Cactus Data Shield Tries Again 378
autocracy writes: "Midbar, an Israeli company that developed the breakage of standard called Cactus says that they have released more than 10 million CDs to the U.S. and Europe. They now claim that there will be no issues playing it but you will lose quality if you try to copy. I'm just wondering how it is that you can play it on a system at perfect quality, but when you copy it things don't sound right. Do they not know about optical output? Lame quotes including comments by the makers of how this is a 'proven technology' can be found at C|NET."
The myth of 10 million? (Score:3, Insightful)
I seriously doubt there are 10 million "on store shelves." Probably 10 million in warehouses. And I suspect they're not putting this copy protection on the most popular artists' CDs
Re:The myth of 10 million? (Score:2)
"Each executive was given 10 million dollars to put these broken things on store shelves."
So, Phillips has the different standards for CD's. Red book, Orange book...
how about a new one:
*black book*, that's what we can call it. And, instead of the traditional CD symbol, it will say:
ddd Compact
d d iii ccccc
ddddd d i i $$$$ c ccc c
d dd d i i $$ c c cc
d d d d i i $$$ c c
d dd d i i $$ c c cc
ddddddd iiii $$$$ c ccc c
Cactus Broken Audio cccccc
What do you think?
Proven? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they want to make money, they should spend more time getting REAL artists and not just 'performers' then maybe people would be more interested in supporting them and buying their music.
This technology WILL cause many problems and WILL be able to be copied flawlessly within days if not already. This is how it does and always will work. Do they not see that they are losing more money tring to stop us than anything? Is it not time to give up on the anti-piracy CDs?
All it takes is 1 person to copy the CD then EVERYONE can get it. Its that simple.
Re:Proven? (Score:2, Insightful)
Good post. It seems every 2 weeks we go through this on
Also keep in mind when your kid wants the latest and greatest teeny-bopper cd for 29.99$ you can be thankful you are supporting the no-talent hacks ad "Midbar technologies".
It takes a complete friggin moron to think they can make bits uncopyiable. Like Bruce Schneier said once:
"Making bits uncopyable is like making water not wet".
I think the trick will be just not to support the so called "performers" [as you call them] since most of them are just abused hacks anyways [ahem, spears....]
Tom
Re:Proven? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey - they don't think they can make bits uncopyable. They think they can convince the record companies that they can make bits uncopyable.
Big difference. I don't think Midbar are morons at all. They sold a large load of snake oil to some very big customers for (probably) a lot of money. Not bad.
Re:Proven? (Score:5, Insightful)
She wanted to support the "artist."
When someone pays $20 for a CD at Tower if the artist gets a buck of it they're way ahead of the curve.
When Kenny Rogers was riding the country crossover wave he said that it wasn't until he had had five number one hits in a row that he made any money.
When I give my friend only $10 for her self produced CD I get a CD for half the price I would pay in a store, AND I know that $9 of that is profit in her pocket.
I believe in supporting the artist, and when the RIAA records a musical performance I'm willing to hand $10 to them personally for I'd be glad to do so.
KFG
Re:Proven? (Score:2)
if the artist gets a buck of it they're way ahead of the curve.
If the artist sells 2 million CD's, even at $1, they are well, well ahead.
Re:Proven? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Proven? (Score:3, Interesting)
Creed proabably gets $.10
Wannabes (Marketing bands such as Spears, Boyz something) proabably see a penny if that.
Artist don't make money off of albums, they make money off of tours. New artists don't get to tour much you'll notice. They're usually back in the studio for a sophomore album before they can get make money for themselves. But it's an evil catch. The record industry practically owns the airwaves and store shelves so the musician who wants to make big money signs deals to get exposure and some spare change from record sales. Then hopefully with sucess running into and after a sophomore album they can finally tour.
Unfortuneatly, I don't see the loop ending.
It doesn't really take a genius to figure it out.
They're will be musicians (and wannabe performers) who want to make a buck. The marketing nimrod actually does realize that current pop culture thrives on the shit they put out. Whenever comsumer confidence shrinks, (let's say a wide boycott b/c of non standard CD's) the industry will back off, suck up to the consumer, and then play the consumer again after they have recovered confidence. The few people that don't like the actions now (such as the sampling of readers from
Thank goodness they're will always be that small chunk of local, unsigned music that pleases me.
An end to the loop? (Score:3, Interesting)
How about this: Get some artist to produce an album and then market it and distribute it entirely over the Internet. Since the artists don't make money off album sales anyway, they wouldn't lose anything in that regard. They might lose some exposure initally that they would enjoy from radio play, but maybe the 'net could fill the void. They would make make the bulk of their money from a tour...just like they do now anyway. And some of us might just be willing to pony up a buck or two for digital music delivered via the 'net if most of it went to the artists!
Re:An end to the loop? (Score:2, Interesting)
The net is still imature compared to big brother media. Beleive it or not, it still not taken seriously by a lot of brick and mortar companies.
The internet vs. radio/mtv exposure rate is too favored toward the latter for a serious "wanting to break it big" budding band to try it. And for the bands that do try it, good luck. You'll be black listed from major labels b/c your tried to circumvent the industry's system.
Re:Proven? (Score:2)
But as other waves this will pass as well since people will get fed up with it. How come? Because it is a fad. Today on Swiss Music channel I heard the remake of "Saturday Night Fever" and other disco songs. AHHHHHHH.....
Remember the TV show WKRP in Cinncinati? And remember when Johnny Fever became RipTide? Well right now there are tons of RipTides!!! The riptides died and we got real music again. This is a loop that will die! Especially now since the economy is in a slump and people are more picky about their music. Wait, coincidence DISCO died in 82-83, yes that was when there was a major slump in the economy.
Re:Proven? (Score:2, Insightful)
Two Reasons:
They have stars in their eyes, and are drooling over their "big break" and don't realize they have just mortgaged their entire life on an investment that might just ruin them, or leave them as a slave to the record company.
2. They realize they're getting screwed, but signing the contract is the only way to get into the club. And artists hope that they make it big, and get to tour and make some real money.
Re:Proven? (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Download a song or ten and listen.
2) Wait for it to play on the radio/mtv/etc.
