|
Peer to Peer The 3rd millenium technology! |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
30-12-01, 10:29 PM | #1 |
just one of the gang...
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,777
|
Ripping & Code Breaking...is it a crime?
Talkback: Is Ripping a Crime?
By Patrick Norton December 19, 2001- here I wouldn't be so miffed if it wasn't for Coltrane. I own quite a few Coltrane CDs -- mad jazz saxophone player from the '60s. Timeless. If you've never heard "A Love Supreme," well, you've missed out. It's one of the only things that can keep my shattered skull together at the tail end of a business trip; that CD has logged tens of thousands of miles with me. As a matter of fact, I'm on at least my second copy of the CD. The first one disintegrated from sand in my bag and general travel wear. I've been hoping to avoid buying a third copy: I travel with much of my favorite music in MP3 format on my notebook's hard drive, transferring it piecemeal to a portable MP3 player pending on what I'm desperate to have pumped into my ears. That could be a massive problem in the near future. A big chunk of Coltrane's catalog is on Verve. Universal owns Verve. Universal announced yesterday that by mid-2002, their entire catalog would be copy protected. And frankly, I'm miffed. I've railed against Napster on the air for two years. I don't swap files online. Yet, because of the rampant online theft of files, Universal is going to make it seriously difficult to enjoy CD audio in other forms. Worse yet, by copy protecting the disc, they're hiding that music behind the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). OK, I'm curious... Universal's first copy-protected CD, "Fast & Furious -- More Music," debuted yesterday. The music isn't much to listen to, but I had to see what the disc would look like. A PA managed to track down a copy from a local CD shop. (Nice note to Universal Music here: It's good of you to put the warning sticker on the case... your return policy is a great idea. I sense a serious future for it.) One would assume the copy protection chosen by Universal to be fairly gnarly. And, at first, Midbar Tech's Cactus Data Shield sounds robust. At least Midbar's promises sound big: "The Cactus Data Shield series is a comprehensive, long-term solution, which protects content on optical media from unauthorized digital replication and conversion to compressed files for online distribution. "This patented technology offers an unrivaled ready for market set of deliverables. CDS has industry test proven to deliver the highest level of copyright protection while enabling consumers to enjoy top quality audio. It is compatible with existing player technologies, flexible and able to meet the specific needs of any given music provider, and renewable for future generations of equipment and piracy challenges." Unfortunately, that same copy protection prevents the disc from playing in anything other than a standard CD player or Windows PC. In fact, normal Windows software won't play a Cactus-protected disc without a special player written onto the disc. The CactusPJ is a rather weak player, but we'll discuss that later. And, yes, we tried Winamp, WMP, MusicMatch, and a host of others. Midbar Tech is somewhat less forthcoming as to how their technology works. The website simply states: "The Cactus Data Shield copy protection slightly alters the information on the CD in several ways while maintaining perfect audio quality." CDR-Info offers more substantial information as to how the process works -- at least at the CDS100 and CDS200 levels. No one seems to have any information on the CDS300 level. Not surprisingly, if you click on a link from Midbar Tech's site, it blocks your entry, stating, "The information provided within this section is confidential to Midbar Tech." And, we suppose, it's confidential to their customers, too. Sounds tight. But a few short hours experimenting with some freely downloadable software off the Web (hypothetically, CloneCD and CDex, though others work as well), yielded bit-for-bit copies of the CD. In fact, I was able to create MP3 files from the disc with relative ease after figuring out the "formula" to see the CDA files on the disc. This, as it turns out, may well be for naught. A number of the systems we've found in-house don't see the disc as copy protected. They simply see a normal audio CD. We're still trying to figure out what that's all about. We have no idea what mods on those systems produce this result, since it happens on both Win98 and WinXP boxes. Adding insult to injury... it's spyware! To add insult to injury, the sad little Windows player included is spyware! At least that's what Ad-Aware 5.6 thinks. Hmmm... I'm not sure I'm real comfortable with this on my PC. I can't help but notice the timing: December 18, Universal announces that by mid-2002 all their CD audio discs will be copy protected, rendering them impervious to ripping to MP3s, ostensibly to prevent Universal's catalog from being ripped to MP3s and traded online via the growing horde of nefarious Napster clones. Did I mention I'm miffed? At least the disc worked on every consumer CD player I've stuffed it into. More on this as we learn it... Did Patrick break the law by cracking Universal's encryption code? Should they lock him up and throw away the key? Let's hear it in the Talkback section below the poll. Should Patrick be thrown in jail? what r your thoughts?
