PDA

View Full Version : New copy-protected CDs are Apple iPod incompatible


MacBytes
Aug 4, 2005, 09:17 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: New copy-protected CDs are Apple iPod incompatible (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20050804221739)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

PlaceofDis
Aug 4, 2005, 09:19 PM
hmmmm no problems ripping my Foo Fighers disc in iTunes, or copying it for that matter either.....

Bobcat37
Aug 4, 2005, 09:36 PM
I was pretty sure that this is very old news.

BTW, I think it only affects Windows users, so assuming you have a Mac, that's why you had no problems.

sord
Aug 4, 2005, 09:39 PM
This is old news, and yes it only doesn't work on Windows machines however Sony has some sort of program to allow angry iPod users on Windows to get their songs (not sure how to find it though)

winmacguy
Aug 4, 2005, 09:50 PM
I was pretty sure that this is very old news.

BTW, I think it only affects Windows users, so assuming you have a Mac, that's why you had no problems.
True , and I think I might have posted one of the original articles too. How ever since it cropped up again I decided to post it again. :)

macnulty
Aug 4, 2005, 09:53 PM
"It's up to Apple to flip the switch," said one record label executive.

Actually it is not. If the executive wants to increase his available customer base, his company would make it compatible with the iPod. End of story.

J-Squire
Aug 4, 2005, 09:59 PM
"It's up to Apple to flip the switch," said one record label executive.

Actually it is not. If the executive wants to increase his available customer base, his company would make it compatible with the iPod. End of story.

Exactly. Also, what incentive does Apple have to make these CDs compatable with iPods? That just means less people buy through the iTunes music store. I think apple would rather push it's own format through iTunes

bpd115
Aug 4, 2005, 10:05 PM
No problem ripping "Stand Up" on my Mac either.

The protection on these CDs use a method where if auto run is turned on in Windows, it installs some crappy software designed to garble any import attempt.

Solution? Hold down your shift key while inserting or disable auto run.

I think this tactic is very invasive and borders on spyware. What gives them the right to install software on my PC?

Of course, these types of situations are why I switched to the Mac in the first place.

iMThomas
Aug 4, 2005, 10:16 PM
No problem ripping "Stand Up" on my Mac either.

The protection on these CDs use a method where if auto run is turned on in Windows, it installs some crappy software designed to garble any import attempt.

Solution? Hold down your shift key while inserting or disable auto run.

I think this tactic is very invasive and borders on spyware. What gives them the right to install software on my PC?

Of course, these types of situations are why I switched to the Mac in the first place.

My thought is exactly in line with yours. These record execs need to get their stuff in order and stop trying to blame the whole situation on Apple being closed with Fairplay. If they opened fairplay, then that would potentially help people pirate the music bought on iTunes. I'm sure the record companies would love licensing the music out to Apple if the DRM has more cracks in it than an old brick street ;-) /end sarcasm/.

I'm a little biased because I can't stand working on Windows based systems for more than my alloted time at work where I repair them all day; so I wouldn't be shocked if Microsoft was working some shady deals with Sony so that the copy protection would be circumvented ONLY in Windows Media Player for Windows. They have done shady things before. What is to stop them again?

That's just my take though...

ChrisBrightwell
Aug 4, 2005, 10:40 PM
hmmmm no problems ripping my Foo Fighers disc in iTunes, or copying it for that matter either.....
Same here, but it wouldn't rip in iTunes for Windows. Weird.

SPUY767
Aug 4, 2005, 11:13 PM
Same here, but it wouldn't rip in iTunes for Windows. Weird.


It was said earlier. The autorun.inf file on the CD executes a background process that blinds the computer to the CD's audio portion. Since Macs have no Autorun, no a problem. Autorun should ALWAYS be disabled in windows, it's just a pain in the ass, and often causes strange behavior.

