Re: Reason #3 is the best reason in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r17315170 en Sat, 28 Nov 2009 07:41:57 EDT Sat, 28 Nov 2009 07:41:57 EDT Re: Reason #3 is the best reason http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17315500 backness : i'm pretty sure your right

It applies to the software layout of the disc as well things such as pre emphasis, playback gaps and a few other things]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17315500 Tue, 21 Nov 2006 07:46:38 EDT Re: Reason #3 is the best reason http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17315170 BF69 :
said by mobbo See Profile :

That's all I do; re-record my DRM music using software into MP3 format. I pay my $5/month for Yahoo music and just "dub" it. It retains all the sound quality of the regular DRM-ed file.
That's just theft. Just because you don't like DRM doesn't mean you can do that. If you like the songs so much pay the 79¢ they cost. People like you are the reason they justify the stupid DRM in the first place. Quit giving them excuses. No wonder Yahoo is jacking up the rate for their music subsciption. Thanks alot! $5 a month doesn't give you the right to keep thousands of songs. Most everyone here would say 25¢ is more than a fair price for a song. So at most you're entitled to 20 songs a month for your $5. If you are hard up for cash a full days work at Burger King can get you 50 songs from Yahoo.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17315170 Tue, 21 Nov 2006 03:50:55 EDT Re: Reason #3 is the best reason http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17313607 SRFireside : The reason Philips says DRM enabled disks cannot be considered compact disk audio is because of exactly what you said. Red Book standards are in place to make sure the CDs conform to specifications that make them play on every CD player built to those specifications. No so with many DRM technologies. A DRM disk will not play on all CD readers, thus not conforming to Red Book standards. Pretty cool decision on Philips part if you ask me. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17313607 Mon, 20 Nov 2006 21:43:05 EDT Re: Reason #3 is the best reason http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17313263 phaqu : The storage format specs for audio (16 bit resolution and 44.1kHz sample rate) is there for a universal compatible play back in standard cd players. Much like 45s (45 rpm) and Lps (33.3 rpm), in the old days of vinyl records, were the speed standards. If you played it faster or slower it would sound way different. If I made my audio cds at a 24 bit res and 96 kHz sample (what I record at and a better sounding,lower noise floor recording), they would not only not play in a regular cd player but would not have enough space on a regular cd. The files have to be dithered down to 16-44.1.Hence the red book audio storage specification standard. There are no stipulations as to what kind of data is written on the disc, just as long as the audio plays in a regular audio cd player and the tracks can be located. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17313263 Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:55:24 EDT Re: Reason #3 is the best reason http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17312338 mobbo : That's all I do; re-record my DRM music using software into MP3 format. I pay my $5/month for Yahoo music and just "dub" it. It retains all the sound quality of the regular DRM-ed file.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17312338 Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:42:17 EDT Re: Reason #3 is the best reason http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17311992 SRFireside : Red Book is an audio specification standard as well as the physical standards. Not only does the Red Book standard make specifications for the dimensions of the compact disk it also specifies the bit rate for the content (1411 Kbps), the parameters for disk readers (including error correction), modulation system and subcode channels (anybody remember CD+G?). The Red Book standard stipulates a CD layer at 1.2mm, while DRM enabled CD's have a thinner layer. That and the fact Red Book specifies no more than a bit allocated for anti-copying and you have a non-Red Book disk.

Interestingly enough since those DualDisk albums also have thinner layer (.9mm). As such they cannot be considered CD's either. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17311992 Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:59:51 EDT Re: Reason #3 is the best reason http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17311843 phaqu : Red book standards are manufacturing standards, not content standards.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17311843 Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:39:52 EDT Re: Reason #3 is the best reason http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17311593 SRFireside : Those disks cannot be classified as CD (not permitted to bear the trademarked Compact Disc Digital Audio logo) per Phillips because audio disks with DRM do not conform to the Red Book specification for CDs. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17311593 Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:02:55 EDT Re: Reason #3 is the best reason http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17311587 nixen :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by nixen See Profile :

said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

Assuming that the facts are correct that 99% of CD's for sale are really DRM free, then that does make one wonder why downloaded copies aren't also DRM free.
EVERY CD (music, not data-only) ever sold has DRM-free content. They had/have to in order to play in CD players.
NO, that is not accurate. If the CD was used on a PC , some did have DRM software included on the CD. Sure they could be heard on a plain old vanilla CD player, but they couldn't be ripped to a PC without the DRM coming into play. Remember the SONY rootkit fiasco.
/sigh

Really, genius-boy? So, you're saying that those hybrid/"enhanced" music CDs, playable in "vanilla" CD players, had no non-DRMed data on them?

