Copy protected audio CDs

I have three audio CDs (in perfect condition) that won't stabilize in my drives.

The CDs are "Enslaved - Eld", "Immortal - Pure Holocaust" and "Absu - The Sun Of Tiphareth". They are all released on Osmose Productions. I guess this is the Key2Audio copy protection? None of the mentioned CDs are labeled with a warning about the protection like they should be.

I tried to insert all the discs in both my CD-ROM and CD-RW drive, but they just kept spinning. I then tried to use an older CD-ROM drive, and it was actually able to read the Enslaved and Immortal discs (but not the Absu).

The old drive was not able to create perfect copies. It didn't work to use EAC, i got an error message saying the drive is not able to detect the gaps between the tracks. I was able to make copies of the two CDs the drive could read using Nero's "Copy CD" profile. But the drive does poor DAE with audible errors.

Is there no way i can make good copies of my CDs (all three of them)?

I will never buy a CD from Osmose Productions again, unless they stop using copy protection on their releases.

 

isnt that the whole point ,the copy protection is there to stop people like you and me from pirating there audio tracks.

 

Of course it is! But there is always a way around!

 

Personally, I'd take them back to the store & demand a refund. If they will not work in your PC drive then they are software and not redbook Audio CD. Do they have the Compact Disc Digital Audio logo on them? If they do, then Trading Standards can be invoked.
As a workaround, hook up the outputs of your CD player or preamp into your PC and record it directly from there.
You will not notice any difference in quality if you do this, and stuff the labels for putting out supposed Audio CD's when it is in fact software.
This is just my personal opinion, of course.

 

Using a standalone audio CD recorder will work. A lot of people laugh at me for still having one, but I have a very good Denon standalone.

You won't lose much quality that way, but it will be dependant upon the quality of the DA/AD section of your recorder.

 

No, an analogue recording is out of the question.

 

Why?
If I made an analogue copy & a digital copy of the same CD, I bet you anything you could not tell the difference.

 

Wilkes,

I totally agree with you. I frequently copy inbound analog to my Standalone Audio CD Recorder. And I'm hard pressed to hear the difference. (I use the single output of 4 Sony Megadisc changers to make compilations).

Robert

 

I agree with you guys about analogue recording copyright protected CDs

Although i would love to just be able to rip them, i use good quality stereo leads, a decent sound card and a good quality hi fi seperate CD player i picked up quite cheaply (god bless Richer Sounds) and i would challenge anyone to decide the copy from the original.

Just a PITA is all, but still beats the system.

An associate of mine recently got busted for mass producing illegal copies, they confisgated all his equipment and slapped him with a huge fine. However, he has an additional court appearance because copyright protection removal/bypass software was found on his PC.

Analogue copying it is the way to back them up if they copyrighted i say

 

It also gets (Me At Least) around any moral questions about coping. I for one have never ever ever used a file sharing program to download MP3 files. I purchase my music (thats how the artists make their money for christ sake).

So I use a similar theory for making one(1) numero ono, copy (singular) of a CD I own. I make a backup copy of the CD onto CDR or MD and place the CD into my megachanger for safe keeping. This is a digital copy, but it is also only for my use. Once I have the copy, and say I want it as an MP3 file (which by the way never happens in my case anyway), I can always play the copy via my analog stereo system outputs into the analog inputs of my PC using my ripping software.

One of the reasons I use a stand alone audio recorder in the first place is because the royality is built into the blank disc. I think that all discs should have this built in feature, wouldn't this end all the flack about ripping MP3 files anyway.

Robert

 

Sorry guys, this most emphatically does not get you "round the copyright issue".
Let me give you a quote or two from a recent series of emails I got sent to me from the UK Patent Office, with reference to putting Vinyl onto CD.....

"The recent changes to copyright law which came into effect will not alter the current situation, that is, from what you say, it appears that you are almost certainly infringing copyright in the material you are transferring from one format to another.

For something like a vinyl record or album, you should consider the following: each person involved in writing the lyrics, each person involved in writing the music, the record company and the performers are each likely to own rights in their efforts. One of their rights is the right to control making copies of their work, and it is this right that you are probably infringing.

