dantz
join:2005-05-09
Honolulu, HI
 ·Hawaiian Telcom
| reply to dadkins
Re: Can't Copy Protected CDs still be cracked?
said by dadkins  :What about Copy Protection schemes/drivers that hose your computer? *cough* StarForce *cough* No warnings, just a thrashed system. In that case you should complain directly to the software manufacturer. I suggest that you threaten to publicize the problems and to boycott their products until they fix it. |
|
froggy58
join:2002-05-07
Cape Canaveral, FL
1 edit |  reply to dantz
The question at hand that "Started" this thread was:
"Can't somebody play the CD in the stereo, record it to cassette, then rip the songs from the cassette to the computer. Then maybe use software to clean up the sound then upload?"
Regardless of what forum this thread this is, the above was the question.
I simply said why bother when you can do it without issue, using existing programs out there, and yes an example was given.
Because I lost a few CD's related to scratches on the "Label" side, I create MP3's to keep from scratching my CD's due to regular use.
Personal use is simply just that, personal! Who's going to bother you when using it for such purpose? No one. Realizing this, why should I bother with a complaint campaign about copyright laws?
IMHO: The only ones that need to be burned are the ones that make cd copies and send them out to friends or trade MP3's on-line.
K |
|
performancemattersmo
@66.100.x.x
| reply to SpannerITWks
I'm a musician. I don't consider canned pieces of data "my work." Art is inherently different from other forms of "work." I think I can say most artists, genuine artists, I know don't make art to make a living, they make it to propose a philosophical expression or, less theoretically, because they enjoy working with the materials they use to make their art, whatever medium it be in. I think that musicians, in particular, should not become rich off of the digital replications of a series of sounds recorded in a contained and isolated studio bit by bit until the appearance of "music" exists. I like that musicians, should be forced to make their money off of performance, like musicians did for the past dozen centuries before the second half of the one that recently concluded. I love the fact that digital media is making my, and other true artists', works available in their recorded formats. All this distribution does is make audiences that much more receptive to what I am putting forward when I come to their city to perform. Then those audience members see the real think, they get to hear music, organic and real, made by human beings, in that moment. Notes that will never be heard exactly the same again.
Recordings are essentially promotional material that somehow duped people into paying for the equivalent of a copy of an oven that doesn't work.
People are so confused about the meaning of 'copyright.' Copyrighting is intended to prevent others from making money off of my intellectual property. When no one is charging for it, why are they violating a copyright? No one is stealing my work and pretending its theirs. Rather, they're simply enjoying something I, or any musician, did some time earlier and probably getting excited about the prospect of witnessing the real thing in a live venue.
The reason the big, rich majors and "artists" (read: talentless media tools) are so scared is because they know free file sharing forces them to actually give people a performance theyre will to pay for. They'll have to live on their performance skills, which are pretty much all studio smoke and mirrors. Small-scale recording and performance can only be the victor when people start demanding quality over tricks.
If you can't survive file-trading as an artist, you weren't an artist to begin with, you were a salesman. People not coming to your movies because they can just download it? Then change the nature of the movie experience into something communal and the audience will want to come and pay you for it. Imagine if you could meet and ask questions of the director of a film at his movie premiere. I'd pay for that rather than just download the movie.
File sharing is bad for big business, and that is good for art and the intellect of the general populace. |
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by performancemattersmo:
People are so confused about the meaning of 'copyright.' Copyrighting is intended to prevent others from making money off of my intellectual property. You are so confused about the meaning of 'copyright'. Copyrighting is intended to preserve your right to make money off your intellectual property -- that is, it reserves to you the right to make copies.
(You are of course under no obligation to either make copies, or make money from those copies).
You can easily look this up. »www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci
When no one is charging for it, why are they violating a copyright? If you chose to sell copies of your work for $99.95 (plus shipping and handling), and some guy starts giving away identical copies for free, then you could no longer profit from your own work.
The violation lies not in whether the other guy is or is not making money, it lies in the prevention of your right to do what you want with your own work.
(You of course are under no obligation to make copies, make money from those copies, or to prevent others from making copies. The law merely gives you the control over your work, if you want it.) |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
 ·Comcast
| reply to peggypwr1
One thing alot of people in this thread are blurring, copying AS A BACKUP to keep the original I/we purchased in pristine shape is not infringing on enyone's right to sell their work.
