I just bought a new cd, 2004 release. I noticed on the cd cover is says at
the bottom "copy controlled - this disc contains Copy Control technology -
on some equipment, for example car CD players, playback problems may be
encountered". Ok, so I play the cd in my home stereo cd player (fairly
cheap consumer Sony) and it sounds good initially. But after a while, I
feel I could hear occasional digital "clicks and pops"... randomly and not
too often, but indeed heard some stuff going on here and there. But then I
get to the last 4 tunes, and there is a noticeable bad noise throughout the
songs... a repetitive "chop chop chop" noise... a digital type noise. I
then played the cd on a different newer Sony consumer CD/DVD player, same
exact thing.

Either I have a bad defective cd, or this "copy controlled" balony is
causing trouble. What is "copy control technology"? Has anyone else had
any bad experiences with it? This is the first I have heard of it.... and
my initial impression is not a good one.

I just bought a new cd, 2004 release.

what label?


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

In article ,
WideGlide wrote:

I just bought a new cd, 2004 release.

Why didn't you name the title? You didn't even name the label!

http://www.emimusic.info/us_EN/

I found the above link.... to EMI... talks about this Copy Control business.
So now I am wondering if all Copy Controlled cds will have digital noise and
other playback problems... or maybe I just got unlucky and got a bad disk
here. Some could argue that the cd format is "bad enough" as it is, but
gee, I sure hope they don't start doing things to make it worse. Digital
noises of any type cannot be tolerated at ALL. The money men who are so
worried about piracy would probably just assume that the average consumer
will never hear occasional minor digital clicks and pops. Such money men
would probably find that an acceptable trade off in order to run their copy
protection thing. All I can say is that anything that degrades the audio
itself in any way should be deemed a crime. I guess copy protection is a
good idea, as long as it does not cause any playback problems or
degradation.

Why didn't you name the title? You didn't even name the label!
-------------------

Sorry. Well, the title is "Stormwatch" by Jethro Tull. This title was
originally released on Chysalis in the late `70's, but was just re-released
in 2004 as "digitally remastered with bonus tracks". This new release
appears to be on EMI... but it says both "Chrysalis" and also "EMI" on the
various album cover panels. I guess Chysalis still owns the music, and EMI
is responsible for this new release. EMI is apparently responsible for this
"copy control" thing in any case.

I just realized... I specifically bought this cd so I could use it to make a
cool custom Jethro Tull compilation cd for my own enjoyment. But, if this
copy control thing really works, I will not be able to digitally dupe tunes
from this new cd. That sucks. Guess I will need to dub via analog, but my
duper clearly degrades quality when duping in "analog" mode... I guess they
do that on purpose. Ehhh...

I understand the desire to try to thwart piracy, but... I don't know, this
is just a problem. I run my own little label, and believe me, I have seen
first hand how piracy can really hurt a label... so I like the idea of
anti-piracy schemes in general, but... is there any way to "have it all"?

I think I will pull out my turntable again and just record my old vinyl copy
of Stormwatch onto a CDR.

In article ,
WideGlide wrote:

Sorry. Well, the title is "Stormwatch" by Jethro Tull. This title was
originally released on Chysalis in the late `70's

You make that sound like it was a long time ago :-)

EMI is apparently responsible for this
"copy control" thing in any case.

EMI, it figures.

Does the packaging bear the "Compact Disc Digital Audio" symbol?

If it does, you've been sold a defective product, plain and simple.
Otherwise, you're expected to understand that the round shiny object
is something other than a "compact disc."

"WideGlide" wrote in message
t...

Either I have a bad defective cd, or this "copy controlled" balony is
causing trouble. What is "copy control technology"? Has anyone else had
any bad experiences with it? This is the first I have heard of it.... and
my initial impression is not a good one.

That noise means the copy protection is doing it's job. This is what you
get, and you can thank the RIAA (and their members) for it. The best thing
you can do is take it back to the store you bought it from and ask for your
money back. Tell them the cd is defective, it won't play back properly in
your cd players (e.g. without noise), and that you don't want another copy
of the same disc because it is the copy protection that is causing the
problem. Then don't buy any more copy protected cds. In fact, to truly vote
with your wallet, if you want cds that are only released with copy
protection, go get them from Kazaa, the quality will be better and it will
help to make it clear to the labels that while you might take an inferior
product for free, you won't pay them for it.

ryanm

In article ,
WideGlide wrote:

I think I will pull out my turntable again and just record my old vinyl copy
of Stormwatch onto a CDR.