SilvorX
Aug 5, 2005, 01:52 AM
lossy formats FOR CDS should be made illegal.. especially ones sold in stores, I'm not going to pay $20 some canadian for a freaking lossy cd that's in WMA format

Loge
Aug 5, 2005, 02:16 AM
This is old news, and yes it only doesn't work on Windows machines however Sony has some sort of program to allow angry iPod users on Windows to get their songs (not sure how to find it though)

The article goes on to describe Sony's solution thus (not exactly hi tech) -

"Sony BMG, a joint venture between Japan's Sony Corp. and Germany's Bertelsmann, said users can get the music onto iPods by transferring files to a PC, burning them to a CD, ripping those and transferring them into iTunes. "

Bad Beaver
Aug 5, 2005, 02:37 AM
I assume they want to force Apple to open up Fairplay so we end up with *their* DRM on *all* our music, not just that bought from the iTMS, likely shoved down our throats in some shoddy lossy ms format. I say shove those discs back up where they came from. They'd deserve no better for yet another pointless attempt to control and strangulate honest consumers & music trading teens, as if any serious pirate cared about this.

Mitthrawnuruodo
Aug 5, 2005, 03:45 AM
Have no idea why Foo Fighters want to use that protective CD ******, the last one also used that. :(

Of course I don't really care... iTunes on my Mac is more than happy to import it... :D

Just another reason to use Macs... ;)

pulsewidth947
Aug 5, 2005, 03:57 AM
I think copy-protected CDs are bad for the genuine music-buying public. But like you guys say, the protection only works on PC. The thing is though, to circumvent the copy-protection, I used to download the album from P2P so I could listen to it on my iPod. So P2P does has its advantages - to enable legitimate customers to make the most of music they own.

To be honest though I dont like the whole P2P debate, but I think as a "try before you buy" medium it works wonderfully. Of course there will be people that exploit that, but those are the same people that copied albums onto tape (hah remember cassettes?! getting a 5-pack of C90's used to rule) years ago. Its about time more companies put forward listening options like Bleep.com (http://www.bleep.com/) - you can listen to the full song, but only 30 seconds at a time. So listen to 30 secs, skip forward listen to another 30, etc.

Incidentally, the only MP3's I've ever bought have been from Bleep.com (http://www.bleep.com/), as the price is fair, they stock a range of out of print stuff, and theres no DRM dictating how I may listen to the music I've bought!

winmacguy
Aug 5, 2005, 04:42 AM
Maybe the record companies could just give us cheaper CDs so that we wouldn't be so inclined to pirate them. :confused: :o :eek: :rolleyes:

ChrisBrightwell
Aug 5, 2005, 06:13 AM
It was said earlier. The autorun.inf file on the CD executes a background process that blinds the computer to the CD's audio portion. Since Macs have no Autorun, no a problem. Autorun should ALWAYS be disabled in windows, it's just a pain in the ass, and often causes strange behavior.
I'm well aware of how autorun works. I even have it disabled.

I still couldn't rip that CD through iTunes for Windows. I had trouble with GnR's Greatest Hits CD, too.

Chef Medeski
Aug 5, 2005, 07:59 AM
I don't see what the music exacs worry about. It is better for them that the people are actually buying the CDs instead of just downloading music. I think this just turns people off from purchasing Sony. I know that is what I do. I buy a CD almost every week, and I never download. Yet, if I couldn't rip it easily, then I definetly would stop buying from that record.

Stella
Aug 5, 2005, 08:50 AM
Apple should license out fairplay, even if its just to avoid this sort of thing ( NOT a license for other mp3 players ).

Apple refusal to license fairplay will return to the haunt them in the future. Apple should be proactive. WMA could be potentially killed if this happened.

devilot
Aug 5, 2005, 09:05 AM
I think copy-protected CDs are bad for the genuine music-buying public. But like you guys say, the protection only works on PC. The thing is though, to circumvent the copy-protection, I used to download the album from P2P so I could listen to it on my iPod. So P2P does has its advantages - to enable legitimate customers to make the most of music they own.
Well, doesn't iTunes' preview render that argument a little less pertinent? If I want to preview the song (and album) in its entirety prior to purchasing, I'll ask around and see if anyone I know has it, and borrow the disc... or I'll mosey on over to one of the music stores that are tied to Barnes & Nobles because they have that cool system where you scan the barcode of the cd, don the headphones, and you can literally listen to every single track in its entirety! I love that. I could spend hours in that store. Just don't buy from that store because the prices are astronomical!

