I have two means to play cd's, my PC, and my old portable cd player. So what Microsoft is telling me is that soon I won't be able to play cd's on either of these? Well I can't afford to get another playback device, and no point in buying cd's if I can't play them is there. So Microsoft is telling me to download mp3's instead by introducing this method of 'protection'? Well I would'nt have thought even microsoft would be stupid enough to think promoting the downloading of mp3's would help the fight to enforce copyright :D

Pathetic.

People like you will try any ridiculous and inane ploy to try and "justify" stelling other people's work product without compensating them for it.

Apparently you don't realize that everyone can see right thorugh your nonsense and see you for what you are.

Just give it up and admit it......you're a thief. Plain and simple.

Um..... I think you kinda missed the whole point of my post didnt you :) I wasn't trying to justify copyright infringement, I was pointing out that this menthod of trying to stop copying is going to force more people to have to by Microsoft endorsed products and features to be able to play new cd's whether they want anythnig microsoft or not. This not being able to play cd's on peopls old ahrdware is going to give people the attitiude of "f*ck you microsoft, I'll download it instead" which would in all probability cause more people to download mp3's than before they introduced this protection.

So people like you should stop worrying about the thieves that are stealing songs, and first worry about the thief that stole your IQ so that you can actually understand the point I was making in my original post :)

Just to add... My mp3's are comprised of my own cd collection. If I can no longer play cd's or burn them to mp3 for my listening pleasure then what do you think that may well lead to happening..... certainly not the purchase of more microsoft endorsed products

I have yet to hear how this toolkit protects the CD Audio on the first session of the disk. Multi-session CDs are nothing new. The second session contains encrypted WMA files right? So what? "Pirates" will just rip the PCM data off the disk and not even bother with the WMA stuff.

I think the recording industry will keep it's edge by giving the consumer more reasons to buy a CD and not less by providing a superior product vs. what you can download on the net.

-Eric

Piracy can never be stopped, when they take steps to enforce it, someone e;se takes steps to slip around the barriers.

I used a device from Radio Shack which you would normally use to transmit without wires from one room to another to make a copy of a DVD onto a VHS tape a long time ago, have used it again, and can do it with any device. It may not be a perfect “digital” copy, of course, but it illustrates additional resources to use against “the Man,” Bill Gates and Microsoft….

I've been able to 'rip' music from CDs on both a component CD player and a DVD player to the computer by running optical cables between the components and a Creative Extigy external sound processor. I haven't noticed any noticeable difference between those and ones I've done on the computer (I only did it to see if I could).

So would it be reasonable to say that any disc that will play on a component CD a/o DVD player with optical outs could be technically ripped anyway? Of course, I know that the HDCD and DVD-Audio players don't include optical outs (none that I've seen yet).

It's reasonable to say that if you play the cd on any cd-player you can rip it by putting a cable from the output to the input on your sound card.

And it's even more reasonable to say that anyone putting this sort of encoding on their CD automatically makes it a top-priority target for just this sort of thing. People will do it for no other reason than to p*ss the companies off for trying it.

There are two huge problems with this from a legal/standards point of view.

1. The CD Red Book specification makes no provision for dual layer CDs. The only format permitted on a disc that is to be called as "CD" is 16/44.1 PCM audio and nothing else. Sony and Philips, who own the CD trademark, only permit it to be used on media that comply with the Red Book standards.

2. The DVD spec does not make any mention of WM as an optional format for DVD. DVDs must contain one of two compulsory audio formats (PCM and Dolby Digital; three for Region 2 including MPEG audio), and may contain 1 optional format (DTS).

So these new layers will probably only work in PCs equipped with WM9 player and may cause all kinds of compatibilty problems for standalone CD and DVD players.

Excellent points. It will be interesting to see Philips' response to the Microsoft's technology, as it has been protective of who gets to use the Compact Disc logo when it comes to copy protection.

This is not dual layer.. it is two sessions, side by side. This, of course, brings up data capacity issues.