I'll bet you the price of the album that what you end up with has better
dynamics than the "CD" version.

Some of the best CD's I ever heard were obviously made just by recording
vinyl. (You could hear the stylus hit the groove!)

In article ,
ryanm wrote:

[Kazaa]

Are you actually advocating copyright infringement? That's no solution,
it's part of the problem.

The answer is to do without the products, period. Don't consume it.
Don't buy it, and don't "steal" it either. Just buy something else, if
you must consume.

The music industry benefits when you consume the product (rather, when
the medium consumes you.) They benefit whether you "get the song
through kazaa", whether you hear it on the radio, whether you buy a CD
at the bookstore. Don't support them. Don't consume the product.

I guess Chysalis still owns the music, and EMI
is responsible for this new release.

EMI bought Chrysalis Record catalog a long time ago. So the "responsible"
party for the release would be the catalog division called EMI-Capitol
Properties.

I am not aware of what they are using or when they add it. Interesting. I
know some folks there.. I'll dig around.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

"james" wrote in message
news:MAr6c.16756$uh.1032@fed1read02...

Are you actually advocating copyright infringement? That's no solution,
it's part of the problem.

No more or less than I advocate the deception by the labels that a copy
protected disc is a "Compact Disc". If they can lie to you and sell a truly
defective product under the guise of a commonly known standard, then I have
no compunction getting their product through the black market so that they
don't realize the profits for it. That said, I haven't done that myself, if
only coincidentally. I'm not interested in most of the new releases that
contain the copy protection so I can do without them, although the Tull
re-release was one I wasn't aware of.

ryanm

If they can lie to you and sell a truly
defective product under the guise of a commonly known standard, then I have
no compunction getting their product through the black market so that they
don't realize the profits for it.

Do we really know that the copy protection is causing this?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

In article ,
ryanm wrote:


"james" wrote in message
news:MAr6c.16756$uh.1032@fed1read02...

Are you actually advocating copyright infringement? That's no solution,
it's part of the problem.

No more or less than I advocate the deception by the labels that a copy
protected disc is a "Compact Disc".

I asked the original poster if the product actually bears the CDDA
logo. If it does not, and I presume that it does not, then I would
not agree with the premise that the label has "deceived" or lied.
Admittedly, it's a matter of fine print, and only an educated consumer
will know that there is an issue to be aware of in the first place, but
unless the product claims to be a certain type of media (by bearing the
logo), it's just a hair on the side of "proper".

On the other hand, if the product DOES bear that logo, the original
poster has evidence that certain companies including Philips could use
to, literally, make a federal case out of it.

But I assure you that it's the former. The product probably has
explicit disclaimers written on it.

contain the copy protection so I can do without them, although the Tull
re-release was one I wasn't aware of.

Likewise I must admit that this represents the first such item that
could have conceivably made its way into my own catalog.

In article ,
EggHd wrote:

Do we really know that the copy protection is causing this?

It's been widely reported that recent copy protection schemes
cause audible clicks and other diginoise on many players.
The counterclaim that the problem exists only on "old" gear has
also been questioned by people who experienced problems with
pro/broadcast players.

Philips has gone as far as to obtain court orders to enjoin distributors
from using the CDDA logo on any product which is not strictly compliant.

Part of me actually wishes that music, video, and software publishers
really did have a 100% effective distribution control scheme. Because
if they DID have that, they would be forced to realize that their
problems are due to the limited appeal of their product, and not due to
"piracy".

It's been widely reported that recent copy protection schemes
cause audible clicks and other diginoise on many players.

