Decient movies are available @ asian
streaming sites @ 200-400M per movie.
Shoutcast streams 1,500 channels of mp3's.
700M burnable cd's are 15 cents apiece.
DSL connections are worldwide and getting
faster.
If i can put 2 movies and 3 albums on 0ne cd and
transmit it anywhere on the planet at 60 - 100k sec
(3hours) it means the movie and music industry must figure out the same thing the game designers figured out. The experience
they provide with their data must be so rich and versitile
that people need and want to pay to access the needed data.
As is the data packet (a movie@220M or full cd@60M} is just to
cheap and easy to store and transmit to ever fully protect it.
Not an Ethical Problem here....It's Numerical!!

Come on everyone. If there are any artists please listen. The problem with this entire dilemma is not whether people deserve protection on their work, to keep it from spreading. I am an artist just entering the 'business' and to me, the 'business' itself is the problem. What no one realizes is that because of the ease of distribution of mp3's, music reaches many many times more people, and each artist gathers an even larger audience. I personnally could have never afforded to buy as many albums as I now have due to mp3. But guess what happens when the show comes to town? Im there, paying my 50 to get in and see a guy whose albums I don't own, and whose cover art I've never seen. The truth is, a fan may buy a recording, but music began as an institution of pride for talent, not a business. Make the music because you're proud, not because it robs kids of their allowance. I follow several bands and have never bought an album by some of them. What does this mean? It means I am like many other americans, in love with music, but unable to fund my habit. Mp3 is rebellion, it's time to listen to the audience folks, because we paid for your homes, cars, and shouted at your shows. We give the artists pride, and pay them well for it. Perhaps it is time to give a little back.

The almighty dollar will try anything to get more almighty dollars.

Face it.
CD's are way the **** overpriced.
Artists are way the **** UNDERPAID.
Labels and lawyers are getting PAID like a motha.
When music doesn't have red tape, is when good music will thrive again.

I give them 3 months before the copy protection is cracked....another 9 months before a CD recorder will be made to read such discs....

HEH... it'll be cracked before it's officially out..won't take even 3 months :)

Now we have condoms for cds what is next condoms for pc's like u cant take out ur cdrom with ur computer croking

gee we as a people are pretty lame come up with something that useless
with man power we could cure something not prevent something small

Sooo... let me get this straight... we have mp3's that we can play in portable mp3 players, burn to audio cd, and get for free. And you want us to pay for something (probably more $ than a normal cd) that we can't listen to on portable players, or our PC's (without hunting up a disc)? Where's the advantage here??

Ok, this is just stupid. If you want more people to buy CDs, drop the price. Copy protection is a waste of time and will irritate people.

Ripped music will never die! It will always flourish for people like me who cant afford to get the real stuff..

Here's an indepth article on SafeAudio, how it works, and how you can bypass it.

http://www.cdfreaks.com/document.php3?Doc=48

1.) Plug CD player audio out into computer line in jack.
2.) Record sound and save on computer.
3.) Encode and upload

So you replace the usual "Rip CD" with steps 1 and 2, big whoop. I think it's next to impossible to create a cd that will both allow you to listen to it AND be impossible to copy. Anything you can hear, you can record.
I also agree with other posters here: it won't be long before a crack is made.

I am not into writing protections for audio cd's, but I believe the point behind most/some/at least one? of these types of protections is to do the following:

1. Put some form of errors on the cd which take advantage of the differences between reading the data and playing the data (i.e. audio and data cd's). These errors should be such that it is either not possible to get the data off the cd digitally or to get it at a lower level of quality.
2. Put some errors, high/low frequency noise? into the music itself such that when played back (and hence converted by a D/A) the errors/noise cannot be easily detected (or at all), but enough so that if the resulting analogue signal is passed through a A/D the result is of a lower level of quality. (i.e. your example of plugging in a cd player into the line in jack of your audio card).

So the relative effect of the resulting protection depends on those two points (and probably many others that I do not know about). The mind set is, if some of the people cannot copy the music, and if the majority of people aren't happy with the quality of the 'rip', they will go out any buy the original cd.

The problem with this is that many people (myself included) are against the idea of buying a cd which has errors on it. It is like buying damaged goods. And these errors HAVE to be noticable at least to some extent because if they're not they wil not be able to degrade the quality of the 'rip' far enough to deter people from copying the cd's.

I am reading the Peer-to-Peer book put out by O'Reilly and there are a couple of appropriate quotes:

"In the analog world, it costs money to make a copy of something. In the digital world, it costs money to prevent copies from being made."

"The main [Digital Rights Management] effort is...to bring the inconvenience of the physical world to the internet."

Clay Shirky was the author.

They can do what they want. But (Macrovision's) Safeaudio is already cracked. And SunComm's technologie will follow soon I guess.

Check cdmediaworld.com for details on Safeaudio

I dont see how this can ever work. I dont see how it will be possible to make a cd that is secure yet compatible with all standard cd audio players. copy protection in vcrs was easy with closed box hardware that no one could easily mess with. You would think RIAA etc would have learnt from the dvd encryption drama that protecting something on computers is pretty much impossible. especially this!

yet again they are going off on the "it will enhance user experience" crap again. grrr lies lies lies.

this is rediculous. they are protecting their own IP rights while infringing on the consumers rights. DMCA sucks.

nothing is going to stop mp3a

some protection is better than no protection, no?

Always wear a jimmy hat

im sure thats what microsoft says about wpa. however i think like wpa its not really going to "save" bmg any money - people will just say "oh well i can live without a copy then!", its just going to seriously annoy people.

wpa save bmg? oops.
wpa wont save microsoft any money, like this copy protection wont save bmg any.