The real problems is not only the seesion and Media Player. The most important problem is Microsoft trying to control everythings. There will be no open market for other companies and we can see that, Microsoft is doing on it.

As stated below, if cds were cheaper, it would be a different story. and aslo as stated below, there will be a way around it. The more they try to fight, the more people will rebel. I can see why artists complain about free music...they make very little and everyone else but them makes so much more... Artists shouldn't be going after us, but rather the music industry...

As fast as this technology is spread, some 15 year old will release Data Session Tool buster that will get around it. Then everyone will just have an extra step to take to rip their music.
This is not the answer, the answer is to stop overcharging people for a CD at 15$ a pop, and giving the artist 1$ of the money. Instead, let people download it for $1.50, give the artist his dollar, and the middle man (Label) will make 50 cents per copy. Hey, its better then nothing.

Maybe so, but with this type of copy protection the problem usually lies in the CD or DVD reading device itself. If the device can't see the session on the disc, then software won't do you much good either way. The firmware in the device, or the device itself would have to be modified in order to read the full contents of the CD. Which turns out to be a big problem, because a lot of newer CD and DVD players are more advanced (especially with set top boxes becoming more integrated) and won't be able to read the content.

Sure someone will crack the WMA DRM format, but then the best quality music you will get is WMA converted to MP3 or OGG.

Windows Media could be next -----
December 31, 2002: Dan Jackson, a software developer in the UK, released a program called Convert Lit that breaks Microsoft's eBook DRM protection in the process of converting files in Microsoft's .LIT format to other display formats.

On his Web site, Jackson -- who did not develop the software himself but is merely acting as its distributor -- claims that this program is covered under the generally accepted definition of fair use, since it's intended for purchasers of .LIT-format eBooks who want to read them on other devices. However, the functionality of Convert Lit is analogous to that of Elcomsoft's software for the Adobe eBook reader, which nearly ran afoul of the anticircumvention provision of the DMCA in the U.S. this past year. Elcomsoft was found not guilty of violating DMCA 1201 because it did not demonstrate any intent to facilitate unauthorized uses of content; ithe same reasoning might apply to Convert Lit if U.S. prosecutors were to go after its developers or Jackson.

However, the more salient point about Convert Lit is that it has cracked the highest level of Microsoft's eBook DRM scheme, causing consternation among eBook publishers everywhere as the second popular eBook DRM scheme to be cracked. Microsoft may have to go back to the drawing board in search of that Holy Grail of DRM, the uncrackable yet practically implementable protection scheme.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/hostintheshell/

15 dollars ??????
overhere (the netherlands europe) a cd is around 25 euro's !!
1 euro = 1,05 dollar

The major problem with the whole idea behind the copyrighting of music is the fact that it gives the companies total control over what you can do with the product that you have purchased. The companies are already making a ton of money! Music Artists should get some type of compensation for the work that they do, but it is rediculous that we build up people to such a point to where we make them millionaires.

What we need to see is some type of open Source model for the music industry. Have the artists go directly to the user. Music artists will be able to promote there music fast when users have unlimited access to it. How will they make money? Theres always more the one way to make a buck with the same piece of information. Music artists will spend more time doing concerts and selling other promotional items. Will they be as rich as before? No, but what says that a musician needs to make more money then anybody else out there?

The greatest thing about making a move like this is we wouldn't have to deal with the crap that some of these music
artists put out as just filler so they can crank out another CD. Everyone will be put on a leveling playing field.

"The major problem with the whole idea behind the copyrighting of music is the fact that it gives the companies total control over what you can do with the product that you have purchased."

Well, let's look at what "product" you have purchased. Did you purchase the music? the song? No. You purchased the media the music is recorded on and as part of an implied contract in that purchase (in the US see USC Title 4) the rights to listen to that music. USC Title 4 allows you limited rights as to where, how, etc. you can copy it, but that's it.

