AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,202 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
What is the deal with the new Phillips CD recorder being heavily advertised these days. It appears this unit could simply dub CD's although it's marketed for making personal compilation CD's.


I know the RIAA? sucessfully delayd and complicated the debut of DAT a few years ago and basically scared it out of the consumer market.


Why are they standing for this? With all the 5C crap today, I can't see how this CD burner is allowed under the DCMA.


Yes, there are and have been ways to do this with PC hardware but it was complex and only power users could do it. This thing makes it a household item.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,517 Posts
The DMCA only prohibits the manufacture, sale, distribution and use of means for defeating electronic mechanisms for preventing the copying of copyright protected digital media. Current CDs have no such protections applied to them--there are no such provisions in the audio CD "Red Book" specification.


The RIAA and its various members are trying to get electronic means developed to prevent the ripping of CDs. I was reading a bit in the latest Sound and Vision Magazine last night about this (or possibly Home Theater--I was flipping through both). There are something like five or six copy-prevention formats undergoing test right now. Most of these have been used on published discs without informing the buyers, in order to see whether there's any complaint about any obvious effects on audio quality.


Evidently these electronic copying counter-measures make the CDs non-Red-Book-compliant, in a way that may defy the letter of the license that Philips grants to CD publishers--Philips is examining the issue and deciding what, if anything, they want to do about it. They do, after all, sell a few well advertised CDR decks, so they have a vested interest in CD's remaining copy-able.


So a day may come when most CDs are published in such a way as to inhibit these CDR decks from copying them as well as to prevent them from being ripped into MP3 or any other such format. Note, however, nothing will stop you from making analog copies, even onto digital media. There will definitely be a backlash over this--there's definitely legislation that makes it legal to make copies of things that you have purchased for your own personal use. It's just not legal to sell those copies or to even give them to friends. Allowing the legal use while preventing the illegal is the trick.


-- Mike Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,096 Posts
Hi All,

You can make one direct digital to digital copy from the orignal source to a reordable CD or MD(Mini Disc)(First Generation)

You can not make a digital copy of the copy.


This was completly explained in the User's Manual for the Sony CD player MD recorder deck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,151 Posts
Not too get too deep, but this issue goes beyond the dichotomy of a home CD-recordable deck actually endorsed by the folks you would think would prevent it's very existence. Every (seemingly advanced) recordable medium that has come along in the last 20 years has followed the same pattern:

1) We can't allow it

2) I guess we can't stop it

3) It looks like we could actually make $$ on this (see how they charge more for "music" CD-R's than the standard ones we use in our PC's)

I think the CD-R folks have reached #3; of course the rest of us have been burning custom CD's and MP3's for (at least) 3 years now (and I have *never* copied/encoded a CD I didn't already own)!

My point is, DVD/HDTV and every other (future) new medium will also go through these stages. It seems that the music and movie studios feel compelled to create a lot of pain before they finally wake up and realize that the legitimate $$ far outweigh the piracy--as long as they don't gouge the consumer.

I only hope this line of thinking doesn't make my "old" HDTV obselete.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,884 Posts
Most of those protection efforts are just an annoying exercise in futility.


For instance I noticed yesterday in The Register than someone has apparently now posted a crack of the Microsoft digital rights management scheme.


Another one down, after large monetary investments and bad PR.


- Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,517 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by trbarry
Another one down, after large monetary investments and bad PR.
When has Microsoft ever given a damn about bad PR or backed away from investment? The development of DRM was a profit-seeking activity. Even if it has been truly broken, I'm sure they'll just try again.


Did any company actually use Microsoft's DRM for online music sales, anyway?


-- Mike Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
The relevant legislation covering consumer digital audio recorders (standalone audio CD recorders, audio MD recorders, audio DAT recorders) is the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act) of 1992.


This legislation codified the consumer's right to make a digital copy of an audio recording. Digital audio recorders sold to consumers (with consumer connectors, i.e. RCA-type jacks) through consumer retail channels, feature SCMS (serial copy management system), which permits first generation digital dubbing, and prohibits second generation digital dubbing.


As Bruce mentioned, you can make a digital copy of a CD, but the digital copy cannot itself then be digitally dubbed via a consumer digital audio recorder.


For standalone audio CD recorders, the AHRA differentiates between an "audio" CD-R/RW and a "data" CD-R/RW. Consumer CD recorders cannot write to a data CD-R/RW, only to an audio CD-R/RW. An audio CD-R/RW blank features a different ATIP (Absolute Time In Pre-groove) code than a data CD-R/RW blank.


CD and other digital recorders sold through professional retail channels (studio equipment dealers, pro audio shops) with professional connectors (i.e. XLR jacks) do not require the inclusion of SCMS. Those machines typically either do not feature SCMS, or they feature an SCMS on/off switch. They can write to either "audio" blank media or to "data" blank media.


Consumer CD audio recorders are "taxed" at 2% of landed cost, and consumer audio CD-R/RW blank discs are "taxed" at 3% of landed cost. The collected funds are paid to the Copyright Office, and distributed to "interested parties", i.e. copyright holders (record labels, music publishers, etc.).


