drivers that just emulate whatever it is that the audio error correction hardware does? I would expect such software to emerge from the bazaar pretty quickly. Is there some deeper hardware issue here?
-- Remember that we live in a world where all the really big decisions are made by people with short attention spans.
The record companies are doing a lot more than protecting their investment. They are intentionally crippling their product in a way that infringes on your fair use rights. They have no right to do that. They are trying to control how you use their product. They have no right to do that. Heh.. not yet anyway, but watch them buy a few more laws.
The media cartel only exists because people keep fueling it and voting with their dollars
The media cartels exist because people have no other choice. Independent artists have even more difficult time getting to the top than alternative operating systems...
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
At that point, it is a matter for the courts to decide. I imagine that a small claims suit asking for about $100 for the $15 CD once or twice a month will get their attention.
Judges may or may not be concerned with the signage. In any case, it must be prominently displayed. Also, vendors cannot sell a product 'as-is' in most cases. Their is an implied warranty of merchantibility, which means that the product will work. Disclaimers can't disclaim this.
These signs (like many others posted by businesses) are their to scare off people who don't know the law and/or their rights.
So no, bringing in the laptop will not prove anything to the dumbshit manager of the store. But it might prove something to the small claims court judge.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Then just dispute the charge with your credit card company. They may not end up having to give your money back, but I guarantee they'll get tired of challenging chargebacks from their bank.
They'll get VERY tired of it, VERY quickly. The average chargeback processing fee is $20, and that's charged to the merchant regardless of whether the chargeback is upheld or not.
Whenever you write your credit card company to dispute a charge, you cost the merchant about $20 regardless of outcome.
Sony may work to change the standard as they have something at stake in the music industry, but Phillips doesn't and thus doesn't care. That's why you don't see "bit accurate" CD copiers advertised by Sony, but you do Phillips.
"Hey, Mom, would you care if you can't play CDs on your computer?"
"Uh, YES, don't you remember? That's how I play all my CDs."
"Hey, Dad, would you care that you can't rip CDs to your computer?"
"Well, yes, because I copy all my CDs to MP3s so I don't need a CD changer to listen to them in sequence."
I suppose my parents may be weird though. After all, my Dad listens to country... (and he's got *all* his CDs on his computer as MP3s, but then again, he works for Digital - er, Compaq - er, HP). My Mom does some work with editting webpages, so I guess she can be considered a "technical" type.
But I know many people who I wouldn't consider a "nerd" who use their computer to play CDs straight. And they'll be mightly pissed if they can't listen to their new CDs on their $2000 laptop...
Don't forget, computers are slowly becoming "entertainment centers." My Mom basically gave up on her little CD player she used to use to play CDs and now (would) play her CDs via her CD-ROM drive -- except that she uses AudioGalaxy now. (And the incident with the CD-ROM door being stuck shut. Ignoring that...) Her computer sounds better than her small "portable stereo."
My sister (who is definately not a tech-type at all) uses her computer to play CDs - which, considering she only uses it for homework any other time should tell you something. (Although she has a "real" CD-player now she uses instead. It's a portable CD-player with headphones which is the real selling point.)
Many people who own a computer - a growing portion of the population - especially in the "pop music" set - end up playing CDs through it. Sometimes it's because the computer is in a separate room from the stereo and they want to listen to music while doing homework. Sometimes it's because they want to rip the 2-CD set and listen straight through them without swapping disks.
Legal digital music is becoming a way of life for the "younger" generation. Go through practically any college and you'll find that most of the music pumping these days is either a mix CD or straight MP3s being played through a high-fi stereo system. (With more colleges requiring computers, college students stick with the tool that works - if we can't spend $500 on a stereo, we'll use the $1000 computer we had to get instead...) It may not be near 50% of music listeners yet, but it's at least 10% - which is a lot of listeners to potentially permentantly alienate.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
As long as content providers want to be compatible with general purpose HW, every copy protection scheme they come up with will be a house of cards that is held up only by legal attacks against transgressors.
Since paying for a whole new set of proprietary HW is just not a practical plan they're doomed - they should roll over and give up right now.
I only used Napster (and other such MP3 services and so forth) to aquire music that was impossible to find in stores, thus buy, or to download music from artists that had said they supported their fans sharing music in that manner.
Last year I spent >$200 on CDs. The RIAA certainly made money off of me. However, now the RIAA wants to curtail my ability of fair use? Naturally, I'll be less inclined to buy CDs I can't use in all of my players. Not to mention that I consider these CDs that are "protected" to be defective. Of course, I might be inclined to buy again if I can have a tool to bypass their schemes (which will more than likely be illegal under the DMCA).
Case in point. I don't want to buy CDs that are defective (either intentionally or not). RIAA is losing my business by curtailing my ability to listen to my CD in the format I choose.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Actually, it is becoming increasingly common for CD-ROMs in computers to use CDDA to extract & play audio instead of a direct analog hookup to the sound card.
