Apple, iPod, and CD Copy Protection

[Mac-Xpert]

The bottom line...

This form of copy protection can not be played on all CD players.

It breaks the Red Book standard.

It's not good for paying consumers.

It means you lose you're legal right for 'space shifting' (if the protection works).


Wasn't there a court case in France where EMI CDs with protection were considered faulty (setting a precedent for similar cases in France)?

Exactly. I'm very much against copy protected CD's. I own a high quality Denon CD-player, and some time back I purchased the copy protected "Let It Be... Naked" album from the Beatles. This is one of those copy-protected EMI CD's. Although it plays on my Denon CD-player, I can hear the errors they deliberately put on the disc as a means of copy protection. Throughout the whole disc there are distortions (particularly noticeable in the high frequencies like some sort of periodic flanging in the cymbal sounds.) It sounds awful. I tried the CD also on two of my old CD-players. My 1988 Philips CD-player played the CD correctly without the above-mentioned problems, but my 1986 Sharp CD-player refused to play the CD altogether.

I was very disappointed with all this. Obviously I want to be able to play any CD on my high quality Denon CD-player. I now will never buy any of these crippled CD's again.

I agree with the people here that say that Apple should not co-operate with these CD-cripplers. Everybody should just ban these copy-protected CD's altogether. That's the only way we can get rid of these crippled CD's.

 

[Mac-Xpert]

If a shop sells you a DRM'd disk under the pretence that it is a CD or Compact Disk (i.e. Advertised as a CD etc.), as stated a redbook standard by Philips & Sony, then you can demand your money back if it doesn't work on some CD Players.

This is simple trading standards and assume applies to other countrys ??

Yes, you can return the CD, and get your money back, put what's the point? I don't want to have to return the CD's. If I buy a certain CD, I buy it because (obviously) I want to listen to / own that album. If it then turns out to sound like crap due to some silly copy protection, I have no way to own and enjoy that music. Although I also own a record player, I want to be able to buy most my music on CD. The longevity of CD's is one of the reasons why I usually prefer CD's. Vinyl can sound great in certain circumstances, but with digitally recorded music, the benefits of vinyl (warm analog sound) disappear and only the bad sides (like wear out, pops and noise etc.) remain.

It's not like with other products, that you can return them if they’re faulty, and get a good working version (maybe from another manufacturer) instead. The record companies have a monopoly position. If you can't use their crippled CD's in the way you want, then your left with nothing, there is no choice.

 

[garybUK]

Vinyl can sound great in certain circumstances, but with digitally recorded music, the benefits of vinyl (warm analog sound) disappear and only the bad sides (like wear out, pops and noise etc.) remain.

It's not like with other products, that you can return them if they’re faulty, and get a good working version (maybe from another manufacturer) instead. The record companies have a monopoly position. If you can't use their crippled CD's in the way you want, then your left with nothing, there is no choice.

I fully understand what you are saying and agree, but people may not know what they are buying, say if they order a cd off the net, people should be informed, thats what i was getting at about returning products.

Vynal can last as long as cd's but with the hiss and pops. My dad has a load of old Vynil that still goes strong on a cheap £30 turntable he bought.

Funny really when you think about it.. copying has been going on for ages, people can record from analogue sources, so digital copying is just the same, but only some silly no-brained corporations like RIAA panic, see their wages going down and panic then comes another fat-cat to make some money.

I can see a change in how society treats music/movies and the supposid 'stars' in the not to distant future.

Tbh, i dont really listen / buy many american artists, with the exception of the occasional Blink 182 or Linkin Park, so im hoping that they dont impact many of the british bands etc..

 

[Windowlicker]

I want a black iPod. Not a painted on, but a truly, black iPod. Black wheel, buttons and reverse display (black with white letters). Black accessories. Black earphones.

White is so...passé.

You know iPod is EOL when they have a RealTree® Camo Mossy Oak version.

why don't you buy an iRiver? it's black right? what you're talking about here is a mac in a PC case. no, they will stick to white (hopefully).

oh whatta heck.. i shouldn't be mocking someone just because he/she prefers something i don't.