If you use the original to the point that it is so scratched it will not play, and you wish to listen to it further... go buy a new one?  I'll pass on that scheme(scam).
I can and will continue to backup any disc as I see fit. This is in no way depriving anyone of their due monies.
Sorry guys, it will happen.  |
|
IAgree
@upr.edu
 from:
dadkins
| I fully agree with those comments Dadkins. We should have every right to make a backup copy for our own uses, and like you said, IT'S GONNA HAPPEN.  |
|
djtim21
It's all good
Premium
join:2003-12-22
Buffalo Grove, IL
clubs:
2 edits | reply to dadkins
I agree 110%, and this is why:
I have a 4 year old niece (her birthday is this Saturday). She loves Shrek, she loves SpongeBob . Each DVD is around 10 to 20 bucks. She scratches the hell out of them.
I make a copy of each disk and let her play the copies - I am breaking the DMCA - but fair use comes into play.
I am NEVER going to pay for a new copy that I legally purchased in the first place. She can go through at least 1 DVD a month. I would consider this "Rental" - I'm not renting this - I own it.
To make this clear also - I am not distributing the disks to friends, or sharing them via P2P or any other means. I am also not downloading it, all media is purchased somewhere (Best Buy, Used disks at Blockbuster).
This is my legally paid for copy of the movies. I archive them, and when she destroys the copies, I still have the main disk, and she is happy when she can play them over and over.
Am I a bad guy - In the eyes of the DMCA Yes - I should be fined and put into jail.
Like everyone else is stating in here, as long as it's a "Backup" or "Fair Use" and not shared then it's going to continue.
I'll never purchase a CD or DVD where there is a "Program" that controls how I play it, and what I can do with it.
Edit - Spelled "Sponge Bob" wrong LOL 
Second Edit - Deleted the space for "SpongeBob" :p:p
--
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” - Edmund Burke |
|
koolman2
Premium
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK
·GCI.net
| said by djtim21 :I'll never purchase a CD or DVD where there is a "Program" that controls how I play it, and what I can do with it. ... or that you can break (i.e. CSS).
--
A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk, I have a work station. |
|
djtim21
It's all good
Premium
join:2003-12-22
Buffalo Grove, IL
clubs:
| Oh ya - DVD Decrypter, a Dual sided DVD and Nero is my best friend. I haven't tried DVD shrink yet, but I'm sure it will save a bit of $$ cause Dual sided media is expensive.
--
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” - Edmund Burke |
|
koolman2
Premium
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK | On an SDTV you can't tell the difference, although on a 480p or a computer screen you can. |
|
djtim21
It's all good
Premium
join:2003-12-22
Buffalo Grove, IL
clubs:
| Ya, I've got a Sony 46" wide screen HD, with a Sony home theater with progressive scan. I believe that I will see a difference, but I doubt she will.
--
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” - Edmund Burke |
|
koolman2
Premium
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK | But it's worth the savings for every disc.  |
|
raybrett
join:2001-02-20
Saint Louis, MO | reply to dave
Actually you begin to lose the quality with the first conversion to digital. |
|
MorpheusUK
join:2003-09-09
| reply to peggypwr1
Just one point, if you live in the UK there is no such thing as fair use. In theory at least if you want to copy your own CD or rip tracks for your own use then you legally need to get permission from the copyright holder. For obvious reasons this is completely unenforcable and if it were to be enforced would kill of the British portable audio market.
Recently I actually ended up with AlphaAudio files installed on one of my PCs after forgetting to disable autorun after a reinstall. AFAICT it installs an ASPI layer without any prompting which I obviously deleted but a lot depends on your drive using one of the drives in the machine I was able to rip the tracks in order to use on my Pocket PC, using the other drive I couldn't.
--
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they are not after you |
|
Batlad
@golden.net
| reply to whizkid3
She's referring to a hair brained copy protection scheme someone tried to introduce a year or two back that relied on Windows "autoplay" feature to install a piece of malware on your computer. That was supposed to prevent you from copying the CD on that computer, but it basically fell apart if you disabled autoplay by holding down shift while loading the CD, or if you used another operating system like Linux. Not to mention that if it relied on someone being stupid enough to click "yes" to installing the "CD-ROM Special features" because installing it "stealthily" would be prosecutable.
