Copyright protected CDs in stores now

[Verloren]

Consumers have the right to make copies for their personal use. The manufacturers are violating the "fair use" clause by copy-protecting DVDs and now CDs.

[MindlessVictim]

I agree. I own approximately 300 audio cds. Now do you think I want to run them through a cd player? No. I rip them to MP3, and play them through my SB Live! hooked to my audio system. It's quicker to click than change cds, and you can customize your playlist to include tracks from any album. Why on earth would anyone stop this? To get the bad guys, you don't hurt the good guys. It's infringing on our rights, people. Next thing you know, the enhanced audio cds won't just have AOL all over them, they'll be packed with spyware.

[JL_in_Vail]

This is FRICKIN' RIDICULOUS! I mean, throw us a bone here! In how many ways is the recording industry slapping our faces!

First, they are deliberately degrading the sound quality of a CD, while they continue to charge a completely artificial price. (Have you ever heard a reasonable explanation for why a music CD costs considerably more than the same music on a cassette, when the production costs of a CD are considerably less?)

Then they are telling us that we cannot make a copy of any part of our disc. In my case, I make compilation discs all the time, for my own use, from my own CD's.

I guarantee I will not buy a Macrovision CD, and if I get one without knowing it, I will return it as defective!

...and I'm spent.

[This message has been edited by JL_in_Vail (edited 07-19-2001).]

[SEALTEAMTHREE]

Give it a few months and some hacker will come up with a crack for it. It's always happenend in the past, so why shouldn't it work now? They can prevent us today, but tomorrow is a different story. The RIAA pushed to first ban cassette tapes, and then CD's, and then CD-RW's, and then MP3's. If the RIAA had their way, we'd still be listening to records.

[sherpa]

I am a little hazy on the specifics of this, but I recently read an article (in Discover I believe) about a group of computer scientists that sat down to take a look at the new copyright prospects. Using only reputable sources (not bribing, blackmailing or dumpster diving...) available to the general public they were able to crack almost all of the copyright schemes in under a week I want to say the cracked 5 out of 7, and the 2 they couldn't crack were defective from the company.

They determined the characteristics of the digital "watermark" (don't know if that is the proper term for audio) as either robust or subtle, and then worked around them and produced ripped music that was completely reproducable.

I am sorry I can't provide more info, it was something I read on the fly, and don't know if I will be able to find the source again. I do remember that the recording industry sued to prevent this group from publishing or presenting the results of thier work for quite some time before they finally won the right to publish. Makes me think that it won't be long before things are back to status quo.

[daveleau]

Yes the record industry does have it in for our wallets. This is just the most recent move. They have kept prices high by bullying music stores into the inflated cd prices. CDs don't cost anywhere near $18-22 to make! They just don't want us to get used to paying less for music. Well, it backfired when Napster came out. Now alot of people are used to paying NOTHING!

[aldtech]

This just reflects the mind set of the recording industry which is only focused on the bottom line, money. If the recording industry can make you the consumer pay for same material twice but for different formats they will until somebody tells them no. The idea of copyright law is to prevent somebody from copying an artists work and claiming it as their own or distribute/sell it for profit without paying the artists a royalty fee.

The concept of "watermarking" the product will only hinder the everyday consumer/user but will not stop the determined hardcore audiophile from copying their purchased copy of a CD. If the recording industry does adopt an across the board encryption practice/format it will not be long before it gets hacked. It will be interesting to see how far the music industry will go with this. Just imagine, sometime in the not so distant future all music CDs will be serialized and every time you want to hear one on your PC you are forced to connect to some verification service and prove that you are the owner of that CD. WindowsXP anyone?

AL

P.S.
As a footnote, the recording artist does have the right to be properly compensated for their material and we the consumer should pay them. As a rule of thumb, I do not have any MP3's that are not paid for by purchase of the original format (CD).

[falcompsx]

all good points, but one main reason i use mp3's instead of buying cd's...I only buy cd's that are even remotely worth the $20 they cost(for a $0.10 cent cd) most cd's suck, about 2 decent tracks, and the rest is ****. i'd be willing to pay them for a cd full(as in 80 minutes) of songs I like that I picked. Then MAYBE it MIGHT be worth $20. for now, it's radio and mp3's and a few very select cd's for me. Oh yeah, they can never stop us from recording mp3's using analog. ripping may be stopped, but as long as you can play the cd, you can record it, either on the same computer or using a line lvl cable to another computer or recording device.

[ashur]

I don't get it, if I can play a CD I can copy it right? Just run the sound into my soundcard, write to wav and rip a CD.

[SEALTEAMTHREE]

Yes ashur, you could rip the tracks in analog in some MP3 programs and then use those MP3's to create an audio CD, but analog is not the best method of recording. Using ASPI or MSCDEX to digitally rip (the CD-ROM reads the audio tracks as data instead of audio-at MUCH higher speeds) provides a truly digital recording of the music.

Oh yeah, does anyone know if the "fair use" clause also covers software (example-two people split the cost of a software title and then burn a copy since you can't share a CD when you live miles apart) because I e-mailed Sierra tech support and they sent me a nasty reply about how I am the scum of the earth for "ILLEGALLY copying" their software. Last time I checked, it wasn't piracy unless you sell that copy for profit. Any ideas?

[This message has been edited by SEALTEAMTHREE (edited 07-20-2001).]

[JL_in_Vail]

The generally (until now, Microsoft...) accepted "fair use" for software is that a [program] can only be in use on one (1) PC at a time, or by one person at a time. So you are free to install Photoshop on your desktop and laptop PC's, but your friend can't be using Photoshop on your laptop while you use it on the desktop. Say you have one PC only, your wife can use Photoshop when you aren't.
As far as the shared purchase, the licence is single-use, meaning just that. Either you or your friend can be using the software, but not both at the same time.

John