I haven't followed this. I have no clue how they are implementing copy
protection.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

WideGlide wrote:
I just bought a new cd, 2004 release. I noticed on the cd cover is says at
the bottom "copy controlled - this disc contains Copy Control technology -
on some equipment, for example car CD players, playback problems may be
encountered". Ok, so I play the cd in my home stereo cd player (fairly
cheap consumer Sony) and it sounds good initially. But after a while, I
feel I could hear occasional digital "clicks and pops"... randomly and not
too often, but indeed heard some stuff going on here and there. But then I
get to the last 4 tunes, and there is a noticeable bad noise throughout the
songs... a repetitive "chop chop chop" noise... a digital type noise. I
then played the cd on a different newer Sony consumer CD/DVD player, same
exact thing.

Either I have a bad defective cd, or this "copy controlled" balony is
causing trouble. What is "copy control technology"? Has anyone else had
any bad experiences with it? This is the first I have heard of it.... and
my initial impression is not a good one.

The data in CDs has a bit error correction scheme. The way this works
is that there is some redundancy in the data, so that a certain number
of bit errors can be tolerated and completely corrected. I recall
reading that one way that copy protection was being implemented was by
intentionally creating CDs that had enough bit errors in them to start,
that there was no more room for error correction. The idea was that
then any copy would accumulate audible errors, since any data errors
could not be corrected. This sounds like what you are experiencing from
the following snippets:

1. "On some equipment, for example car CD players, playback problems
may be encountered". Road vibration makes it harder to track a CD.

2. "I get to the last 4 tunes". The tracks spin faster as you move
towards the outside of the CD.

3. "Clicks and pops", then "chop chop chop noise". Like when the CD is
badly scratched. Data recovery problem. No more margin for error.

WideGlide wrote:
Either I have a bad defective cd, or this "copy controlled" balony is
causing trouble. What is "copy control technology"? Has anyone else
had any bad experiences with it? This is the first I have heard of
it.... and my initial impression is not a good one.

This was discussed about a month ago here, you might find it under 'Bandlink'.

I have several recent CDs with the copy control tech on it, and they surely
are not red book compliant. They are actually blue book, since they're
CD-extras containing two sessions; one audio and one data. The data session
is what you'll see inside a computer, and it presents a dedicated player
(that's on the same CD) allowing one to play the CD on the computer, though
this is not the case for all of the copy controlled CDs.

The workaround I found is quite simple: download and install the free
Isobuster software, insert the CD and you'll find two sessions. Click on
session 1 and all audio tracks are shown, then right click and select
extract to wav: voila! Burn a CD that'll play anywhere from this and use
the original as a coaster..

Luck, Arjan

--
----Real email: news then at then soundbyte then dot then nl----

I asked the original poster if the product actually bears the CDDA
logo... The product probably has explicit disclaimers written on it
-------------------

Hi... original poster here... I do not see any official "compact disc" logo
anywhere on the product. There is however a decal on the front of the jewel
case that says "copy controlled". Then on the back cover there is a pretty
large box that contains a bunch of text in different languages pertaining to
this copy controlled business. It does clearly say "on some equipment, for
example car CD players, playback problems may be encountered". I would
like to add that I ordered this disc online and had no idea about any of
this copy controlled baloney. Even if I had seen it, I probably would have
bought it anyway since I have never heard of this copy controlled thing and
would not have expected the cd not to work properly. It does not make much
sense that an audio cd would not work in an audio cd player.

I just played the disc on a pretty decent newer Denon cd player, used
headphones via the cd player headphone output... I did not have a chance to
play the whole disc through, but after checking out a few minutes of each
tune, I did not notice any digital clicks or pops. Overall the disc sounded
better in the newer player. The very last song unfortunately still has this
repetitive "chop chop chop" noise throughout, but it is lesser in relative
volume than on the older cheaper cd players. The second to last tune has
some random similar noises too. First 12 tunes seem ok though.

Seems that the older cheaper players are perhaps not able to deal with this
copy control thing. So I guess EMI expects the entire cd buying public to
own and use new $700 cd players...? Even the fact that they state that the
disc may have problems in car CD players... gee, I know many people whose
ONLY cd player is their car cd player, and what's wrong with that? I think
this copy control baloney is a REALLY bad thing. EMI should either get it
right or not use it! I wonder who's idea it was to implement such a system
in the first place. They are worried about losing money to piracy... I
think they will lose more when 80% of the people who buy the cds have
problems and return them. I guess they are assuming that most people just
can't hear occasional digital clicks and pops and they are probably right.

