Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple, iPod, and CD Copy Protection

Copy protected CD's WILL kill the CD format -- which is what the record companies want anyway.

There will no longer be any incentive to buy a CD -- as it stands, we buy them for uncompressed, unrestricted audio. Will these new copy protected CD's allow us to rip to iTunes in current AND FUTURE formats? I am sure in a few years we will be looking at .m5a files.

Just because it would be favorable for Apple, does not mean it would be favorable for consumers... and is it really fair to force CD buyers into iTunes/iPod? I mean, it will be fine for us, but I'd rather have people come over to the Good Side because they want to, not because they are forced to.

iPod is #1 by far, but there are WAY more people out there who cannot afford an iPod. Why shouldn't the music that THEY BUY LEGITIMATELY be usable on their stupid ugly cheapass WMA player?

It reminds me of freedom of speech in a way. The only way this freedom really MEANS anything is if we protect the VILEST of speech. We should really be protecting the rights of the consumer to CHOOSE what format/player they want to use, no matter how VILE it is. :)
 
Copyright protection that also ensures customer flexibility

Apmonia said:
I might be wrong here, but shouldn't consumers be allowed to put the music they purchased into any type of format they want? Take for example those that listen to jazz or classical, they might want to put the music into a higher bit rate or even a different codec. This is good for Apple, but bad for the consumer.

Apmonia
Click to expand...

That was my first reaction. As an artist and record label owner, I'm interested in copyright protection, but it can not work if it is perceived to be too restrictive to the fan/customer.

I don't think that we know enough about how this would work with the iPod/iTMS yet, but a handful of caution flags have gone up at the mere mention. This one is certainly more about beating Microsoft.

There's a great deal of education that must happen before all parties involved feel comfortable with the inevitable.
 
Loge said:
Can we stop calling these things "copy protected CDs"? Music CDs are already compatible with the iPod. Copy protected disks pretending to be CDs cause problems with all kinds of equipment and Apple should not be encouraging their distribution. I hope they'll have the good sense to say no.
Click to expand...

I see your point and agree with it but I think we are stuck with the copy protection issue unless there is a big shake up of the music industry. So maybe Apple licensing is a second best option, it seems someone will produce a copy protection standard at some point and I would prefer that to be Apple. Do not think I am not worried about it encouraging more of these copy-protected disks however.

One thing I would definitely like to see is Apple to start offering a way for artists to sell their music directly to consumers.
 
Loge said:
Can we stop calling these things "copy protected CDs"? Music CDs are already compatible with the iPod. Copy protected disks pretending to be CDs cause problems with all kinds of equipment and Apple should not be encouraging their distribution. I hope they'll have the good sense to say no.
Click to expand...
I agree. But there is more than one way to solve the problems that copy protected CDs currently present:

(1) Offer a better alternative, such as iTunes, for buying music. If people don't buy copy protected CDs, they will drop out of the market.

(2) Make them practical. Set standards. Make them work with our equipment. Make their rights management invisible to everyday users. Maybe, if Apple took on this issue, used their expertise, and established rules and standards, copy protected CDs might meet their goals of allowing record companies to avoid unrestricted sharing of music, while letting us do what we want without interference. Apple has done a pretty good job of this for online music. Maybe they could do the same for "printed" music, maybe not.

I prefer (1), but maybe (2) is worth speculating about.
 
def a +

wPod said:
license it!!!! come on you know you want to!!! think of the benifits. . . . more revenue . . . more money for R&D . . . cooler products. . more revenue. . . get it?
Click to expand...

*do, do do do,*
...that's whaaat its aaaal aaabout!


I agree with you completely! Businesses are in business to make money, not to put customers on comfortable futons. On the flip side, however, the bigger the futon (in the customer's eye), the more money they'll spend! So basically, this copy protection won't even matter to people like me at all (audio hijack anyone??), but will deter your average limewire user (about 80% of the ripping community) from seeding the songs.

Whatever Apple does, license its Fair Play rights or not, will have little effect on pirated music as a whole. What it will do, however is generate more revenue for Apple, which is always a good thing.

The bottom line? Licensing provides apple with 1. More Revenue 2. iPod compatibility (further monopolizng Apple - always a good thing) and 3. Little effect on pirated music.



Sounds like a Win-Win-Neutral to me. Can't get much better than that :D
 
**** them

This is complete b.s. I won't buy any non-CD that doesn't allow me to rip at any rate I want, including lossless.

