Talk:Copy Control

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I changed the category from Category:120 mm discs to Category:CD, and I wanted to note that I realize that discs with the copy protection are technically not compact discs, but since it is used on a type of 120 mm disc commonly considered a CD (as opposed to a DVD, say), it seemed appropriate. Feel free to revert if you feel otherwise. :) tregoweth 00:53, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Page name 2 Non-Windows systems 3 Gah! 4 Not relevant? 5 All about ruining CDs 6 Does Copy Control really cause hard errors ? 7 Disabling autorun 8 Is it illegal? 9 "Weasel Words" 10 Dumb 11 Confused article

[edit] Page name

Normally I wouldn't suggest this, but since this appears to be a specific type of copy prevention rather than something generic, it seems that it may be appropriate to move this page to Copy Control. It seems that some discs that use alternate copy protection schemes are having the template {{copycontrol}} added inappropriately (this also causes them to appear in Category:Copy control albums). Hmm, that would require renaming the categories too. While the logo is supposedly an international recommendation for any disc using a copy protection scheme, I haven't seen it on any discs using the MediaMax CD-3 system (though I guess I've only bought two of those discs so far). —Mulad (talk) June 30, 2005 04:35 (UTC)

If copy control is the name associated with the logo and separately the name of the emi copy prevention scheme, we could move this article to EMI Copy control. It would be clearer than having multiple copy control articles with different cases. --Easyas12c 30 June 2005 07:36 (UTC)

Actually copy control (EMI) might be better. --Easyas12c 30 June 2005 07:41 (UTC)

And add Template:Wrongtitle for the lowercase first letter. —Simetrical (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I've now moved the thing from Copy control to Copy Control. The name of the technology is IMHO clearly written using this capitalization; from my "Copy Controlled" Kraftwerk single "Aerodynamik":

This disc contains Copy Control technology · Ce disque contient un dispositif technique limitant les possibilités de copie · Este disco utiliza tecnología Copy Control · Kopiergeschützte Disc · Questo disco è protetto da tecnologia Copy Control

Given the fact that the name "Copy Control" survives translation into several languages, it seems to me to be the proper way to write it. — Peter L <talk|contribs> 16:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Windows systems

On non-Windows systems, the audio content can be played normally, and extracted as WAV format through the use of programs such as cdparanoia. On Windows systems (which support the protection), the extraction process is presumably more difficult.

Although I cannot test this claim (I don't have Linux installed on my system), I am fairly sure this is misleading. Based on my testing under Windows, it seems to me that CC's effectiveness is dependent more on the disc drive used, than the OS. In particular, drives that I have tested give the following results:

• 8x DVD-ROM: All tracks 'invisible';
• Acer 8x4x32 CD-RW: Tracks are visible and can be ripped, but copies contain obvious glitches;
• LG DVD+/-RW: Tracks can be ripped easily.

(tests conducted with CDex, which incidentally can use the cdparanoia engine.) It should also be clarified that, to the best of my knowledge, CC discs do not attempt to install any 'malware' or crippled device drivers after autorunning in Windows. -- La hapalo 08:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

...see MediaMax CD-3 for a copy protection scheme which does try to install crippled device drivers -- La hapalo 13:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

dependent more on the disc drive used, than the OS above: I have similar experience under Linux. I haven't tried ripping, but playing (two XMMS plugins):

• LG CD-ROM CRD-8322: Doesn't play neither digital nor analog, trying to read the TOC (forgot which program) produced errors.
• LG CD-RW GCE-8400B: (Linux said: Vendor: HL-DT-ST): Plays digital and analog (haven't listened for glitches), TOC read without without error messages --85.180.98.7 15:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I have tested Copy control discs on a DVD-RW drive and CD-RW drive (both same manufacturer, AOpen) and found the DVD-RW was able to copy with no issues and the CD-RW drive produced glitches every 10 seconds or so. --82.46.105.246 17:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gah!

Copy control is stupid. You would think the brains would be able to come up with some way of stopping copying while still actually letting you listen to the thing! Most people I know listen to CDs on their computer, so this est tres stupide in my opinion! Looks like Demon Days isn't getting listened to until I find a computer that gets round the copy control. Ben davison 14:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not relevant?