"WideGlide" wrote in message
t...
Why didn't you name the title? You didn't even name the label!
-------------------

Sorry. Well, the title is "Stormwatch" by Jethro Tull. This title was
originally released on Chysalis in the late `70's, but was just
re-released
in 2004 as "digitally remastered with bonus tracks".

Bummer. I was getting ready to buy that (being one of the Tull cd's in
serious need of some tweaking... muddy as hell). There doesn't seem much
point in remastering something if you proceed to **** it up with some kind
of embedded software with audible side effects.

Are you sure it's the US release? I've seen dutch cd's from EMI with the
'copy controlled' logo, but not in the US yet.

As far as making your compilation, there is no 'copy control' that will keep
you from doing that if you really want to. What I would worry about is the
fact that EMI ripped you off with defective audio.

I bet Ian Anderson is thrilled that from here on out all of his back catalog
on EMI will be made to sound like ****.

jb

"WideGlide" wrote in message
news
http://www.emimusic.info/us_EN/

I found the above link.... to EMI... talks about this Copy Control
business.
So now I am wondering if all Copy Controlled cds will have digital noise
and
other playback problems...

Did you get the UK release? The US release comes out soon and it might not
have the cc. technology... might be worth checking out. In the meantime, you
should demand a refund from EMI.

jb



or maybe I just got unlucky and got a bad disk
here. Some could argue that the cd format is "bad enough" as it is, but
gee, I sure hope they don't start doing things to make it worse. Digital
noises of any type cannot be tolerated at ALL. The money men who are so
worried about piracy would probably just assume that the average consumer
will never hear occasional minor digital clicks and pops. Such money men
would probably find that an acceptable trade off in order to run their
copy
protection thing. All I can say is that anything that degrades the audio
itself in any way should be deemed a crime. I guess copy protection is a
good idea, as long as it does not cause any playback problems or
degradation.

"james" wrote in message
news:jhs6c.16767$uh.727@fed1read02...
In article ,
ryanm wrote:


"james" wrote in message
news:MAr6c.16756$uh.1032@fed1read02...

Are you actually advocating copyright infringement? That's no
solution,
it's part of the problem.

No more or less than I advocate the deception by the labels that a
copy
protected disc is a "Compact Disc".

I asked the original poster if the product actually bears the CDDA
logo. If it does not, and I presume that it does not, then I would
not agree with the premise that the label has "deceived" or lied.
Admittedly, it's a matter of fine print, and only an educated consumer
will know that there is an issue to be aware of in the first place, but
unless the product claims to be a certain type of media (by bearing the
logo), it's just a hair on the side of "proper".


It doesn't matter to me what it says on the thing, if they take something
that sounds good and make it ****ty, they ****ing suck.

jb


On the other hand, if the product DOES bear that logo, the original
poster has evidence that certain companies including Philips could use
to, literally, make a federal case out of it.

But I assure you that it's the former. The product probably has
explicit disclaimers written on it.

contain the copy protection so I can do without them, although the Tull
re-release was one I wasn't aware of.

Likewise I must admit that this represents the first such item that
could have conceivably made its way into my own catalog.

WideGlide wrote:

I just bought a new cd, 2004 release.

From your description - if it contains said 'copy control technolgy' - it
therefore doesn't conform to the 'red book' standard for audio CDs and the
maker can be prosecuted for mis-selling if they suggest it is an 'audio CD'.
They may have chosen to use a sticker to advise this. If not - they are trading
illegally.

I noticed on the cd cover is says at
the bottom "copy controlled - this disc contains Copy Control technology -
on some equipment, for example car CD players, playback problems may be
encountered".

Did they display the standard audio CD logo though ? If so, they are in trouble
with Philips - the holder of the trademark.

Secondly - do you want to buy a 'CD' that may not play in your equipment ?

Ok, so I play the cd in my home stereo cd player (fairly
cheap consumer Sony) and it sounds good initially. But after a while, I
feel I could hear occasional digital "clicks and pops"... randomly and not
too often, but indeed heard some stuff going on here and there. But then I
get to the last 4 tunes, and there is a noticeable bad noise throughout the
songs... a repetitive "chop chop chop" noise... a digital type noise.

