Slashdot Mirror
More Copy Protected CDs?
Mahonrimoriancumer writes "There are a lot of CDs that have been released recently which can't be played on the computer or *laugh* ripped. Apparently only a few markets have the 'copy protected' CDs while the rest don't. Here is a list of some that are 'protected.' Does anyone know of other CDs with this problem?" I own at least one CD on that list and it ripped just fine, so perhaps that are different versions of the CDs on the market
They can rip these CDs. They don't use the CD drive's analog playback function. Their drivers were designed to play CDs digitally all the way drom disc to speaker, and are not vulnerable to this copy protection thru intentional corruption scheme.
Now I wonder how long it'll be until someone sues Apple for making too good a CD player. Or forces them to downgrade their drivers.
That page offers a list of things you can do, like not supporting the labels or buying and returning the CDs, etc. If you're the amoral type, here's something else you can do with a "factory-damaged" CD:
Rip the CD, analog style or with a Mac or whatever, and put some or all of the tracks on your web site. Blatantly label them and submit the page to search engines. Put a note there saying something like "these tracks came from a copy-prevention enabled CD, so if you see any MP3's here, you're imagining things!"
Then when the lawyerbots come by, take it down, and reply to them apologizing profusely and saying how important you think copyright is and all that jazz. I think if the labels see all these tracks traded on the internet exactly the same as all the other CDs, they'll start knocking on the door of the CD-protection company asking, what the hell did we just pay you 50million$ for??
Of course, I prefer just avoiding the labels and their music completely. Here's my rule of thumb: if you think you could send an email to both the head of the label and the artist, and get a personal reply within a few days, that CD is probably not going to be crippled. In fact after getting the CD be sure to email both with your compliments. And some of the bigger indie labels have also taken a anti-anti-copying stand too, like Projekt.
Copy-protection shouldn't affect Winamp anyhow since it only affects digital playback, and Winamp uses analog playback (unless you swap out the CD player plugin with one that uses digital ripping).
I am told however that cdparanoia (which is *nix-only and very popular on Linux) can properly rip copy-protected CDs (I assume by using the error-correction data) so it's very possible that CmdrTaco had a copy protected CD but cdparanoia took care of it for him. It's much more likely though that whoever reported the CD as copy protected just didn't know what they were doing -- cheap CD-ROM drives in tandem with MusicMatch or RealJukebox will barf on some CDs that good CD/DVD-ROM drives coupled with cdparanoia or Exact Audio Copy will happily rip.
In Winamp, in the CD properties, uncheck the "Sample input from soundcard". This feature on some sound cards makes the CD not play any sound.
Since the CD will play in CD drive it likely isn't protected.
That's just the problem. Your digital out IS affected. I personally own one of the CDs on that list, and when you play it and for example let a Minidisc unit record it through a digital out, it totally fails. Every single bit missing is interpreted as a stream interruption and causes a track mark, thereby flooding the disc with 254 tracks in the first few minutes.
Now this may seem MD-only, but the fact remains that these are errors deliberatly put on that disc, and nothing less, which are propagated through a digital out as well, thereby providing you with what is, in essence, a faulty low-quality product.
The hilarious part is that the solution to the MD problem is ripping the track to your computer using cdparanoia (works fine) or a similar ripper, and play back the WAVs through a digital out on your soundcard. Resulting in uninterrupted WAV data (the ripper fills in the blanks) which can be played back perfectly. In essence, in order to make a perfectly legal recording on MD for yourself, they are in fact forcing you to rip it to your computer, which is what I s'pose they are trying to prevent.
Another thing that bothers me is that when I put that particular disc in a drive on a Win box, it fires up a proprietary binary cd player which plays back the disc. I do suspect it doesn't play back the data but some highly-compressed version of the music stored in a relatively large data file on the data part of the disc (haven't checked the quality, was too pissed at that moment). So they are also forcing you to use Windows if you want to hear it play. Forget Macs, forget other OSes.
And for those interested, the disc in question (Natalie Imbruglia's White Lilies Island) was proteced with the Cactus Data Shield 200, which is noted in small print on the booklet.
I could read CD 1 on my computer, although the whole CD appears as one 51 minute track. CD 2 it can't read at all. cdparanoia says "Unable to open disc". My portable CD player and even my very cheap stereo sometimes have trouble reading the discs, though stopping and restarting them fixes the problem.
I would never have thought that Aphex Twin would do such a thing, even though he says the only reason he releases his music is to make money (he only releases what he thinks his fans expect from him and he keeps the really innovative stuff for himself, because he doesn't want to be copied by everybody.
It's pretty clear to me why records companies are distributing both clean and copy protected versions of the same CD. They are collecting statistics on consumer acceptance for the copy protection scheme. They release two versions and then look at the return rates for the two versions to figure out how many people have CD players that reject the copy protection scheme.
jeff
Except, the requirement to use the little CD icon is paying money, not meeting the standard. They never claim to meet the standard anywhere.
If you sell something as a Compact Disc, you are advertising that it meets the standards for a Compact Disc. Philips/Sony licenses the logo, but they do not verify conformity with specs for each item that bears that logo. It is the responsibility of the manufacturers using the logo to assure that the products that they sell meet the specification for audio Compact Discs.