All recent Mac's are like this, and recent pc clones are also being built this way.
Out of the three computers at home that I use the most (iBook w/internal DVD drive, iMac w/internal CD-ROM, and Dell w/internal CD-R/RW), only one (the Dell) has an analog connection from the CD drive to the sound card... the other two use digital extraction, and thus can't play these CD's.
It stands to reason that the biggest enemy of these non-standard CDs has to be the consumer electronics industry. They've seen a huge sales of burners, players, software, blanks, labels and all the other paraphernalia that goes with the make-your-own-CD revolution.
Limiting or preventing ripping of CDs seems like a real threat to not just Johnny Digital's passtime but of those in the electronics industry whose livlihood relies on consumers legitimately being able to rip CDs.
How soon until they fire back with firmware upgrades or other hardware hacks that overcome the copy protection gimmicks? And how will the music industry respond when this stuff is sold with the claim "Now compatible with new CDS!"?
Another 'broken record' recently released is Heather Nova's new album 'South'. At least on the German version (UK release is not till Monday)
Apparently there's a small warning 'will not play on PCs'
If you want to buy a CD just to play with the copy protection, I'd suggest this one.... (Although her earlier 'Oyster' is *far* better)
Dave
If it simply doesn't work, I'll be demanding a full refund (from the place of sale) and writing the label a nastygram letting them know they've lost my business over it, much the same as I write my representatives nastygrams. If it damages my equipment (as some of these "protection" (read: strongarm) methods are purported to have the ability to do), you'd better believe I'll be in touch with a lawyer.
The Gza admonished us to check the labels, and I do. When I buy new, I consciously look for indie labels' releases before I look to majors.
If copy protection is the myopic way of the future, it'll be exclusively indies and the majors that don't employ copy protection that receive my spending dollars.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
The pathetic thing is that I can rip those tracks to HDD, then burn them to CD instead of making a full copy of the CD, and it will play! So much for copy "protection."
As an audio purist ever in search of better sound quality, the very idea of purposely degrading my signal source with digital fingerprints and copy protection is just pushing me to buy fewer and fewer CDs. I am not willing to pay for damaged goods, and I can't see how messing with my audio source can be viewed as anything but damaging.
As to piracy, I own a grand total of one pirated CD -- a copy of Willie Dixon's "Gingerale Afternoon" that I haven't been able to find anywhere in over 5 years. (At least not for a sane price -- there are a couple online shops that are willing to sell me a copy for $27+shipping.)
There are another 5-10 CDs that I'd pirate for the same reason, but I can't even find someone who owns an original, much less a place to buy those albums.
On the downside, my reduced purchases have absolutely no impact on the big labels as most of my purchases are from much smaller studios like Blind Pig Records. Odds are these smaller companies don't have the volume to invest in so-called copy-protection technologies, but if they farm out the AD conversion and manufacture to bigger companies I'll end up having to skip their products as well.
For those using the so-called CD player in their computer, if you actually cared about the music you'd spring for a CD portable regardless of the copy protection issue. The players built into a computer have so much signal interference and low-quality chip amps that they just aren't worth listening to!
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
From the CNet article, September 25, 2001:
From IMDB StudioBrief, September 26, 2001:
So which is it? Lost sales? Or record sales?
(I also think that predicting a drop in music sales due to The Attack is disingenuous---I actually suspect that music sales won't be affected at all, and may even increase a little.)
Said that - I perfectly understand what this phono freaks mean - psychoacoustics - when you take your brain into the equation.. Your ear make a weird transform, somewhat closer to wavelet time-frequency one, then to Fourier. Then you evaluate the result using a lot of strange rules, which I have little knowledge about.
But why not to state it straight? That vinyl causes such reproduction that is pleasant to hear, that's it.. No pseudo-scientific bullshit..
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
You asked for someone to set up a domain where everyone can catalog all the copy protected cds. i just registered the domain, and as soon as i can throw some perl together the site will be up.
and thanks ryanvm for the idea and the domain name.
cristiana
If CDs were copy protected, would most people rip them by attaching their CD players to sound cards? Probably not. And not because of the quality, but because of the effort required. Consider this:
Ripping a CD to MP3s involves: (a) fetching track names automatically from freedb, (b) reading the audio off the CD (much faster than playing it) into separate files and (c) making MP3/ogg files.
Ripping a recording from line in involves (a) recording the whole damned thing at real time, (b) cutting it into separate tracks (no track info, remember), (c) hand-naming the files and making playlists. Takes a lot longer and requires more effort. I've done it once for a live recording from a MiniDisc, and it's not something I'd want to do for every CD I wish to listen to on my computer.
Of course, the payoff for going to this Herculean effort would be the kudos you get from all the mp3 l33ch3z when you upload it for the taking. So, in effect, copy-protected CDs would punish honest home-rippers and encourage file-sharing mp3 d00dz.