 

[ericdano]

Apple obviously supports copy-protection for music and doesn't support file-sharing piracy. I'd like to see them get a piece of the action for copy-protected music in any form.

That said, I want to be able to get high bitrate files from CD's. That's why I buy the CD instead of just downloading from iTMS. One low-tech solution would be a one-time license key included in the CD that you could use in iTMS to register your iTMS account as an owner of the CD. You could download the entire CD in 128kbps, 192kbps, or Apple Lossless. The record companies would reimburse Apple a one-time fee for setting up the album (and setting up the license keys) and then recurring fees based on the number of downloads (bandwidth, customer service, management, etc.). This introduces a ton of people to Apple, iTMS, AAC, etc. It might also allow iTMS to sell the high bitrate tracks as download only to people that didn't buy the CD.

Interesting idea, but I think another way to do it would be to have something on the CD that, when iTunes is loaded and the CD is about to be ripped, that it puts some sort of ID tag with your AppleStore ID or something.

But, I still think if you BUY the CD, you shouldn't have to worry about this sorta thing.

 

[Mac-Xpert]

That said, I want to be able to get high bitrate files from CD's. That's why I buy the CD instead of just downloading from iTMS. One low-tech solution would be a one-time license key included in the CD that you could use in iTMS to register your iTMS account as an owner of the CD. You could download the entire CD in 128kbps, 192kbps, or Apple Lossless. The record companies would reimburse Apple a one-time fee for setting up the album (and setting up the license keys) and then recurring fees based on the number of downloads (bandwidth, customer service, management, etc.). This introduces a ton of people to Apple, iTMS, AAC, etc. It might also allow iTMS to sell the high bitrate tracks as download only to people that didn't buy the CD.

Since the iTunes store is only available to a limited group of people/countries (looking at this from a global point of view) I don't think this can be a solution right now or in the foreseeable future. Until Apple releases the iTunes store worldwide, this would be limiting the use of such a technology greatly.

 

[Kagetenshi]

It is definitely not a CD. It doesn't conform to the standards. Ask Phillips.

"com·pact disk or com·pact disc
n.
Abbr. CD
A small optical disk on which data such as music, text, or graphic images is digitally encoded."

It is quite definitely a CD.

SiliconAddict, you're entirely correct. But it conforming to the Redbook standard affects whether or not you can call it compact disc digital audio, it doesn't change the fact that it is a CD.

Yes, copy-protected CDs need some sort of clear labelling that they are such, but they're still CDs.

~J

 

[Mac-Xpert]

I fully understand what you are saying and agree, but people may not know what they are buying, say if they order a cd off the net, people should be informed, thats what i was getting at about returning products.

Ahh, right. I didn't get that from your first post. I totally agree that it should be clear from the start that a certain album is copy protected. In fact I would like governments to force the record companies to put big stickers on the front of these CD's stating that they're copy protected (much like the health warning stickers on cigarette packages). It would be even better if record companies would be forced to release a regular audio-CD (non copy protected) version of each copy protected CD as well. Then they could sell the protected version for less than the regular CD-prices and sell the non copy protected one for the normal price. This gives people a choice. If they have no problem with the limitations of the copy protected CD, they can buy that one. If they don't like the restrictions, or have a problem playing the protected CD on their system, they can buy the normal audio-CD version for the regular CD price.

Vynal can last as long as cd's but with the hiss and pops. My dad has a load of old Vynil that still goes strong on a cheap £30 turntable he bought.

It both depends on how many times you play the record and the expectations you have in terms of sound quality. I quite like the sound of good quality vinyl records with analog recordings, but I’m also aware of their limitations. In general the CD just has a better longevity because there is no physical contact with the surface of the CD during playback. When you play a vinyl record there is always going to be some wear to the record surface no matter how good your record player is. Eventually the sound will start to deteriorate. My oldest CD’s go back to 1986, and still sound as good (actually better due to the much better CD-player I now own) as they did when I bought them.

 

[Trekkie]

"com·pact disk or com·pact disc
n.
Abbr. CD
A small optical disk on which data such as music, text, or graphic images is digitally encoded."

It is quite definitely a CD.

SiliconAddict, you're entirely correct. But it conforming to the Redbook standard affects whether or not you can call it compact disc digital audio, it doesn't change the fact that it is a CD.

