Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Copy Protection On CDs Is 'Worthless'

Posted by timothy on Wed Nov 06, 2002 05:09 PM
from the healing-the-crippled dept.
zotler writes "NewScientist.com has an article about how copy protection on audio CDs is worthless. I thought this was funny since I just read this earlier Slashdot article 'BMG copy protecting all CDs'." The article also neatly sums up the technology behind current fair-use-inhibition stratagems.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Quasar1999 (520073) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:10PM (#4612002) Journal
    It's quite helpful in pissing off paying customers, and driving them underground to pirate...

    Seriously though... If it can be played, it can be copied... no matter what kind of protection they use... Why waste the money and resources to 'secure' the CD, and piss off and lose customers?
    • by RatBastard (949) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:16PM (#4612070) Homepage
      They don't want to face the fact that sales are down due to the fact that the music the put out is overpriced and is, for the miost part, crap.

      I buy all my music, whether I buy CDs or download from emusic.com, and the last ten CDs I bought were all over ten years old and were all on sale for no more than $12.00 (US). And I know a lot of other consumers just like me: Disafected and out priced.
    • by Xaoswolf (524554) <Xaoswolf.gmail@com> on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:20PM (#4612121) Homepage Journal
      If it can be played, it can be copied

      They could give out a Big Black Guy Named Ben (tm) [newgrounds.com] with each CD.

      "Don't copy the CD mother f*beep*cker"

    • by Anonvmous Coward (589068) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:29PM (#4612203)
      "Why waste the money and resources to 'secure' the CD, and piss off and lose customers?"

      I got a better question: Why try to 'protect' one of the easiest forms of media to duplicate?

      I mean seriously, if they got to the point that it was possible to totally secure music so that it couldn't be copied (even with a mic to a speaker), what's to prevent an ameteur band from re-singing the song and recording their version of it?

      Would it sound the same? Nope. Potentially, it could sound better. Look at the popularity of remixes today. I guarantee you, it'd just drive the need for RIAA independent people to surface.

      What the RIAA should be doing is enticing their customers to buy the CDs in the stores. Didn't the recent Eminem album launch with a DVD in it? That's pretty damn cool. They should think about doing more stuff like that. Heck, include Video CD's with band interviews or remixes or something, I dunno. If you're having trouble making your product sell, make it more appealing.

      • by DragonMagic (170846) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @06:02PM (#4612491) Homepage
        There was recently an article (I think on MSNBC) that said that online sales of music was down and the RIAA blamed illegal downloads as the reason, yet again. But the funniest part about it? They were talking about online sales of pre-packaged CDs from major outlets, and ignored sales of downloads, mp3s and from small independent outlets.

        Not only won't the RIAA admit that the music is crap and that they won't do anything to improve sales on their end, they now have to focus on only one or two areas of sales to "prove" that sales are down, and ignore areas where sales go up.

        Desperate or misguided, I can't figure it out...
        • by MrChuck (14227) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @08:13PM (#4613474)
          And there's a depression/recession on too.

          I don't see Sears blaming "pirates" on lower washing machine and refrigerator sales.

          Nor are airlines complaining about stowaways causing ridership to be down.

          RIAA: Charge me a decent price for a CD (lets say, 1hr at minimum wage) and I'll buy them. Oh, and perhaps promote more than your top 15 bands to me.

          • by prockcore (543967) on Thursday November 07 2002, @12:22AM (#4614655)
            I don't see Sears blaming "pirates" on lower washing machine and refrigerator sales.

            I spent 5 days downloading the latest Maytag Washing Machine. It was totally worth it.. I was able to get it 3 weeks before Sears had it!

            My only problem is that my clothes are all pixelated now, and you can hear someone coughing when the dryer is on.