How was casual copying not relevant in the 80s? We had this thing called analogue tape. It wasn't perfect but it was good enough for most purposes.

Yes, copy control is dumb, but the only thing we can do is not buy the discs I suppose. I accidentally bought one... didn't look carefully enough... my CD-ROM (TDK VeloCD) ripped it fine under Linux using cdrdao although it took ages. What a pain.

Yes, I know "home taping is killing music", but copying via analogue tapes causes quality loss for each generation you get away from the digital audio. I'd say the incentive to actually go buy a CD is arguably smaller if you have a perfect digital copy instead of a reduced-quality tape, and back in the 80s, you could not expect John Q. Public to have CD burning/pressing facilities. Feel free to remove my claim in the article if you don't feel it can be backed up.

It is my experience that tracks can usually be ripped with any decent, modern ripper (it depends more on your disc drive), resulting in files of the exact same quality as when played in an ordinary CD player. This includes those damn clicks and pops that get in there — they've definitely prevented me from paying for such non-CDs again. We should get some details on consumer response in the article; I believe I saw somewhere that EMI have 6% of these discs returned, I'll see if I can dig up a source. — Peter L <talk|contribs> 11:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, a lot of people rip CDs to MP3s which are certainly not a perfect digital copy, but then each additional copy of the MP3 is identical to the last. So, yes. But on the other hand, many people will just share the occasional track with their friends, much like back in the days of tape. It's a relatively small number of people who mass distribute digital copies, and I don't see that much difference between such people and those who would sell bootleg tapes back then. Basically, the problem for me is that this "copy control" is more of a problem for legitimate users like me, who just want to listen to their CD, than it is for those who want to rip and mass distribute. Surely, such people as those will just buy a drive which can rip these CDs, or use a digital-digital CD player/soundcard connection to record them. In other words, they're easily dedicated enough to overcome the copy protections whereas the average joe is probably not, and suffers for it.

The silliest thing is, when I get one of these discs, the most convenient thing for me to do is rip it and then burn it to a CD-R, since if I scratch the original "copy controlled" disc I'm in trouble - they've screwed up the error correction capabilities. Plus, that way I can play it in the way I want, without having to worry about the copy protection. So, in effect, the copy protection forces me to copy it just to listen to it in a convenient manner... which is dumb.

Anyway, my point is, I think casual copying was relevant in the 80s, but mass copying was harder, although far from impossible. That's the real distinction, IMO. But I see your point.

[edit] All about ruining CDs

I recently bought a CD with this foolish copy control technology on it and couldnt listen to it at all. Clearly music companies care more about stopping piracy than providing a consumer product that actually works. These technologies only hurt legitimate listeners as dedicated rippers shrug off any new advancments in CP tech and get right back to ripping while the rest of us law abiding citizens hear nothing but dead silence from our speakers. The message is clear...buy a pirated copy...sure its illegal but it actually works considering the ripper has kindly removed any meddlesome code on the CD-R for you. Of course theres the thin coating of snack food oil and the hefty smell of cigarette smoke to contend with as you leaf through the photocopied insert but...at least it works when you play it!

..how does that even help the problem? Just buy a non-copy controlled version of the disc, I'm pretty sure they do exist (though that may be in a 'deluxe' pack or something). By refusing to buy the CDs, you make record companies think they need to go to even stricter measures to prevent piracy, you're not 'sending a message' to the companies to stop the shit, you're justifying their claims and actions. Dead 05:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope...copy corrupted version is all there is. A boiled egg in a bucket would be taken by the companies as courtroom-grade proof of piracy and justification for their actions...meaning no matter what we do theyll keep on doing what theyre doing so just be concerned about yourself and how to gain the music in a form that functions as it should. Its not about teching anyone a lesson.

[edit] Does Copy Control really cause hard errors ?

I've investigated this by wiring up a counter to a CD player. The Copy Control discs I have (two different pressings of the same title. I'm not willing to spend my money buying another to compare with it) appear to play without any uncorrectable errors.

