Just some MediaCloQ info

I saw that update in the news today so I did some searching, here is what i dug up:

http://www.fahrenheitentertainment.com/newsreleases/newsrelease032201.htm wrote this stupid shit:

Thursday, SunnComm Inc. (OTC: SUNX) announced that Fahrenheit Entertainment (OTC: FHOT) has accepted the first audio compact disc in the world to contain the SunnComm MediaCloQ™ content security feature.
MediaCloQ™, designed specifically for audio CDs, was given the the “green light” to continue to its next step in the distribution process of Charley Pride’s “Tribute to Jim Reeves” compact audio disc which, according to Fahrenheit, is due at retailers in early April.

MediaCloQ™ is the first product going to market using Digital Content Cloaking Technology (DC2™) from SunnComm Inc. The implementation of this technology into the manufacturing setting has been the top development priority for SunnComm Inc.

“SunnComm’s ‘cloaking’ technology – designed to greatly reduce unauthorized digital copying of original content on CDs – is only the first part of the SunnComm goal to bring ‘the total CD experience’ to music-lovers worldwide,” said Peter Jacobs, SunnComm’s president and chief executive officer.

“Purchasers of SunnComm-encoded CDs will also be able to download the same music for use on their personal computers, portable devices such as MP3 players, and soon, users will be able to create their own protected compilation discs.”

The company’s newly designed corporate website at www.sunncomm.com will serve as a portal to consumers and permit authorized CD owners interactive access to digital rights management (DRM) files – a technology made available as part of SunnComm’s technology relationship with the Microsoft Corp.®.

SunnComm’s MediaCloQ™ is a proprietary CD audio product that is playable in standard audio CD players but will not function in computers where files could be copied or “ripped” then later, uploaded to music-sharing services, such as Napster, which are gaining popularity on the Internet.

Instead, the SunnComm MediaCloQ™ disc offers users access to secure areas of the company Website and permits those who own a particular CD to download secure files for use on their PC or, soon, to use on other play devices such as MP3 players.

According to SunnComm’s Chairman and Chief Technology Officer, John Aquilino, “The combination of SunnComm’s MediaCloQ™ protection coupled with a secure digital rights distribution model will offer consumers everywhere a complete music experience.”

Peter Trimarco, president of Fahrenheit Entertainment, said, “With MediaCloQ™ applied at the replication plant during the encoding process, we are ahead of our competition by leaps and bounds. SunnComm has shown us a way to provide Charley Pride fans with a fuller music experience while helping us take a first, important step toward protecting his music. We think this will be big.”

“This production run for Charley Pride will be the first of many for our family of independent record labels,” said Trimarco. “Following the successful rollout of this premier MediaCloQ™ CD, we fully intend to continue to show our leadership in the recording industry by protecting all of our future North American releases with SunnComm products.”

“This first ever MediaCloQ™ audio CD paves the way for a new era in security for the lucrative audio CD and digital property market,” said Jacobs.

Jacobs continued, "The SunnComm team sees themselves as the warriors in the fight against what has become socially acceptable larceny which takes place everyday around the world. At the same time, we create a CD that brings greater enjoyment and broadens the musical experience of the consumer.

"I feel the SunnComm MediaCloQ™ suite of products are special because our people – founders, engineers, and staff alike, are music lovers first – not just another combination of scientists and businesspeople who never really factor in ‘the music experience.’

“In the end, I truly believe it will be our positive attitude and love of music that will drive us toward the creation of better digital security solutions.”

SunnComm Inc. is a leader in CD digital content security. The company develops proprietary and patent-pending technology for its own digital security products which includes embedded solutions for its partners. The company’s ultimate goal is to protect authors’ digital content from unauthorized duplication while allowing the greatest playability possible for consumers.

SunX, Digital Content Cloaking technology, DC2, MediaCloQ and SunnComm are trademarks of SunnComm Inc. in the United States and/or other countries. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.

For more information about SunnComm contact Bill Whitmore, SunnComm Vice President of Marketing & Communications at 602/267-7500, or email bill@sunncomm.com.

For more information about Fahrenheit Entertainment or Music City Records contact Peter Trimarco at 303/745-6252.