While it is in the dictionary like that, it is in many patent databases as that as well. That patent includes 'must adhear to the redbook standard' or terms like that and if you don't, you cannot call it a 'CD', 'Compact Disc', or display the CDDA/CD logos on it.

See here for a new article where it's discussed how Philips (one of the owners of said copyright) jumped in and told anyone that copy protects that breaks the redbook to take a flying leap and they can't use the logos.

An important distinction in my book. Now I know I can look at the CD and tell if it's copy protected or not, and not buy it if that is the case.

 

[Highland]

Go Philips!!!

Another problem is that I have heaps of CDs with copy protection, and I've only had issues with about 2... So it's not a black & white case of not buying CDs with protection.

 

[weldon]

Interesting idea, but I think another way to do it would be to have something on the CD that, when iTunes is loaded and the CD is about to be ripped, that it puts some sort of ID tag with your AppleStore ID or something.

But that wouldn't do anything for all the users that don't have iTunes installed, or don't use it to rip CD's. It seems that iTunes would get labeled as the "bad" player that forces DRM when you rip your own CD's while other software would rip and encode without restriction.

 

[weldon]

Since the iTunes store is only available to a limited group of people/countries (looking at this from a global point of view) I don't think this can be a solution right now or in the foreseeable future. Until Apple releases the iTunes store worldwide, this would be limiting the use of such a technology greatly.

I understand your point. I was thinking of the one-time license key for iTMS as something they would include in addition to other measures. So the rest of the world would be stuck with the WMA files on the CD until Apple rolled out the iTMS to those countries. Still, such a deal could help bring iTMS to those countries even faster.

I think in many cases, they have two versions of the CD. One with the copy-protection and one without. The copy-protected versions are more prevalent in Europe but many countries don't get them at all.

 

[Bad Beaver]

I will not buy DRMd data carriers, round, 12cm, silvercoloured.
I do buy CDDA.
I do buy SACD.
I decide what to do with it, and if I want to rip it to AL I will do it, and if I want to rip it to 32kbps MP3 I will do it.
All by myself.
I never in my life stole a song from p2p or uploaded one, and I have no desire to do so.
But I decide by myself what to do with the music I pay good money for, and need no MI executive telling me that the MI, or anyone, knows what I want on my iPod better than me. That is especially the case it the MI thinks that I might have the desire to pay them for some 128kbps BS.
If the MI decides to intrude on this by making their silly DRM schemes Mac-compatible and obligatory for all releases, I will just go and buy a decent USB/Firewire digital-in solution and record my own AIFF files from my CD player, that is how use- and pointless DRMing "CDs" is.
Or I will just stop buying new releases, no problem. There is more music than I could ever listen to on non-DRM-infested media.

It it me, the mighty consumer, with my big fat wallet, and I say F#CK DRMd hardcopies.

 

[sjk]

And pirates are more to blame than anyone. I'm no RIAA fan, so that's saying something.

Of course it goes beyond simply blaming "those damn pirates" into looking at different motives behind pirating/non-pirating. One way I see it goes something like this:

Pirate #1: "You have what I want and I'm going to take it from you because <reason>"
Non-pirate #1: "You have what I want and we agree I'll give you X for it"
Non-pirate #2: "You have what I want and I can't afford X for it so I'll do without for now"
Pirate #2: "You have what I want and I can't afford X for it so I'm going to take it from you because <reason>"

Protection, legislation, etc. doesn't stop pirate #1; he'll need other help and/or punishment to be shown his wrongdoings.
Non-pirate #1 has a mutually satisfying transaction. That's an ideal situation.
Non-pirate #2 may accept the situation, consider alternatives, be disappointed, etc. and at an extreme will find a reason (sometimes the same one as pirate #1) for becoming pirate #2.
Circumstances will determine if pirate #2 behavior is a temporary, isolated incident or, at worst, eventually becomes pirate #1.

If we're too passive towards actions that infringe on fair use, etc. we may be stuck with some unfortunate consequences of them. Pirating will definitely be one of the negative side effects, more like pirate #2 than pirate #1 above. And RIAA reactions tend to leave an impression that every pirate is a #1, trying to apply their brand of "help"/punishment to pirates that are really more like #2.