The above applies to standalone digital audio recorders (whose principal function is digital audio recording). The AHRA requirements do NOT apply to computer CD burners, as it cannot be shown that digital audio dubbing is their principal function.


Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,517 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveNJ
The above applies to standalone digital audio recorders (whose principal function is digital audio recording). The AHRA requirements do NOT apply to computer CD burners, as it cannot be shown that digital audio dubbing is their principal function.
And that, of course, is the problem that the industry is trying to address. They are trying to modify the media in a fashion that will stop bit-wise digital dubbing by computer CDROM equipment and to stop audio CDs from being ripped into MP3s or other compressed formats. According to the little piece on this I read (at the bottom of page 16 in November's Sound and Vision), two of the five systems they've examined won't even let the material be played on a PC. (Well, to be fair, one of these will let you unlock the content over the internet for playback on one particular PC). They have a later article in the magazine (page 45), that talks about how Macrovision's system, "SafeAudio", actually damages the music for legal playback. But we all know Macrovision's history on that score. :)


So the music industry is trying to prevent illegal copying by means that might prevent legal copying and they don't care. Once again, trying to close the barn door after the cow's run off. I think that they should give up and CDs and stop publishing new material on them. Create a new format (like SACD or DVD Audio) with built-in copy-protection with CGMS to cover "Fair Use".


-- Mike Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,884 Posts
Quote:
So the music industry is trying to prevent illegal copying by means that might prevent legal copying and they don't care. Once again, trying to close the barn door after the cow's run off. I think that they should give up and CDs and stop publishing new material on them. Create a new format (like SACD or DVD Audio) with built-in copy-protection with CGMS to cover "Fair Use".
But then they have to hold the old format off the market and convince people to buy new players whose main function is that it becomes more restrictive to use.


That is a tough hurdle to get over. CD players are already ubiquitous and it will be tough to convince CE manufacturers that it is their best interest to create players that can not play CD's.


Meanwhile CD's are already more than good enough quality for the mass market. I think they are somewhat up a creek.


I wonder how they will limit the sound and video quality once MTV goes HD? :confused: (not meaning to start an MTV rumor)


- Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
"Consumer CD audio recorders are "taxed" at 2% of landed cost, and consumer audio CD-R/RW blank discs are "taxed" at 3% of landed cost. The collected funds are paid to the Copyright Office, and distributed to "interested parties", i.e. copyright holders (record labels, music publishers, etc.)."


It's my understanding that so-called "audio-cds" collect a significantly higher fraction than what you've stated for distribution to the record companies - something on the order of $0.50 per disc. If your statistics are indeed correct, I really have to wonder what's going on here - "audio-cds" typically run about $1 apeice in retail outlets such as Best Buy, while "data-cds" typically go for $0.20 - $0.50 each.


In my particular case, this is why I do not own a "cd-r deck". I will not give any $$$ to the RIAA members for an assumed "piracy surcharge" under any circumstanes. It's interesting to note that at least one sound-card company includes software to remove "pops and clicks" from MP3 files that would be introduced by deliberate errors on the original cd - it seems that consumers are not the only entity that finds this kind of scheme obnoxious.


By the way - for the record, you are indeed allowed to give copies of data (be it music, movies, or otherwise) to others. The only stipulation in current copyright case law is that it be non-commercial in nature - i.e., money or other considerations may not change hands in the exchange.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Mike,


My earlier comments were intended to address Glimmie's question as to why a standalone CD recorder could be marketed after passage of DMCA.


As I mentioned, standalone CD recorders and the like, as well as PC CD-ROM burners, along with blank media, as well as pro-use recorders, are covered under the AHRA, with significant distinctions.


DMCA addresses numerous additional issues not covered by AHRA, including the conversion and subsequent distribution (especially via the internet) of copyrighted program material, and circumvention of copy-protection technologies, etc., as they apply to PC-CD-R/RW burners, etc. DMCA is a much more complicated act than is AHRA, and has many more consequences. My earlier comments were only intended to address the AHRA and how it applies to the standalone CD recorders Glimmie was talking about.


Your comment: "Current CDs have no such protections applied to them--there are no such provisions in the audio CD "Red Book" specification" isn't quite correct as audio (music) CDs have always had a copy-prohibit bit in the subcode that the issuer (record company) can have set to "on" or "off" at the time of mastering. AHRA and SCMS-compliant standalone CD recorders actually permit bit-for-bit digital dubbing even if the original CD is "copy-prohibited", something that was not foreseen at the time the Red Book was originally authored.


The IFPI (recording industry worldwide association) and RIAA (US recording companies) are not today as much concerned about standalone CD audio recorders, and to the extent that audio CDs that conform to Red Book standards (and audio CD-R/RWs that conform to Orange Book standards), DMCA does not principally address these issues either. That battle was settled in 1992 via AHRA, 4 years prior to DMCA.


What the IFPI and RIAA are more concerned about today is the "ripping" of audio CDs, via PC CD-ROM, to MP3 and other compressed formats as you mentioned, and the subsequent "posting" of these to the internet, where one user "rips" an audio CD and then thousands or even millions of copies are freely distributed without any recompense to the original copyright holder. That's not fair use as envisioned by the authors of the AHRA, and something that the RIAA (and MPAA, of course) are very concerned about.