The first ever cd protected was released on May 15, 2001. This technology is not new by any means as the news update would lead one to believe that it has just been completed. If you ask me though, this technology is one of the best ones out there though. It allows to still be able to get mp3s of selected tracks and to create mixes. I assume that it can be defeated easily using cdrwin if you want to duplicate the cd and the macromedia method for ripping.

Here’s the lowdown on Charley Pride’s album
You cannot see the tracks nor extract them from windows nor true dos.
I used the regular extraction prgms, winoncd, clonecd…etc
and got nowhere and then again i’m not that knowledgeable in computers so i gave up with windows and dos.

I approached it from another angle and it seemed to work
A friend happened to have a standalone/cd/player/recorder and we made it that way.
Our ears can’t detect a sharp from c sharp, but to us it sounded identical.
We went further since i know some one who knows someone that has a recording studio. So we had three cd’s analyzed

  1. Original Charley Pride
  2. Our copy
  3. A warez site claims to have solved this protection by rewriting
    cloneCD to solve the problem. I don’t understand the jargon they used, but in any case we d/l one of the files from Charley Pride’s album.
    The final analysis all three were compatible.that is 99.99 identical and engineer said “you won’t know the difference”.

The story does not end here,
About two days ago a woman reporter submitted an article about this protection and i emailed her indicating that as fast as they write protection it becomes history and probably the next line of attack will be hardware.
I had also posted on http://dailynews.yahoo.com my findings.
if you search for BMG, then tests… scroll down to the bottom where msg boards are, you just read the msgs. also search for charley pride, cops and do the same by scrolling down.
Well in any case as i expected she reported this to sunncomm and for a period of time on Friday my links were not working, but all the one’s above and below were working.
They did work again and i suspect their attorney’s said nothing illegal were contained in the posts which confirms that standalone players did solve the problem.
I was hoping they wouldn’t put it back because an attorney friend of mine was going to get obnoxious.

The DMCA law says you cannot reverse engineer a program and defeat what the author set out to do.
It also says if it “plays and records” it becomes fair game, in short tough luck for the author.
If we could only make these companie(s) that make copy protection sit in a corner and write a million times
“IF it Plays and Records, TS” maybe they would do something better with their time.

Some people have said you didn’t copy it in “raw data” which is what the company set out to do so you didn’t succeed.
I can only go by the studio analysis and say the proof is in the pudding.

If you read these statements put out by sunncomm, they show arrogrance and a great snow job. The most recent post indicates
BMG is looking at their copy protection.

I expect a great snow job from them when it come to standalone CD/player/recorder and this is the month of August.

The perfect copy protection scheme for audio and i guarantee the most proficient hacker will not crack today or tomorrow
No sound on the CD

sspade, try experimenting with that cd just for the hell of it. Are you able to make a bin/cue of it in cdrwin? Does the burned bin/cue function correctly in your cd-player? If you use cdrwin to extract one of the audio tracks, will it? Inquiring minds want to know! :wink:

I tried everything and could not get anything to work, CD just keeps spinning.
There are 16 tracks that i could see by using a dos extraction program, but it wouldn’t extract the files(real dos).
Standalone player got 15 tracks/16 which is the same as that
on the label.
Perhaps illegal TOC.
Dejanews-search Charley Pride and you see it’s a damn good protection from the computer end, because other people more knowing than i are also having the same problems and they probaly tried more solutions than i.
But from the standalone- its defeated.

I am reading more and i found this:

As an additional feature, consumers can insert MediaCloQ-enabled CDs into their computer’s CD-ROM drive, and get access to Web sites where they can download music. These songs can be copied to portable players that support the music industry’s copy protection standards. The Web connection also gives fans access to artist information, such as concert dates.

This would make it seem like this cd is related to one of those cds that have music videos on them yet play in your cd player. IN FACT, i am pretty sure this is exactly like this one cd i have: “The Doors - Stoned Immaculate.” Is what that quote says true for you?

I have a legal copy of Billy Gilman-Dare to Dream
I can extract the files with the usual programs and make a cd with just the songs.
This album will also connect to the internet and allow me to d/l or view additional information, but i can extract the files as indicated with no problem.

Charley Pride’s album has no such songs or files that are visible nor extractable and it is true if you insert cd in cd-rom player you will be connected to their site to d/l the songs.
The company is saying you can’t extract the files without first going to our site , register and then d/l the files.
You must first have an internet connection to use this album.
But what about people who have no computer and certainly no internet connection, they would be out of luck right now.
This company plans to address this topic in their next copy-protection scheme.