Yes - not surprising - the method degrades the signal such that older / cheaper
( or wore worn ) players are on the limit of data recovery.

I then played the cd on a different newer Sony consumer CD/DVD player, same
exact thing.

Unfortunate.

Either I have a bad defective cd, or this "copy controlled" balony is
causing trouble.

It causes trouble. It's the record industry's idea of making more profit by
preventing you copying it. Sadly it may also prevent you hearing it properly
too.

What is "copy control technology"? Has anyone else had
any bad experiences with it? This is the first I have heard of it.... and
my initial impression is not a good one.

Loads and loads - the record industry is in a state of terminal decline as
evidenced by intentionally issuing defective 'CDs'.

Graham


p.s. - take it back for a refund. You can probably get a better copy by using
the ( illegal ) file sharing services. Funny that - you buy an official copy
and it's worse than the 'free' version !

WideGlide wrote:

Why didn't you name the title? You didn't even name the label!
-------------------

Sorry. Well, the title is "Stormwatch" by Jethro Tull. This title was
originally released on Chysalis in the late `70's, but was just re-released
in 2004 as "digitally remastered with bonus tracks". This new release
appears to be on EMI

Oh yeah - EMI are one of the worst culprits.

Somehow the record industry thinks it can preserve itself from lousy sales due
to investing in useless performers by issuing defective 'CDs'.

EMI was one of the first to use 'copy control' - it *f**ks* the CD format.

It *may* play Ok on some CD players - a bit of a lottery really.

The record industry is sowing the seeds of its' own death. Amen.


Graham

reddred wrote:

In the meantime, you
should demand a refund from EMI.

Damn right !

I know of no other consumer sector where supply of 'damaged goods' is acceptable
!


Graham

"WideGlide" wrote in message
t...
is there any way to "have it all"?

Not unless you find some way to "force" every person in the world to follow
the "golden rule". So far, no one has.

"ryanm" wrote in message
...
That noise means the copy protection is doing it's job. This is what
you
get, and you can thank the RIAA (and their members) for it. The best thing
you can do is take it back to the store you bought it from and ask for
your
money back. Tell them the cd is defective, it won't play back properly in
your cd players (e.g. without noise), and that you don't want another copy
of the same disc because it is the copy protection that is causing the
problem. Then don't buy any more copy protected cds. In fact, to truly
vote
with your wallet, if you want cds that are only released with copy
protection, go get them from Kazaa, the quality will be better and it will
help to make it clear to the labels that while you might take an inferior
product for free, you won't pay them for it.

I agree with every thing you said EXCEPT the Kazaa thing. That will only
reinforce their claim that copy protection is needed. Don't fight your enemy
by becoming like them.

james wrote:

In article ,
ryanm wrote:

[Kazaa]

Are you actually advocating copyright infringement? That's no solution,
it's part of the problem.

No - it's the solution to the problem !

CDs are now capable of being manufactured for 'marginal cost'.

Have the record compamnies ever passed on this saving to us - the consumers
? NO !

Ppl vote with their feet - or PCs in this case. Sure it isn't legal - but
given the attitude of the record companies - would you wish to rush to their
defence ?

If CDs were $5 - I'm sure I would buy them. You can indeed buy them in
certain parts of the world for similar money - you just get ripped off if
you live in the West.

The answer is to do without the products, period. Don't consume it.
Don't buy it, and don't "steal" it either. Just buy something else, if
you must consume.

Tricky - if you're actually interested in the band in question.

The music industry benefits when you consume the product (rather, when
the medium consumes you.) They benefit whether you "get the song
through kazaa", whether you hear it on the radio, whether you buy a CD
at the bookstore. Don't support them. Don't consume the product.

I'll go out on a limb here. Sure, give me hell if you like. I've used file
sharing to 'preview' possible purchases since the material I'm interested in
is otherwise inaccessible.

I've followed it up with more CD purchases in one year than ever before !

Just another example of how dumb the record industry is.


Graham

EggHd wrote:

It's been widely reported that recent copy protection schemes
cause audible clicks and other diginoise on many players.

