Copy Protected CD makers lose battle.
February 22, 2002 11:35 PM Subscribe
Copy Protected CD makers lose battle. Was it inevitable? Do you consider this good news?
Who cares? They didn't LOSE, per se. There's just a warning now. big woop. Fact is, the CDs are STILL water-marked as such and word has it that you can't return them back the the store b/c its watermarked (anyone have first-hand experience in this?).
RIAA wishes to copy-write "their" stuff by water-marking their CDs, but I will NEVER buy a CD as such. I use my laptop to play CDs through my stereo, so i can't even listen to these CDs. GREAT IDEA, RIAA...
posted by jmd82 at 12:11 AM on February 23, 2002
RIAA wishes to copy-write "their" stuff by water-marking their CDs, but I will NEVER buy a CD as such. I use my laptop to play CDs through my stereo, so i can't even listen to these CDs. GREAT IDEA, RIAA...
posted by jmd82 at 12:11 AM on February 23, 2002
Sorry to double post, but here's another law-related incident with RIAA
Also, here's more a in-depth article about the page's main post.
posted by jmd82 at 12:15 AM on February 23, 2002
Also, here's more a in-depth article about the page's main post.
posted by jmd82 at 12:15 AM on February 23, 2002
I don't understand why so much time and money has been invested in copy protection technologies. There's a brain dead simple work around no matter what kind of digital protection scheme is put in place.
It's called "Line In" on your sound card.
Hook up your CD player's line out to your sound card's line in and record the music as WAV file. Slice up the tracks in any wave editor and convert to mp3 or ogg. I do it all the time when I rip from vinyl.
If the physical media (i.e. copy protected disc) can be played in a CD player, there's no way around this method.
I mean really, who the fuck do these record labels think they're outsmarting?
posted by rhizome23 at 12:23 AM on February 23, 2002
It's called "Line In" on your sound card.
Hook up your CD player's line out to your sound card's line in and record the music as WAV file. Slice up the tracks in any wave editor and convert to mp3 or ogg. I do it all the time when I rip from vinyl.
If the physical media (i.e. copy protected disc) can be played in a CD player, there's no way around this method.
I mean really, who the fuck do these record labels think they're outsmarting?
posted by rhizome23 at 12:23 AM on February 23, 2002
Oh shit. Does this mean Hilary Rosen will be late on her castle payment?
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 1:29 AM on February 23, 2002
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 1:29 AM on February 23, 2002
They're just trying to find a way to keep hold of their antiquated means of making money off artists. It's not that they are too stupid to know they've been beaten. People like Hillary Rosen are trying to come up with something to appease the investors. They wanna put a bandaid on the wound, but they need a tournequet, and legally, they can't use one.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:43 AM on February 23, 2002
posted by ZachsMind at 1:43 AM on February 23, 2002
rhizome23: Even better! There are sound drivers out there that slide into the OS between the CD player out and the speakers.... If it can be played on your computer, but your RIP software fails, you can go with a replacement driver that slides the sound out to a WAV file on the fly. Same deal, just less cables.
They only way to control sound is to control the player, and technology has progressed too far past that.... So long as we can record sound, and make sound, we can get around these protections.
posted by dwivian at 7:12 AM on February 23, 2002
They only way to control sound is to control the player, and technology has progressed too far past that.... So long as we can record sound, and make sound, we can get around these protections.
posted by dwivian at 7:12 AM on February 23, 2002
Slightly OT response to rhizome: anyone know any good online sources for tips on ripping from vinyl?
posted by rodii at 7:25 AM on February 23, 2002
posted by rodii at 7:25 AM on February 23, 2002
rodii
If send you send me an email to deterritorialize@hotmail.com , I'll send you step by step instructions on how to do it. If you use an IM program, include your handle.
posted by rhizome23 at 9:30 AM on February 23, 2002
If send you send me an email to deterritorialize@hotmail.com , I'll send you step by step instructions on how to do it. If you use an IM program, include your handle.
posted by rhizome23 at 9:30 AM on February 23, 2002
Weird thing is when mp3's first starting making a name for themself I was dling them from ftp sites and creating them from my sound card as described above. One would think that the RIAA would look more into the history of how mp3's were created than just recently. What a bunch of idiots.
posted by willsey at 10:00 AM on February 23, 2002
posted by willsey at 10:00 AM on February 23, 2002
what gets me, is that even if their rationale is to prevent mp3 ripping from becoming "too easy" (i.e. an automated software process), it only take one person willing go through the moderate inconvienence of manual recording and conversion to make the mp3 files available to anyone with a file sharing program. Ad infinitum.
i would imagine that this method of manual ripping could even be used to circumvent wave form watermarking programs by inserting an unintrusive noise to the beginning of each ripped track. This would throw off programs designed to identify the mp3s for copyright tracking.