Licensing issues have nothing to do with false advertisement claims. Suppose I license the USB logo and then produce a "USB mouse" that doesn't work with the USB ports on most computers. I would still be guilty of false advertisement even though I licensed the USB logo.
You can usually get around this by going into the Winamp "Options" by clicking in the top left, and going to Play: then "Audio CD $CDROM" where $CDROM is the correct drive letter. This lets me play 99% of the Enhanced cds i have.
The best suggestion is on fatchuck's site:
Every time you go to a CD store, buy one of those broken CDs. Take it home, open it, play it, return it as defective and demand your money back. Just be sure you go to a large outlet, not an indie shop.
No lawsuit is needed, just simple economics.
-B
Its possible they could do that, say change the intro ever so slightly. However, I am a pretty lowly possistion at this station and I have access to it. Even the janitor could make a copy. We are in a Level 4 market, but lets say the RIAA uses one of those watermarks we have heard so much about and then goes onto audiognome and picks up the latest Britney Spears song and it happens to be one someone here ripped and encoded. Then they go back and match it to us, etc. Well, at that point the RIAA comes to us and we just say oh, it must of been (someone we just fired). Sorry, but hey, which artist do you want us to put in heavy rotation?
... but do I worry? Nah. After reading your post I gave a friend of mine a call up at a different radio station here in town and he brought me over their copy of an issued cd (both of our stations are owned by the same local company and we have a slight programing overlap). I slapped them in the machine and ran through a dupe check. Sure enough his CD matched ours bit for bit (acording to this program). So, at least for this cd in this one instance, no such thing I can see is in use.
Yes they could do it
Also - to get to your first question, what would stop them? We have a contract that says basically we get these 'raw' coppies so we can air and play them. For example, they would be in violation if they sent us a remix of a song that edits something out when we requested it w/o. If they watermarked our music and then tried to bust our station, they too would be in breech of contract. Thus, it would turn to be a bunch of lawcrap where in the end nothing happens and both groups end up jerking eachother off...
Welcome to radio
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
Sigh.
Okay --
Let us imagine that there is an author, Alice. She writes a book, and holds the copyright to it.
Let us further imagine that there is a reader, Bob. He wants to get a copy of Alice's book.
If Bob goes to the store and buys Alice's book, this is an ordinary commercial transaction. Bob must comply with copyright law, and so cannot, for example, copy the entire book and resell it, while a) the copyright is in force, b) copyright law as set forth by the government prohibits it, and c) if prohibited by copyright law, is also prohibited by Alice. If any one of these elements is missing, Bob _can_ copy the book and resell it.
In fact, if, for example, Congress modified copyright law (b) so that authors did not have the exclusive right to copy their works while they wished to and the copyright was in effect, Alice's wishes would be entirely moot. Her abilities to exert control over Bob are limited by Congress. She can only choose to exercise or refrain from exercising the powers she's granted.
If Bob, under the normal copyright scheme, wants to quote part of Alice's book in a book review without Alice's permission, assuming that the book satisfies a, b, and c, he may. This is because b, the law, which grants Alice certain powers also limits those powers in certain respects. Among these limitations, are that Alice has no authority to refuse to allow her book to be quoted in such a case, even if she wanted to.
Similarly, if Alice wrote a computer program, and sold it to Bob, Bob can use it and back it up, regardless of what Alice wants. Alice cannot tell him not to back up his software -- she has no legal authority to do so.
Now see, here's the thing you're not getting:
When Alice sells Bob the copy of the book, Alice is NOT GRANTING HIM A LICENSE THAT RESTRICTS BOB'S USAGE OF THE BOOK.
That _is not_ happening. There is no "loan" of copyright, you're speaking out of your ass.
When Alice sells that book, the BOOK is Bob's. He owns it. He cannot exercise certain natural rights that are precluded by copyright, and no one owns the work itself, but he _really_ owns that book. If Alice sold him the book, and then told him after the transaction, that he was not allowed to read it, Bob can not only read it, he can tell her to go to Hell. Unless the government tells Bob he cannot do something, Bob _CAN_.
You are laboring under the misconception that copyright law is the same as contract law. It is not.
Now, had Alice said "No, you cannot buy this book until you sign this contract" you might have a point. Oddly enough, this doesn't seem to be happening in most music stores I've been to.
Perhaps you think that psudolegal notices have weight? Or EULAs? Well, the last time I checked, IANAL, the weight of opinion was against you. Some EULAs may be enforcable, but there's a good argument to be made as well -- one that has been more successful -- that they are not, as a rule.
Nor are they common anywhere but software.
Now of course, if Alice wants to sit her butt down at the store, and require people to sign contracts before she'll sell them a copy of her book, she's free to do so. But this is by far the exception rather than the rule. (and the power to do this has nothing to do with copyright, once again, but in that Alice can set the terms under which she'll sell anything, with some restrictions)
Does this perhaps clear up some of your misconceptions?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
--
There's one thing computing teaches you, and that's that there's no point to remembering everything.
--Doug Copland