I haven't followed this. I have no clue how they are implementing copy
protection.

Multiple ways - all of which have at the minimum the potential to degrade
audio quality.

Graham

james wrote:

In article ,
ryanm wrote:

"james" wrote in message
news:MAr6c.16756$uh.1032@fed1read02...

Are you actually advocating copyright infringement? That's no solution,
it's part of the problem.

No more or less than I advocate the deception by the labels that a copy
protected disc is a "Compact Disc".

I asked the original poster if the product actually bears the CDDA
logo. If it does not, and I presume that it does not, then I would
not agree with the premise that the label has "deceived" or lied.

snip

UK consumer law comes into play specifically at this point ! At least with in
the UK.

The Sale of Goods Act makes certain requirements of the saleabilty of goods.

Included is a requirement that 'goods should be fit for the purpose' - this is
then further defined by a clause that IIRC roughly says 'as the consumer may
reasonably assume'.

So, in the UK - if you sell a 'CD' as a music CD, then claim that your 'legal
get-out' allows it not to be to a specification that works - you're in trouble !

Graham

WideGlide wrote:

I asked the original poster if the product actually bears the CDDA
logo... The product probably has explicit disclaimers written on it
-------------------

Hi... original poster here... I do not see any official "compact disc" logo
anywhere on the product. There is however a decal on the front of the jewel
case that says "copy controlled". Then on the back cover there is a pretty
large box that contains a bunch of text in different languages pertaining to
this copy controlled business. It does clearly say "on some equipment, for
example car CD players, playback problems may be encountered". I would
like to add that I ordered this disc online and had no idea about any of
this copy controlled baloney. Even if I had seen it, I probably would have
bought it anyway since I have never heard of this copy controlled thing and
would not have expected the cd not to work properly. It does not make much
sense that an audio cd would not work in an audio cd player.

I just played the disc on a pretty decent newer Denon cd player, used
headphones via the cd player headphone output... I did not have a chance to
play the whole disc through, but after checking out a few minutes of each
tune, I did not notice any digital clicks or pops. Overall the disc sounded
better in the newer player. The very last song unfortunately still has this
repetitive "chop chop chop" noise throughout, but it is lesser in relative
volume than on the older cheaper cd players. The second to last tune has
some random similar noises too. First 12 tunes seem ok though.

Seems that the older cheaper players are perhaps not able to deal with this
copy control thing. So I guess EMI expects the entire cd buying public to
own and use new $700 cd players...? Even the fact that they state that the
disc may have problems in car CD players... gee, I know many people whose
ONLY cd player is their car cd player, and what's wrong with that? I think
this copy control baloney is a REALLY bad thing. EMI should either get it
right or not use it! I wonder who's idea it was to implement such a system
in the first place. They are worried about losing money to piracy... I
think they will lose more when 80% of the people who buy the cds have
problems and return them. I guess they are assuming that most people just
can't hear occasional digital clicks and pops and they are probably right.

It seems you have awoken to the new idea of music distribution. How you choose
to access it in the future will no doubt be influenced by your experiences.

In the meantime, I suggest you return the horrible abortion of a thing for a
refund and make it 100% clear why so !

Graham

Arjan P wrote:

WideGlide wrote:
Either I have a bad defective cd, or this "copy controlled" balony is
causing trouble. What is "copy control technology"? Has anyone else
had any bad experiences with it? This is the first I have heard of
it.... and my initial impression is not a good one.

This was discussed about a month ago here, you might find it under 'Bandlink'.

I have several recent CDs with the copy control tech on it, and they surely
are not red book compliant. They are actually blue book, since they're
CD-extras containing two sessions; one audio and one data. The data session
is what you'll see inside a computer, and it presents a dedicated player
(that's on the same CD) allowing one to play the CD on the computer, though
this is not the case for all of the copy controlled CDs.

The workaround I found is quite simple: download and install the free
Isobuster software, insert the CD and you'll find two sessions. Click on
session 1 and all audio tracks are shown, then right click and select
extract to wav: voila! Burn a CD that'll play anywhere from this and use
the original as a coaster..

That's not the only method being used !

