Felt Tip Marker Defeats Copy-Protected CDs

We posted this story over a week ago but the mainstream media has flooded us with stories about felt tip markers and copy protected CDs so I figured I'd post it again since I'm really sick of deleting hundreds of submissions from people who didn't read Slashdot on May 13 ;) Basically you can mark the rim of some CDs and defeat the copy protection. And we all know what the DMCA says about tools for circumventing copy protection.

Comments

Has anyone actually proven this?

[dschuetz]

Has anyone actually been able to prove that this works? I'm not talking about anecdotal evidence, I mean, has any geek with /.'s general communal respect actually taken a stack of CDs, tried to rip them, gotten errors, marked the CDs up, and then got them to rip with no errors?

And then documented the crap out of it?

This all smells too much like the audiophile tricks of the 80's where coloring the outside rim of a CD was supposed to "trap stray laser radiation and improve the [clarity | transparency | imaging | other-nonsense-claptrap] of the music." (see the snopes entry on this one).

I ask because I'm really curious what the scientific explanation for this would be. It was my understanding that they (the infamous "they") did something to the actual track of the CD, with bad physical spacing, introduced errors, or something like that, but did it *throughout* the CD. How on earth would marking the inside of the CD fix that?

[okay, I just actually *read* the article. :) But I'd swear that an earlier posting talked about marking the inside, not outside, of the CD. Anyway, my question still holds -- any geek-written report on this, or do we only have the mainstream press to trust as to whether this actually works, and for which CDs?]

Re:Confused editor

[rsidd]

I thought the DMCA only stipulates laws for devices designed specifically copyright violation?

No. Read the DMCA. It outlaws devices which can be used for bypassing digital copy control mechanisms, regardless of possible legitimate uses. CD burners don't pass copy control mechanisms, photocopiers don't deal with digital media (unless it's a barcode or something...). But a felt-tip pen which is used to bypass the manufacturer's CD copy control mechanism -- that's illegal under the DMCA, and I hope somebody sues for outlawing these evil things, that should show 'em...

Re:Read the DMCA

[Triskaidekaphobia]

How does the logic in laws work?

I see there is an "or" between (B) and (C), but nothing between (A) and (B). Can I assume the absence of an operator implies "and".

If so, which takes precedence?

Is it ( A and B) or C

or A and (B or C) ?

Here's an Idea

[MadFarmAnimalz]

Let's see what you folks make of this.

The way that democracy and judicial system of yours works at the moment, just about the only thing that will get lawmakers to stick up for Joe and Jane is public outrage/ridicule.

Basically, I think the EFF should throw the DMCA at the people who make Crayola. Sue the pirating bastards.

Don't tell me that wouldn't make headlines. And headlines would raise public awareness of the DMCA issue.
If the DMCA is ridiculed in public over its potential uses, I don't think it'll last long.

Never mind whether the EFF would win or lose; the whole point is to showcase the idiocy of this law.

Anyone listening?

Re:What about CD markers???

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the EFF needs to pursue cases that showcase the absurdity of the DMCA. I want to see Staples get sued over this!

Re:Read the DMCA

[Sloppy]

But, if you marketed a felt tip pen with the name CD Rip (TM) brand felt tip pens and included instructions for how to circumvent CD protection than you should expect a C&D letter.

It's the same situation as the fellow who's program unset the true type embedded bits...

IMHO, it's very interesting that you brought these two things up together.

One of the factors that made the "embed" author clearly safe from DMCA infringement, was that he owned some fonts that needed their bits fixed. By the definitions within DMCA, you can only be engaging in "circumvention" if you don't have "authorization" (presumably from the copyright owner) and since he obviously authorized people to use his tool on his fonts, it's primary purpose was not to circumvent. Yes, it's primary purpose was to unset the bits. But that isn't circumvention, because having authorization causes the act to not be circumvention. Yes, I'm being pedantic about the definitions, but hey, that's what the DMCA text says.

In the DeCSS case, nobody who was friendly to DeCSS, happened to also own the copyright on a CSS-protected DVD. The only entities who owned CSS-protected works were the MPAA. Thus, MPAA had a case for claiming that no one had been authorized (ignoring the implicit authorization that comes with selling someone a DVD -- Kaplan was very MPAA-friendly). Thus, this point didn't really come up (but it would have, if someone friendly to DeCSS had managed to create a CSS-protected DVD).

So in light of all that, let's not forget something: if the copyright owner of even one of these "protected" CDs decides to authorize people to use markers in order to play their CD, then even CD Rip(TM) brand markers will become legal. The marker's primary marketed purpose will be to defeat the protection, but this activity will not be the same as "circumvention" as defined by DMCA.

There are a lot of musicians. The rest can be inferred by the reader. :-)