Mac_Jack
Aug 5, 2005, 09:34 AM
--EMI Group Plc spokeswoman Jeanne Meyer cited success with earlier such efforts overseas. "Out of 127 million copy protected CDs we've shipped into the market outside of the U.S. and U.K., we've had 0.02 percent inquiries of any kind," she said.--

Um, .02 percent of 127 million is 2,540,000. That's pretty dang un-small.

Mac_Jack

Mitthrawnuruodo
Aug 5, 2005, 09:51 AM
Um, .02 percent of 127 million is 2,540,000. That's pretty dang un-small.No, that's 2%... 0.02% is 25 400... :)

Bad Beaver
Aug 5, 2005, 09:56 AM
No, that's 2%... 0.02% is 25 400... :)

Doesn't matter, it is 25400 people not buying your product again, telling many many of their friends about what a crappy product you have. It's such arrogant number festishism that makes MI people so nice to be around.

bousozoku
Aug 5, 2005, 10:37 AM
Of course, Philips has promised to stop such discs from being called CDs at all since they don't conform to the red book specifications. Still, have they done anything but a mild protest?

shamino
Aug 5, 2005, 11:05 AM
Maybe the record companies could just give us cheaper CDs so that we wouldn't be so inclined to pirate them. :confused: :o :eek: :rolleyes:
How cheap?

Sure, the $18 list price you pay in many stores is ridiculous, but you can do much better with even a small amount of shopping around.

Depending on the title, I can usually buy CDs at discount stores for about $12 per disc.

When I order from the BMG Music Club (http://www.bmgmusic.com/) and take advantage of their monthly special deals (this month's is "buy one at full price, get unlimited discs at 80% off), I end up paying $7-8 per disc, after adding in shipping. (Of course, you have to order 7-8 discs at a time to realize this kind of discount. Which is why I only place 2-3 orders a year from them.)

Of course, Philips has promised to stop such discs from being called CDs at all since they don't conform to the red book specifications. Still, have they done anything but a mild protest?
AFAIK, these discs aren't allowed to contain the CD Digital Audio logo (http://friends.gotdns.org/~jaakko/disclogos/#CDDA). That's about the extent of what Philips has done.

Of course, this doesn't help too much. There are a lot of legitimate non-protected discs that also don't have the logo. And most mail-order sites don't give you any way to find out about the presence/absence of a logo on the package before you place your order.

dukeblue91
Aug 5, 2005, 12:43 PM
This is just a bunch of crap and should be illegal to sell this mess to people.
I will never support any Artist and/ or company pushing this stuff.
The music industry should be happy that people still buy their crap instead of just downloading them of P2P networks.
I still buy my CDs because I like to rip them and have the original as backup, but if I can't do with my music what I want to, why bother.

Some_Big_Spoon
Aug 5, 2005, 12:46 PM
The thing that most people don't take into account is that the music and movie mafia (RIAA, MPAA) don't care if you say bad things about them to your friends, to your relatives, or shout it from the rooftops; they have a monopoly. Don't like it? Want to try and find another place to get your CDs? Nope, out of luck. Want to try and exercise your rights and get around the digital rights denial? Nope, sorry, now you're a criminal. They treat everyone like a theif because they can and there's no way to stand up to them.

The mob doesn't care what you think of them, they run the show. Either you do it their way or you get none.

Doesn't matter, it is 25400 people not buying your product again, telling many many of their friends about what a crappy product you have. It's such arrogant number festishism that makes MI people so nice to be around.

yg17
Aug 5, 2005, 12:58 PM
This is just a bunch of crap and should be illegal to sell this mess to people.
I will never support any Artist and/ or company pushing this stuff.
The music industry should be happy that people still buy their crap instead of just downloading them of P2P networks.
I still buy my CDs because I like to rip them and have the original as backup, but if I can't do with my music what I want to, why bother.


I really don't think the artist has a say in the matter. They record the music, the record company does everything after that. Do you really think the Foo Fighters want people boycotting their music because Sony put copy protection on the CD? Doubtful, and I bet they hate it as much as us.

jettredmont
Aug 5, 2005, 02:31 PM
This is old news, and yes it only doesn't work on Windows machines however Sony has some sort of program to allow angry iPod users on Windows to get their songs (not sure how to find it though)

It's called holding the shift key when you insert the CD for the first time, or disabling the useless AutoPlay feature in Windows. If you've already been infected with this software, then it gets a bit harder to circumvent.

