Ripping & Code Breaking...is it a crime? - P2P-Zone

nanook · 30-12-01, 10:29 PM

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?

Scyth · 31-12-01, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nanook
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.

...

Did Patrick break the law by cracking Universal's encryption code?

Oh God. Garbage like the above is why I don't read TechTV. That article is horrible. With stuff like that passing as journalism, no wonder people are paranoid about so-called "spyware" monitoring browsing habits.

31-12-01, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scyth
With stuff like that passing as journalism, no wonder people are paranoid about so-called "spyware" monitoring browsing habits.

It's not really the matter of what it is that there monitoring, it's the fact that their doing it without my consent

Scyth · 31-12-01, 02:38 AM

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.

napho · 31-12-01, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scyth

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.

No one wants unseen home offices snooping on them relentlessly but people who think of ad banners as spyware and don't use the programs are missing out on alot of great software.

zombywoof · 31-12-01, 08:21 AM

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!!

JackSpratts · 31-12-01, 09:42 AM

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.

zombywoof · 31-12-01, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JackSpratts
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.

What it comes down to is that if you are purchasing it, there should never be any 'extras' burnt into the cd's for advertising. There's no excuse for it. Not that I'm not fond of ads tied to software but it would be a bit more understandable why they would peddle ads with some freeware.

31-12-01, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scyth
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 I have read some of the user agreements. Some of the ones that get me are the ones that offer personalized adds. How do they know what adds are of personal interest to me? And while the add program itself may not snoop often times adds alone will add cookies. What do cookies do?
Simple fact that the ad companies privacy policies are often vague and misleading.
Here is a quote from onflow

Quote:

Each time the Onflow Player displays images, it transmits data to our server such as the serial number of the Player, the image displayed, the web page in which it was shown and whether you moved your mouse over the image or clicked on it. This data does not identify you.

Good it doesn't identify me but it does report movements and actions hence the term "spy"

CYdoor

Quote:

Cydoor will sometimes query you by means of a registration form for demographic data (gender, age, interests, marital status, salary, area code, country, and education). We will not collect personally identifiable information such as name, address, or telephone number. All of this information is aggregated for the purposes of reporting to advertisers and ad sales organizations the performance of their ad campaigns, and to deliver content targeted to your interests.
Use of Cookies
According to the standards of the Internet advertising industry, third-party ad servers associated with our technology make use of cookies. Cookies, by default, are enabled in the browser, and the user can turn them off via the cookies disabling menu.

Webhancer

Quote:

All information collected by webHancer using the Customer Companion is anonymous - it cannot be tied to a specific individual. Examples of anonymous information that we collect are web page address, web page size, web page load time, web page completion state and network delay time. We do not collect or store any information that could be used to identify a person (name, street address, telephone number, email address, social security number, credit card numbers, etc.) Nor do we permit collected information to be correlated with other information to identify browsing habits of any specific individual (e.g. user IDs, passwords, search strings, etc.).

Simple fact it is still none of their bussiness. I like my privacy does this software actually violate it? Depends on how you look at it I guess? Some people think not because they don't collect personal information. Others "like me"

flat out don't care I don't want ads that are personalized. And in most cases I don't want ads at all.
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??

theknife · 31-12-01, 08:12 PM

Quote:

... 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....

...I've railed against Napster on the air for two years. I don't swap files online.

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

30-12-01, 10:29 PM	#1
nanook 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, 08:21 AM	#6
zombywoof 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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

31-12-01, 02:38 AM	#4
Scyth 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, 09:42 AM	#7
JackSpratts Join Date: May 2001 Location: New England Posts: 10,017	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.