Drifting back to the main topic...

While reading this thread I thought of comparisons between CD and DVD copy protection issues... how trying to force DRM restrictions on CD media that originally didn't have them differs from DVD media that originally did (IIRC). And reasons for boycotting protected CDs seem worthwhile right now while boycotting DVDs now seems a mostly self-serving futility.

I'm still unsided since it's not clear what Apple's choice would be for the longer-term overall best interest of customers, but that's what would get my vote if it were possible to foresee.

 

[sjk]

I have mixed feeling on this issue. On one hand I want Apple to give MS a run for their money. But on the other its like making a deal with the Devil. No real good can come out of this for the consumer who doesn’t have an iPod. And then there is the question on those who aren’t running Windows or OS X. Future competition in the OS market isn’t going to be Windows vs OS X. Its going to be Windows vs. Linux. So what happen to fair competition when Linux users are left out in the cold? I just don’t know.

Yeah, that's a nice summary of some things I've been flip-flopping with while reading the thread. Along with some earlier posts from Lancetx and winmacguy.

 

[Fitzcaraldo]

BMG Copy protection

Readers in the USA may never have experienced the problem cd's... they are a European issue that I first encountered last winter on a Dido album.

The discs are not labled CD (because they are not) and further carry a warning "Not Compatible with Macintosh"

When incerted only Track 1-7 apppears. all subsequent tracks are unplayable.

Yes it can be circumvented, but its complicated.

A have to say that anybody thinking that Apple co-operating on this issue will somehow benefit Apple is Shortsighted and mistaken. What we will see is a Mac version of the drm, as well as the current Windows version. All that will happen is that it would rip to fairplay on Mac and some other on PC/Win amp.

I see this a a gross violation of "Fair Use" and for the life of me see no reason for Apple to even consider suporting such protection formats. The only winner would be the companies trying to get a strangle hold on the DRM'ed CD Market.

Further, Who is paying for the protection? I doubt its free? will this raise CD prices? Will the Record Companies Foot the Bill? or will it be the good old artists again?

Bad Idea. Think about it...

 

[arogge]

People keep telling me MS is going down. When?

According to a prediction made by J. Richard Gott for the January 1, 2000 issue of the Wall Street Journal, Microsoft would last more than 7 months but less than 975 years. The future longevity predictions for this and other phenomena can be found in this book.

 

[Mac-Xpert]

I think in many cases, they have two versions of the CD. One with the copy-protection and one without. The copy-protected versions are more prevalent in Europe but many countries don't get them at all.

I have never seen a non-protected version offered at the same time as a protected version. Even worse, when you look for a CD in one of the online stores it's (like garybUK already mentioned) now unclear if it's a regular (unprotected) version or one of the crippled ones.

So there's no way I can get (or know where to get from) a non-protected version of certain album on CD. And with my CD player bringing out the errors in protected CD's very clearly, I don't like to take the risk of buying a protected one either.

 

[Mac-Xpert]

I will not buy DRMd data carriers, round, 12cm, silvercoloured.
I do buy CDDA.
I do buy SACD.
I decide what to do with it, and if I want to rip it to AL I will do it, and if I want to rip it to 32kbps MP3 I will do it.
All by myself.

How can you rip a SACD? As far as I know you can't play SACD's on a computer.

 

[JFreak]

How can you rip a SACD? As far as I know you can't play SACD's on a computer.

same as HDCD - when played on regular cd player, it will be cd quality and 100% compatible. but when played on correct player, the audio quality is better. these don't break red-book.

 

[Bad Beaver]

same as HDCD - when played on regular cd player, it will be cd quality and 100% compatible. but when played on correct player, the audio quality is better. these don't break red-book.

Exactly, while SACDs cannot be ripped (and who'd want that at this time, it would mean severeal GB per disc), almost all releases are SACD-Hybrids by now and have a redbook layer, and the standard does not allow crippeling it. Up until now that is. In Germany, some record company would give you the SACD-Hybrid version of an album if you complained that the "CD" did not work, that was in the news a few months ago.