The Billy Gilman CD says quite clearly HDCD-this is not copy protection nor is the enhanced CD which also might show up on jewel case.
I spent a number of hours in a local record store trying to search out copy protected albums, but eventually gave up.
The print is so fine that i had to borrow a magnifying from the manager and had to hold the cover at an angle in order to see
something like
Must have a pentium, Internet connection and they take no responsibility if it doesn’t work.
In the case of Billy Gilman i saw a video and a welcome from BG telling me to come back later where there will be additional info about touring dates…etc.

To answer your question we are talking about two differnet scenario’s

Here’s some further information that i forgot to post
This album was released towards the latter part of May or early June and about the same time 2000 copies that were not protected were sent to Australia with 21 songs on CD.
It was reported that they got on the net, and sunncomm’s comment was Charley did everything he could do to prevent from this happening, but out technology was not compromised.
Why 21 songs there and 15 here i do not know.
BTW, people from ebay were selling the cd with 21 songs.

People in their own business pointed out to them that its all academic whether the technology was compromised or not.
If it made the net what good was the technology.
The impression i got was these critics were talking to a inaminate object called a wall.
Files do travel from Australia via to the world via net therefore it becomes worldwide.

A few bad files made their way (poor analogue copies) to yahoo, Sunncomm “bragged” they were poor copies and they had them removed.
Now i have no intention of posting what i accomplished on the net, really don’t like Charley Pride, but i don’t think they would be “bragging” like they did in the above case.

By the way On the CD itself it says, Protected by MediaCloq protection.
Othe record companies are using mystical words like "We do not want to influence the listener’s ear and therefore we have “Non disclosure agreements with the record companies”, i believe they may be safeaudio, buts that’s been solved just recently by a hack.

The translation for these mystical words is If"we disclose to the public what cd’s are protected, they then become non protected".




Labels try to thwart piracy at the source

Todd Pack | Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted August 6, 2001

Record labels, concerned that people won’t buy music online if they can download bootleg copies for free, are looking for ways to stop piracy at the source: compact discs.

Practically every song that can be snagged from Napster or another file-sharing service was originally copied, or “ripped,” from an ordinary CD. The process takes only seconds, and thanks to digital technology, it produces a copy – on another CD or a computer hard drive – that’s about as good as the original.

BMG Entertainment, the world’s No. 2 record label, signed a deal last week to produce at least some CDs for sale using an anti-piracy technology called MediaCloQ (pronounced “media cloak”). BMG’s artist lineup includes Christina Aguilera, Whitney Houston and Elvis Presley.

Stop people from ripping CDs, the labels say, and you’ll do a lot to stop piracy.

But others argue it isn’t as simple as that.

If the industry isn’t careful, some experts say, it could make things difficult for honest consumers without doing anything to stop the bootleggers.

“Consumers and labels are at war,” said Lee Black, director of research at Webnoize Inc., a digital-entertainment consulting firm in Cambridge, Mass.

With the major labels planning to launch online music-subscription services by late summer or early fall, stopping piracy at the source “is going to be very important to them,” Black said.

But “consumers are going to want the widest degree of flexibility possible,” he added. “They’ll want to move that content around to other devices they own,” such as their personal computers, recordable CDs and portable MP3 players.

Violation of your rights?

The problem is, the same technology that makes it more difficult to pirate songs may make it impossible for paying customers to play CDs on their personal computers or even on some older CD players.

It also could make it difficult for consumers to compile their favorite tunes on a single CD for their personal use – a “right” some people argue is guaranteed by a 9-year-old federal law.

For instance, if you buy a CD protected by MediaCloQ, “you will not be able to rip music, and you will not be able to play that CD in your computer, either,” said Bill Whitmore Jr., marketing vice president for Phoenix-based SunnComm Inc., which developed the system.

Such restrictions could end up hurting, rather than helping, CD sales – especially among students, who were among the first to latch on to Napster, a file-sharing service that rattled and revolutionized the music industry.

PCs and laptops have largely replaced CD players and “boom boxes” on college campuses, analysts say. So students who can’t get commercial CDs to play in their machines could end up downloading more pirated music files instead.

