CD copy protection - legal challenge?
- Thread starter michaelab
- Start date
michaelab
desafinado
Yes - because your MD detects the "copy protected" flag and doesn't ignore it. I'd be surprised if any soundcards bothered with the flag.
Are you talking about playing the copy protected CD at a higher rate? If so, it won't make any difference. What is supplied on a copy protected CD is a low quality rip that varies between 48kpbs and 96kpbs (depending on how much free space is available on the CD for the rip). Converting that to a higher rate won't do anything.
Michael.
So what your saying is the original shop bought copy protected cd is only 48 to 96 kbps. So that is the highest quality copy u will get from it.
i Gotcha.
Thats crap compared to normal cd quality of 128kbps. Bugger that im taking any copy control cds back to the shop i think!!!
Cheers
Greg
i Gotcha.
Thats crap compared to normal cd quality of 128kbps. Bugger that im taking any copy control cds back to the shop i think!!!
Cheers
Greg
michaelab
desafinado
Normal CD quality is actually 1411kbps 
That's 16bit/44.1kHz uncompressed.
Many MP3 players etc often mark anything about 96kbps as "CD quality " but that's just bull.
If you're using the media player from the copy protected CD then you're getting no better than 96kbps (often a lot worse). If you're playing it in a CD player though it's the same as a regular CD.
Michael.
That's 16bit/44.1kHz uncompressed. Many MP3 players etc often mark anything about 96kbps as "CD quality " but that's just bull.
If you're using the media player from the copy protected CD then you're getting no better than 96kbps (often a lot worse). If you're playing it in a CD player though it's the same as a regular CD.
Michael.
tones
compulsive cantater
I don't see them as that draconian, Michael. You have to be careful to remember that a law is not draconian merely because it stops you doing what you want do do. If someone ran off with your DAC64, because they wanted to, I suspect that you'd be somewhat less than amused and not at all persuaded by their argument. Yet you appear to think that laws preventing the theft of someone else's intellectual property (and it is property, just as your DAC64 is) are bad. Unauthorised recording of copyright material is theft, plain and simple, and we all do it, whether it be me recording cassettes for in-car use or folk copying CDs.
The fact that the Government is, in a way, complicit in this theft, because it permits the means of copying to be freely available, is irrelevant, because the Government does not control the end-use of the means (all have legitimate uses). Basically the Government has hitherto acquiesced in private recording because it was relatively harmless. However, the Internet and advances in software have opened a whole new ball game, and in a world increasingly obsessed with the bottom line (especially in a time of economic doldrums and falling sales), a reaction against digital piracy was only to be expected. As a non-digital pirate (my knowledge of computers extends to finding the on-off switch unaided), I am not at all troubled by it. A lot of better informed people are going to have to be more careful.
My guess is that it's SCMS (Serial Copy Management System) that's stopping you from copying the cd.
If you were serious about copying that cd or any copy protected cd then you could get this
I don't think any soundcard would detect SCMS. I think it would be your recording program that would detect the SCMS.
I can see where you are coming from, but I use a PC as my main source (as does an increasing number of folk these days). Why should I be forced to listen to CDs that I own with a heavily decreased bitrate just because I happen to use a PC instead of a CD player. I'm afraid thats just wrong. Not to mention the debate regarding the sound quality of these "CD's", complete with the errors, and of course, the inability to play these on some players.
The copy protection will not help one bit, and may even make the situation worse for record companies, as people vote with their feet and choose not to buy CDs with the fear they may not work, or play with reduced quality on their PC. Speaking personally, it just encourages me to pirate even more, at a time when I was actually starting to buy lots of CDs instead of leeching it like I did in the past.
michaelab
desafinado
Tones - I see your point and I also agree that stealing intellectual property is theft just like theft of a physical object.
I'm not against any law that says "you can't copy CDs" (your basic copyright law that has existed for ages). What I'm against is laws that prevent me using my CDs in the way I want to (on my iPod or my PC). As I spend 2 weeks each month away from home I want to be able to enjoy my music away from home in a portable format and carting a stack of CDs around is simply not practical.
The same goes for DVDs. I want to (and do) make copies of my DVDs so I can have the copies at our house in the country for when we go there at the weekends. I don't want to be carting the DVDs back and forth each time.