            Maybe if they offered more in the box, I'd actually buy a Washing Machine. You know, like some behind the scenes extras, and maybe a biography of the Maytag Repair-Man.
      • by Hanno (11981) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @06:30PM (#4612747) Homepage
        I mean seriously, if they got to the point that it was possible to totally secure music so that it couldn't be copied (even with a mic to a speaker), what's to prevent an ameteur band from re-singing the song and recording their version of it?

        Royalties. (I hope this is the correct word in English. Forgive me, I'm German.)

        If you perform someone else's work in public, if you record it on a media and give away copies, if you broadcast that recording to the public, you have to pay royalties to the author(s) of a song. You also have to pay royalties as well when you play music to the public, e.g. a large public party or the music you play as a cafe owner to keep your customers happy. (That's why royalty-free music is a niche market, btw.)

        There are royalty collection organizations in most states, the GEMA is the one here in Germany. I once had the dumb luck of writing a small tune that was then performed by my band on German national TV. As a result, we instantly got a little royalty check through GEMA, since these TV stations paid royalties to GEMA for broadcasting music.

        (This, btw., is another reason why some celebrity musicians perform for free on globally broadcast charity events. It's a royalty bonanza.)
            • by 72beetle (177347) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @08:52PM (#4613684) Homepage
              You also still have to pay royalties if the live convert that your ban plays at is free.

              Wrong. Covers are royalty free when played live, even at a paid concert. Once that performance is recorded, THEN royalties come into play. If my combo decides to play 'Rime of the Ancient Mariner' at a local club, we don't owe ASCAP dick (we would, however, probably owe Iron Maiden an apology). If that performance were recorded and then sold or distributed, we would then have to pony up some copyright ducats - based upon the number of copies produced.

              IANAL. IAAM.

              -72
    • by bonch (38532) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @06:29PM (#4612743)
      I sometimes wonder if they know the copy-protection is useless, but implement it anyway just to please shareholders, etc. while they think of a better solution.
  • i agree. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stagl (569675) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:11PM (#4612010) Homepage
    from the article:

    Halderman reckons he has a solution for them. "Reduce the cost of new CDs; if discs cost only a few dollars each, buying them might be preferable to spending the time and effort to make copies or find them online."

    amen!
    • by JohnDenver (246743) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:44PM (#4612340) Homepage
      Seriously, I've never purchased many CD's in my lifetime (10-20), but if CD's were only $3-4, I would be buying them impulsively with little regard as to whether I would even listen to it.
      • by LoveShack (190582) <james@@@jameswilliams...me> on Wednesday November 06 2002, @06:12PM (#4612591)
        I do purchase CDs (mostly less-than-mainstream bands who aren't crap) but I can echo your sentiments exactly. There's a store here (Big Lots, basically they sell somewhat crappy merchandise at great prices) that I go into whenever I'm getting my oil changed to pass the time. Everytime I do, I walk out with a stack of CDs, all costing about $3. Sure, maybe I don't *want* this orchestral arrangement of the Eagles' greatest hits...but you just never know when it might come in handy! Especially at those prices!
      • by Anonvmous Coward (589068) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @06:44PM (#4612865)
        "..but if CD's were only $3-4, I would be buying them impulsively with little regard as to whether I would even listen to it."

        Heck, I'd settle for a "send us a list of MP3s you have and we'll send you a fair priced bill for digital use" service.

        The RIAA would make a few bucks off me that way.
    • Re:i agree. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Twirlip of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:55PM (#4612432)
      I can't remember where I read it, but years ago I heard this described as the paperback effect. Nobody copies paperback books because it's cheaper and easier to just buy your own. Might have been Negroponte; it sounds like something he'd say.

      Unfortunately, I'm having a hard time imagining a price for CDs that's sufficiently cheap that copying them becomes unappealing. On my computer, I can copy a CD in about five minutes (drive to drive), and I can rip one in about three, depending on how much music is on it. I don't generally steal music, but that's because I hardly ever find music that somebody else has that I would like to have but that I don't already have. (Did that make sense?) Even at $3 each, it'd still be possible to copy a CD-- or even download it, if you can find it on the Internet-- faster and less expensively than you could drive to the store and buy it.
        • Re:i agree. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Twirlip of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Wednesday November 06 2002, @06:22PM (#4612679)
          I guess I'm making more than you 'cause that 5 minutes to burn a CD would cost me more than $3.