Even the pop news guys got into the act of saying how incredibly stupid it was. |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
1 edit | reply to dantz
said by dantz :This is the security forum, not the hackers forum. We should not be discussing specific techniques that can be used to evade CD copy protection. It would be more fruitful to discuss ways to change the copyright laws or the licensing agreements so that reasonable copying for personal use would be permitted, rather than encouraging people to become outlaws. ... In that case you should complain directly to the software manufacturer. I suggest that you threaten to publicize the problems and to boycott their products until they fix it. That's ridiculous!
1. The mods, not you, will decide what "we should not be discussing" in the forum.
2. Specific techniques to break copy protection are every bit as valuable to discuss as specific techniques to spread malware or infect systems. We discuss these all the time here. What the hell else do you think the Security Forum's for? Please Google on "white hats" and "security through obscurity".
3. Discussing "ways to change the copyright laws or the licensing agreements so that reasonable copying for personal use would be permitted" would seem, to me, to be some of the LAST things that would be appropriate in the Security Forum. They have almost nothing to do with Security, technology, or even personal privacy. They're legalistic and political discussions. Again, though, it's not for you or me to decide.
4. If you wish to discuss those "more fruitful" things, then certainly feel free to start a thread to discuss them.
There are lots of arguments to be made against rampant copyright infringement. But criminalizing people who want to back up their own CDs or DVDs (not to mention forbidding discussion of same) is just silly.
-- B
Edit: djtim21, you're still spelling it wrong. It's "SpongeBob".
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
dantz
join:2005-05-09
Honolulu, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| The last time I checked this was not a warez site. Discussions about techniques for breaking copy-protection are not appropriate for a reputable site like dslreports. I am merely expressing my opinion, and of course it's up to the mods to do as they see fit. |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| »www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&···G=Search
»www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&···G=Search
»www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&···G=Search
You puzzle me, because I thought I had read some insightful posts from you since you joined last month. You're just way off base here. Have you read the board before?
A warez site? Because somebody wants to talk about CSS or the latest misbegotten audio CD scheme (or just backing up their own tape for their own use)? You've gotta be kidding me. Ah well, talk about off topic. Sorry.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
djtim21
It's all good
Premium
join:2003-12-22
Buffalo Grove, IL
clubs: | reply to B
Corrected Again |
|
SpannerITWks
Premium
join:2005-04-22
| reply to peggypwr1
Copyright belongs to the owner/s of the copyrighted material, of and in whatever form that may take, that's the law !
If the Owner/s of the copyrighted material give Written Proveable permission for a person/s to copy that material, then that's legal.
If an artist/s says a person/s can copy their work/s but does NOT 100% own the rights to the material due a copyright contract with others, and ALL the interested parties in the copyright/s have Not also given their Written Proveable permission, then the artist/s are Totally incorrect and the information given is False and NOT legal.
Just because a person/s has made some Music or whatever does NOT mean they own the rights to it if they have signed a contract with others for ownership, as Most do and have, not all, but most.
Just for eg, the Beatles do NOT own all their music. EMI their previous joint publishing company with theirs, sold the rights to someone else MJ. He now gets the royalties not them. They had the chance to buy them back before the deal went thru, but declined.
Only if someone 100% owns the material can they allow others to copy it, if they Choose to do so.
If others Choose Not to do so then that is also their perogative.
The physical form or otherwise of copyrighted material, eg a legally bought CD/DVD/LP/Cassette/Book etc is owned by the purchaser and or gift recipient, but the ALL subject material contained within it is NOT. In other words you own the plastic and paper etc, but NOT the Music/Pictures/Words etc. If it wasn't obtained legally then just by definition that isn't legal anyway.
Whether people like it or not doesn't make Any difference whatsoever, if it's the law, it's the law, and it IS !
Making ONE copy of something for backup purposes Only IS legal.
So i hope things are a Lot clearer now for those that didn't realise.
Spanner
--
I Only Know What I Know But I'm Learning all The Time - Stay Safe - Spanner intheWorks/SpannerITWks |
|