Such consequences are particularly troublesome considering that the preventive measures may be for naught, said Phil Leigh, a digital-media analyst with Raymond James & Associates in St. Petersburg.

No matter what precautions the major music labels take to prevent people from ripping CDs or even playing them on PCs, determined hackers can find a way around them, Leigh said.

Labels must walk fine line

In fact, saving copy-protected CD songs on a PC’s hard drive is about as simple as dubbing an album onto a cassette tape, he said. As with the taped copy, the quality of the PC copy won’t be perfect, Leigh said, but it’s probably good enough for bootleggers and casual listeners.

Rather than making anti-piracy schemes foolproof, he said, the labels should make illegal copying just difficult enough – and make their subscription services just cheap enough – so piracy is no longer worth the trouble. Subscriptions are expected to cost about $10 a month, though some analysts are already saying that may be too expensive.

Leigh said he understands the labels’ desire to stop unauthorized copying completely, but “attempts to control the consumer simply aren’t going to work.”

Not that the labels won’t try.

SunnComm’s system, for example, prevents PCs from reading a copy-protected CD, but it can allow the CD’s owner to download the same music from a special Web site – also in a copy-protected form – for replay only on the computer.

Eventually, the company will give labels the option of letting CD purchasers copy songs onto a second CD, though that copy couldn’t be copied again or shared online.

Other methods in the works

SunnComm isn’t the only company working on a way to stop or discourage people from copying compact discs. Macrovision Corp. of Sunnyvale, Calif., has developed technology that inserts annoying “clicks” and “pops” onto ripped song files.

Such restrictions raise questions about a consumer’s fair-use rights to copyrighted material.

Under the Audio Home Recording Act, passed in 1992, copyright holders can’t sue people who make copies for personal use. But that doesn’t apply to copies made on PCs or onto blank CDs, according to the Recording Industry Association of America, a Washington trade group.

Digital audiotape and minidisc devices are covered under the statute because those manufacturers are required to pay a royalty to artists and record companies, and must try to prevent users from making copies of copies, the group said.

Because the makers of general-use devices such as PCs and CD “burners” aren’t obliged to follow either of those rules, those devices aren’t covered by the law, the industry group argues.

Besides, Whitmore said, nothing in the law says labels have to make copying easy.

“When you buy music,” he said, “you buy the right to listen to that music, not to give it away.”

After reading this publicity now you know by what i mean
this company is slick, but is producing snow in August.
The article mentions dubbing onto to tape, how about this device

Honestly, I feel that everything that this company says is hype. I investigated their website and I can tell that they are a very new company. Because of the fact that they have only protected a few (two?) cds, they are still probably running off venture funding. This means that they are being forced to over-hype their product in order to get more funding.

I work with people who write snowjobs and you can detect it and smell it a mile away.
You are right , it is hype.

Again "IF it plays and Records, TS’ and we ain’t talking analogue.
I don’t know if you seen this post, but go back to front where all the news is posted by days and search out more info about safeaudio and look at the posts.

One person who is far better than i when it comes to computers posted a Power point Presentation about this protection.
He first presented it from a user point of view and says it ain’t easy d/l files and be prepared for an exam.
He then presented how he cracked the CD by using a Network sniffer and a key generator along with a place to find Charley Pride’s songs, probably for comparison purposes.

I d/l files and intend to do an exhaustive exam of the spectrum and comparing it against what we did.

Again I have seen many posts where people have said output to input will solve that problem. (analogue copies)
Record companie(s) will be the first to raise their hands as well as sunncomm and say we know about that, no big deal.
Even people in their own business say you can take an analogue recording and doctor it up and you might not know the difference or care about the difference.

Isn’t it ironic that sony is trying to find a copy protection scheme to prevent ripping ,but at the same time they makes devices that allow you to get to the mountain top rather than climbing.

My thinking is not original and other people probably figured this out way before i did. but my god it’s so simple.
Use a standalone/cd/player recorder.
The companie(s) hope that most people do not have the knowledge fro reverse engineering nor are most kids going to shell out $$$ for a standalone player.
I searched the DMCA and found again if you reverse engineer what the author set out to do is illegal, but “IF it Plays and Records, TS” no such reverse engineering was accomplished.