          Actually, friend, you spend considerably more than five minutes every day doing things like brushing your teeth and going to the bathroom. Pop the CD in optical drive 1, the blank in optical drive 2, click here and here, then forget about it while you take a shower or something.

          Multitasking is the key insight.

          Plus you are forgetting the other stuff that comes with a CD or are you printing out color pages of the CD covers....

          Strangely enough, I've never given any thought at all to CD covers. If they're important to you, then that's between you and your God.
  • by thefinite (563510) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:11PM (#4612015)
    The majority of tracks on the CD are also often *worthless*. Just let me download the songs I like and pay a reasonable amount per song!
    • by SiliconEntity (448450) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @06:13PM (#4612607)
      The majority of tracks on the CD are also often *worthless*. Just let me download the songs I like and pay a reasonable amount per song!

      You think that's something new? That's always been true. It can't explain why CD sales are down. Records have had filler since the beginning. Even the old 45 RPM singles had an A side and a B side.

      And the fact is, some music is more accessible than others. Some songs are instant hits, the first time you hear them you like them. Other songs take a few hearings before you appreciate them. I know I've bought albums for one or two hits, but after I've listened to the CD half a dozen times I like several of the other songs just as much.

      But if they do start selling individual songs, most people will only buy the hits. Without being more or less forced to listen to the other ones because of the album format, they'll never get past that accessibility barrier. This means that a typical artist will only sell one or two songs where they now sell a whole album. And since we all know that CD prices are not based on manufacturing/distribution costs, this means that the sellers will have to charge almost as much per song as they do for a whole CD now.

      In other words, for the record companies and everyone involved to continue to be as profitable as they are today, they'll have to charge probably five to ten dollars per song downloaded! That's just basic economics based on the number of hit songs per CD, and based on where the costs are for a record company (most of which won't be reduced by online distribution).

      That's the reality. I hope you consider that a "reasonable amount" to pay for a song, because that's what it costs to create them.
        • by ameoba (173803) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @09:48PM (#4613943) Homepage
          So now they're justifying the cost of CDs because of promotion? Who started paying radio stations to put song in rotation in the first place?

          "We started trying to use underhanded methods to get our music played, then it became standard industry practice, now you get to pay the cost."
      • by Xaoswolf (524554) <Xaoswolf.gmail@com> on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:28PM (#4612192) Homepage Journal
        Then I'd figure that you are either that guy with all the punctuation marks on his suit who keeps telling me to buy his book about free money, or that you are Crazy Al from Crazy Al's Free Used Cars and Free Music. How can he give away free used cars and music, I'll tell you how, because he's crazy, that's why. And if you don't leave the lot happy, he'll eat a bucket of scorpians...
  • by ShavenYak (252902) <bsmith3&charter,net> on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:12PM (#4612019) Homepage
    ...they didn't mean to say "The music on copy protected audio CDs is worthless"?
  • by ejaw5 (570071) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:12PM (#4612024)
    a black sharpie pen is priceless.
  • by FfldEd (140648) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:12PM (#4612025)
    Leave it to the british to add up to ~140% on a poll graph.
  • by vonkraken (228236) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:14PM (#4612041)
    It amazes me how intelligent and qualified individuals can show time and time again how copy protections are at best a short to mid term solution to unwanted copying. On the otherhand, you have Macrovision snapping up competitors in a race to stay ahead of consumers. It is just a war of attrition which will be around long after we're all gone.

    What one man can hide, another can find.