When someone purchases a product, such as a book, cd, video, etc, they purchase the physical item, but they do not purchase the right to make copies thereof.

In addition, I must warn you that when someone knows, or has reason to believe that they are dealing with infringing copies in the course of doing business, they are committing secondary infringement, and may be liable to an unlimited fine and up to 10 year prison sentence."


"I am afraid that the information I have given you is as it appears in UK law. The only provision made in the law for making a back-up copy refers exclusively to back-up copies of computer programs."


"These are complicated questions, which I will answer to the best of my ability, but, as explained, ultimately only the courts can interpret the law.

Generally, creators of material, such as literary, musical, dramatic and artistic works have a number of rights in relation to their material, one of which is the right to authorise the making of copies of their work. When someone purchases a car, or a book, they do not purchase a right to use such a thing forever. If it falls apart after much use, or if it is destroyed in an accident, there is no automatic right to have another one to replace it.

It is an infringement for the purchaser of a cd to make a tape copy for use in the car, or for someone to photocopy a book, or to download a song from the internet, or to scan in a magazine photo, etc. I am afraid this is the law.

There have been court cases concerned with devices which can be used to infringe copyright. A very famous legal case concerned Amstrad, who produced a twin video recorder. They were sued for encouraging people to infringe copyright, but the court found in Amstrad's favour, saying that there were legitimate, non-infringing uses for twin video recorders, eg, where someone wishes to copy their own home movies, etc. You may have noticed that some devices are now sold with warnings not to infringe copyright.

Since that Amstrad case, few, if any cases have been taken against companies producing goods which might be used to infringe copyright. That is not to say that it will never happen again. That is for rights holders, and their representatives to decide.

Some countries, (not the UK) operate a levy system, where an additional payment is made for recording devices and media, such as blank CDs and tapes etc, which is then supposed to be paid to copyright holders. In return, citizens of those countries have more "private copying" rights than we have in the UK. But the levy is also paid by those who are not using the devices and media to make copyright infringing copies, and the approach is not one favoured by the UK.


End quotes.
So it looks as if I am going to be prosecuted for putting legitimate, paid for vinyl records onto a CD or DVD.

We are rapidly approaching a situation caused almost entirely by the staggering amount of illegal downloads creating bad knee-jerk legislation. All the time it went on but nobody bragged about how easy it was to do, it would probably have been ignored. Now, thanks to all the people atealing both software and music, my legitimate business is threatened, and I face the prospect of jail time.
Please, don't tell me that you can bypass copyright laws and feel smug about it, as this attitude is what has caused these problems in the first place.
What should be permissible is to make backup copies for your own personal use, not mass downloading on the pathetic grounds that "I cannot afford the prices of the music/software". If you cannot afford it, then you go without. I cannot afford a ferrari but that does not give me the right to go and steal one.

 

Wilkes,

My reply, is posted as to US Law. In the US you are aloud to copy ONE original onto a CDR with the MUSIC emblem on the disk. This disk has built in funding for the artists and Recording industry. Once the disk is formalized, you cannot copy from it. (this does not prevent you from making multiple copies of the same original, but to be honest with you, who would have the facilities to perform such a task.

In addition it falls under old US copyright laws in affect for Movie copies onto VHS and Beta. i.e. Its not in the true sense of the word an EXACT Copy. With Analog transfers in HIFI equipment however, it tasks this law. And with online downloading, its an outright CRIME if you will. You are technically downloading the exact content.

So at least in the US, it is legal to make copies of CDs if you are using a CD Burner which only accepts CDRs with the Digital Music Emblem.

Otherwise such units would have never been permitted to be released.

The computer industry got around this by saying the CDRs were going to be used for DATA (yes music in digital format is Data), but the laws were pre-computer recording. Essentially, what I'm trying to say is, the CDR Burner (Standalone Music) is just like a cassette deak.