The new laws that make "circumvention of technical protection devices" itself illegal are draconian because they've gone way too far. To use the burglary analogy again there aren't laws that prevent you making lock picking devices or any other equipment you could use in a burglary are there?
Michael.
tones
compulsive cantater
A fair point, Michael - up to a point. However, I see the difference as being the intent. Whereas lock-picking devices can be legitimately required by folk such as locksmiths and emergency services, such as police, a device for circumventing copy protection devices can, I think, have only one purpose, to enable someone to make an unauthorised copy of a copyright work.
I sympathise with your point on the iPod, but this is one of these cases where the copyright law is an ass - it was conceived when printing was the technology and sound recording was not even on the horizon (the UK copyright history starts with the Statute of Anne - and you know how long ago she reigned!). The law says that, in order to avoid copyright infringement, you have to purchase each separate copy, so, if you want a cassette copy for the car, you buy a cassette copy for the car, analogous to the case where you get a second copy of a book by buying another one, not photocopying the first one. Thus, your IPod copying (and my making cassettes for the car) are technically illegal.
In the days of cassettes, this didn't matter one iota, and nobody gave a hang, but the digital age has transformed things completely, and perfect copies are now so easy to make that the copyright owners are in a bind. I don't think they're even slightly interested in people like us, but they're frightened that the new technology could open the floodgates. With the new laws, they have acquired more teeth. I therefore suspect that the old ground rules will apply - the Michaels and Tones will be ignored, but the copyright owners have the ability to pursue serious infringers more vigorously. And legal costs are now so high that only big offenders (and perhaps a couple of initial small fry, just to show they mean business) will get hit. So, for us, I think it'll be business as usual.
tones
compulsive cantater
Paul, this sounds like a variation on "the law is bad because it doesn't do what I think it ought to". It doesn't work that way. The copyright owner is not even slightly interested in your bitrate problem (perhaps it should, but that's a different question). The copyright owners have a vast majority of satisfied punters out there, and they're not going to worry about fussy audiophiles (as any vinylhead will tell you). So, no, sorry, it's not "just wrong", not even slightly wrong.
As you say in your second paragraph, the only way the situation will change is if there's a big problem with the playing of copy-protected CDs and there's a consumer backlash. The hip-pocket nerve is the most sensitive one of all. However, most of the market will be happy (and most of the market is all they care about).
Again, this is the point i am trying to raise. As you say " most of the market will be happy" That is beacause most of the market dont know that the copy protected CD they are buying is inferior quality.
If the cd had a scratch across it t would be returned but these 'invisible' flaws are less obvious to joe public and therefor overlooked. I know because i have done the very same and it wasnt until i tried to play a disc in my car that i became swithched on to the issue. Yet again the apathy in this country will allow the big companies to tread on the little people.
The fact that an artist has the right to his/ her own intellectual property is fine by me. The right that a record company has in control of its product is also fine by me. What is not allowable is the fact, and i re-iterate the point of FACT, that the inferior quality disc is being marketed as a COMPACT DISC when the initial devisers of this digital media refuse to recognise it as such.
Something has to be done to educate the masses of cd buyers thus causing a wider backlash.
This isnt about the rights of the artist. It is about the DECEPTION OF THE PUBLIC.
Greg
If the cd had a scratch across it t would be returned but these 'invisible' flaws are less obvious to joe public and therefor overlooked. I know because i have done the very same and it wasnt until i tried to play a disc in my car that i became swithched on to the issue. Yet again the apathy in this country will allow the big companies to tread on the little people.
The fact that an artist has the right to his/ her own intellectual property is fine by me. The right that a record company has in control of its product is also fine by me. What is not allowable is the fact, and i re-iterate the point of FACT, that the inferior quality disc is being marketed as a COMPACT DISC when the initial devisers of this digital media refuse to recognise it as such.
Something has to be done to educate the masses of cd buyers thus causing a wider backlash.
This isnt about the rights of the artist. It is about the DECEPTION OF THE PUBLIC.
Greg
tones
compulsive cantater
In which case, arise, go forth and educate the public, Greg. If the recordings don't meet the Red Book standard, the providers could be had for misleading and deceptive conduct. But most of the market still won't care, just so long as they have some noise that occasionally approximates to music. The complaints of the more discriminating will be placed in the filing tray labelled "Miscellaneous cranks", right next to the shredder.
I know what you mean mate. Filed between the shredder and the recycling bin!!!!