    Cheers,

    VonKraken
    • by MulluskO (305219) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:27PM (#4612177) Journal
      I was on Macrovision's website, reading their SafeAudio FAQ.
      6) Is SAFEAUDIO compliant with the 'Red Book' standard?
      The SAFEAUDIO coding option is designed to be compatible with Philips Red Book CD audio
      standard. This design ensures that SAFEAUDIO has superior compatibility and playability across
      the worldwide installed base of CD players and PC drives.

      Isn't it clever how they dodge the question my not repeating the word compliant in the response, but instead using a similar word, compatible? I guess one must be on one's toes all the time these days, even technical FAQs are no longer a haven from sneaky public relations propaganda.
  • Well, duh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by buzzdecafe (583889) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:14PM (#4612047)
    There's a lot of "well, duh" moments in this article:

    Such as:

    the idea of CD copy-prevention is "fundamentally misguided".

    And:

    To ban upgrades, he argues, would lead to "buggy software and poor hardware."


    And best of all:

    Halderman reckons he has a solution for them. "Reduce the cost of new CDs; if discs cost only a few dollars each, buying them might be preferable to spending the time and effort to make copies or find them online."

    Are you listening Ms. Rosen?
        • Re:Well, duh (Score:5, Insightful)

          by feepness (543479) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @06:20PM (#4612665) Homepage
          Just to be clear, you ARE a heartless shit AND a little whore. Just because you CAN charge $50/hour to others, doesn't mean you MUST.

          When you get just past whipper-snapper age you'll realize that monetizing every life transaction is ridiculous. It makes sense in terms of CD purchasing because it is a mass-media transaction, but in terms of friends and families it isn't a good idea.

          You may make $25 to install that TIVO, but treating everyone in the world like a business transaction will result in personal alienation. Ultimately, it may COST you money because people don't enjoy doing business with, or referring business to, people who act like they are God's gift to those around them.

          My suggestion is to instead say "sure but it'll cost you lunch/dinner/bottle of wine/six-pack" based on the job, which you then share with them. People enjoy giving gifts far more than paying money, even if the cost is the same. That way, also, when they "pay" you, you get to do something novel... SOCIALIZE!

          Because, frankly, you sure as hell need it.
  • by gadlaw (562280) <gilbert@gadlaw.cGAUSSom minus math_god> on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:15PM (#4612059) Homepage Journal
    I go into the Best Buy and look at those new CD's and I look over them and look over them and I can't tell if it's one of those copy protected CD's. To heck with it, I am not going to buy a CD I can't play on my computer and I can't tell if it's copy protected or not so I'm not buying any CD's now. Copy protect this.
  • Yes and No... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rjstanford (69735) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:15PM (#4612060) Homepage Journal
    One thing that a lot of people seem to ignore is that most people are pretty clueless about the relatively easy methods of circumvention.

    Then again, for a while now those people are also the least likely to try to copy a CD so I guess there is some truthfulness to the original claim.

    Either way, we all know that there's an industry model change on the way. That's easy to predict. Knowing what it is or when it will hit, that's the hard part (always has been, always will be). It reminds me of Warren Buffet's comments about the invention of the automobile -- (paraphrased) nobody could have predicted how it would develop with any kind of guaranteed accuracy, but it would be fairly obvious that buggy-whip manufacturers were on the way out.
  • by burgburgburg (574866) <[moc.liame] [ta] [60neksilps]> on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:15PM (#4612062)
    will his report on how the hardware/software can be updated to read the correct TOC fall under the aegis of the DCMA?
  • by chrisseaton (573490) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:15PM (#4612065) Homepage

    I always understood that *any* copy protection of media such as this is useless, because at some point the content has to be decoded to analog so that the speakers can physically create the sound. At this point you can capture the analog signal and encode it in any digital format you like.

    A simple (and ineffective due to quality issues) example is connecting a line-in cable from your CD player's head phones jack to your PC's line-in, and then recording and encoding to ogg.

    What's stopping people doing this?

    • by Vaulter (15500) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:23PM (#4612137)

      I don't think they are worried about this type of copying. It isn't bit for bit perfect.

