Neil Young's new cd-you can't copy to cd-r

[spotlightkid]

OK SH Forum members-if you cannot make a cd-r of the New Neil
Young cd released next month on your cd-r recorder will that make you mad or not-rumour is this is what will happen when you try to make a cd-r of his new recording next month-nothing.How do you feel about the Major Record Labels making cd's by their major artists that you cannot copy.do you feel this is unfair,the labels and artists are all making tons of money.How many more cd's will they sell if they make this a reality for us
consumers.

[mcow1]

Not only can't you copy it but you may not be able to play it on cd players on pcs. If you buy it and it won't do what you want take it back as defective. I for one will not buy a copy protected one I know about (at this time). Neil will put it out on vinyl too.

[PsychFan]

Originally posted by mcow1
Neil will put it out on vinyl too.

Whew! Thank God ... Thanks for the info.

[Grant]

I'll bet there is a way you could easily rip that CD with just the right software and burn a copy.

[Mal]

I don't see why the consumer should feel that they have the right to copy a CD, bit for bit (I'll run for cover now :eek: ).

Yeah, it's convenient and I love making CD-Rs, but I totally understand the majors' problem. It's not to stop people like us making copies for personal use - it's an attempt to stop the mass piracy that goes on.

What does bother me is that the methods they are using to stop piracy compromise the sound quality of the finished product. That is totally unacceptable :mad:.

I'm hopeful that the piracy issue will be a big incentive to move to SACD. Am I right in thinking that SACD piracy is nigh on impossible?.....


(Never say "Never" :D )

[mcow1]

There was an article (if it's still there) on techtv.com screensavers on working around the copy protection for pc copy.

[Andrew]

Vote with your wallet: don't buy it.

[Douglas]

This (http://www.fatchucks.com/corruptcds/action.html) was referenced on an older DCC thread. Check it out if you haven't already.

[Highway Star]

Originally posted by Malc S
I don't see why the consumer should feel that they have the right to copy a CD, bit for bit (I'll run for cover now :eek: ).

No need to run for cover Malc. If they want my money without strings attached, then I want their product without strings attached. Now that wasn't so bad was it?

[Grant]

Originally posted by telefunken


No need to run for cover Malc. If they want my money without strings attached, then I want their product without strings attached. Now that wasn't so bad was it?
Well put!:D

[Mal]

Originally posted by telefunken
If they want my money without strings attached, then I want their product without strings attached.

But there are, and always have been, strings attached!

Since when have you bought any pre-recorded music that doesn't have something along the lines of this printed on it:

"Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws"

Or, if you buy any UK releases:

"Unauthorised copying, reproduction, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcasting prohibited"

While I understand that copying a CD for back-up purposes or, at a stretch, for your own use may be deemed acceptable by the copyright holder (although even this is probably optimistic), I don't see that you have the right to rip the data off the disc and make a clone simply because you bought the CD. The danger is where do you draw the line? Ok, so you make a copy or two for your friends - is that OK? Where does it stop being reasonable - 10, 100, 10000 copies?

The sad truth is that the majors have to do something to deter pirates.

Like I said before, I burn CD-Rs and love the freedom we have had up until now, but I accept that if the majors come up with a way to stop you copying their product that both conforms to the redbook standard and has no detrimental effect on the audio quality (no such method yet, I know) then that's their prerogative.

[Douglas]

The Home Recording Act explicitly permits one to make copies of copyrighted material that one has purchased for their own non profit use.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Douglas
The Home Recording Act explicitly permits one to make copies of copyrighted material that one has purchased for their own non profit use.

I thought that was for tapes only? And for one copy only?

And "voting with your wallet" by not buying the new Neil CD will not have much of an effect. What's the loss of 500 units (the approx. number of forum members) mean to a CD that sells hundreds of thousands? Or millions?

Now I'd think RETURNING the CD for a refund or replacement because it is not playable is much more significant. Don't you think? ;)

Does anyone know if they will ALL be copy protected?

[Mal]

Originally posted by Douglas


The Home Recording Act explicitly permits one to make copies of copyrighted material that one has purchased for their own non profit use.


You can still make copies of a "protected" CD, just not a digital clone (ie use the analogue output). Therefore, the record companies are not depriving you your rights by doing this!

Don't get me wrong here, I love freebies like everyone else :p, but if you are stopped from doing something that you have no right to do in the first place why complain about it?

I realise that a large part of the problem people are angry about is that the current attempts at copy-protection affect the discs conformity to the redbook standard (ie it will not necessarily play in every CD player/drive) and the affect on the sound quality of the protected discs. I'm 100% in agreement here - this is bad news.

But on the fundamental issue of the right to make a digital clone - I don't see that we have a leg to stand on.....

[Grant]

Originally posted by Gary


I thought that was for tapes only? And for one copy only?