Sounds to me (especially since you started with a complaint abotu copyrighting music in general) that you want to take the work product of these artists and not compensate them for it at all.

What makes you so special that you should be allowed to take their work and not pay them for it?

Would you, for example, still feel so strongly on the subject if your boss felt the same way? Took your work and stopped paying you for it?

Oh, but wait, you put forth some drivel about an "open source" model for music where they don't get paid for the recordings at all, but only for concerts and promotional items. Ok, good plan. We'll implement it right after you agree to continue to go to work and work 5 days every week, but your boss only has to pay your for Friday. The other 4 days you work for no pay. You should love it. After all, as you said yourself "Will [you] be as rich as before? No, but what says that [you] [need] to make more money then anybody else out there?" Your one day a week pay would still probably be more than most people make in other countries....so you would no longer be "richer" then them.

Hopefully this will make you stop and think and perhaps see some of the flaws in your "suggestion"

While I agree with your point, you may want to try making your responses less snide in the future. Just because someone offers an opinion that may not be feasible or logical it doesn't mean you need to shoot them down with sarcasm and arrogance. If you make your posts a bit more friendly you're less likely to upset and anger people, as has been the case in the past.

That said, open source music is probably something that will never come to pass, even on a small scale. However, small musicians who do not make a lot of money and have no huge record contract could really benefit from opening up their music to the masses (free as in beer, not speech) and many artists HAVE done so already in order to promote their band and get their name out there. Artists can make good money performing, even if albums make them little cash.

No,you can't deal with work-time/solid-product and data/content in the same fashion.

It whoudl be as your boss had to pay you $25 every time he sees your work, or every time somebody in the word sees your work, even if its only a schedule page, 5 years old.

Originaly copyright was made to protect the author's identity, the nullsoft guy for instance, don't get paid with money every time you turn on the winamp, but they got a lot of pride for what they did.

The RecordIndrustry, the so called content producer (actually content re-seller) had turn the copyright law into an eternal profit industry. Before giving them your simpathy you should think about this: if they could make you pay a fee every time you think about a song...they they'd do it right away. They just don't because they can't.

Rembember, Legal and Right aren't equivalent, and the economy as you know it and feel comfortable about isn't necesarily , god-given and perfect.

You call us thiefs but aren't lawyer worse than thiefs? figures.

They should not use prpriatery format like WMA on AudioCDs. They should use some open format like Ogg Vorbis which also is much better in quality and features then WMA. And this format is supported on al OSes and there is no problems playing it where you want to play it. What Microsoft is doing is locking us into their world od Microsoft only software and closed formats. Not a very promising future. Just say no to this!

As a long time Microsoft supporter, I must say that this new technology does seem promising in regards to copy-protection. However, I am forced to disagree with its use as Microsoft is not government run and would thus be a monopoly for playback on non-home CD players. While I might think that WMP and WM file-format would be the premier choice for playback of music and CD’s, I cannot speak for all individual preferences in society. While I support the effort Microsoft I putting into this, I feel that it will only spark more monopoly-related arguments and debates.

On the other side of the coin, this is has great potential as most computer users run Windows software. I would like to see Microsoft find a better way at using this new copy protection incorporation with some sort of a universal format.

I agree that, Microsoft is trying to make its monopoly empire. In my point of view, I agree that there should be some technology to protect the copyright. However, it should not be developed by any companies. It is not only because of the code problems, is some companies trying to control the market. I think there should be some standard organisation, eg. ISO, or other to make such standard for the music industry. And such standard can play it in multiple platform (not only Windows Media).

I am a Linux user. If the music companies really use this technology, that means it is impossible to play the CD in my Linux.

I've heard something that Microsoft might be porting its WMV/WMA formats to different platforms/operating systems. Not sure, though.

billy gates and all the other money hungry companys should take a look at the right of the consumer.
A conumer has the right to make a personal backup copy of the DVD/CD he/she owns.

http://www.protectfairuse.org/home.html