Doesn't matter, it is 25400 people not buying your product again, telling many many of their friends about what a crappy product you have. It's such arrogant number festishism that makes MI people so nice to be around.

That was exactly my first thought. I even did the math wrong the first time and ended up at 2.5 million :)

It's a sad statement that 25,000 people who are incensed enough to search for a complaints number for a record company, lift up their phones, wade through "assistive" voice menus and elevator music any self-respecting record company would be embarassed to broadcast, means so litle to these people. That's 25,000 seriously pissed off people, after only a short period of time. That should mean something.

Of course, Philips has promised to stop such discs from being called CDs at all since they don't conform to the red book specifications. Still, have they done anything but a mild protest?

Alas, there are many different "non-CD-compliant CDs" out there. For instance, the double-sided CD/DVD combos also don't get the CD label, last I heard, and those offer the consumer more, not less.

Refusing the trademark is good, but still the use of non-CD-compliant discs does nothing but throw confusion into what should be a fairly straightforward marketplace.

shamino
Aug 5, 2005, 04:50 PM
This is just a bunch of crap and should be illegal to sell this mess to people.
I wouldn't go that far. Companies should be able to sell anything, as long as they make sure they don't mislead the public.

If they want to sell these discs with some kind of "copy protected CD" logo on the package, I've no problem with it. People who don't care about this sort of thing can buy it and people like us will know to leave it on the shelf without having to do research first.

Ultimately, the music does belong to the copyright holder (usually the record label, but sometimes the artist) to do what he wants with it. If they find that they can't sell copy protected discs, then they'll stop making them. If they sell enough to remain profitable, I really can't think of a logical reason to tell them not to. ("I want it" is not a logical reason.)

I really don't think the artist has a say in the matter. They record the music, the record company does everything after that. Do you really think the Foo Fighters want people boycotting their music because Sony put copy protection on the CD? Doubtful, and I bet they hate it as much as us.
Depends on who owns the copyright.

Most of the time, the record label holds the copyright. Sure, the band may object to copy-protected publishing, but they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

Those artists that have managed to retain (or in some cases, buy back) their copyrights, have much more leverage. If their publisher screws them over, they can take their songs and go to another publisher. There are many examples of this from various 70's bands that have moved from major to smaller labels.

But if you're new to the business, you may not have the ability to negotiate such a contract. Especially if you don't own your own studio to record the songs in.

Alas, there are many different "non-CD-compliant CDs" out there. For instance, the double-sided CD/DVD combos also don't get the CD label, last I heard, and those offer the consumer more, not less.
Depending on who you talk to. For instance, I've heard reports of some of these CD/DVD hybrid discs getting jammed in slot-loading players (like cars and computers) because the discs are thicker than the standard allows.

It's important for Philips to refuse to allow the logo to be used on non-conformant discs.

When you see the logo, you should be able to take this as a guarantee that it will play everywhere.

Unfortunately, to make this work, you also need to have publishers that make a point of putting the logo on all compliant discs. And this isn't the case.

gerardrj
Aug 6, 2005, 09:53 PM
In other news...
Foo Fighters new CD is incompatible with trees. It was just reported that you can not play your new CD on any tree you own.

The incompatibility is with iTunes, or more specifically with the underlying OS. If you can import the audio to the computer it will play fine on an iPod.

pubwvj
Aug 7, 2005, 05:12 PM
Old but the answer remains the same - Boycott them.
Just don't buy copy protected products.

slu
Aug 8, 2005, 03:22 PM
I am all for boycotting the Foo Fighters and DMB, but not because of copy protection, because they suck!

Seriously though, as the iPod gets more and more popular, record companies will have no choice but to make thier CDs iTunes compatible. But I think this is just the start of the whole DRM thing. It is only going to get worse. Especially if the halo effect actually makes Macs more popular. We should consider ourselves lucky that we don't have to worry about this...yet.

I do really hate the Foo Fighters though. DMB, not so much.

shamino
Aug 8, 2005, 06:57 PM
But I think this is just the start of the whole DRM thing.
Not really. The audio tracks of the CD are not protected in any way. They're playing some games with Windows (via a data-track and an autorun file) to make it annoying to rip the tracks on a Windows PC (offering up DRM-protected WMA files as an alternative.)