Philips' interest in Red Book CD-A compatibility concerns mass-produced audio CDs and their compatibility with standalone music CD players. They are somewhat less interested in whether or not a music CD can or cannot be "ripped" and subsequently distributed via internet, etc., from a PC CD-ROM reader. That is not to say that they are entirely disinterested, though. Their principal concern is/has been that a consumer who buys an audio CD can reasonably be assured that that CD will in fact play back in their home/car/portable CD player.


The "trick", as you point out, is to allow "fair use", which as defined under AHRA, is the ability of a consumer to make a legitimate copy of a CD (wholly, or in part) digitally, for personal use.


CD-ROM readers in PCs are not principally audio CD players (although that may be a "feature" that is provided). Compatability issues in Red Book and Orange Book for CD-A refer to playback in Red Book-compatible standalone CD (audio) players. The Red Book has been recently revised, so that later-model audio CD players (at the discretion of the CD player manufacturer) can recognize CD-RW discs; some of the newer CD players tout this as a feature. CD-R and CD-RW playback compatability in DVD-V/A players is an option, not a requirement by the way, as CD audio playback itself is an option, not a required feature, in DVD-V/A players.


About your last comment in your post: "Create a new format (like SACD or DVD Audio) with built-in copy-protection with CGMS to cover "Fair Use" ", the music CD format is almost 20 years old, and it is unreasonable to expect that a replacement such as DVD-A or SACD can be quickly embraced by the entire marketplace in a short time. Many hundreds of millions (not just a few million, or even a few hundred thousand) players need to be in use worldwide before a format can be considered "universal", and no hardware or software company can accelerate the deployment of a new system in a very short (a few years) time. The compact disc format has, at the least, 10 years of useful lifespan left in it (and perhaps as much as 20 years). We shall see.


I think it is unreasonable to expect the music industry to quickly/immediately "stop" releasing music CDs as it is as comparatively unreasonable to expect the movie studios to"stop" producing as-relatively unprotected VHS releases in favor of CGMS-protected DVD-V discs. Chronologically speaking, changeover time frames from one primary release/distribution format to another are measured in multiples of years, not months, and can't be "hurried up" to suit the whims of interested parties.


Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by dkeller_NC
"Consumer CD audio recorders are "taxed" at 2% of landed cost, and consumer audio CD-R/RW blank discs are "taxed" at 3% of landed cost. The collected funds are paid to the Copyright Office, and distributed to "interested parties", i.e. copyright holders (record labels, music publishers, etc.)."


It's my understanding that so-called "audio-cds" collect a significantly higher fraction than what you've stated for distribution to the record companies - something on the order of $0.50 per disc. If your statistics are indeed correct, I really have to wonder what's going on here - "audio-cds" typically run about $1 apiece in retail outlets such as Best Buy, while "data-cds" typically go for $0.20 - $0.50 each.
From the AHRA about "fees":


"Notwithstanding paragraph (1) or (2), the amount of the royalty payment for each digital audio recording device shall not be less than $1 nor more than the royalty maximum. The royalty maximum shall be $8 per device, except that in the case of a physically integrated unit containing more than 1 digital audio recording device, the royalty maximum for such unit shall be $12. During the 6th year after the effective date of this chapter, and not more than once each year thereafter, any interested copyright party may petition the Librarian of Congress to increase the royalty maximum and, if more than 20 percent of the royalty payments are at the relevant royalty maximum, the Librarian of Congress shall prospectively increase such royalty maximum with the goal of having no more than 10 percent of such payments at the new royalty maximum; however the amount of any such increase as a percentage of the royalty maximum shall in no event exceed the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index during the period under review.


(b) Digital Audio Recording Media

The royalty payment due under section 1003 for each digital audio recording medium imported into and distributed in the United States, or manufactured and distributed in the United States, shall be 3 percent of the transfer price. Only the first person to manufacture and distribute or import and distribute such medium shall be required to pay the royalty with respect to such medium."


OK, you got me, the 2% hardware royalty I mentioned earlier isn't exactly 2%, as defined above. But, the software (blank music CD-R/RW media) *is* 3% of the transfer price. The transfer price is either the landed cost to the importer/distributor if the media is imported from another country, or, if the media is made in the USA, the manufacturer-to-distributor/retailer price.


D_Keller: To your question about price differentials, when you press/make one thing and it sells in the many hundreds of millions of units, and compare it to another (similar) thing that sells in the few millions or hundreds of thousands of units, a 3% landed cost uplift doesn't really affect (by much) the retail selling price of the lower-quantity selling item. The other costs associated with the distribution of the lesser-desirable version account for more, when comparing the two retail price differences.


No doubt about it, blank data CD-R and CD-RW discs sell in incrementally huge amounts, compared to music (taxed) CD-R and CD-RW discs.


Hence, the differential in going prices, even though the "tax" differential itself is relatively/comparatively modest at landed cost.


Dave
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top