Robert

 

I am convinced that we should have the right to make a working copy, and also to put the vinyl onto CD. I argued this with the Patent office, but their lawyers are on retainer, and I was quoted a silly sum for advice, with the caveat that it would be only advice, and may not stand up in court.
I have to admit my inclination is to say "f*** you, sue me then".
Where is the harm?
Check on the small print on a vinyl record - unauthorized copying strictly prohibited.
the EUCA proposals are even more draconian. Whatever we think our rights may be is not the question, or the issue. The reality is that it is what the courts decide that counts, and with the UK legislation that went through on October 31 last year, the "copyright & related rights act 2003", all copying is illegal unless you either A/. own the copyright, or B/. have a signed waiver from the copyright holder.
That is the law in the UK as it stands at the moment.
Please, don't let it happen where you are. Complacency will let them win.

 

Im not completely in agreement with you Wilkes,

I, like many people, use the ability to download music to further my insane addiction for exciting new music from around the world.

I have stumbled across some real gems in my downloading time and without this ability i would probably never know about these artists/bands.

The difference here is, i do not download multiple albums to avoid buying them. Infact almost the opposite, i download the music - i like that music - i then hunt the cd's down over the net or in record stores - i then buy the CDs - i then purchase concert tickets - i then purchase promotional materials.

Ok so not in every case will i go to a concert or buy a Shirt but what im trying to say is, without the ability to download i wont have spent my hard earn £££'s on this band in the first place.

Downloading is not just to avoid purchasing, its been an integral part of my musical education and i want that to continue.

My problem with the copyright protection on newer CD's is that..
A - it is far too easy to copy one and the cost invested in this some what pointless scheme is directly passed on to the CD consumer
B - i dont want to carry 1000 CD's with me on a business trip, i want my MP3's on my laptop so i want to rip them to my hard drive

If i want more than one "form" of an album im certainly not prepared to buy that Album 2/3/4 times over.

i am not ashamed of doing these "illegal" acts, and as long as its feasible i shall go on doing so. Let the authorities concentrate on those that mass produce downloaded material for personal gain.

if they can change laws on cannabis and allow an amount for "personal use" but still chase after the dealers then why not the same rules to be applied in this case ??

 

A couple of points here.
1/. It is, under UK law, illegal to do what you are doing. I'm not saying what side i'm on, just pointing out the law. The authorities are not concentrating on the pirates. That is the problem. They are gunning for people like me. Why? because they are fed up with people like you stealing.
2/. Cannabis is still illegal. It is a controlled drug, category C, misuse of drugs act. No amount is legal, for personal use or otherwise. Some police forces are more realistic than others in turning a blind eye, but if you want to quote the law then get it right.

 

In the US, the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) specifically authorizes "Fair Use", ie copying your own legally purchased material for your own personal use. It (and subsequent laws) also make it a crime to defeat or attempt to defeat/decrypt a digital copy protection scheme.

Recent activities by the RIAA are focusing on eliminating/ignoring the Fair Use clauses of the DCMA. But in practical terms, the only people being prosecuted here are those downloading files from the internet or offering files online (ie online file trading).

I've personally never heard of anyone getting in trouble for backing up their own material. Indeed, there's a royalty on the sales of Audio CD-Rs that goes to the RIAA (ostensibly to recompense the artists, although I imagine it mostly goes to the lawyers).

It does seem that, worldwide, things are bad and getting worse.

 

ok wilkes,
a couple of things
firstly, with respect to my comment about the relaxing of laws on cannabis. I was just trying to use that as a comparison to how laws are implimented. The downgrading of the drug is essentially for the reason that the police want to concentrate on finding, prosicuting and stopping the dealers of the substance and anyone found in possesion of an amount for "personal" use will just get it taken from them. Im not claiming to know the exact Laws unlike yourself who seems to know quite a lot - it was just an example, nothing else and is really off topic now.

secondly, your last post seems that you are, and rightly so, p!$$£d at authorites for jepordising your business. But you are breaking the law just like me - in their eyes.

the reason they are hampering on at us all is they say that we are jepordising CD sales and therefore effecting the royalty income to the record companies and the artists. Would just like to point out that CD sales in the uk rose by 7.6 per cent in the United Kingdom last year, according to Music Week. 121 million CDs were sold, excluding compilations. and still we are killing their industry.


I am downloading music from the internet unawares of its origin - you my friend are putting vinyl on a player and pressing record on your PC - If you would like to split heirs about it