      Recording analog to digital will always introduce noise to the signal. Remember all those old CD's that sounded worse then the original tapes? (Say, like AC/DC, Back in Black). That's because transferring analog to digital sounds like crap.

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:15PM (#4612066) Homepage
    "Reduce the cost of new CDs; if discs cost only a few dollars each, buying them might be preferable to spending the time and effort to make copies or find them online."

    is this man insane??? doesn't he know that making an audio CD is a horribly expensive thing and the HUGE royalties given to the artist forbids such tactics?

    Oh wait... someone hit me in the head with a 2 by 4 again..... sorry, my bad... I lost my mind for a minute there...

  • Cat & Mouse (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Chris_Stankowitz (612232) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:17PM (#4612077)
    The never ending game of copy protection and "crackers" will end one side gives up. I think we all know the crackers aren't going to. Is there ANY proof that these copy protection schemes have saved any company any money? I can pull up a lot of "research-data" that says they have lost money, but it occurs to me that these protection schemes are quite a waste of money. Does anyone have an argument as to why companies should continue to develop such technologies?
  • Classic Mistake (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Cowdog (154277) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:17PM (#4612086) Journal
    The author is making a classic mistake,
    thinking that the security must be perfect
    in order to be effective.

    The systems do not have to be perfectly
    secure to be effective. They just have to
    encourage most consumers to follow the
    rules set down by the copyright holders.

    --
  • case and point.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by NotAnotherReboot (262125) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:19PM (#4612114)
    take a look at this Tom's Hardware Guide article on CD-RW drives and what copy protection they could get by out of the box by using blindread/blindwrite:
    http://www6.tomshardware.co m/storage/02q2/020617/i ndex.html

    Three out of four were successfully copied (two versions of safedisc, cactus data shield, and the one they couldn't get by: TAGES, which is used in games).
  • by jetkust (596906) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:25PM (#4612165)
    Oh, so you can actually BUY cds from the store without having to download them from the internet for free?? Wow, Its so hard to keep up with current technology these days.
  • by SnoooBob2k (620644) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:26PM (#4612166)
    I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but seriously, why don't the record companies do something productive like adding more content to CDs if they're not willing to lower the price? Recently I've seen a few cd's on the shelves (the one that comes to mind is the Nick Carter CD > ) that include a DVD with videos and stuff for the same price as a regular cd. If more labels did that, offering video content at DVD resolution, I would gladly plunk down the $16 for a new cd!
  • by the_other_one (178565) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:30PM (#4612204) Homepage

    However, it's more fun to implement this with a microwave than to buy them pre-destroyed.

  • by matrim99 (123693) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:34PM (#4612239) Homepage
    The copy protection schemes are created to force consumers to *buy* legit copies of the CDs, as opposed to stealing the MP3 versions. So Mr. Honest Consumer with lots of discretionary income:

    1) Goes to the store and buys a new copy of some Top-40 Fluff band of the minute.
    2) Tries to play it in his new "Super Fancy 500 feature Play-Any-Format CD player", but it can't play the new CD because the CD thinks his player is a PC player.
    3)Tries it in his similar car CD player, with similar results.
    4) Says "screw this", D/Ls his favorite songs for free, burns them to CD, and lives happily ever after, perfectingly *WILLING* to pay for new CDs, but he can't, because they won't work with any of his "Advanced" stereo eqpt.

    Hats off to the file sharing companies for coming up with this brilliant scheme to deprive record companies of their most secure source of income, the Honest Customer! Wait, they ARE the ones who came up with this copy protection scheme, aren't they? No? Hmmm.....
  • by jukal (523582) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:36PM (#4612268) Journal
    Remember those computer games from 10-20 years ago. Many of them asked you to look up a certain word (4th word, 5th row for example) from the manual. Some of them even contained those "magical two circles" made of paper, which you needed to turn to reveal the secret code.