__________________
"rock on, all" |
31-12-01, 12:28 AM | #2 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 454
|
Re: Ripping & Code Breaking...is it a crime?
Quote:
|
|
31-12-01, 12:47 AM | #3 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Re: Ripping & Code Breaking...is it a crime?
Quote:
|
|
31-12-01, 02:38 AM | #4 |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 454
|
Doing what without your consent? Displaying ads? 'Cause that's all software needs to do to have Ad Aware class it as spyware (check the Lavasoft website if you don't believe me). Also, how far must a program go to get your consent? Of the few pieces of software that actually do monitor your browsing habits (BonziaBuddy for example), currently all have a privacy policy posted on their respective websites and a description what they do in the EULA that users must agree to in order to install the software.
Yes, there have been a few problems with actual non-consentual spying. And this shouldn't be allowed to happen. However, Ad-aware is useless at stopping it. The lavasoft folks are just spreading FUD in an attempt get people to buy their software, Since they're a business, so as long as they don't lie outright, I'm willing to accept that. But when the media decides whether or not to called something spyware based on whether Ad-Aware notices it, it really upsets me. |
31-12-01, 05:30 AM | #5 | |
Dawn's private genie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: the Canadian wasteland
Posts: 4,461
|
Quote:
|
|
31-12-01, 08:21 AM | #6 |
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,160
|
Reading that article, the one thing I get out of it is that Patrick Norton seems to be a hypocrite. With quotes like:
I wouldn't be so miffed if it wasn't for Coltrane. I've railed against Napster on the air for two years. I don't swap files online. Yet, because of the rampant online theft of files As a matter of fact, I'm on at least my second copy of the CD In fact, I was able to create MP3 files from the disc with relative ease after figuring out the "formula" to see the CDA files on the disc. Seemed like it was ok for him to publicly lash out at bashing file swapping but when it came to his favorite artist trying to copy protect his music, he didn't like it and went as far as to try and bypass the protection. Who knows, this guy could have been a closet napster user. Lashing out at those who use it while downloading his favorite Coltrane tunes. BTW........ Nanook Rubs It Hi nanook!! Last edited by zombywoof : 31-12-01 at 08:54 AM. |
31-12-01, 09:42 AM | #7 |
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,024
|
spyware or no spyware, no matter how you define it (and i like the way ad-aware does) when i buy a cd i don't expect it to send me ads when i play it or to leave a permanent app on my pc that phones home for a new commercial. you'd have to pay ME for that, not the other way around and i didn't hear vivendi offering to do so.
that's taking liberties with my familly i don't appreciate. it's yet another reason to loath these new media conglomerates. - js. |
31-12-01, 09:53 AM | #8 | |
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,160
|
Quote:
|
|
31-12-01, 10:14 AM | #9 | ||||
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Simple fact that the ad companies privacy policies are often vague and misleading. Here is a quote from onflow Quote:
CYdoor Quote:
Webhancer Quote:
I respect your opinion Scyth and even agree to a point. But there remains a simple fact I don't want ads personal or not. I don't want my mouse movements monitored etc. That I take as an invasion of my privacy regardless of the degree. And if it wasn't collecting information "spying" they probably wouldn't need for me to accept a user agreement? All I want is an option to decline the software when installing another program!! And often times the 3rd party software "adware/spyware" has installed after I have aborted the install after reading the policy. Where did they ask for my permission in these cases?? |
||||
31-12-01, 08:12 PM | #10 | |
my name is Ranking Fullstop
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
|
Well...
Quote:
well, I'm gonna stay out of the spyware argument, but I find it ironic that this guy exemplifies one of the classic music-swapping arguments: he's paid for the rights to own a copy of this music at least twice - why should he have to pay again? I say.....keep trading |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|