3) Go to a store that lets you listen and stand there with cheap headphones trying to listen.
#2 will never happen if the artists isn't huge. #3 involves me taking time to go to a store for a chance of liking an artist, time I'd much rather spend doing something else. #1 might technically be copyright violation, but has a much higher chance of getting me to spend money.
And even if at the end of this I decide not to buy the music, who has it hurt?
Certainly not the artist, whose music I wouldn't have bought if I'd never heard of them.
Perhaps it hurts the stations and the promoters (because I didn't listen to the radio) but I can easily live with that on my consience.
I think if you examine it and quit spouting propoganda, you'll see that most people fully support the artists and will do so financially, if they like the art enough to collect more than a tiny sample of it.
Re:Proven? (Score:2, Insightful)
What I'm trying to say here is......(popular) music artists (and their managers) are going to have to find new ways to make money, whether it be through concerts, advertising (doh!), or other means, such as movie integration. It is becoming too easy for people to download the latest pop tune for free...I personally think that public concerts are going to increase in popularity and complexity over the coming years. Through concerts, the listener can experience an event rather than just hear the music. Interaction is going to become a key role in the future of music, and I think that we'll be seeing some new colors in the shape of the music industry because of the industry's constant need for money. Heh sorry if I got a bit carried away...
Re:Proven? (Score:3, Funny)
Excellent point. All the record companies need to do is hold off the CD copiers until such time as the artist has exhausted their fifteen minutes, by which time nobody will want to copy the CDs.
Re:Proven? (Score:4, Funny)
>
> > Until moderators stop moderating up the same, old, boring arguments.
>
> Or untill they stop posting the same, old, boring articles.
Or until RIAA realizes that Midbar and all the other copy-control companies are selling nothing more than snake oil.
Or until RIAA realizes that no matter how much money they have, we're still right - making bits uncopyable is like making water not wet - and they're wrong.
Or (my personal hope) - until the combined weight of the bullshit coming out of Midbar's technical marketing staff's and Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti's shared hallucination is sufficient to gravitational collapse and becomes a black hole, thereby putting an end to RIAA, MPAA and the rest of the content control industry once and for all.
Raw? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Raw? (Score:3, Informative)
This makes *big* assumptions about how the cd supplies data in audio versus data modes, and is apparently not true for all cdroms (and very few dvd roms), so does not always work.
it also assumes that an audio cd player uses a 'standard' interpolation method, any that use a different (maybe even improved) method will produce less accurate 'solutions' to their intentionally introduced errors.
hmm, the whole thing is a house of cards, and will no doubt fall over before long.
When _will_ these people learn? (Score:5, Insightful)
- there is an authentication server connected to our brain stem
- there is no "untrusted" way to convert sound into electricity
- the DMCA is backed by Colombia-style death squads
To those who would argue that they're "raising the bar on piracy and keeping the honest people honest," I'd ask you to consider which people copying some of these CDs love more:
- the music of Charley Pride
- the feeling of power that comes from distributing it after cracking Cactus Data Shield
Re:When _will_ these people learn? (Score:2, Interesting)
You mean its not? :)
Re:When _will_ these people learn? (Score:2)
And I see you got modded down for making a fair comment. No way would I have called your comment "flamebait".
Anyway, If you feel strongly about it reading this, go a metamoderate now. Someone will get the above moderations pop up in front of them if enough people metamoderate (even one quick look each).
Just my 2c worth - at least there is a system here on
Michael
Re:When _will_ these people learn? (Score:3, Funny)
"By including a buffer-overflow string at the end of the audio data that sends your current home address to our central servers when copied, we can now deal directly with software and music pirates with our brand new, combat-ready Customer Service Representives."
Tries again ... (Score:3, Interesting)
It was the "More Fast and Furious" [techtv.com] soundtrack CD and the resulted in this discussion [slashdot.org] when it was found the protection could be bypassed with a DVD player.
Re:Tries again ... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is copy protection? Here's a better question: Are all Dell owners with DVD drives who buy CDS copy-protected discs in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? Perhaps, if they purchase the NEC DVD drive just for the purpose of circumventing the copy protection.
It'd really suck if your door got knocked down for buying a dell.. hrmm.. good thought there tho.. the "Dell Dude" would be behind bars =)
*sigh* (Score:4, Funny)
Look in the last 2600 (Score:5, Informative)
copy protection will prove unpopular (Score:4, Interesting)
While this does allow it to become freely distributed over the internet, how is the anti-piracy technology supposed to tell the difference between our legitimate copy and the pirated copy. I really don't think they can do it without seriously pissing off the public.
Re:copy protection will prove unpopular (Score:2)
Sector by Sector Copy? (Score:4, Interesting)
How would this be unplayable?
Re:Sector by Sector Copy? (Score:4, Informative)
How would this be unplayable?
CDS works by purposely introducing errors into the audio data on the disc. Audio CD players are supposed to interpolate across the errors such that there is supposed to be no difference in sound quality. But CD-ROMs--being designed to read data CDs where every bit has to be correct--don't do this interpolation, and thus they see the disc as having lots of errors and crap out. You can't make an exact copy of the disc if your CD-R can't read it.
At least that's what's supposed to happen. It has since come out that 1) many DVD-ROMs read the discs just fine; and 2) *certain* combinations of CD-Rs and ripping software can manage alright.
Take a look at CDDA Paranoia website (Score:5, Informative)
One of the answers on Paranoia FAQ [xiph.org] nicely explains all of the problems with ripping CDs, and generally all of the differences between playing CD on audio CD player, and reading audio CD as a stream of bits with a computer. These differences are exactly what is addressed by all of those so called "copy-protection" techniques.
The "copy-protected" "CDs" have to be played by audio CD players (otherwise no one would buy them), but not ripped with computers (like it made any problem with copying them, even if it's possible to make CDs completely unplayable on CD-ROM drives... When will they learn?) so all they can do, is to address the differences [xiph.org] between them. It's very good to know, how it really works.
The legend of characters on Paranoia progress meter [xiph.org] gives a good introduction to what Paranoia can and what it can't fix (yet):
-
A hyphen indicates that two blocks overlapped properly, but they were
skewed (frame jitter).