    Now, why has not anyone in the music industry come up with this yet. Clearly, after every 30 seconds of CD-listening, the copy-protection contained should ask (with a sexy female voice) guestions like : "On page 3, of the pamphlet that came with CD you purchased, which one of the following ten options best describes the hair color of Britney Spears, punch ff>> 1-10 times to enter your answer". Simple as that, copy-protection re-inveted!

  • by benwaggoner (513209) <ben.waggoner@mic ... ft.com minus bsd> on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:40PM (#4612294) Homepage
    Not only do I think this will be ineffective, I think in many cases it'll be self-defeating.

    I've got a toddler in the house, which means that CD cases left in the open get opened and covered in peanut butter fingerprints. C'est la vie, so I went ahead and ripped my library via iTunes to a pair of 80 GB drives, and now I've got a wonderful, searchable, kid-proof music library.

    I simply can't imagine going back to having to deal with physical CD media anymore. I'm happy to rip the disc when I get it and put it in the storage room, but that's about it.

    So, if I really wanted music that was on a copy-protected format that was effective, I'd HAVE to pirate it to listen to it.

    Other folks are in the same boat - everyone who listens to music on systems not compatible with this protection. The presumption behind this copy protection is that users will replace their in-dash CD players with a compatible one. Instead, I think it is MUCH more likely users will return the CD to the store, and download the tracks from a P2P site.

    It only takes one user to crack the copy protection to make the content available online. But EVERY case where the copy protection works is a lost sale for the record company.

    They need to understand that the effectiveness of a copyright protection scheme is inverse proportion with how difficult the copy protected version is to use compared to a cracked version.

    This is one of the reasons dongles have been disappearing in the software industry - users would crack a legit copy just to use the software on a laptop!
  • by freaker_TuC (7632) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:41PM (#4612314) Homepage Journal
    This is an article I have put on my site as well. Because I am a DJ I am very dissapointed in the decision of BMG.

    Bertelsmann (BMG Music) will stop to sell uncrippled CD's. This means such cd's will not play at certain older & newer CD players, certain car players and will not play in your computer. This for the price of 20US$ to 22US$ per CD !

    As DJ I am very worried because one scratch crashes my CD into oblivion. The copyprotection does not let me play half of my cd's on my old cd players in my house (and I have three of those).

    The protection on these cd's is the Cactus Data Shield from Midbar. The protection is currently only being used on EUROPEAN cd's. A lot of the cd's being used in Europe are not available in the US what leaves only one option, buying them here and praying they do not get damaged + work in the CD players you use at that time.

    The error is in your player, not in our copyprotected cd's.
    ---
    BMG distributes a lot of the cd's that are currently being used by me as DJ and shows no respect for their customers whatsoever by creating CD's that work on only 80% of the home/pro audio equipment. Additionally they say "the error is your player's, and not in our CD's".

    I am at a very moral dillemma because every time I buy music I first search the MP3's and then write down the titles I want to find. Some of these titles are only to be found on CD's and some of 'm are only to be found on vinyl.

    legally bought music is working against me now!
    ---
    I used to go to the recordstore and get about 20-30 records whereof 1 or 2 where usable. Whenever I go to the recordstore now I give 20 titles and get 15 useful numbers out of it. I currently have over 800 CD's and over 22.000 records of vinyl. Currently I am buying more on CD because carrying all the vinyl is breaking my back :)

    Since I cannot use the cd's wherever I want and 1 scratch can kill the CD because of this lousy copy protection I need to buy the CD *and* burn the same MP3's to seperate CD's to be sure I can keep using the music I want to play legally!

    The secret agent not working everywhere!
    I have bought the CD of James Bond (Universal) and it seems not to work in my PC (where I play the most of my music, my PC speakers are the best in my house!) and they seem not to work in my old cd players of my own DJ equipment! Next to that the shop does not want to take the Bond CD back. With the line of defence BMG has by saying "their cd's are fully redbook compliant and it's your player's fault" they also tell you you can bugger off by bringing it back to the shop where you bought your precious CD.