I think the wikipedia page on this particular copy protection may be incorrect in this regard.

I detail this experiment on my website, along with the communication which as gone back and forth between myself and Sony BMG over this issue:[[1]]

I have looked for, but found no firm information that there are actually errors pressed into the discs for this particular form of copy protection. My experiment can't detect correctable errors, but I don't see how they'd be of any use in stopping copying, though as with the uncorrectable errors they would make the disc less robust.

David Hembrow.

I am not an expert, but my understanding is that the raw audio data should not contain any errors. I assume that an undamaged disc would therefore report no errors as you describe. However, the error-correction codes (Reed-Solomon error correction?) are deliberately corrupted in a copy-control disc. Presumably some hardware ignores these codes, and can play undamaged discs perfectly; other hardware observes the codes and attempts to correct errors that don't really exist, causing audible corruption. – La hapalo 11:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the result of my experiment. The first generation chipset in the CD player I used for that experiment sends a signal from one IC to another to let it know that an error has occured and that an interpolation is required. This is the signal that I was counting. This didn't happen when playing the copy protected disc. I had to use an early player for this to be able to see this signal outside of an IC. Modern CD players have this functionality within a single IC so it is not visible externally. Full implementation of error correction may have been optional at the dawn of CD, but given that even the very first CD player chipsets had complete implementation of error detection and correction (yes, using Reed Solomon etc.) shared between a few chips and that this is now a zero cost option given that it requires only the tiniest corner of a single IC, I find it hard to believe that there exists any CD player which does not perfectly correct all correctable errors. - David Hembrow 19th August 2006

[edit] Disabling autorun

Perhaps a minor point, but in light of a recent edit (This may be temporarily disabled by holding down the shift key to This should be...) it may be worth noting that the Windows DRM player included on CC discs does not interfere with the ripping process at all. In fact, CD audio may be ripped while the DRM player is playing its own audio. (Of course, it is still advisable to disable autorun in the case of more malicious DRM systems such as Extended Copy Protection, as used by Sony) – La hapalo 13:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but when you copy from the "included player," you only make an analogue copy, and not a digital one. And when you just record the raw audio output, it's also only analogue. So really, Apple FairPlay is really the best because you can make unlimited digital copies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.36.21 (talk • contribs) August 3, 2006 (18:05 UTC).

[edit] Is it illegal?

When I insert the disc into the computer, the program will start automatically. You may choose "Accept" or "Decline". But before choosing, the anti-copy software is already installed. Also no matter I choose "Accept" or "Decline", the software still treat me as clicking "Accept" and let me use the player. Is it illegal for doing this by the company? For some CD, there is only a "CCCD" logo (such as Joey Yung - "Ten Most Wanted") but no more details telling me it can not be copied. Is it also illegal for doing this by the company?

On most DVDS, there is a notice saying "It is illegal to avoid the copy-protection on this DVD". Micoolio101 03:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)micoolio101

In the EULA (End User License Agreement), it states that it will only install the software if you agree to the agreement, and will not install the software (and you shouldn't be able to listen to the music, even though plenty of people have gotten around that.) And about the DVD thing, it may be illegal to avoid copy protection, but it is not illegal to control the software that you (inadvertibly) install on your computer system.--the Patman of Wiki 18:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Weasel Words"

This is one of those articles that are likely to contain "Weasel Words", I have thus tagged it as such. --Mb1000 23:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there's an "allegedly" in there which kind of gives it away. (By the way, I just tried to import a disc with the Copy Controlled label on it and it worked. That's a bit odd - and it was into iTunes). Apterygial 10:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dumb

DO they still use this?? Singers should be willing to lose money to their fans, instead of wating it on copy protect which people hack through anywayz!!! Realg187 17:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confused article

The article appears to contain both references to "Copy Control", the specific method of protection, and "copy control", the general principle of trying to restrict copying. Needs to be kept specific to the Copy Control system, with more general information outsourced to a more general article (wherever that might be, copy protection or something). 81.104.170.167 15:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC) PS - I can't believe I just said "outsourced" in a serious context ...