What are you doing, cheering for this crap?
 
question about circumventing DRM

hi, i'm new here, but i've been following this thread and have a question.

if you rip a disc with DRM, and then make a new cd from it, can't you then rip the new cd you just burned and rid yourself of the DRM altogether? this of course assumes you're successful in ripping the original disc to begin with, but that's never been a problem for me on a mac.

granted, it's a pain in the ass, but i'm not even a fan of apples fair play. once i buy it, it's mine. mine mine mine. i'll endure any amount of hassle i have to to rid myself of *ANY* DRM, just to make a point.

personally, i think all this "stolen music" paranoia is crap anyway. people generally download music they wouldn't buy anyway. if i could make a mixed tape for someone in the 80s and 90s, i expect to be able to burn a cd (or send a file of mp3s) to a friend in the 00s. if the RIA weren't such a horde of flaming pudmunchers - and didn't ROB you for the cost of a new cd - maybe folks would be more open to buying them. (personally, i really like owning the physical cd .. i like to display them, and to have the liner notes and art, etc). i honestly have to wonder if it's really digital sharing that's put a dent in cd sales, or if it's just that folks are buying used. $17 is just too damn much for a cd!

i think digital file sharing is the ultimate capitalist retribution. if your cost is too high, folks aren't gonna buy it. it's kinda sadistically funny to watch the RIA try and squirm out of it's wake-up call. i hope they fail and fail miserably! :D
 
stoid said:
I see this as the first step in the turning of the tables. Apple is on the way up in many big ways and for many reasons. Microsoft is going to fall in many big ways and for many reasons!
Click to expand...


Microsoft ain't going anywhere. People don't get the fact that no company with 40 Billion in available cash assets goes poof overnight or even in a short period of time. Microsoft is a lumbering giant that sees the portable music market as a cute diversion. If Apple wins *shrugs* they move to the next thing that catches their eye. If MS is really interested in the Music industry then they will pour hundreds of millions, maybe even a billion or two, into the project.

People keep telling me MS is going down. When? How? A 40 Billion dollar company could buy out a record lable or two if they wanted to. A 40 billion dollar company could invest in an alt OS if Windows starts tanking. A 40 billion....get my point? MS may lose in the long run but the company "Microsoft" is going to be around in some form or another for at least as long as we all are alive. Get use to it folks.
 
Until SunnComm and Macrovision can produce a copy protected CD that is effective on the Mac (Red Book does not mount), they have little or no power over Apple. Even if they did find a scheme that fooled the Mac (Mac OS X or Mac OS 9.x) Apple could potentially update the driver software to get round it. These guys really need to work with Apple to get any sort of copy protection of the Red Book working (and iPod support for their DRMed tracks). Unless Steve Jobs has changed his mind about copy protection on CDs, then I think SunnComm and Macrovision are out of luck.
 
A way this could work and why it should be done

I believe Apple should do this.

Here is a way that it could work. The CD is made to interact with iTunes, so that the consumer has the ability to rip at whatever quality they want, including using Apple's lossless compression. iTunes would interact with the CD company's online database for DRM authentication, allowing the same level of freedom as for music purchased at the iTunes Music store.

The CD WILL die eventually. It is a matter of time. However, business decisions are about successfully navigating to a profitable future by leveraging the present. Right now, it makes sense for Apple to do this, in my opinion. It is my hope that Apple will not turn away from this. This is a different situation than Real's request for Fairplay. Real is struggling and losing ground. CDs are here for a while. Like it or not, DRM is the future we face. Would we rather have Microsoft's version of that future or Apple's? I vote Apple's. Their DRM is much less oppressive.

Go for it Steve!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
snahabed said:
Copy protected CD's WILL kill the CD format -- which is what the record companies want anyway.

There will no longer be any incentive to buy a CD -- as it stands, we buy them for uncompressed, unrestricted audio. Will these new copy protected CD's allow us to rip to iTunes in current AND FUTURE formats? I am sure in a few years we will be looking at .m5a files.

Just because it would be favorable for Apple, does not mean it would be favorable for consumers... and is it really fair to force CD buyers into iTunes/iPod? I mean, it will be fine for us, but I'd rather have people come over to the Good Side because they want to, not because they are forced to.

iPod is #1 by far, but there are WAY more people out there who cannot afford an iPod. Why shouldn't the music that THEY BUY LEGITIMATELY be usable on their stupid ugly cheapass WMA player?

It reminds me of freedom of speech in a way. The only way this freedom really MEANS anything is if we protect the VILEST of speech. We should really be protecting the rights of the consumer to CHOOSE what format/player they want to use, no matter how VILE it is. :)
Click to expand...


Speaking of the ipod, has anybody here herd about: http://www.savetheipod.com/index1.php.
This is yet another bill being pushed by the RIAA. Check out this website and if you agree, send a fax.

Arn, I haven’t post in Macrumors for a while, and today I just found out I can't start new threads. What happened?

Thanks,

Hugo A.
 
I think what these labels want is that they put a copy-protection on the CD's that when iTunes reads it it will apply your computer AAC ID tag. I see this as a bad thing right now its only WMP protected and iTunes can rip almost everything under the sun I only had an issue with one CD that was copy-protected however I found a way around that. Remember some CD that are protected will rip however when you playback the tracks it will seem to play fine until there are blank spots in the tracks, also audio volume at times it will peek and decrease this is copy-protection on some CDs.

