[dead]

Purposefully selling a corrupted product is the work of an anti-genius of marketing. Spectacular, jaw-dropping idiocy.

Goodbye massive music companies, I won't miss you.

[Still Thinking]

OTOH, I was on a thread yesterday about the new legislation from Fritz Hollings (D-Disney) has introduced which will mandate gang rape for any and all programmers who write code without government approved anti-piracy measures imbedded. Several freepers lambasted the studios for whining to government rather than trying to protect themselves. So in that sense I think this move is a positive sign.

I, for one would much rather contend with the entertainment industry than oppressive and counterproductive regulations produced by the one sector of society that's never proven their ability to product anything EXCEPT regulations.

[Revolting cat!]

Is there a name for this earth shattering invention? How about "swan song technology"?

[Wonder Warthog]

How much would anyone care to wager that some bright geek will develop software to automatically detect and delete the "clicks and pops" and generate a clean signal that CAN be converted and re-recorded?

[Lazamataz]

Purposefully selling a corrupted product is the work of an anti-genius of marketing. Spectacular, jaw-dropping idiocy.

LOTUS 123 tried something similar. They eventually realized that the copy protection they had engineered cost them more in support calls than pirated software would ever cost them.

[js1138]

Ten percent drop? Wonder how far sales of non-Cds will drop.

Of course, on college campus, only one student needs to make one analog dub. The resulting copy will not be protected.

Actually, it's probably possible in most cases to make digital dub.

[doomtrooper99]

The "copy protected" cds are as smart as the video DIVX format, a type of the DVD that required a special player with the modem that informed the central computer about the disks you are playing and charged you every time you played them. Bunch of lawyers and Circuit City invented this format and actualluy tried to push it onto an unsuspecting public. The scheme bombed bad! Greed and stupidity are a combination that is deadly and amusing...

[newfreep]

The "protection" they have engineered into these CD's (and also the DVD-Audio hi-rez discs) have been shown to degrade the sonics. The record companies should look ijn the mirror and realize the drop in sales is due to the poor product quality - crap bands and crap music that the public is not buying. btw, Super Audio CD uses non-sonic degrading protection but you can still copy/burn the "normal" CD version on the SACD disks.

[Psycho_Bunny]

10 bucks says there's already a software fix for this at just about every audio-warez site on the net.

[Drew68]

They blame the 10 per cent drop in music sales in the US last year squarely on illegal copying.

Or it could be the result of a crappy product. Pre-packaged dime a dozen teeny-bopper pop tarts masquerading as musicians.

Nonetheless, there is a whole generation of kids out there who will never experience what it is like to actually have to pay for music and this has the execs scared whitless.

[tcostell]

I give the anti-copy protection crowd 2 months and a hack will be out for this technology.

[boris]

One could, e.g., connect the output of a cheap player to your sound card, and using software such as Cool Edit, record a flawless audio stream into WAV or MP3 format.

Or am I missing something?

--Boris

[1Old Pro]

Fine with me, most "new" music sucks. I can think of hundreds of older CD's I'd rather make copies from.

[Charles Martel]

From: TechTV.com:

Is Universal Music's Copy Protection a Joke?

Crack Universal Music's CD copy protection, weeknights at 7 p.m. Eastern on 'The Screen Savers.' Also airs at 10 p.m., 1 a.m., 7:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m. Eastern.

By Patrick Norton
December 28, 2001

Earlier this month, Universal Music introduced copy protection for its line of audio CDs using Midbar Tech's Cactus Data Shield (CDS). The first disc released with Midbar's protection was "More Fast and Furious: Music From and Inspired by the Motion Picture 'The Fast and the Furious.'" According to stories posted online, Universal plans to copy protect its entire lineup of CDs.

The announcement that Universal will copy protect its CDs -- ostensibly to prevent users from ripping MP3s for trade online -- came the day before the launch of pressplay, Universal's (and Sony's) subscription outlet for digital audio.

With a purchased copy of the "More Music" CD, I discovered that it is possible to copy the disc and burn MP3s from it using software freely available for download online.

Can't see the copy protection

With the copy protection working, a Windows PC shows the files and automatically runs the CactusPJ audio player that comes with the CD. (The CactusPJ player features difficult-to-see buttons and needs a second window to show track info. It also shows up as possible spyware on Ad-aware 5.6.) In theory, it's the only way to play audio from a CDS-protected disc on a Windows machine. Without significant effort, you can't play this disc with any other player, nor can you rip it to MP3 audio -- in theory.

However, a number of computer systems with DVD drives don't "see" the copy-protected version of the disc. The systems that didn't see the copy-protected files -- files we understand are installed by Midbar Tech's Cactus Data Shield -- just showed a normal audio CD.

On the computers where the copy protection didn't work, you can see all 14 CDA tracks on "More Fast and Furious." While Track 1 wouldn't play (using WinAMP, WMP, MusicMatch, and so on), the rest of the tracks play normally. More importantly, all the tracks were rippable to MP3 format (anyone want to create a CDDB entry for this disc?).

Why didn't the copy protection work?

It turns out that the DVD drives in the systems we tested see through Midbar Tech's copy protection. The drives don't see the files CDS installs on the audio CD, nor are they confused by the table of contents tweaking done by the CDS.