And "voting with your wallet" by not buying the new Neil CD will not have much of an effect. What's the loss of 500 units (the approx. number of forum members) mean to a CD that sells hundreds of thousands? Or millions?

Now I'd think RETURNING the CD for a refund or replacement because it is not playable is much more significant. Don't you think? ;)

Does anyone know if they will ALL be copy protected?

The "Fair Use" clause says that you can make copies of your personal purchased sound recordings in any way you see fit as long as you do not attempt to sell it and it cannot be proven that doing so will impede an artist's right to a livelihood.

Yes, you CAN legally rip a CD for personal use. See, the companies know this, so instead of trying to test it in court, they'd rather just take steps to make it harder to do.

[Mike]

Originally posted by Gary
Now I'd think RETURNING the CD for a refund or replacement because it is not playable is much more significant. Don't you think? ;)

I have to admit this thought warms my anti-authoritarian heart. :) I was thinking more along the lines of putting on a ski mask and throwing a brick through a window. :D

[Mike V]

Oh no! This form of copy protection will FORCE people who want to burn their own CDs to do so the old fashioned way. Analog real time! Oh noooo!

Personally, I do not see how this thwarts pirates. Copy once in analog domain, then you can do all the digital copies you desire (more generational loss, but I don't consider those who buy or trade pirated mainstream releases sticklers about quality).

[Mal]

Analogue pirating has and always will be possible - I suppose the purpose of the copy-protection is to make it very hard for the pirate to offer the equivalent product (not including packaging issues) but rather force them to sell an inferior sounding one. But I think you're right Mike, the average pirate purchaser is probably not that bothered by the difference.

I still think SACD is the answer to the record companies' problems. Well, everyone can dream........:cool:

[RetroSmith]

Originally posted by Mike V

Personally, I do not see how this thwarts pirates. Copy once in analog domain, then you can do all the digital copies you desire (more generational loss, but I don't consider those who buy or trade pirated mainstream releases sticklers about quality).

>>>>>Bingo, mike!! Thats exactly right. The pirates in China or wherever will simply make a high quality ANALOG copy and dupe that digitally. Make no mistake..this copy protection scheme (and thats what it is, a scheme) is directed to all the kids making clones and rips of that new Britney Spears Cd and d/l it to the net .

This is not so bad, but when the record compnaies vioate MY rights to make a rip or copy for my own use (which they have done) i get irritated.

[Highway Star]

Thanks Grant:)
Thanks Malc:( (just kidding Malc, good points)

Actually, I hardly ever burn a CD, did a few last year, maybe a dozen or two. Never made many tapes either. So this law isn't going to cause me to lose any sleep, but it is somewhat of a nuisance. It's just more corporate greed, that's all. My collection of the good stuff will probably outlive me anyway. Glad I didn't throw my albums out (of course I'm sad I didn't take better care of them!).

[Richard Feirstein]

Criminals already know that certain OEM CD/DVD PC burners out there ignor the copy protection technology currently being used. That is all they need, and counterfit's will be out there. I bet one day after its release 50 cent copies will be on sale in some Asian countries. And what do they (counterfiters) care if it has to be derived from the analog outputs? (They don't).:eek:

[David Powell]

I seem to recall that the flaw in the Home Recording Act is that computer CDRs are not considered to be a permitted recording devices because that's not their primary function. As usual, those writing the laws are way behind the times.

[Grant]

I should go out and buy a brand new CD known to be copyguarded, make an as high a quality 128kbps mp3 out of one of the hit songs as I can get, and circulate it on the file-sharing programs JUST to prove the point that this stops nothing!

Actually, I'd like to get the new Grammy 2001 Nominee CD to do it with, because I like the song "Ms. Jackson" by Outkast:cool: and the Elton John tune, but I have them already and they have circulated around the net already.

[Grant]

Originally posted by David Powell
I seem to recall that the flaw in the Home Recording Act is that computer CDRs are not considered to be a permitted recording devices because that's not their primary function. As usual, those writing the laws are way behind the times.

That's why computer users have been free to pretty much do as we wish. But, now the computer-phobic/illiterate record executives are trying to stop it.

Pro audio gear is also exempt.

Mikey and the other person, MalcS (?) make a very good point. They can't stop analog copying without adversley affecting the sound. If all else fails, use analog. That would stop most teenagers and college kids because nowadays many don't even own boomboxes or old-fashioned stereos like they did just a few years ago.

Mikey is also right in that most people who would buy a bootleg who is NOT a collector will NOT care too much about sound quality.

[Beagle]

Originally posted by Grant
I should go out and buy a brand new CD known to be copyguarded, make an as high a quality 128kbps mp3 out of one of the hit songs as I can get, and circulate it on the file-sharing programs JUST to prove the point that this stops nothing!Better still, why don't you go to a music store, grab about 10 copies of the CD, run out of the store and hand them out to people to prove than magnetic theft detectors do nothing as well?