As long as music comes on physical media, there's nothing that can be done to stop consumer reproduction.
posted by rhizome23 at 10:43 AM on February 23, 2002
i would imagine that this method of manual ripping could even be used to circumvent wave form watermarking programs by inserting an unintrusive noise to the beginning of each ripped track. This would throw off programs designed to identify the mp3s for copyright tracking.
As long as music comes on physical media, there's nothing that can be done to stop consumer reproduction.
posted by rhizome23 at 10:43 AM on February 23, 2002
I'm amused by how many fronts the music industry is being forced to fight this battle on. Between this, the Napster and MP3.com cases, and the streaming referenced in the thread from yesterday, they are being pulled in several different directions. At the same time, none of these measures is actually doing anything to stop the pirating of music or the use of the MP3 format in general. When will they figure out that they are much better off going with all of this energy rather than against it? Will they ever?
posted by bump at 1:01 PM on February 23, 2002
posted by bump at 1:01 PM on February 23, 2002
When will they figure out that they are much better off going with all of this energy rather than against it? Will they ever?
They already have figured it out, but as ZachsMind said, it's impossible for the RIAA to publically accept defeat at this point... the image of an impenetrable fortress that they work oh so hard to project would be instantly shattered.
posted by tsumo at 9:18 PM on February 23, 2002
They already have figured it out, but as ZachsMind said, it's impossible for the RIAA to publically accept defeat at this point... the image of an impenetrable fortress that they work oh so hard to project would be instantly shattered.
posted by tsumo at 9:18 PM on February 23, 2002
Here's the really big question... why is it when they come up with ways of making recording at home more difficult, labels don't want to advertise the fact. Or, to hell with advertising, they don't want buyers to know about such "anti-piracy" measures at all, until after the purchase.
It wouldn't be because, um, you know, discouraging home recording cuts into sales, would it?
This is a classic example of what I mean when I say that money is vastly overrated as a motivating factor. The labels' behavior here shows fairly strongly that they know their current stance prevents them from making as much money as they could.
It's not about money. It's about power. Or, more accurately, about being the bully in a particularly small playground.
posted by aurelian at 11:00 PM on February 23, 2002
It wouldn't be because, um, you know, discouraging home recording cuts into sales, would it?
This is a classic example of what I mean when I say that money is vastly overrated as a motivating factor. The labels' behavior here shows fairly strongly that they know their current stance prevents them from making as much money as they could.
It's not about money. It's about power. Or, more accurately, about being the bully in a particularly small playground.
posted by aurelian at 11:00 PM on February 23, 2002
(While I hate to post this, for fear the RIAA might actually read it, here's how to defeat file-trading:
Create "fake" MP3's. That is, ads with the same file size and whatnot as the real mp3 (and same filename). Hook up a ton of computers to Audiogalaxy and the rest all the time. Even if 5% of files were "bad", that would prob'ly be annoying enough to buy some CD's sometimes instead of downloading.)
Though lowering the price of CD's wouldn't hurt either, heh.
posted by Kevs at 11:12 PM on February 23, 2002
Create "fake" MP3's. That is, ads with the same file size and whatnot as the real mp3 (and same filename). Hook up a ton of computers to Audiogalaxy and the rest all the time. Even if 5% of files were "bad", that would prob'ly be annoying enough to buy some CD's sometimes instead of downloading.)
Though lowering the price of CD's wouldn't hurt either, heh.
posted by Kevs at 11:12 PM on February 23, 2002
Kevs: That's an okay idea, but the file sizes are dead give-aways. Smart traders can recognize that an 8k MP3 is not a real audio track.
Besides, The RIAA would never bother to do anything subversive like that. It's much easier to bitch and moan, then sue people out of business or shut down the offending site/server.
posted by Down10 at 3:31 PM on February 24, 2002
Besides, The RIAA would never bother to do anything subversive like that. It's much easier to bitch and moan, then sue people out of business or shut down the offending site/server.
posted by Down10 at 3:31 PM on February 24, 2002
Oops, missed your mentioning of file sizes... still, that'd have to be done for all bit-rates and frequencies. Not gonna happen.
posted by Down10 at 3:32 PM on February 24, 2002
posted by Down10 at 3:32 PM on February 24, 2002
« Older Survivor III Finale Flawed. | Reparations activists Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by RylandDotNet at 11:51 PM on February 22, 2002