This case is completely corrected by Paranoia
and is not a cause for concern.
-
A plus indicates not only frame jitter, but an unreported, uncorrected
loss of streaming in the middle of an atomic read operation. That is,
the drive lost its place while reading data, and restarted in some
random incorrect location without alerting the kernel. This case is also
corrected by Paranoia.
-
An 'e' indicates that a transport level SCSI or ATAPI error was
caught and corrected.
Paranoia will completely repair such an error
without audible defects.
-
An "X" indicates a scratch was caught and corrected.
Cdparanoia will interpolate over any missing/corrupt samples.
-
An asterisk indicates a scratch and jitter both occurred in this general
area of the read.
Cdparanoia will interpolate over any missing/corrupt samples.
-
A ! indicates that a read error got through the stage one of error
correction and was caught by stage two. Many '!' are a cause for
concern; it means that the drive is making continuous silent errors that
look identical on each re-read, a condition that can't always be
detected. Although the presence of a '!' means the error was corrected,
it also means that similar errors are probably passing by unnoticed.
Upcoming releases of cdparanoia will address this issue.
-
A V indicates a skip that could not be repaired or a sector totally
obliterated on the medium (hard read error).
A 'V' marker generally
results in some audible defect in the sample.
So, however the next copy-protection of the week which this time really works!(tm) will work, I'm quite sure that it will be no problem to Paranoia [xiph.org], maybe after few days, because Paranoia [xiph.org] simply interpolates over any missing/corrupt samples, like audio players do. No need to say, thay it will always be no problem to audio input on my Sound Blaster...Re:Sector by Sector Copy? (Score:2)
Two letters:
dd
Protect against that.
Re:Sector by Sector Copy? (Score:2)
While software can be defeated, it takes time. If the software can be updated quickly enough, it will remain unbroken for the duration of its intended lifespan.
Finally, the drive and/or software should insist on connecting to the internet or "secure" hardware every so often to prevent copyright infringers from copying older media with an old, cracked drive and software. If the updates don't happen, the drive and software don't play.
This is not true copy protection, but it will discourage perhaps %99.95 of potential copyright infringers. If the number of people offering copied and recompressed movies on Kazaa can be kept below a certain threshold, movies will not spread quickly enough to attract users to the service who only wish to download movies. If someone spends a week downloading one movie they spent another week just finding, it is unlikely they will see Kazaa as a worthy way of spending their time.
Not good. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Buy the CD
2. Rip the CD
3. Throw the CD away (well, OK, store it just in case... but I rarely see it again).
4. Play the music on my machines (Either directly or via the shoutcast server I run locally, and only locally, on my network).
5. Sometimes re-burn to CD so I can listen to it on my car.
This is all legal, from what I can see. If they're preventing me from doing any of the above, then I've got a problem with it. They need to come up with something else, something that doesn't interfere with my fair use of the music.
I wish they had more details in the article. I can't honestly tell if they're going to muck with any of the above, but I've got to guess at step #2, I'll be out of luck.
Re:Not good. (Score:2)
<sarcasm>
Duh! Dude, don't you know you can just get all your music for free with Kazaa and stuff! You're such a sucker for actually BUYING music!
</sarcasm>
but really... I feel ya. I take it up the ass on huge middle-man markup in the name of trying to do the honest thing by paying for my music, and then 10,000 kiddies all go and reinforce the idea that copy-prevention is a required technology for all new media formats. *sigh*...
Re:Not good. (Score:5, Insightful)
But, I was kicking back, listening to the Steve Jobs Key Note at MWSF, and I totally and completely got caught up in the patented "Jobs Distortion Field". Part of it was iPhoto (I have close to 6000 poorly organized digital pictures), and part of it was how cool OS X is looking, but withing a month of the Keynote, I am now the proud owner of an iPod, Powerbook 667, and, (and I don't think I'm isolated here), about $200 worth of CDs in the last two weeks alone.
And my process is identical to yours -
o Buy the CD (Okay, it's more like, Buy every major domestic album U2 has ever produced),
o Rip the CDs with iTunes (The 667 get's a little warm, but it works flawlessy)
o Throw the Jewelcase away and Pack the CD into my CD-208 Binder (which also handily stores software and DVDs)
o Listen to the Music on the Powerbook or iPod.
I can honestly state I have not, in over a year, listened to music being played _directly from a CD_. And, while I recognize that I'm in the minority here (I don't drive, so I don't worry about car CD players), I can say with some assurance that for every 100,000 iPods or other MP3 players get sold, the chance of copy protection being acceptable gets diminishingly less.
That's It, it's all over - If nobody buys copy protected CDs (and nobody with an iPod will or MP3 player will), it's game over. DIVX went down not because it was broken, but because nobody was interested in buying the Discs.
It's too late - The revolution has been won. There will be no Copy Protection that prevents people from converting their Music into MP3s, because nobody will buy that media.
You heard it here first. (Err, well, maybe not, but I haven't seen it written anywhere but above before... )
Re:Not good. (Score:3, Interesting)
>
> That's It, it's all over - If nobody buys copy protected CDs (and nobody with an iPod will or MP3 player will), it's game over. DIVX went down not because it was broken, but because nobody was interested in buying the Discs.
Good point. I never thought of it that way, but when I buy a CD, I, too, listen to it once or twice at the most - either to find out what my downloaded MP3s were missing, and then to gauge the quality of the MP3s I just encoded off it. (Side note: LAME rocks. Rocks hard enough that I've pretty much not had to bother doing CD-MP3 comparisons, as I've stopped being able to tell the difference, even on headphones at 192. I encode at 256, just to be on the safe side. Maybe someday I'll have a stereo system where I could tell the difference, hard drive space is cheap, and I'm not uploading 'em to anyone else, so the space is mine to waste.)
But after the rip/encode day, it's computer and MP3 player from that point on. Last time I listened to a CDDA was a set of compilations/mixes that I burned for a car stereo and a long trip. Even then, I didn't even bother to dig out the original CDs to create the .WAVs, I just decoded the MP3s.)
Put it on unprotected CD-DA, and I'll buy it. Hilary still gets her 90% of the artist's money.
