Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Labels Trying New CD Copy Prevention Systems

Posted by michael on from the never-say-die dept.

bAdministrator writes "What if a CD copy-protection system was developed, which did not compromise sound quality nor cause compatibility problems, and still allowed for your 'rights' to make a limited amount of personal copies (*.DRM)? UK-based company First 4 Internet (F4i) claims to have pulled this off with their 'eXtended Copy Protection' (XCP) system; 'The disc will present itself as a CD-ROM to PCs, a Mac CD-ROM to Mac computers, a VCD to DVD players and CDDA disc to audio CD players. This multifunctional disc format offers full playability and therefore greater flexibility without lowering protection levels.' and 'By using a range of methodologies, including the construction of multiple protection layers, limiting the player accessibility to the provided player software, and encapsulating the red book audio content, XCP® successfully protects the content from unauthorised copying.'"

6 of 520 comments (clear)

  1. They admit it can be hacked by Porn+Whitelist · · Score: 5, Informative
    From the article:
    "Could it be broken? I'm sure that somebody must be able to do it," said Graham Oakes, the head of Los Angeles-based Ezee Studios, which represents First 4 Internet. "But is there a generally known hack that has been put on the Net, or have any of the record label IT people found a hack yet? No."
    So it's only a matter of time ...
    The company got its start by offering a tool to identify pornographic images
    Like you need a tool to do this? :-)
    --
    my journal: scripts for leaching porn baked fresh daily
  2. Re:A way around it all. by belmolis · · Score: 5, Informative

    Even better is to get at the digital audio data before it hits the digital-to-analog converter. Vsound is a free, open source program that does this under Linux.

  3. Re:And on a Linux PC by Porn+Whitelist · · Score: 5, Informative
    That's because Linux is broken.
    It has nothing to do with the CD.
    It has EVERYTHING to do with the CD. That's why copy-protected "CDs" can't carry the CD logo - they're broken.

    Or have you forgotten this story http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/11/181625 8&mode=thread

    --
    my journal: scripts for leaching porn baked fresh daily
  4. Secure Audio Path by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    That may be true on Linux, but not so on Windows. Under Windows, an encrypted audio stream may require that only signed audio output drivers may play the stream, and Microsoft will sign an audio driver only if it turns off cleartext digital outputs (such as the .wav redirection) at the request of the stream. Do you listen to music through a receiver connected to a sound card's S/PDIF output? If so, tough shit.

  5. Re:they always claim that by Alsee · · Score: 4, Informative

    But you have no right to copy the music; that right is owned by someone else. These technologies simply bring common practice into sync with the law.

    Try learning the law. The copyright holder only has rights over infringing copying. He has no rights over non-infringing copying.

    These technologies simply try to ABANDON copyright law and replace it with "technological" restrictions that the copyright holder HAS ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL RIGHT TO ENFORCE.

    The copyright holder has NO RIGHTS if I make a backup copy. The copyright holder has NO RIGHTS if I want to copy it to a different media/format. The copyright holder has NO RIGHTS if I am copying to parody it. The copyright holder has NO RIGHTS if I am copying it for educational usage, either as a student or as a teacher, or for research purposes. The copyright holder has NO RIGHTS if I copy to modify it in any way I like for personal use. And on an on and on.

    Not only is that copying not restricted by copyright, it *CANNOT* be restricted by copyright. This was established in the earliest Supreme Court decisions. Copyright does not grant or define fair use, it is fair use which restricts and defines the limits of copyright. The Supreme Court ruled that copyright would be unconstitutional and struck down as invalid if it tried to restrict fair use.

    It is YOU and all of the DRM scemes that are out of sync with copyright law. DRM restrictions/enforcment do not equal copyright restrictions/enfocement. If they were equal then copyright law would simply be null and void, struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

    These uses are simply outside of the range of exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder.

    Your intent with DRM may certainly be to prevent people from infringing, but that does NOT grant you any rights over innocent people making perfectly legitimate and non-infringing copies.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  6. Re:Err...bollocks by legirons · · Score: 4, Informative

    "And that prevents me from placing a microphone in front of the speakers and recording it that way how?"

    Because some companies with more lawyers than sense have proposed that recording equipment should fail to function if it detects a 'watermarked' signal being recorded.

    Naturally, this would stop you making phone calls from somewhere where music is playing, and you could disable the recording equipment of everyone in the room (for example, during some political speech) by playing a soundtrack in the background. The only question is whether it can be used to defeat CIA bugs, or telephone wiretaps.

    "Sorry sir, the suspect's daughter was whistling christmas carols in the background, and our recording kit failed to capture the evidence"