"Copy-protected" crippled CDs are here. MUST READ. (1 Viewer)

[Ryan Spaight]

Copy-protected CDs are here as of today, and they won't work in:
- DVD players
- computer CD-ROM, CD-R, CD-RW, DVD drives
- game consoles (PS2, etc.)
- many car players with skip protection
- many portable players with skip protection
- many "high-end" CD players
- CD copying decks
http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/ne...t/cd121701.htm
I don't think I have anything in my house I can play these things on. I'll bet many of you don't, either. Some labels are talking about offering crappy low bitrate WMA files to buyers -- gee, thanks.
Of course, if you have a conventional CD player with a digital out, you can hook that up to the digital in on a sound card and make clean digital rips, so the "copy protection" is worthless. The only thing this technology does well is tick me off.
I noticed in the article that Universal is promising to take refunds. Perhaps several thousand of us need to take them up on it.
Any other ideas?
Ryan

 

[KeithH]

Man, this sucks. A few portions of the web article you provided a link to intrigued me.
With regards to some labels incorporating copy protection technology:

``If we get the same results here, as I imagine we would, I don't think it's going to manifest itself into a consumer problem.''

It certainly won't if consumers take a stand and don't buy copy-protected CDs in the first place.

 

[Anthony Hom]

I believe the latest news refers to the Universal-Vivendi release of a new copy protected CD.

It's a second soundtrack CD to the movie, fast and furious. They did a relatively minor CD first, to avoid any big controversy.

 

[Ryan Spaight]

Correct. According to the article, Universal intends to use the practice on all new releases starting mid-2002, in the absence of any huge public outcry.

Ryan

 

[Ray R]

I think pressure needs to be put on the stores that sell these CDs. All it would take is one big chain to refuse to carry copy protected CDs and the whole plan falls apart.

 

[KeithH]

Ray, I like your idea, but who would win that stand-off? What if a highly anticipated title by a blockbuster artist like Michael Jackson or Britney Spears is released only as a copy-protected CD and one major chain like Sam Goody refuses to carry it? All the rabid fans will go elsewhere (Best Buy, Circuit City, Border's, online, etc.) the day the title is released (or pre-order it), and Sam Goody will suffer. It is likely that the record label would produce the CD in the same quantity that it would if Sam Goody were to carry it. The record label would simply ship stock elsewhere because the demand would still be there. If Sam Goody elected not to carry the copy-protected CD, people will take their money elsewhere. Copy protection absolutely blows, but there are still a number of fans out there that will buy a copy-protected CD rather than no CD at all. In fact, CD sales could very well increase since one couldn't make copies of the pre-recorded CD for others. That's the sad truth.

In the end, I don't think one chain boycotting copy-protected CDs will be enough. However, what needs to happen is that consumers need to stand up and say no to copy protection. The record companies will take notice if album sales plummet. From what I said above, that may not happen with certain artists like Britney Spears, but it could happen with enough titles to make a major difference and change the record companies' thinking. We can hope.

 

[Peter_A]

I give this so called "protection" scheme a week or two before some hackers crack the code. Then there'll be a small program available that will enable you to rip them into MP3's or whatever you want to do with them.
Don't worry, for every protection scheme out there, there's always a way around it......

 

[KeithH]

Peter, unfortunately, a hack program wouldn't help those who own hi-fi component burners.
P.S. By posting this message, I am not condoning the illegal copying of software.

 

[Peter_A]

 

[Ryan Spaight]

Peter, unfortunately, a hack program wouldn't help those who own hi-fi component burners.

Or, in my case, a DVD player. I simply don't have a CD deck any more, I use my 5-disc DVD carousel for CD playing duties. I think I have an old boom box somewhere that might play one of these discs, but that's about it...

Ryan

 

[KeithH]

Ryan, absolutely. Good point. I was coming from the angle of copying CDs. It is ridiculous to think that we could be seeing a number of new CDs coming out next year that won't play in DVD players.

 

[Paul D Young]

KeithH,

However, what needs to happen is that consumers need to stand up and say no to copy protection. The record companies will take notice if album sales plummet.

Preach it!

Let's simply not buy them.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Are these "copy protected" cd's are labeled as such?

Is there any way to know which CD's are like that so when I take it off the shelf,I can read this somewhere on it?