Put it on copy-protected discs, and I might think it's worthwhile to work around the protection to get the format I want. Hilary might still get her cut of that money.
Make it so I can't work around it, and I'll download it from a P2P source. Ms. Rosen can take a long hard suck on my arse.
Re:Not good. (Score:2)
1. Buy the CD
2. Throw the CD away
3. Download the CD
etc...
Re:Not good. (Score:2)
Whoever has kids knows CDs aren't as indestructible as they're advertised as. So, I buy a CD, either copy it or record it to tape and stow the original away (No, nothing fancy here...). Same with the Jungle Book DVD - just copy it over to VHS and voilà if my two barbarians decide to eat/crush/unwind it, easy, no problem.
And I too consider this 'fair use'.
BTW: I recently read an article about analog (horribile dictu) copies from CDs/DVDs - they aren't near as bad as one would suspect. Surely good enough for a rainy sunday afternoon...
If copy protection starts to kick in, well, I'll be out of this game. Be happy with your shitloads of unsellable media and leave me alone.
Lame... (Score:2)
So it takes a little more work. How long will it take for someone to automate this process like the digital ripping one before?
Move on..
Re:Lame... (Score:2)
If I had to do it the long way, I'd be sitting there for sixty minutes.. no way I'm wasting that amount of time, I just won't buy the CD.
Re:Lame... (Score:2)
So what if it takes an hour? There's no law saying you can't be doing anything else on your machine while it happens.
Re:Lame... (Score:2)
Never thought of that part of it!
Yeah standards! (Score:2)
Yep, they don't do it the same way twice, so you'll never know what these disks won't play on! Play hardware roullette!
Whereas, a bit for bit rip through a player that emulates an audio cd's error correction will work every time, regardless of their new and improved method.
Anybody think they'll ever figure out it's a little late in the Compact Disc Arena to try to make such a fundamental change as copy (fair use) prevention to the system?
And... (Score:2, Insightful)
am I missing something? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:am I missing something? (Score:2, Interesting)
Firstly, there was quite a fuss with analogue recording (primarily with video, but also with the start of the compact casette tape), it was, as you say, addressed with a 'media corperate' tax being applied to these items, and the feared drop in profits never happened (infact quite the opposite), so the recording industry made big $$ out of this.
Secondly, the reason this *should* not happen to newer digital media is that a crapload of this is NOT used to record copywrited, stolen, artistic stuff. Much (most?) of the writable digital media (cdrom, harddrives, dvd, etc) are use for storage of computer data.
I would be VERY annoyed if these same companies manage to get a tax added to the rice of every HD/writable CD/etc, and believe me, they are trying, as they know this is free money for them!
Re:am I missing something? (Score:2)
For a tax like this to be really fair, they'd have to allocate a proportional share of money for the hard working, underpaid pr0n stars who's artistry surely fill up a large fraction of these disks.
Somehow, though, I don't see something like a Ron Jeremy Digital Media Performance Compensation Act making it out of a congressional committe.
Re:am I missing something? (Score:3, Informative)
Am I missing something? Yes (Score:2)
Kjella
Re:Also, digital is non-realtime (Score:2)
I have just submitted a patent to the US patent office on a device that allow you to make recordings even if they implement a completely closed audio path.
It is an audio to analog to digital conversion device. I call it a microphone. I spoke to the patent examiner, and he said I can expect approval within the next week or so.
-
How can you take a company seriously... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, everybody is telling the record companies that they're going to die, so they react just like a human...any shaman who comes along, even Noam Zur, is worth a shot because they simply don't know what to do.
The CD is here to stay, and by its nature its unprotected. There's not a thing the record companies can do about that except release stuff that will just piss off their regular customers.
Meanwhile, they could convince people to go to a different format, but why would you give up CDs which have pretty good quality and the ability to copy freely with some unknown format where (a) people have to buy the same records over again (b) its copy protected so you can't make copies (c) there's an installed based of players that will be around for 15-20 years (notice cars STILL come with cassette decks?).
They really are screwed at this point. I have no prescription for them because they've gone out of their way to be deceitful and they treat their customers (us) like crap.
They rejected business models that could make them money (Napster).
They turn to things like copy protection (proven to fail over 2 decades ago).
And they stand behind laws like DMCA in an attempt to get rid of first-sale doctrine.
I am not crying a tear.
.COM to .BOMB anyone... (Score:2)
Reading the above I thought back to the heady days of 1999 when all of those old companies were going to go bust. Boo would win, Travelocity would crush everyone, Amazon would shutdown Borders, no-one would ever want to buy anything from a normal shop again.
Well call me wierd but I thought it was stupid back then. And I think the idea of not having Record Companies with marketing might and recording studios is also stupid.
If I can hear it I can record it (Score:4, Interesting)
Its the lame trick of a bad second session, TRK 0 (Score:5, Informative)
It merely needs to copy track 1 explicitely, all 2774 bytes per block on a Plextor or at least 2352 in raw mode.
Macs and PCs will soon have updated THIRD PARTY cd drivers that will play any of these things. One system will suffer the most... the newest macs... thats because to eliminate EMI audio noise, the macs force users to use digital audio extraction over ATA-ATAPI bus and SCSI bus exclusively. This is fine if the media is not heavily damaged in some sections, but these corrupted disks slow down firware in standard audio extraction modes used on macs. Apple got rid of all their A-D converters, even for audio mics. And now that thier audio D-A out is in usb and uses usb speakers no mother board interference and disk drive head interference emits on speakers cranked to 500 watts.
I miss track-0 tricks, its cool to see the world using it 10 years later.
It explains why some cactus cds can be copied except the first audio track, with older tools.
as for CDDA logo rights being removed by Philips.... Philips abused the tradmark symbol themselves!!! They placed it on some european audio CDs in 1994 that were 79 minutes long. That was in explicite violation of the CDDA logo standard that maintains a maximum of 333,000 blocks of audio allowed (74 minutes)
Even since that day, Anyone is morally allowed to violate the CD-DA standard logo because it MEANS NOTHING now and is abused even by Philips.