We tested the DVD drive, an NEC DV-5700A, on a number of different Windows 98 and XP systems. None of the machines had any trouble seeing or ripping all the tracks, or playing tracks 2 through 14. NEC doesn't normally sell retail, but it supplies DVD drives to Dell. In fact, all of the Dell systems we tested saw through the copy protection.

And, of course, none of them can play the first track on the CD, no matter what program we tried. Also, you can't find the CactusPJ player on the audio CD to play the tracks the way Universal prefers.

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.

We've contacted Midbar Tech, the makers of the Cactus Data Shield, and Universal Music. We're waiting to hear back from Midbar Tech. Universal Music's offices are closed until January 2 for the holidays. I've already had a phone call from a group of audio enthusiasts that is considering a class action suit against Universal Music.

[Skooz]

They contain errors in the signal that are not detected by most CD players but cause clicking and popping sounds when played in a computer.

My computer IS my CD player. I have some outstanding speakers and CDs sound marvelous when played through my computer. But, I guess I don't count.

[Bikers4Bush]

If they think a 10% drop was a lot just wait until they see the drop from people returning CD's that won't play in their players.

[smalltownguy]

I know I would certainly think twice about buying a CD that wont play on the computer. Considering that the stereo/computer in my house are now integral and I no longer even have a CD player hooked up to it besides the one built into the computer (except in the car), and feed the output of the computer into my stereo system. I do download music but I also own over 300 CD's, over half of which I have bought in the last few years...you mean the record companies want me to return to the days when I had to shuffle through mounds of CD's just to play a song, which I've now become accustomed the convenience of just clicking on what I want to hear in the order I want to hear it? This new "format" sounds alot like the digital equivalant of selling new CD's with a pre-embedded gash through the data layer. Bad move. Obviously promotional copies to radio stations wont have this technology considering that most of them have converted to computer playback of music (which relies on the ability to encode the CD's into a compressed digital format on a computer). They wouldn't be happy if they had to step back technology and start shuffling CD-carts or tape carts (an analog tape that functions much like an 8-track, but is of higher sound quality and holds one song or promo per tape). Very messy in comparison to newer technology in use today. At the very least they're just making the process of encoding music on my compter for playback more time consuming...anyone that is used to using the computer for playback like me will figure out how to use the analog input on the back of the computer...which as long as the DAC/ADC converters are of reasonable quality (most are) will still result in a "dub" which by nearly anyone would be indecernable from the original. There is just NO WAY I will go back to those cumbersome days where I constantly was digging through CD's all the time...and have to spend needless time programming a sequence of music into a multi-disc player not to mention the fact that it takes 10-20 seconds between songs while the thing loads the CD's in and out. I don't think so! My sister has a CD-mp3 deck in her car and likes the fact she can put on only the songs she likes...up to ten hours of it on one disk (equivalant to a ten disc changer) and not have to deal with all those CD's in the car or constantly be skipping through songs on CD's she doesnt like.

[Revolting cat!]

It's all a zero sum game in the end, to take it from a new angle. There is only a limited amount of dollars, a limited amount of disposable income if you will, that can flow into this industry from the consumers pockets. And if the above novel theory is true to any degree, a successful copy protection scheme, if such a thing is possible, cannot significantly increase the record companies' intake. The market in every popular music category out there is oversaturated, with new acts coming online weekly. Who can ever absorb it? Thirty years ago a record store the size of my living room could contain everything in every category, plus a smacking of 8 track tapes (mmmmmmmmmmm... 8 track!) Today, the record stores I visit are bigger than even Julia Roberts' living room.

Forty years ago there was only a handful of marginal "artists" who the record companies deemed worthy of overpromoting (Frankie and Annette anyone?) Most such questionable talents were not promoted too hard and would fade out after a 45 RM single or two (mmmmmmmmmmmm... singles!) Today, dozens of one hit wonders receive the royal treatment and are pushed on our ears and eyes by all means possible. It's just too much!

[July 4th]

They blame the 10 per cent drop in music sales in the US last year squarely on illegal copying.

So, what do we all think the drop in music sales will be because you can't play these things on your computer? 10 percent more? I'd guess even higher than that.

[steve-b]

hey blame the 10 per cent drop in music sales in the US last year squarely on illegal copying.

Yeah, right! With the crap they've been cranking out lately they're lucky it's a 10 per cent drop rather than a drop to 10 per cent of previous sales.

[SamAdams76]

I thought they shut bad old Napster down last year. Could the 10% drop in music sales be because they are putting out total crap for music? Could it be that people just don't like Britney Spears and N'Sync?

At any rate, many people do not realize that the music industry receives royalties on blank recording media in an agreement years ago that stipulated that consumers had the right to record their CDs for personal use. In exchange, it was decided that manufacturers of blank media would pay a percentage of their revenues to the recording industry. Now that the recording companies are making it not possible to record CDs onto blank media, will the recording industries have to return the royalties they have collected on blank media?

Sounds like we got grounds for a massive lawsuit here.

Since the recording industry has taken this tack, I have drastically reduced my CD purchases and instead I am now getting most of my music from MP3s downloaded off the web. Mostly through FTP.