Slashdot Mirror
Labels Trying New CD Copy Prevention Systems
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.'"
Logically, then, the market for selling the same product multiple times (ie, using DRM to force you to buy two or more CDs if you want to have one in work/car/etc. and one at home) is vastly more valuable than the illegal recording market, which has been in existance for a long time anyway.
The people behind DRM are not idiots; they know as well as anyone (or better) that sales figures show downloaders buy more music than any other group whether their downloads are iTunes or BitTorrent. They couldn't care less about stopping that - they just want to have the same bonanza that they did with the vinyl->CD repeat buying period, but now they want it every year.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
What's going to happen with a system like this is that it breaks on all music CD players that are capable of identifying other formats. This is nothing new, and audio enthusiasts are not enthused to hear "Sorry, your CD player is too advanced to play this non-standard CD. Get a $79 one, and it will work".
Regards,
--
*Art
"Limited" only in the sense it can't be uploaded for unlimited distribution over the Internet? Something a lot of people don't particularly care about anyway, and wouldn't miss.
No, limited in the sense that I can't make a new CDDA copy to listen to in my car. Virtually all DRM systems won't allow you to make a direct copy of the Audio only portion of the CD-- if they did, it would make the DRM pointless in the first place. But that is why I personally want to copy them. I don't like keeping original CD's in my car since they are likely to get scratched or stolen. Instead, as soon as I buy a CD, I rip it to MP3 for home & portable listening (the Mp3s are not shared), burn an audio CD for my car, then I put the actual CD in a safe place where it won't get damaged or stolen. My purposes for copying are 100% within fair use, but they would be blocked by this DRM if it works, and even if it doesn't, I'd be made a criminal for bypassing it under the DMCA.
Of course the real irony of these systems is that they do not prevent piracy as others have pointed out. All it takes is one person to bypass the DRM & the CD is in the wild. And clearly, as DVD's demonstrate, DRM doesn't even slow down commercial piracy operations. No, the real reason for DRM on CD's is to stop people like me. The RIAA loves it when CD's get damaged or stolen. That means that there is a good chance that I'll buy a new copy of the same CD. That is the only reason that they are looking for "effective" copy protection. They know that it will never stop anybody who is dedicated, but if it can stop casual copiers like myself, regardless of the fact that I'm not doing anything wrong, that means more money in their pockets.
The young girls who are exposed to civil and criminal penalties because they supply the music you download? That is a little like saying that John should go free while his underage prostitute takes the fall. You tempt a child into crime, you should accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
Here you are making no sense at all. Who are you saying is liable? Under current law, the penalties for recieving illegally copied material are much less then those for providing it. The young girl in question ceratinly is guilty of the crime, even though you suggest that she isn't. The question is whether the "john doe" lawsuits the RIAA has been using are effective or even legal. The parent poster was presumably arguing that the means the RIAA are using are misguided and at leats bordering on illegal and I think he's correct.