I wish there was a manufacturer symbol I could trust to look for that meant REALLY-CDDA not violating *ANY* part of the "Red Book" whatsoever. Then these Cactus abominations from hell could be avoided.
Sony and Universal will soon shut down web sites that explain how a cheap 5 cent resister tied across the leads of a decrypted-USB speaker input can be used as audio in source into a D-A audio card to extract formaerly-protected encrypted limited-access audio.
ha!
long live the resister!
Re:Its the lame trick of a bad second session, TRK (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Its the lame trick of a bad second session, TRK (Score:2)
You'd think there would be a PROOF (Score:3, Interesting)
Inductive proof. We'll work with a single bit, and assume that it scales to multiple bits.
A single bit exists on a medium We'll use a stone tablet, and assume that it scales to thin wafers of aluminum encased in plastic.
A consumer who owns, for legal purposes we'll use own and not lease or license, this stone tablet can see the bit and can identify it as either a one or zero.
Said consumer can then copy the bit to another tablet, assuming they own a tablet and chisel. Or, theoretically, a laser and a wafer of aluminum encased in plastic.
If the consumer can see the bit, nothing can stop the consumer from copying the bit, short of a man with a knife standing over the second blank tablet. Or, theoretically, a man in a suit with a pile of papers in his hand.
Nothing we can do.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Successful efforts are grassroots efforts...
As Jello Biafra said
Don't wait for sassy to come around and say it. Get sassy and say it
People will use a crippled product if (Score:3, Insightful)
Crippling an existing format and not offering the consumer anything extra on the other hand will offer little attraction at all.
Of course with the companies claiming that piracy costs them big bucks you'd think that pirate-proof (assuming such a thing exists) CDs should be cheaper as they would not need to be defraying those costs on those CDs. Having said that I'm fairly sure that the cost of a CD is based entirely on what people will pay and has no relation to any 'costs' whatsoever.
Two words: Value Added. (Score:2)
a) Better picture quality
b) Better audio quality
c) Multiple audio tracks (languages, extras)
d) Multiple/optional subtitles
e) Doesn't depreciate over time
f) Instant jump to scene
g) Optional extras (Making of, screen savers+++)
h) Multi-angle
What does CDS add?
Kjella
More casualties... (Score:3, Funny)
Once again, the corporations losing this war on the basis that corporate types don't seem to be thinking on the same level as geeks.
And this is why the corporations are never going to win. They are predictable, and the geeks are innovative.
This is how it works. Picture if you will a major record company meeting room... for the sake of argument, let's call them the Big Music Guys. Systems analysts #1, #2 and #YesMan are meeting with big corporate pointy-haired type.
Management: "This Copywrite stuff is getting out of hand and making us obsolete. Help us control people's money again by providing a useless service."
Geek #1: "How do you expect to do that?"
Management: "Well, we're gonna make some way that stops them from copying our releases."
Geek #1 breaks out into laughter. Manager fires him.
Geek #2: "Y'see, the problem is that any way that we can possibly work on it to make it inaccessible, the rest of the world will find some other way around it. We can't possibly keep up with the public domain."
Management: "You're not being a team player. You're fired."
Pseudo-Geek YesMan: "I'll get right to work on it."
And YesMan, having attained his stature through ass-lipgluing as opposed to technical know-how, will spend much of his time working game #4711 of Freecell. Once he has attained this, he will spend about 12 hours putting together some simple encryption device that will fall to the suggestion of Geek #2. Management type returns to stockholders, says "We're currently working on a state-of-the-art encryption device to keep copywrite crackers from getting to our music" and stock prices go up. Shareholders revel in their smart investment as the company releases inferior technology developed by a yes-man which will get worked around approximately 12 hours after its release. Cycle continues.
Especially since these days, with the ever-rising popularity of free-information and licenses such as GPL that companies are finding it harder and harder to set standards, because the geeks are beating them to better ones, and as a result they can't make anything with any built-in security to it...
Yay geeks! We rule! Keep it up, kids.
Putting up paper walls to stop a bulldozer... (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, AudioCD protection? Get real. I refuse to buy CD's for just this reason. (Don't get me wrong, I like to buy CD's, and I still buy local artist's albums) But I don't listen to CD's. They get stored. Ripped and stored. It's just easier to listen to my music when it's stored on a server in the closet. Not to mention, I don't have to worry about losing the disc quite as easily. I've had them stolen, scratched, lost, etc. Does this mean I no longer have the rights to the information on it? Just because my R.E.M. CD won't play anymore, does that mean that it was illegal for me download the entire disc off the internet? (to quote the great Stigmata:) FALSE.
There will be some problem with trying to implement this new technology. I have a CD player. It came with the stereo that's hooked to my computer. It plays Red Book format discs. I don't know that it's going to play Cactus format discs. Do I expect it to? No. From here on out, I plan to buy Philips equipment, because I know that it is going to work the way I expect it to, and play the CD's I buy the way it's supposed to. If I want to buy CD's that I can't listen to, I'll just buy some bricks. At least those I can throw at RIAA executives.
And don't throw the DMCA into this. I'm sick of this stupid law. It goes against so many things I believe in, and the very basic tenant of our freedoms. This will come to a climax, and one side will fall. Whether it's the people or the corporations, is yet to be seen.
What ever happened to fair use? (Score:2, Interesting)
So, we can make copies for ourselves by law...unless someone decides they dont like consumers to have that right?
This is just another common example that you really dont have any rights, they just like to make you think you do.
Ask ANY cop -- if they want something they will get it.
Example:
Cop: Can I search the vehicle?
Person: No.
Cop: Well, I ran out of tickets, going to have to bring you down to the station to write it up.
Meanwhile -- your car is towed for the moment (can't leave it on the street) and a mandatory 'inventory search' is put in place. Your car has been searched. Good thing we have that 4th amendment :)
I dunno about that (Score:2, Interesting)
Not sure if I am just not understanding what you are saying, or if you are misinformed.
Also, I am from Louisiana -- we are known for corrupt politics. The LA government is out there to make money, and thats it. Threy do everything from re-wording laws to make them easier to enforce, i.e. not needing to prove 'intent' simply by re-wording the law. I just finished a defensive driving class, and the cop teaching it didn't stop mentioning how corrupt the Louisiana government was and how corrupt the laws of the state were. Right down to the cops who are enforcing them. Who knows, some states might care about you, I know mine doesnt.