 

[macnews]

Even if you don't like copy protect CD's Apple MUST license their DRM. The iPod has become MUCH more than a switcher vehicle. It is a very nice profit vehicle, switcher vehicle and iTMS driver which is now becoming profitable. If you license the DRM that too could drive people to iPods which re-enforces all of the above points.

Something else to think of, some one is going to have the DRM. Up till now it was MS. If corporate america sees MS as willing to play ball they will embrace them and not leave us much choice. If Apple can at least get in the ball park and show they can be willing partners, like with HP, the tendancy of other groups going to Redmond may stop. Sure, you may not like DRM'd CDs, neither do I, but until they die, let the DRM be made by Apple, not MS.

 

[technohedz]

Bait and Switch end of CDs

Exactly, while SACDs cannot be ripped (and who'd want that at this time, it would mean severeal GB per disc), almost all releases are SACD-Hybrids by now and have a redbook layer, and the standard does not allow crippeling it. Up until now that is. In Germany, some record company would give you the SACD-Hybrid version of an album if you complained that the "CD" did not work, that was in the news a few months ago.

I've been paying attention to this in market terms. Considering that record companies always make money on format shifts (Vinyl, cassette, cd, sacd, dts, dvd-audio), they want to make the format appeal to the consumer so they get some bucks.

Also consider that now companies that vend hardware for consumer playback are also media labels (remember lots of people think sony is the bomb and I'll admit I have a sony parts in my component system...I also ONLY use Earthquake Amps in my car so that might help you see where my acoustics are coming from). Right now you can go buy an el cheapo sony dvd changer that plays DVD/CD+-/rw Dolby Digital, DTS, etc etc.. (I think the latest ones are SACD'ed since it only makes sense) and you think 'hey, user friendly' (nevermind that the US versions are so friendly as to not even have the PAL conversion in them).

So regardless of your player you go and buy a couple of SACD hybrids (remember it's not the approved hi-def dvd audio standard so that cd layer is important...except sony wants to rule the world and most companies will license if they can). Great, the CD (as in SP of SPDIF CD red book part works fine and even plays through the analog subsystem on your receiver, while the SACD on certain sony's only comes through the optical out and requires analog input to be output as analog). So you use it, you buy some more, you use them in your computer, you use them in your car, more and more companies play SACD etc...you decide to upgrade your audio eq..you get a really great SACD players that still plays audio cds..only now they gotcha...

Because the installed base of non-redbook audio cd players grows to the point that suddenly disks AREN'T available w/ the cd hybrid layer..and reasoning...not consumer drm certainly..they'll throw on a dts layer or something to take up space and tell you that you get either SACD or dts depending on what your player supports.

What's the only place you're going to be ripping from? (just so ppl know that DRM'ed stuff that isn't passed along the analog bus on many units...is ALMOST always put out through the headphone jack..it's not fast and it's got the whole volume level issue, but it's there).

I say buy CD's that play in anything now only and never buy into the format shift unless you can also shift the format yourself without encumberance. Also reject any technology which fails to play something if it ISN'T DRM'ed (certain HDTV cons etc).

As for apple going into this.... All it will do is cut down on the availability of Audio CD's that aren't crippled. Since people can pirate from ITMS it doesn't really protect the companies, but it will happen. So Steve says yes to do what? It seems like if he says no and Apple keeps patching to play stuff w/ itunes they can just say 'hey, we made it so it only encodes to the hardware key of the ipod or computer it was ripped on and that's the DRM' and nobody can really argue w/ them (it just doesn't cripple the media or the machines).

People try to sue for software update when they should really sue for only 5 region changes on a laptop..go figure..

 

[yamabushi]

Copy protected disks just encourage people to find their music elsewhere. If the labels continue to add restrictions illegal downloads will increase and improve in quality. But they are paranoid and more interested in control than profit. So the labels will continue to work against their own best interests by increasing production costs and increasing piracy. Go figure.

 

[~Shard~]

Copy protected disks just encourage people to find their music elsewhere. If the labels continue to add restrictions illegal downloads will increase and improve in quality. But they are paranoid and more interested in control than profit. So the labels will continue to work against their own best interests by increasing production costs and increasing piracy. Go figure.

Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way...