Anyhow I don't want iTunes to support this non sense, and big deal a couple dollars here and there are not worth it if it cripples the consumer freedom of rights to do whatever they want with what they bought.
 
once flash media cards come down in price we will see the audio cd get replaced with audi flash media (copy-protected). This is where the future is leading.

iPod will eventually aquire a built-in flash media reader and audio files will be able to be encoded in the iPod without the need of a MAC.

I have been and seen the future this is where its all going....... ;) :D
 
Apple should say YES. Too bad for Microsoft.

Consumers should say NO. Only buy real CDDA Compact Discs. DRM was needed to make online buying happen at all. It's not needed for CDs.

And pirates are more to blame than anyone. I'm no RIAA fan, so that's saying something.
 
jbembe said:
They'd better do this right, I don't want to be forced to listen to a 128kbps file when I bought the CD and want to hear AAC lossless through my Airport Express because they don't want me ripping their CD without DRM!!! I will NOT purchase such CDs.
Click to expand...

right there with'ya, brother.

if i plunk down $15 (or whatever) for a CD, i want the option of ripping it to iTunes at 192kbps or LOSSLESS if i want. if i don't care as much about the CD, i buy it on iTMS. that's my only complaint w/ iTMS is that everything is 128kbps. yes, it's a nice tradeoff btw file size & sound quality, but sometimes i don't WANT that tradeoff, i want quality.

i think this is a great side effect from the popularity of the iPod, but i still hate DRM on music that i purchase!!!
 
i just realized that the copy protection probably works only on pc


by this i mean, who here is using itunes on windows and has ripped these "protected cd's?"

that could be the problem.

i have a cd from japan that isnt supposed to work...but it ripped...it was a little strange for a sec, but itunes trucked on, even got the names in japanese.
 
Freg3000 said:
The only way I see Apple saying no is so perverse that I will go crazy if they reject this offer. But the scenario is that Apple says no since they want the only way to get that type of music onto iPods is to buy it from the iTMS, not getting DRM'd files from the CD itself.

Although that would be incredibly stupid. License it Apple!!!
Click to expand...

Hmm, historically, this seems to be the way most of Apple's management thinks.
Let's hope the wiser people take this to the bank and they license it!
 
ballofredemtion said:
hi, i'm new here, but i've been following this thread and have a question.

if you rip a disc with DRM, and then make a new cd from it, can't you then rip the new cd you just burned and rid yourself of the DRM altogether? this of course assumes you're successful in ripping the original disc to begin with, but that's never been a problem for me on a mac.
Click to expand...

You can do this with the DRMed songs you get from the iTMS, so you presumably could do the same if the CD manufacturers applied the same DRM mechanism to their CDs.

But, the question is what qualtity (128kbit/s, AppleLossless ?) the DRMed songs you can get from such CD will be.
 
I'm voting they don't agree to it unless I can rip at a lossless rate.

Right now it's like 128KB WMA or something like that. All I know is if an artist doesn't release something on iTMS and I have to buy the CD for it, it better be unecrypted or no sale.

I know it seems bass ackwards to buy something off iTMS but I have a double standard. I'm ok with a 'downloaded' song being a lower bit rate but if I by the physical, full quality media I want a physical, full quality song rip.
 
I don't think anyone read the quote from the article closely enough:

"...Software will be loaded on the music CDs that will help create a new copy-protected file in a form that can be played on an iPod, or on Microsoft-compatible players such as the Rio Karma, or on whatever else a consumer might be using."

I don't think we're talking about Fairplay here. The file format is supposed to be playable on the iPod and Microsoft compatable players.

So what are we talking about here. Making Windows players suddenly compatable with protected AAC's? No. This is going to be a completely new file format, requiring a software upgrade for iPods. Either that or a special encoding program added to the CD's that rip the songs to a protected format appropriate for the device you are using.
 
I don't want any software on my CD's. I have discs that I bought in 1983. If they had software on them, what is the chance it would work on any OS today? The same thing goes for these new CD's - what happens in 2024 when you pull out your "vintage collection of music from 2005-2009" and the stuff won't work because some 20 year old application isn't compatable with OS 20? Or the online database to create the DRM files long ago ceased to exist? These CD's need to be labeled as software discs that may happen to work in some CD players, or better yet - dropped altogether.

And anyone can plug a toslink cable from a CD player output into the toslink input on their G5 and make a perfect digital copy. What's the point?
 
Seems like there's two competing interests here: Apple, who wants to sell iPods and SunnComm/Macrovision that want to sell CDs.

I would think Apple would only take action if they believed that doing so would lead to increased iPod sales. (Last time I checked, the iPod was selling quite well :)). If it won't--which I'm not sure how it would--they have no reason to do anything.

Would someone really NOT buy an iPod because a CD they purchased isn't ripable? They're returning the CDs not the iPods. They're complaining about the CDs not the iPods.

On a side note: If I'm ultimately going to put the music on my iPod, why would I even bother buying the CD? ("Contraband" and "TT5B" are both available on iTMS).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back