$5... (Score:2, Insightful)
Until a player comes out for a new type of media in which every part of the transmission uses new technology, including sending the audio to the speakers, piracy will be as easy as plugging in and clicking twice.
It's not about Optical output, it's about Roger... (Score:3, Funny)
It's not about optical output, silly. When they find out that you made a copy, Roger-- The RIAA Enforcer, comes to your house and rubs a key across your copied disk. Therefore, you will lose quality.
As if the pain of losing a CDR isn't enough, the noise made during this scrating is supposed to be untollerable.
Losing 1 CDR, the CD Scratch Noise, and Roger's body oder will prevent you h4x0rz from copying CD's in the future...
Re:It's not about Optical output, it's about Roger (Score:2)
>
> As if the pain of losing a CDR isn't enough, the noise made during this scratching is supposed to be untollerable.
Hey, I listen to industrial music. I might like that ;-)
At the very least, it'd sound a hell of a lot better than whatever Titney Spears has put out.
A little math (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that they've eliminated all music piracy through their innovative copy protection techniques, we should all enjoy the price drop: $300,000,000 / 942,000,000 = $0.32 per CD. Since they are no longer losing all that money to piracy, we can look forward to paying 32 cents less for each CD! They are basically a trustworthy group, so I'm sure they'll pass the savings along to consumers.
Re:A little math (Score:2, Insightful)
If the RIAA is currently losing money on CDs due to illegal copying (pirating is a ridiculous term), then it seems only reasonable that, if they can prevent this copying, the revenue they'd previously been losing should rightfully belong to them. I agree that the consumer should see some benefit, but it's not something that you could morally hold the RIAA to. As an analogy, think of if you wrote and sold software, and 50% of it was used without paying. That's a 50% revenue loss, and you would be justified in saying that if you could somehow reduce that loss, the money you saved should belong to you. Right? And, since you were barely covering your costs before the savings, that money should go into making your life a bit easier. Right?
All this is, of course, purely hypothetical. The RIAA is hardly lacking for money, and I personally think the Hellmouth should open and swallow them, the MPAA, et al back to whence they sprang.
Remember: (Score:4, Insightful)
Screwed by BEST BUY (Score:2, Informative)
No my problem isn't this,
"I bought a 129 GF$ and now they won't honor the price (Offtopic -1) "
Its with their return policy and FF2/cactus data shield.
I thought I'd buy the Fast and Furious 2 to see if the copy protection really works. The "cd" of course said I could return it if defective. I went to return it and it was a no go. I tried to explain that it didnt work, but they didnt get it.
BTW eac is able to fix the defective TOC and then rip. Not sure about the ripped audio quality, i'm not an audiophile.
Ver amo cor
For better or worse (Score:2, Redundant)
Instead I will not buy music CDs anymore. I can live without music. And if you can too, I would suggest that you'd consider doing the same.
But I think we're missing the big picture. Why are these companies doing this? Is it because it is a fashionable thing which one can make a buck on? Possibly. Could it be that they know that the days of the CD are counted? Perhaps. Are they afraid of the Napster-like services becoming more authoritative than the labels? Damn right they are and they should be.
These companies have been feeding off the public because they are the authoritative source of music albums. What if that authority was to change? They would have nothing. Why should somebody go buy an album for some rediculous amount of money when the same content can be downloaded for very little or nothing?
These companies may be doing this because of the Napsterization of the world. Think about it. Napster was shut down, no biggie. Napster was based in the U.S. Clear juristiction. However what if the infrastructure was put in place and such a service was to move to say...
Either one could be feasible in dire straits, but certainly not considered lightly. Most likely these companies will perish when people have had enough.
reduction in audio quality = 128kbps? (Score:4, Insightful)
How is the RIAA making any money? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's just PR for Charley Pride. Fight back! (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course it won't work, nobody expected it to. It just appeared to work at the demo and everyone *knows* about demos. There are no 10 million CDs. There is no copy protection. There is no spoon.
What there is a heck of a lot of, is spouting about Cactus Data Shield, which has a really good name. We are helping launch this company, people. But how to keep quiet when the only way to express oneself is to talk / type?
We could limit ourselves to a minimum mnemonic. Don't waste words on these droids. No flamefest for lurking writers to write about. They can only write, "The Slashdot Community again voted a resounding NO with 853 negative minimum responses against CDS Corp. and 1 for them, which was by an Anonymous Coward, Guess Who."
Some likely mnemonics:
"DOWN WITH CDS" (or just "DOWN!@*%") - Full moral support for complete technical, business, social failure of the company.
"DUH" (or "DUMB", or "BAKA" if you are feeling Japanese) - Breaks the laws of physics and sociology; techies know, and their investors will get it in the end. Embellishment may be added after first keyword in caps; subsequent posters can get away with "DUH (see above)".
"CRACK IT NOW!" - Call to Arms, etc.
Now we can mail Perl-calculated tallies to elected officials, RIAA, etc. while 1) redefining target company's name as a mnemonic, 2) limiting time we waste - adds up to a man-month, and 3) creating an intelligent, opt-in, scary voice that is news by itself. Then we distribute our own software.
Slashdot might like to incorporate top recent keywords (they're in caps at the top) into a handy pull-down item to save irritation - adds up to 4 ulcers per month - while forcing DUH target to provide minimum grim satisfaction.
p.i.t.a. factor (Score:2, Funny)
it's like the registration requirements on 'doze xp. it'll keep people from "casually" grabbing the cd from work and using it on their home computer. anybody really motivated can work around it.
-- p
Don't punish the customer. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now first let me clarify: Ripping an MP3 is not piracy. By definition it couldn't possibly be. You need the CD to rip. Though I'm sure a small # of people rip from borrowed or copied CD's, the vast majority are likely to be from legitimately owned CD's. Piracy happens when somebody gives away this MP3 to people who haven't paid for the song.