Another intentionally degrades the built-in error correction scheme. This is far
more troublesome, since further errors in manufacturing and transport errors can
result in un-correctable errors in the player - as seems to be the case here.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:

I agree with every thing you said EXCEPT the Kazaa thing. That will only
reinforce their claim that copy protection is needed. Don't fight your
enemy
by becoming like them.

I hear you !

Shame is - you're likely to get a better copy off Kazaa !


There's no doubt copy protection only punishes the law abiding citizen
though it does slow down those not tech savvy enough to figure a way around
the copy protection. But all it takes is one person to figure it out and
then it's up for grabs as if the protection never existed.

In article writes:

if this
copy control thing really works, I will not be able to digitally dupe tunes
from this new cd. That sucks. Guess I will need to dub via analog, but my
duper clearly degrades quality when duping in "analog" mode.

Well, you just need a super duper. Get a decent CD player and a decent
sound card and then it won't degrade enough to worry you.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Pooh Bear wrote:
That's not the only method being used !

Another intentionally degrades the built-in error correction scheme.
This is far more troublesome, since further errors in manufacturing and
transport errors can result in un-correctable errors in the player - as
seems to be the case here.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that type, and probably have been 'lucky'
enough so far to get the CD-extra type. It is really sickening to see that
kind of behaviour from multinationals that obviously can't think ahead
clearly about their own industry's future and act accordingly.

Unfortunately, even if Philips is winning every lawsuit against the use of
the CDDA logo on this type of bogus product, the average consumer wouldn't
look for the logo or see it as an indication for a certain quality. I had
considered earlier to take back the CD-extra type of 'protected' CDs, but
if I ever come across one of those error-rate types, I certainly will.

Luck, Arjan

--
----Real email: news then at then soundbyte then dot then nl----

In article ,
reddred wrote:

I bet Ian Anderson is thrilled that from here on out all of his back catalog
on EMI will be made to sound like ****.

I don't hold the artists harmless.

Fresh young neophytes, sometimes I can forgive them for the lopsided
contracts they sign.

Seasoned superstars, who represent the very essence of what constitutes
success in the entertainment industry, ought to know better.

In article ,
WideGlide wrote:

Hi... original poster here... I do not see any official "compact disc" logo
anywhere on the product.

Uh oh. There's the rub. The candy box clearly says "warning: contains
lark's vomit."

There is however a decal on the front of the jewel
case that says "copy controlled". Then on the back cover there is a pretty
large box that contains a bunch of text in different languages pertaining to
this copy controlled business. It does clearly say "on some equipment, for
example car CD players, playback problems may be encountered".

You could say that "playback problems" are *always* encountered, even on
high-end players with substantial error correcting logic. Because the
"protection" scheme requires on the error correcting logic in order for
the disc to play. It's a defective product from the consumer's point of
view, and since it's a consumer product, there is no other point of view
that bears considering.

I would
like to add that I ordered this disc online and had no idea about any of
this copy controlled baloney.

Depending on the laws in your state, if this merchandise crossed a state
line on its way to you, the seller might be obligated to refund your
money. Don't back down from the "defective product" angle.

The hard part for you comes from the fact that there is no CDDA label on
the package. So, in a sense, it is almost the same as complaining that
the product isn't edible, or asking why you can't play a DVD on your CD
player, or even asking why a blank CDR doesn't contain piano works of
Hayden. Because in the most strict interpretation, nobody ever gave you
any assurance about the usability of the product, and even warned you
that it had defects!

Even if I had seen it, I probably would have
bought it anyway since I have never heard of this copy controlled thing and
would not have expected the cd not to work properly. It does not make much
sense that an audio cd would not work in an audio cd player.

In the strictest sense, it is not an "Audio CD". It's a round shiny
thing that looks like an audio cd. But it's actually something else.

Even the fact that they state that the
disc may have problems in car CD players...

They were forced to put the disclaimers on the product (and to remove
the CDDA label) as a result of legal threats from Philips, etc.

In article ,
Pooh Bear wrote:

CDs are now capable of being manufactured for 'marginal cost'.

Have the record compamnies ever passed on this saving to us - the consumers
? NO !