But worth a try though.
Go here and add some wait to this organisation. After all the more the merrier. ( im just gutted this bunch of victor meldrews beat me to it!!!!)
www.ukcdr.org.
Greg
But worth a try though.
Go here and add some wait to this organisation. After all the more the merrier. ( im just gutted this bunch of victor meldrews beat me to it!!!!)
www.ukcdr.org.
Greg
michaelab
desafinado
Another thing Tones - what about encryption systems that have as one of their main purposes to control distribution? I'm talking about DVD region encoding of course. With the new laws, technically, breaking the CSS encryption is illegal even if you're only doing it so you can watch DVDs you've legally bought from outside your "region".
If I go an live in the US for a while, buy a load of DVDs and then move back to Europe then in order not to break the new laws I'd have to bring my US region 1 player back with me and then buy a region 2 player to play any DVDs I bought in Europe which would be quite absurd.
Also, if I can legally buy region 1 DVDs on the net then why shouldn't I be able to get a player that plays them aswell as my locally bought region 2 discs?
Of course, multi-region players are commonplace but with laws like the US DMCA the studios are going to try harder and harder to crack down on them and on software that allows multi-region playback.
This is another sense in which the new "circumvention of technical protection devices" laws have gone way too far.
Michael.
If I go an live in the US for a while, buy a load of DVDs and then move back to Europe then in order not to break the new laws I'd have to bring my US region 1 player back with me and then buy a region 2 player to play any DVDs I bought in Europe which would be quite absurd.
Also, if I can legally buy region 1 DVDs on the net then why shouldn't I be able to get a player that plays them aswell as my locally bought region 2 discs?
Of course, multi-region players are commonplace but with laws like the US DMCA the studios are going to try harder and harder to crack down on them and on software that allows multi-region playback.
This is another sense in which the new "circumvention of technical protection devices" laws have gone way too far.
Michael.
tones
compulsive cantater
You've got me there. 'Fraid I don't know enough about it to comment. I've never understood why there had to be regions for DVD - I mean, there are no regions for CD, VCR, etc. No doubt money is somewhere at the bottom of it.
michaelab
desafinado
It's all about controlling distribution. Films tend to be released at different times (sometimes wildy different) in different regions so when the latest blockbuster is just hitting the cinemas in Europe it might already be out on DVD in the US so they don't want to hit cinema ticket sales in Europe by people buying the US (region 1) DVD instead of going to the cinema.
It wasn't such a problem with videos because the quality of video was cr@p but these days a decent home cinema installation with surround soun can rival (or even beat) the cinema for quality.
There used to be good logistical reasons why a film couldn't be released in cinemas at the same time all around the world - the sheer number of copies of the film that need to be printed and shipped for one but with digital printing and even digital projection that issue should disappear. Still doesn't get around the myriad local distribution rights issues which can often hold up a cinema release for well over a year.
Region encoding on DVDs though has been a complete failure. Anyone who wants to can very easily get a "multi-region" DVD player. Even the big high street stores sell them.
See http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DeCSS_prosecutions/Johansen_DeCSS_case/ for more details on the case surrounding DVD encryption. All the poor Norwegian kid who wrote the "DeCSS" DVD de-cryption algorithm wanted to do was be able to watch his legally purchased DVDs on his Linux machine. For that the big Hollywood studios took him to court :bub:
Michael.
It wasn't such a problem with videos because the quality of video was cr@p but these days a decent home cinema installation with surround soun can rival (or even beat) the cinema for quality.
There used to be good logistical reasons why a film couldn't be released in cinemas at the same time all around the world - the sheer number of copies of the film that need to be printed and shipped for one but with digital printing and even digital projection that issue should disappear. Still doesn't get around the myriad local distribution rights issues which can often hold up a cinema release for well over a year.
Region encoding on DVDs though has been a complete failure. Anyone who wants to can very easily get a "multi-region" DVD player. Even the big high street stores sell them.
See http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DeCSS_prosecutions/Johansen_DeCSS_case/ for more details on the case surrounding DVD encryption. All the poor Norwegian kid who wrote the "DeCSS" DVD de-cryption algorithm wanted to do was be able to watch his legally purchased DVDs on his Linux machine. For that the big Hollywood studios took him to court :bub:
Michael.
tones
compulsive cantater
As I said, money!