Here are two legitimate uses of ripped MP3's:
1.) Use in a portable system that is far more compact than a CD player
2.) Backup copy. Example: If my CD gets destroyed, the RIAA won't replace it. Well now I can keep my CD in a safe place and listen to the MP3 version.
By preventing these two uses, you are preventing the user from legitimately protecting and enjoying their investment. The worst part is, there's nothing to soften the blow of it.
What if the RIAA were to offer a couple of incentives to buy the restricted product? "Well, since these copy restricted CD's will help combat piracy, we'll take $2 off these titles. It's our way of showing how grateful we are for your support." I'd have more respect for the RIAA then, but it wouldn't be enough for me personally.
They still need to address the issue of fair use. If they won't let us make MP3's of our songs, can they at least provide WMA versions of the song with Digital Rights enabled if we have the CD?
So far, the legitimate users have been punished severely. But what about the pirates? Now this time I'm talking about the guy who rips his songs for the express purpose of distributing them for free. Ok, so he can't rip the song directly from the CD. Yah, I bet that will last long. All he has to do is hook up the analog out to the line in and boom he an just record it to a
If that's what it boils down to in order to make the MP3's, then people willing to do that will be in demand. When people like that are in demand, then they become internet-celebrities. "Oh I know this guy, he ripped that song." As long as somebody can achieve celebrity status, they'll be willing to jump through all sorts of hoops.
So to summarize, the RIAA is putting piracy into demand, and punishing the legit customers for it. Wonderful business practice! If this succeeds, next Disney will open a ride called 'The Wedgie".
Its worse than that... (Score:2, Interesting)
What their logic misses completely is that the copy protection scheme *does not have to be cracked*. A one-time digital-to-analog-to-digital copy is indistinguishable from the original. Thus, all one needs to do is play the thing normally and record it digitally.
You can see how the suits think about this: they know that copying loses quality, and that people care about that. What they are confused about is that although in fact multi-generational analog copies lose quality quickly, a one-time analog copy to digital copy does not.
Raging Cactuar Data Shield? (Score:3, Funny)
Let's make this clear.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The only way to stop piracy with 'copy protection' is encryption. After all, what good does a copy do you if you don't understand it? (Look at CSS and the details of Cactus: rearrange some or all of the information, and suddenly the old reading methods don't work.) As if we needed another reason to hate anti-encryption legislative proposals! You can be sure that they would exempt copy protection schemes while making sure your 'private' emails remain an open book to law enforcement.
The executives of these companies seem to be completly oblivious to two points. First is, of course, that any encryption will only deter for so long (and if you use not-that-strong stuff like CSS, that isn't long at all.) Second is that (obviously) we aren't buying from them the physical disk, but the information on it.
But when we look carefully at what they are doing, we can see how they do understand these issues. They're using the kiddie-level encryption right now. I've wondered why, and came up with only one answer: they're waiting for SSCA to pull out the big guns. Could you imagine a CDROM encrypted with Rinjael, and 'kept encrypted' by SSCA??? They know that by trying to extra-legally limit the ways or means of access to that information, they would lose customers. Well, first they need to make that limitation legal...
If not for the SSCA gambit the RIAA seems to be playing (more like betting the house on!), I would suggest the proper response to this nonsense would be, like with the BSA raids, to encourage it; the faster access protection schemes are shown to be nonsense by the open market, the better off we will be in the long run. But when you throw proposed SSCA legislation into the mix this idea just gets worse. All I can suggest is to not touch these disks at all. Don't buy them, don't pirate them, and if you're a store owner, don't sell them.
I'm off to write petitions to the big retailers now. I just realized that the only way the RIAA can't raise the cry of piracy when these disks don't sell if if the vendors are the ones who don't buy them!
Why is the country relevant? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying that I know why the author chose this contruction, but when labels are used like this, especially in the context of a critical (indeed, ridiculing) comment, it's hard not to wonder about the motivation.
Re:Does anybody in R&D for these people get it (Score:2)
Sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do to keep your job. (i.e. until a better one is available, or at least a less sleazy one)
You just lost your bet, physics wins! (Score:3, Informative)
Total Recorder, a program that records data sent to the sound card is wonderfull.
Re:Why break copy protection? (Score:3, Insightful)
As an independent musician, you are unlikely to get radio time nor can you afford big promotions. With CDs as expensive as they are, people don't buy CDs to gamble that the music on it will be good. If people can't hear your music, you make zero sales.
So the more your music is distributed via mp3s, the better it will be for you. The more people who know your music, the more poeople will buy your CDs.
Those who have mp3s of your music and don't have CDs probably wouldn't have bought them in the first place and therefore constitutes no loss of income to you. Those that have bought your CDs do so because they have heard your music
Re:Why break copy protection? (Score:5, Informative)
But, what happens if someone in CA happens to visit KY and sees your CD in a store in KY? If they liked your music, they may just very well buy your CD. That would *never* happen if it wasn't distributed far and wide.
I firmly believe that artists should be paid for their work and I do agree with you in principle that it is wrong for people to enjoy the fruits of your labor for free. But I also do know that as a result of mp3s and file sharing, my purchases of CDs has jumped by a factor of 3.
So I don't wholly subscribe to the argument that filesharing and mp3s is complete theft from artists or is detrimental to the future of the music industry.
Funny you should mention that (Score:2)
Re:Why break copy protection? (Score:2)
So which would you prefer? No piracy and 10 legitimate sales or 100 pirate copies and 15 legitimate sales?
Re:Why do they bother? (Score:2)
I'm glad Phillips is doing this. It's great to finally see a company supporting people's fair use* and right to listen to music they have bought, regardless of the medium.
However, I've always wondered if Phillip's didn't have an exterior motivation? If [audio] copy protection worked, would Phillips have less sales of CD's? What do they have to gain by taking a stance against copy protection?
*I believe distributing music against the author's wishes is wrong. However, if I've paid for a CD, I believe I have paid for the privilege (or right) to listen to it wherever I am, and in whatever medium I choose, aka unlimited private use, or "fair use"
> So why (other than to piss off the consumer) are the record companies doing this???