Even Windows people have no problem ripping the tracks without DRM, as long as they are careful to not install the software wedge that hides those tracks. Disabling auto-run or holding down the shift key on disk-insertion is the easiest way to do this. If the wedge is not installed, it's an ordinary disk that any program can rip the tracks from.

As for "the whole DRM thing", that started many years ago. Windows Media Player had this for a long time (and offered unsuspecting users the ability to rip in that format so they can't move their own songs to other computers.)

iTunes legitimized the concept when the iTMS went on-line and the world started falling over themselves to buy DRM-protected songs.
It is only going to get worse.
Probably. I'm sure they'll come up with a profitable scheme that impacts Mac users as well. (So far, all of the copy protection schemes that would work on a Mac have failed commercially because they also break many audio CD players.)

If I end up buying a CD that the Mac can't play, I'll send it back as defective, and repeat the process until they either give me a good disc or decide to give me a refund. But until that happens, I'm not going to waste my time getting angry over something I'm not going to be able to change anyway.

mkrishnan
Aug 8, 2005, 07:10 PM
Even Windows people have no problem ripping the tracks without DRM, as long as they are careful to not install the software wedge that hides those tracks. Disabling auto-run or holding down the shift key on disk-insertion is the easiest way to do this. If the wedge is not installed, it's an ordinary disk that any program can rip the tracks from.

So, even in XP/SP2, it will allow the software to be installed on disc insert without allowing the user to cancel it (I mean explicitly, pressing shift notwithstanding)? Ugh... the model needs to fundamentally change on that. :(

shamino
Aug 8, 2005, 07:15 PM
So, even in XP/SP2, it will allow the software to be installed on disc insert without allowing the user to cancel it (I mean explicitly, pressing shift notwithstanding)? Ugh... the model needs to fundamentally change on that. :(
That's the whole point of AutoRun. Any data disc, upon insertion, is searched for an autorun.inf script. That script is used to launch a program on the disc. That program, is an application like any other program. It has free reign to do whatever it wants, just like any other app. (I suppose it might be harder to do this from a non-privileged account, but just about all Windows users work from administrator-level accounts.)

This is one of the reasons I prefer to disable AutoRun on my computers. Partly because I'm afraid of malware making its way onto commercial CDs (and that's what this "copy protection" scheme really is), but also because the feature really bothers me. I want to be the one that decides when to run a program, not some third party I know nothing about.

mkrishnan
Aug 8, 2005, 07:21 PM
That's the whole point of AutoRun. Any data disc, upon insertion, is searched for an autorun.inf script. That script is used to launch a program on the disc. That program, is an application like any other program. It has free reign to do whatever it wants, just like any other app. (I suppose it might be harder to do this from a non-privileged account, but just about all Windows users work from administrator-level accounts.)

Yeah, I guess now that I think about it...never mind.

What about Macs and autorunning CDs? There are some, IIRC? I guess for them to do something similar, though, that set up software to automatically run on boot of the computer, they would need the user to password in, even from an admin account, wouldn't they?

shamino
Aug 9, 2005, 11:24 AM
What about Macs and autorunning CDs? There are some, IIRC?
I don't know if the facility exists in Mac OS X. I know I've never seen it used.

You can burn a CD with a "Desktop" file (for OS 6-9, or .DS_Store file for OS X) containing initial window/icon positions. This is why some CDs will automatically open up some folders upon insertion. But this just opens folders. It doesn't actually run anything.

ISTR some kind of an auto-run facility for classic Mac OS, but it was never popular. I don't think it works on OS X.
I guess for them to do something similar, though, that set up software to automatically run on boot of the computer, they would need the user to password in, even from an admin account, wouldn't they?
Assuming such a facility exists, the autostarted app would run at whatever privilege level the logged-in user has. If this is administrator, then it could install application softwre without asking. It would still need an admin password in order to install a kernel extension (which you would need to hide audio tracks from the rest of the system.)

In general, it's a bad idea to run as an administrator. With the exception of a few poorly-behaved Adobe apps, like Photoshop CS, everything works fine when run from a non-admin account. You can even install software - you're just asked for an admin account and password when the system requires elevated permissions.