Maybe in a socialist state, with state-owned and controlled music
distribution, only the marginal cost of production will be relevant.
Is that what you want?

I'm no advocate for the status quo of the music industry, but I also
don't agree that the reduced cost of production aren't passed to the
consumer. They are, just not to the degree that you would like.

It doesn't justify copyright infringement. Not because "copyright
infringement is wrong, m'kay", I'm not talking about the legal or moral
implications of that today. Rather it has several consequences that are
not obvious, and also counterproductive as a catalyst for change.

1. "piracy", whether it's small-potatoes distribution of lossed mpegs
or the full-scale production shops in the middle east and asia, gives
credibility to any argument that the media companies care to make in
defence of their business model. The media cartels' response to the issue
has been severe, and ultimately threatens the very structure of
entertainment law and technology law in the US and elsewhere.

2. "piracy" gives exposure and broadens the distribution of a work which
would otherwise simply sit unsold on the shelf in its shrink wrap,
eventually being sold as a "cutout" item in a sidewalk sale. If YOU
distribute the material FOR Them, they get it both ways -- the B-stock
disc *AND* the distribution *AND* they get to complain about it *AND*
use it as a tool against the consumer and the citizen.

Ppl vote with their feet - or PCs in this case. Sure it isn't legal - but
given the attitude of the record companies - would you wish to rush to their
defence ?

In this case, I'm on the side of the record company. I don't think
artists should sign contracts with these companies though. They do so
willingly.

The answer is to do without the products, period. Don't consume it.
Don't buy it, and don't "steal" it either. Just buy something else, if
you must consume.

Tricky - if you're actually interested in the band in question.

Yes, it's difficult. Doing without, means, DOING WITHOUT. It is easier
for me, because my interest in an artist tends to wane dramatically when
I discover that they have signed a contract with a certain media
corporation.

I've followed it up with more CD purchases in one year than ever before !

So you help the media corporations three times. Once, by giving them a
free distribution channel. Again when they use your participation in
that distribution as a weapon against you in Congress (I know you're a
UK-ian, Graham, bear with me), and yet a Third time when you give them
your money at the record store.

All this would be okay with me if it weren't for that second part (I
really don't appreciate the idea that the Entertainment Industry buys
laws.)

Just another example of how dumb the record industry is.

Anti-consumer, and anti-free-expression, certainly, but not "dumb."

The people calling the shots know damned well what they're doing, and
it's not a mistake.

"james" wrote in message
news:ZqF6c.18772$uh.10933@fed1read02...
In article ,
reddred wrote:

I bet Ian Anderson is thrilled that from here on out all of his back
catalog
on EMI will be made to sound like ****.

I don't hold the artists harmless.

Fresh young neophytes, sometimes I can forgive them for the lopsided
contracts they sign.

Seasoned superstars, who represent the very essence of what constitutes
success in the entertainment industry, ought to know better.


'Seasoned Artists' more often than not have little control over what happens
to their releases on a label they never signed with, that acquired those
assets through mergers.

Tull and Anderson are with an indie now.

jb

'Seasoned Artists' more often than not have little control over what happens
to their releases on a label they never signed with, that acquired those
assets through mergers.

They may have say over content and most likely have re negotiated their deal
over the years. BUT they won't have any say regarding copy protection.

Tull and Anderson are with an indie now.

Fuel 2000 run by the very capable Len Fico.




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

In article ,
reddred wrote:

'Seasoned Artists' more often than not have little control over what happens
to their releases on a label they never signed with, that acquired those
assets through mergers.

But it means they signed with SOMEBODY who wasn't their friend, and it
also means they didn't bother to buy their copyrights back when they
became rich enough to do so. I realize most of them are in fact
anything but rich, and this might never be an option. I also realize
that my complete lack of talent or motivation guarantees that my own
copyrights will never be in the hands of anyone but me; how's that for
irony?

Tull and Anderson are with an indie now.

Good to know. I had the pleasure of meeting Martin Barre once. Nice
guy, he's on the very short list of rock stars who talked to me long
enough that I was the one who ended up excusing myself from the
conversation. (That list also includes Iggy Pop, and Dwayne Goettel
from Skinny Puppy.)