Now this I can answer. The Recording Companies are desperately trying to maintain control of having people buy music. It's a loosing battle -- all you need is one person to make a perfect digital copy and they *believe* sales will go down. Personally I believe more people *buy* music when they are exposed to more of it. (Go Figure
Re:Why do they bother? (Score:2)
It's very simple - Philips/Magnavox is not primarily a content provider. Sony, RCA, and most of the other equipment manufacturers also have an interest in content production. Since Philips makes their money by enabling fair use, they have a vested interest in continuing to do so, against the interests of other manufacturers to inhibit it to protect their content providing divisions. If Philips is swallowed up by the AOL/TW, Sony, or Viacom behemoths, expect that to change instantaneously.
Always remember - "copy protection" isn't about preventing copying - it's about preventing a level playing field for content production. The thing the RIAA fears most is independent artists and labels not having to pay the cover charge to the party, not that John Q. Pirate is going to take a $.01 bite out of their $9 profit. If they can ruin the CD for consumers, and force an exodus to DVD-Audio or some similarly harder-to-enter market, then they are back in the driver's seat. The CD burner isn't a threat because you can copy their CD - it's because you can make your own.
Re:digital (Score:2)
ANYTHING that is digital will never be uncopyable.
While this statement makes sense, the reasoning
The reason is because you always know the parameters of how the digitizing is done. There are only so many ways that 1's and 0's can be put together (or taken apart) that make sense.
is very flawed. Copying isn't about the ability to "make sense" of data. A CD press doesn't need to figure out that one sequence of bits can represent music and other set can represent images. That is why most people make a distinction between copy protection and copy prevention.
Further, the "so many ways" that data can be [en|de]coded is actually infinite. I make a good deal of fun on this issue on my Data Fetish [datafetish.com] web site. The same data can easily make sense in more than one way based on different coding schemes, with my favorite example (to date) being the DeCSS prime.
Re:If it's digial data... (Score:2)
Re:If it's digial data... (Score:2)
Of course, you're still right tho. Some ripping software is designed to do the same error correction while ripping as an ordinary CD players, so nothing changes except which rippers are popular.
The whole thing is idiotic. Introducing flaws into digital data that they expect the players to correct, which the ripper can correct just as well, with the only result being the cd's are worse actual quality and wont play on some cd players. Sigh.
Cactus: CD = Cruel Deceiver (Score:3, Interesting)
More clearly: Cactus cannot call these Compact Disks because the trademark owner, Philips [philips.com] says they are not.
I suggest another name, maybe "Cruel Deceivers". More stories:
Philips moves to put 'poison' label on protected audio CDs [theregister.co.uk]
FEATURE-CD creator Philips blasts labels over protected discs [yahoo.com]
Re:Why is this wrong? (Score:2)
Re:Why is this wrong? (Score:3, Funny)
Right. That's called "patenting".
The deal is that in order to promote useful progress in the arts and sciences, the manufacturer has to tell the world how to make the drug. (That's why anyone can read the patent on it.) The government, in return for this service, grants the manufacturer a legal monopoly over making the drug for the next 17 years. After the 17 years are up, however, anyone can make the drug. If you can't make your investment into Prozac or Viagra back in 17 years, then tough titty.
That's the deal - if you tell the world how to make your miracle drug or cool invention, you get to price-gouge the world for the next 17 years. After that, everyone else gets to join in the fun and you have to compete.
> BUT if I go into target, I can buy a crippled "The Fast and Furious Soundtrack" CD. Why do I own the data, and not just a peice of plastic? They didn't sell the data, and that's obvious b/c it's crippled...
Right again. That's called "copyright".
By publishing 1000000 copies of the CD or DVD with a big pile of bits on it, RIAA or MPAA tell the world how to reproduce a song, or a movie.
Sonny "I read OT-7 and can communicate with that tree!" Bono was more than just an idiot, a $cientologist and a Congressman (but I repeat myself). You see, Sonny was also working for Disney, and because of that, RIAA and MPAA get to control who gets to reproduce the bits for 75 years after the original creator dies. (And to buy another law that says "100 years after death of creator" as soon as the current "75 after death of creator" starts to threaten Mickey Mouse again.)
See the difference?
Funny, neither can I.
The smart thing to do would be to realize that digital media (software, music, movies) are no different from the sorts of things that patent protection.
Both involve an initial innovation. Both involve telling the world how to reproduce your innovation.
Yet one has 17 years of protection, and the other, 75 years after the death of the creator.
Intellectual property laws need to be reformed in such a way that both copyrights and patents expire more quickly, require renewal, and if not renewed, the works in question (if copyrighted) fall into the public domain, or (if patented) lose patent protection.
We can quibble over the numbers - and I think "17 years" is too long - but even reducing the time limit on copyright to 17 years would be a damn fine start.
"If you can't make a respectable profit on a movie or a song in 17 years, give up and find another line of work".
Say it. Feel it. Think about it. If that's good enough for Pfizer and Merck and the tens of billions of dollars in biotech research, it's gotta be good enough for a fuckin' cartoon mouse, or a chick with big tits who can lip-sync.
Re:Why is this wrong? (Score:2)
//rdj
Reproduction vs. new material (Score:2)
However, they shouldn't be allowed to control *reproduction* of material released more than 17 years ago, regardless of format. So if someone wants to reprint old magazines they should be allowed to, or for that matter scan it and release it on CD. If they want to take old filmrolls and make a DVD they should be allowed to. If they want to rerelease the music as an audio cd they should be allowed to. The mickey mouse game created in 1980 should be free to spread and/or port (but not to create a derivate in content)
Companies usually have a very long interest in characters created, much longer than the actual instance of them. Think of James Bond or the Star Wars movies, the Star Trek series, Super Mario Bros (how old is the first game there anyway) and so on. I don't mind them protecting that, but that's different from having a monopoly on reproduction.
Kjella
Mod this up! (Score:2)
The only time record companies take notice is when their bottom line is affected. So when they see that spending $XX million on copy protection isn't helping them sell anymore CDs, they'll ditch it. It's only a matter of time. They'll keep trying--perhaps even a couple more generations of copy "protection"--but they won't ever succeed in selling more CDs because of it, so eventually they'll drop it because it will become apparent that its a waste of money.