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

Comments

Stop using the phrase Copy Protection...

[Kiro]

I would like to request that people stop using the phrase "copy protection" and instead use the term "copy prevention"

This has a number of advantages:
- copy protection implies that copying is bad (which it is not)

- copy prevention implies that the music industry is preventing me from making a legitimate copy. (which it is)

- copy prevention (somewhat) signifies that it is futile to prevent people to make copies. They can try and they might stop 90% of the people but it just takes 1 person to get this on MP3 and upload it to the net for the cat to be out of the bag

.

Re:Stop using the phrase Copy Protection...

[Dr. Awktagon]

Amen, amen to that, try also "copy interference". Because they're not preventing any copying, they just make you do it differently.

Or heck just "intentionally damaged" or whatever, anything to get away from their terminology.

Re:Stop using the phrase Copy Protection...

[Webmonger]

I think better terms are "copy control" or "usage restriction". The point is that they want to control how you use what you buy.

Re:what is wrong with copy protection?

[fmaxwell]

yea, but if a company makes it hard or near imposssible to copy it, there's nothing illegal or wrong with that.

They are selling the items as "Compact Discs." My computers, JVC MP3/CD car stereo, and Riovolt portable MP3/CD player all play Compact Discs. So if I buy a disc and it does not play in them, it is not a Compact Disc. The companies producing the disc in question will have wasted my time -- with is worth far more than the $19 price of the CD.

There is a standard for audio CDs and it is well documented. If these companies are going to sell something that does not meet the standard, then they should not be advertising them as being "Compact Discs."

Re:Class Action Suit

[garett_spencley]

I understand it isn't our right to play the cd anywhere

Wha??!!!?? One of the reasons that I am completely against closed source software, cd copy "protection" , and the whole anti-DeCSS thing is because I believe that when I shell out my hard earned cash for something that means that I have the right to do whatever the hell I want with it because IT'S MINE!!!!!!

That's why whenever I am presented with a EULA I respectfully click "I do not agree". I will not enter into any "user agreement" with any company. If I buy something I reserve the right to do whatever the hell I want with it plain and simple...

With one minor exception: taking credit for the work.

I can not copy a book and say I wrote it. That's playgarism and is not fair to the author. But I can give that book to a friend when I'm done reading it because it's mine, I payed for it and I can do whatever I want with it.

--
Garett

Re:one more thing to do

[uchian]

Hmmm....

Household CD Player +
pair of phono to quarter inch jack +
Decent soundcard +
Computer +
WAV Recorder +
WAV -> MP3 converter

= circumvention device.

How about :

Radio + Cassette tape + a bit of patience = circumvention device.

How about :

Sky Satellite dish + Digital box + The Box (music channel) + Decent TV Card + computer

= circumvention device letting you get music videos as a bonus

Think that the computer is the common denominator? How about:

Home CD PLayer +
Phono leads +
mp3 recorder

= circumvention device

Hmm... maybe ban phono -> jack leads?

finally:

Home CD player +
Speakers +
Microphone +
Computer +
WAV Recorder +
WAV -> MP3 convertor

So it looks like the only way to get rid of all circumvention devices is, in fact, to ban computers, leads, speakers, microphones, mp3's, wavs, and, just to be on the safe side, let's lock up anyone who happens to hum whilst walking down the street, just in case they are humming copy-protected material.

More importantly...

[TheMCP]

More importantly, return the darned unrippable CD's ! I was horrified to see people on here saying "yeah, I have this CD and I can't rip it..."

If you can't rip it, it's defective and you should have the store replace it. If the repalcement can't be ripped there's something wrong with the production run and you should demand a refund.

If every slashdot user stopped buying CD's today, the industry would note a certain percentage downturn in sales and mark it up to the economy.

However, if every slashdot user returned every unrippable CD we get to the store/vendor, the stores would start wondering why the hell certain CDs are getting returned all the time and start complaining to the labels. Then the labels would have their sales channel angry with them and would be more likely to have to do something about it. A returned CD is an expense to the store: they have to store it until they have a batch to go back, and then return it to the label and wait for a refund or credit. If they start getting a lot of returns on one album they'll pull it from the shelves. (Hasn't that already happened once with Tower Records?) The stores will put up with much less nonsense than the labels are willing to either deal with or create.

And, of course, we could have the correctly mastered CDs which give us no problems, which really we have no gripe with in the first place.

I do, however, also recommend learning about your local musicians and independent musicians who may pass through your area. In the last year I've bought maybe a dozen CDs, just about all of which were purchased directly from independent musicians, and I must say I'm much happier with that music than with any of the commercially produced garbage they play on the radio these days.

Re:It is NOT legal to rip CDs, but not illegal...

[YouAreFatMan]

What you are saying is contrary to the nature of a free society and to the constitutional intent of copyright law (but is consistent with the current view of copyright as a form of property). The way freedom works is this: you have the right to do anything not expressly prohibited by law. This goes especially with copyright law, where transfer of information can be considered protected speech. The police cannot say to you, "the law doesn't say you can do that, so it is illegal." That is why America has so many laws -- everything illegal must be explicity stated as illegal. Everything else is implicitly legal.

Your argument runs along the opposite line, that if copyright law doesn't say you can, then you cannot. Again, if you believe the rhetoric of the "intellectual property" cartels, sure. But if you believe the people who founded this nation and the ideals embodied in the U.S. Constitution, then that view is clearly incompatible with freedom.

This is the insidious nature of the re-education effort being undertaken by media publishers, the BSA, etc.. The criminalization of copyright infringement (before it was a civil matter), the outlandish extension of copyrights, the aggressive litigation, the shift from sale of a product to a license, and the broad use of terms such as "stealing", "piracy", "protection" are all part of this effort. And people have integrated these ideas into their worldview. People are shifting to a "it's only legal if the shrink-wrap license says it's legal" mindset.