And, yes, you most definitely COULD rip them on a PC without the DRM coming into play. All you had to do is disable the auto-run feature. The CD tracks were still available as rippable data separate from the "enhanced" content.

The Sony "rootkit fiasco" came from people allowing the code to run on their systems (either accidentally or intentionally). While Sony's to be condemned for victimizing the hapless, users need to take a bit of responsibility for what they allow to run or be installed on their systems.

-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17311587 Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:01:48 EDT Re: Reason #3 is the best reason http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17311505 TKJunkMail :
said by nixen See Profile :

said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

Assuming that the facts are correct that 99% of CD's for sale are really DRM free, then that does make one wonder why downloaded copies aren't also DRM free.
EVERY CD (music, not data-only) ever sold has DRM-free content. They had/have to in order to play in CD players.

-tom
NO, that is not accurate. If the CD was used on a PC , some did have DRM software included on the CD. Sure they could be heard on a plain old vanilla CD player, but they couldn't be ripped to a PC without the DRM coming into play. Remember the SONY rootkit fiasco.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17311505 Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:49:15 EDT Re: Reason #3 is the best reason http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17311399 nixen :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

Assuming that the facts are correct that 99% of CD's for sale are really DRM free, then that does make one wonder why downloaded copies aren't also DRM free.
EVERY CD (music, not data-only) ever sold has DRM-free content. They had/have to in order to play in CD players.

-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17311399 Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:32:45 EDT Re: Reason #3 is the best reason http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17311230 Jason Levine : I didn't say they were acting along logical reasoning. I said not many would argue that they were. I was going to say that no one here would argue that they were, but then I remembered Taylor. ;-)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17311230 Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:05:50 EDT Re: Reason #3 is the best reason http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17311127 Doctor Four : Since when did the RIAA act along logical reasoning?

They never have. Of course they're too blinded by
dollar signs to see that DRM in any form is a colossal
failure.

Even the BMG/Sony Rootkit fiasco is a lesson they've
failed to learn. One that will surely be repeated.

DRM itself is nothing but high-tech snakeoil. If it
can be heard or seen, it can be copied.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Destiny Of The Daleks)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17311127 Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:48:52 EDT Re: Reason #3 is the best reason http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17310197 Jason Levine :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

Assuming that the facts are correct that 99% of CD's for sale are really DRM free, then that does make one wonder why downloaded copies aren't also DRM free.
The fact is correct. In fact, you really can't have a DRM-encumbered CD. If you tried to make one, it wouldn't work with existing CD players. Some approaches have been tried, but they all have been laughably easy to defeat, most by disabling auto-run.

As for why downloadable copies aren't DRM-free, blame the RIAA. They still think that "Internet = Piracy" so they'll resist any efforts to put music online unless they can somehow control what gets done with the file and when. To do this, they need DRM.

In reality, no DRM scheme is perfect. At some point, the audio has to be decrypted to play it. This means that the DRM-ed file can be decrypted, put into a DRM-free format, and uploaded. For example, a user could connect one computer's Line Out port to another computer's Line In and use Audacity to record the audio. Or a person can simply buy a copy of the CD that the music also appears on and rip that.

In any case, the DRM just provides a tiny speed bump in the way of someone who wants to pirate the music. Putting that tiny speed bump in place costs quite a lot and it only really winds up impacting legitimate customers. Of course, not many would argue that the RIAA is acting along logical reasoning.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17310197 Mon, 20 Nov 2006 13:01:45 EDT Reason #3 is the best reason http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17309829 TKJunkMail :
3. Anyone selling content on CD is already selling unprotected files anyway. With the exception of debacles like the Sony rootkit, 99+% of all CDs sold contain unencrypted files. This means that anyone who sells content on CDs is making unprotected content available and that putting those files online is as easy as ripping them to MP3 files, a pretty simple task these days. What boggles my mind is record companies and publishers who are willing to make content available unprotected on CD but for some reason insist on copy protection for digitally downloaded files.
Assuming that the facts are correct that 99% of CD's for sale are really DRM free, then that does make one wonder why downloaded copies aren't also DRM free.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17309829 Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:48:40 EDT