 

[Ryan Spaight]

Are these "copy protected" cd's are labeled as such?

I haven't looked at the packaging for this new soundtrack, so I can't say for sure.

There is a lawsuit pending against a smaller label who tried this technology earlier in the year, based around false-advertising claims related to the labeling. So this is clearly going to be an important issue.

I hope they're very clearly labeled, so I know what won't work with my stuff.

Ryan

 

[Mike Broadman]

The article said that the Fast and Furious CD would be labeled.

Point of logic: if they make it so that CDs won't play in commonly used hardware, won't this make people more likely to burn and rip songs? I mean, I always buy CDs, but if a new album comes out and I can't hear it, I'll download it. This "copy protection" would change me from a nice, record company friendly consumer into a dreaded software pirate.

This would also hurt the artists, as many people who don't follow technology may incorrectly blame the performer for any problems they have. But then again, this wouldn't differ from how record companies treat their talent.

Stupid stupid stupid

 

[TheoGB]

The important point here is surely to boycott CDs that don't play in most systems, not copy protection on a CD, which is essentially a fair idea. You might just as well not buy any DVDs with Macrovision for the same reason, otherwise.
Admittedly the distinction is small but it's there.
What's more intriguing is how Sony plan to deal with this. On the one hand they are a major record label. On the otherhand the current crop of adverts I see around me (in the UK) say 'download music to your walkman'. Well they're not going to get far marketing their hi-tech gadgetry if they do that.
What's very weird is that if you make a copy of a CD on a standalone burner it sets a bit saying 'this is a digital copy - you cannot copy this again'. Now why not start my making all published CDs contain this flag, thus prevent rudimentary copying of the CD. Would probably stop some casual copies if they really want. As someone said, they're never going to stop the big old bootleggers. :rolleyes

 

[Tim Campbell]

ripping and burning' are causing artists and record companies real harm,''

The artists dont make crap from Album sales so all it is really hurting is the record companies.

 

[Kevin P]

What's very weird is that if you make a copy of a CD on a standalone burner it sets a bit saying 'this is a digital copy - you cannot copy this again'. Now why not start my making all published CDs contain this flag, thus prevent rudimentary copying of the CD.

A record company tried doing that once a few years back and they got flamed big time (and I think they were sued as well) for it, and discontinued the practice. Doing so prevents consumer gear from making copies (including MD, DAT, CD-R, etc.), but you can still use a PC to make copies.
As for copy protection of CDs, I only have a few things to say about it:

• Copy protection violates Red Book standards.
• Copy protection in any form will invariably cause compatibility issues with existing players.
• Copy protection may cause degradation in sound quality.
• COPY PROTECTION WON'T STOP ILLEGAL COPYING.

Now for the ironic part: if I happened to get a copy protected CD that wouldn't play in one of my players, guess what I'd have to do? I'd have to crack the protection and make a copy, which is what the copy protection is supposed to prevent, in order for me to USE the product as it was intended. I bet bootlegging will increase, not decrease, as a result of copy protection.
KJP

 

[LarryDavenport]

Since I use a DVD player at home, and my computer at the office, to listen to CDs this really pisses me off. I have noticed the last bunch of Sony remasters (Blue Öyster Cult, Miles Davis) will not play on my computer at work. I wonder if this is because of copy protection?

In the end I think the record companies will drop copy protection and jack up the blank tape/CD-R tax.

 

[TheoGB]

A record company tried doing that once a few years back and they got flamed big time (and I think they were sued as well) for it, and discontinued the practice. Doing so prevents consumer gear from making copies (including MD, DAT, CD-R, etc.), but you can still use a PC to make copies.

Erm right. That was what I was saying. How can you be sued? If you buy an MD it basically says you can copy any music you like and then says 'but don't break copyright'.

Copying my own CDs to an MD for personal use is still (in this country at any rate) a violation of copyright. Now the companies probably don't care that much but it still makes it very easy for me to give my mate an MD of the album so they don't have to buy it.

So in what way is this an offence against the consumer? If the companies want to make a step that way, why not start with something simple like that. I don't want it, I'm just saying they should consider it.

And you are still robbing artists if you don't pay for your music. Without the money, the labels won't fund artists and it gets very very hard to be a musician.