    I have bought several other CD's like "Solid Sounds" which is giving me errors as well. Currently I am trying to recover one of the legally bought CD's by searching the MP3's and burning them in the same order on another CD because I cannot just copy it and the CD is damaged by (over)usage as DJ.

    BMG's reply of one of their CD's
    ---
    Whenever you send a note to BMG you get the following mail back (unaltered):

    "we are sorry you have troubles with our copy protection technology. The copy protection reacts on the special new technology that is build in in burners. Unfortunately htis technics was built in many new CD players, even if they can't copy a cd.
    "The copy protection yet does not recognize wheather that burner technics is build in a cd player or in a burner. That's why the cd playern might not play a copy protected CD. Since burner technics are also built in car radios, this may be the reason, why you can't listen to a copyprotected cd in your car.
    "As far as we were adviced, our copy protection is according to the Red Book Standart as well as all labelling on the cd.
    "A standart home CD player is one that has no burner technics built in. Our Cds play on all Cd players without burner technics.
    "There will be no cd manufactured without copyprotection any more."

    This seems to limit a lot of options and costs me a lot more to find the numbers, import these from wherever possible and find them on mp3 to have a backup CD of my original CD! Of'course they tell "we are sorry" though they also tell us "the fault is in our bought players and there will be no cd's manufactured without protection anymore"... I wish I should not have read this blasphamy towards a lot of customers!

    Moral dillema, I am for the music, not against!
    ---
    Because I am a DJ I cannot tolerate (for myself) to be using illegal material! I live by the music and I live FOR the music and not AGAINST. Seems to be BMG has the same reason but not only FOR the music but to protect their precious wallet!
  • Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Psx29 (538840) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:45PM (#4612344)
    Looks like they have pissed off [bayarea.com] audiophiles as well...'no digital outputs are being put on SACD/DVD-AUDIO Players until they can secure the digital audio stream'...wtf is the point of higher quality sound on a disc if the output will be even worse?
  • by Cervantes (612861) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:51PM (#4612405) Journal
    I, for one, refuse to buy new CDs anymore, but that doesn't mean that the dozens of people who turn to me as their local geek don't. The lil ole lady who lives next to me got sent some CDs from her son (who's overseas ATM), and couldn't figure out why they wouldn't play in her new(ish) CD player. You try explaining to a 90 year old luddite the intricacies of CD TOC practices and Redbook.

    BTW, how does having a corrupt TOC adhere to the Redbook? Just curious how they managed that.

    So, anyways, I end up bringing the f*cking things over to my place to burn off onto *real* CDs for her, which unfortunately ends up with her seeing my setup when she brings me over homemade cookies to say thanks. Next thing I know, I'm putting every bit of music she owns to CD... and I mean *every*, considering I have a turntable, cassette, CD (old-skool, to read those f-ing cds), and 8-Track all on my line-in. So I end up spending all day and night pulling off all this music (it took days and days of 24 hour play to get this stuff in), and more days and nights of doing some rudimentary cleaning on pops and crackles. She ends up so happy with it, she tells everyone else in the complex about it during the monthly condo meeting... I now have a computer slaved to nothing more than audio reads, and literally SHELVES of cookies and cakes and preserves and everything else you can think of. If you consider the average phono/tape/8-track/cd to be roughly 1 hour in length, it's going to take me over 3 months just to read this shit in.... and it still hasn't stopped. They don't even say hi anymore, just leave a stack of music at the door with a bag of something homemade on top... the guy from the other end of the complex left his DVD player and a bunch of out-of-region DVDs for me last week (he's maxxed his region changes). And every time I say I'm too busy for this crap, whatever sweet lil grannie it is this time looks up (wayyy up, I'm 6'4") and says "Don't worry dear, whenever you get to it. I kind of like the silence."

