Anatomy of Cactus Data Shield 182
meehawl writes: "This is a good analysis by CDRInfo on the current version of Midbar's Cactus Data Shield. This is the format Universal will use to protect its new audio CDs. It's been reported here already that some DVDs effectively bypass this protection, but this article addresses the specific concerns of how best to backup these protected CDs, and how to extract the music data at high quality for download to a personal MP3 listening device."
So, if the only CD player I have is a CDROM (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a shameless rip-off of the consumer. It's fraudulent, in fact. When I buy a CD, I expect CD quality music, not MP3s. They should have to put a sticker on the case explaining that computer users get MP3 only quality.
And yes, my only CD player IS a CD-ROM. I won't buy one of these "CDs" ever.
My first copy-pretection experience (Score:3, Interesting)
it was 'Better Days' by JOE (Jive Records/Zomba). I got it from Amazon.de. The only sign that it was copy-protected was a very small printing on the back side "This CD is not playable on computers (CD-ROM/DVD-ROM)". So I tried it on my computer running Linux, with a Creative Dxr2 5x DVD-ROM and I could hear it on audio mode. To my surprise I was also able to rip it using cdparanoia (otherwise I would have returned it immediately, I have far too many CDs to manage them in any for but Ogg Vorbis or MP3 format). So I tried it on my DVD-Player (Yamakawa AVphile 715), and it worked, too. However I noticed that the player needed an unusual long time to detect it as a CD. Next try was my stereo, an old Sony CD player: worked fine as well. Then I tried a Windows PC with a 40x Pioneer CD-ROM: did not detect the CD. Ok, so at least in one cd drive the copy protection worked.
I thought about the possibility of returning it to Amazon, but I felt bad about the idea of returning a CD that I had already ripped and that worked in most computers, so I didnt do this. I wrote a letter to Amazon.de though, asking them to include information about copy protected CDs in the description and I told them that I would never buy a copy-protected CD, and if I would ever get another one I would return it immediately. They replied, telling that they cannot put this information in the description, but because of the special circumstances I was allowed to return even opened CDs if they are copy-protected.
What about lengthy CDs? (Score:2, Interesting)
So will the record companies:
A) Ship 2 CDs - 1 copy protected audio CD, and 1 data CD, and charge more.
B) Just not include digital formats on lengthy CDs.
C) Edit the music so that both the protected audio and data will fit.
D) Option C, and also release a "Collector's Edition", that contains the additional music cut from the original CD, at a higher price.
Just the idea of copy protecting audio CDs is repugnant, but when you really think about the side effects, it gets even uglier.
Re:"backup" audio CDs for "personal" use? (Score:2, Interesting)
You don't save too much with FLAC, but enough that you can fit at least two CDs onto one CDR (if you match the sizes... pick a big and a short one, or two average ones).
400 CDrs (for 800 CDs) @
So, those people do exist. I know two.
Re:"backup" audio CDs for "personal" use? (Score:2, Interesting)
- Number of songs you can play without switching CDs: 15? 18?
- Number of MP3s you can play without switching hard drives: 2000? 5000? more?
Plus, with the multi-GB players, you can take your whole collection to work, to the gym, etc. And you can just drop all the songs you don't like. And let's not forget about playlists. And...I don't have any MP3s I didn't rip myself. But even so, why would I ever go back to CDs?
Ability to play in a computer is questionable (Score:3, Interesting)
It occurs to me, though, that the inclusion of a compressed audio player on the CD really doesn't solve the problem, even if it's possible to copy the audio files in some protected way to a hard disk.
Here's why: my earliest CDs were purchased in early 1986. At that time, my PC was running MS-DOS 3.1. Think for a moment about the odds of a copy-protected program from 1986 working unmodified in a modern computer--let alone the computers we'll have twenty years hence. The inclusion of a copy-protected player program in lieu of a standards-compliant CD looks even more pitiful when one stops to consider the fact that the player program will be basically unuseable in a few years' time.
Re:Those who don't learn from history... (Score:2, Interesting)
What about CD recorders and the AHRA? (Score:3, Interesting)
According to the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, I'm AUTHORIZED to make single-generation digital copies of CD's onto "Music CD-R" media, a portion of whose price includes a payment into two funds administered by the Library of Congress: two-thirds into a Sound Recordings Fund, with small percentages of this fund earmarked for nonfeatured artists and backup musicians, 40% of the remainder for featured artists, and the rest to record companies; one-third into a Musical Works Fund, to be split 50/50 between songwriters and music publishers.
My Teac appears to be rapidly turning into worthless junk. UMG's "More Fast and Furious" will not copy on it (it gives the error message "CANT COPY, SCMS ERROR").
So, the copy protection fails to prevent UNauthorized copies... but succeeds in preventing AUTHORIZED copies.
Midbar and UMG are cheating those of us who BOUGHT and PAID FOR the right to make copies.
CD Analysis Software (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't it all just ones and zeros? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, what is the problem with implementing this scheme (apart from the DMCA). Is it that there is no way of persuading a CDROM drive to output the raw data? If so, this just confirms my view that the entire problem lies in CDROM firmware. Could we re-flash this in some drives?
Somewhere in a CD player the bits we want are wizzing along a PCB track. Does anyone know the practicality of tapping into this?
Just my random thoughts on the topic.