    Therefore, based on the imperical evidence of the growing hell life is becoming, coupled with the expected dentist bills I'll get soon from all the cavities I'm sure to develop, I'm forced to conclude not only that copy protection == PAIN, but also that CP==EVIL. And, based on this, I'm lead to the conclusion that Hillary Rosen must be the bane of my existance.

    It's time for it to end. I can't take another day of "The Beach Boys greatest hits!". Someone tell me where the bitch lives. It's time to go give her a cookie.
  • by Skapare (16644) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @06:11PM (#4612584) Homepage

    What the music industry executives don't quite get, yet, is that it only takes one successful rip of a CD to spread like wildfire over sharing networks (which incidentally are digging deeper and deeper underground).

    Given the quality level of a lot of music out there now, it's clear to me that absolute CD perfection is not the desire of the masses. Back when piracy was done (more slowly) by multiple generation analog re-recording, the quality level would drop each generation. It didn't take long before it totally sucked, and even then people often would put up with music 4 or 5 generations deep, just because it was free. Digital basically eliminates the generation problem, completely. Therefore a semi-sucky rip is actually good enough for the masses because it won't get any worse from there. And all it takes is for someone to rip it by playing it on a device that can play the copy protected CD and recording it via a sound card input. And if the device has no electrical analog output (permanently wired headphones, for example), it can still be captured by other means (some player will have to be able to play it for big home sound systems or else the music industry will be cutting out more market than piracy). It might suck to have to record music with microphones propped up against speakers (possibly with filters and noise generators to mask watermarking), but the quality of that won't be any worse than 2nd or 3rd generation analog was, and will probably still be better, anyway. The "analog hole" does exist, and it means that people can rip the music and swap it online, anyway.

    What the copy protection is targeting most effectively is not the online trading, but rather, the casual CD duplicating. Many people do buy CDs then make copies for their friends. And with holidays approaching, the reverse will be common, too (buy CDs, duplicate or rip them, and send the original to your cousin for a gift).

    Because of the fact that online music swapping is already virtually ubiquitous, it won't be much of a stretch to engage in that practice even more in the future. As more and more CDs fail to be playable on equipment that people paid good money to buy, be that an actual stereo system, or a custom made personal computer system running the latest Debian Linux, people will more often explore getting their music for free from the internet instead of buying CDs that don't work. They aren't going to just trash their stereo systems, and they aren't giving up on computer systems that still do other functions well. They will just get music in other forms instead of the store bought CD. And it's not because they necessarily want free music (those that do are already swapping anyway); it's that they want music that works, and swapped music may eventually be all that does. And to the extent the music industry doesn't want to serve this market, the more they drive this market away from buying any CDs at all.

    Yes, there is a lot of piracy going on, and probably a lot more than there ever was. But it's the music industry itself, that will effectively destroy the CD format as we know it today. You just watch. They will do it.

    • by kalidasa (577403) on Wednesday November 06 2002, @05:44PM (#4612338) Journal

      U2, Peter Gabriel, and Rush have all had new albums in the past 18 months. Indeed, Gabriel has had 3 new albums since the millennium, though only one is a classic studio album (Ovo, the soundtrack to the millennium celebrations, which I think is at best overwrought; The Long Walk Home, the soundtrack to The Rabbit-Proof Fence, which is quite good, maybe as good as Passion, and Up, which is spectacularly good in places - e.g., Signal to Noise and Sky Blue). U2's new album was also quite good, if not quite up to the quality of say Achtung Baby or Joshua Tree.

      The problem isn't the music, it's the marketing: the record companies only want to sell pablum to teenagers. There are good bands out there, the old ones still doing their stuff and new ones with real quality (Radiohead obviously isn't a "new" band, but they are a nineties - oughts band, and their work is head and shoulders above most of the stuff you find in your local record store, just to mention the most obviously commercial example). But the money is spent pushing JLo and Justin Timberlake and American Idol because the record companies have *created* the bands and can *control* them from start to finish.