Again there will be others who will argue and say you didn’t get raw data, Recording studio analysis seems to refute that.
I didn’t do anything out of the ordinary, but what’s amazing is that the copy protection companie(s) overlooked this.
It’s called a state of denial.

There are always exceptions in this world i know that , but the above statement holds true generally.
Could you distinguish between Raw Copy Vs Bit for Bit Copy?
I can’t

I have looked at song no 6 Four Walls which i ripped and which our friend left for us.
We will refer to ripped as me from standalone player/recorder/player and hacked from our friend.

Ripped: 2:56
Please bear in mind i have only done #6 and probably need to get back to other things to do.
The first thing is to let people listen ,forget scientific exams, mumbo, jumbo, etc…
Three people were allowed to listen to #6, Four Walls by CP
Now i know that’s not enough for a statistical survey, but the three indicated no difference between hacked and ripped,usually you use around twenty people for starters.

Okay time to load up sound forge 5.0 Version B
I have two folders on my HD, one called ripped and one called hacked so no confusion there.

Load up ripped and hacked version, now i’m not an expert, but i found out if you do a comparison you want both waveforms to line up and begin and end equally.
It does make a difference, our friend began a little earlier than my beginning so it was IMPOSSIBLE to get equal and the ends of mine were clipped to meet his end.

Hacked Minimum Sample value -31,032(-0.47 db, -94.70%)Left channel
right channel -29,706(-0.85dB -90.65%)

Ripped LC -31,450(-0.36dB, -95.98%) RC -31,681 (-0.30dB, -96.62%)

Max Sample Value Hacked LC 30,946(-0.50dB, 94.44% RC 31,05(-0.47dB,94.78%)

Max sample value ripped LC 31,209,(-0.42dB,95.24%) RC 31,522(-0.34dB,96.20%)

RMS Power
Hacked LC-13.47dB(21.19%) RC -13.40dB (21.35%)
Ripped LC-13.51dB(21.09%) RC -13.45dB (21.24%)

Average value offset Hacked LC -1(-88.52 dB, --0.00%) RC -3(-80.09dB, -0.01%)

Average value offset Ripped LC 0(-inf,dB, -0.00%) RC -2(–82.45dB, -0.01%)

Zero crossings Hacked LC 535.72.HZ  RC 546.93HZ

Ripped LC 558.72 HZ RC 567.95HZ

Beginning and end make the difference, really should be symmetrical like an overlay

The spectrum from and this is just a guess -30db, its a little above
-39 db to say 13Hz are almost identical as well as -dB’s
Hacked version from 13Hz drops off gradually with a slight rise of a peak then drops off again
ripped version from 13Hz drops off like a step ladder(show 2 steps). Not abruptly, more like gradually
Once we get to say 16Hz to 22,050Hz we are identical again.

what does all this mean
Again I’m glad i’m not a sound expert, but it looks like values are similar in the beginning and middle execpt for one small section close to the end.
Waveforms need to be aligned the same or as close as they can be if you are to match spectrums , we eyeballed it.
A recording studio can definitely with right software do better than this by aligning waveform properly.

P.S. Imagine xy graph where y is dB 0 at top and decreasing to -150
and xaxis is Hz to 22,050

I gave somebody the printed copies of the overlay’s of both hacked and ripped and he indicated that the hacked copy had a small amount of hiss in at the range where i describe there is a difference and also a loss of high’s,but at this range the ear will not pick it up.

Now that is the best PP slide I’ve seen. And believe me I’ve had PP by death too many times… I LUV this shit! :wink:

I did nothing in comparison to what he did.
Mine required no thinking, his was superb.

Our results comparing overlays were almost identical except for one small area which may not be heard in the human range which indicated slight amount of hiss from his version.

I happened to find it by accident by checking back and seeing that there were 9 posts and my memory indicated that there were 8, rest is history.

Therefore what have we got.
1 Hacked copy by our visitor with powerpoint presentation
(Get an A+ with this presentation)
2 Modified cloneCD which ripped off album
3 Standalone/cd/player/recorder

***If it plays and records, TS"
Is this a hard concept to understand?

I made a trip to the local stereo store and first let me tell you this store does not sell Air Conditioners, lawn mowers, Sega games, etc…
Their business is high end stereo, DVD players, plasma monitors,
digital camcorders, 8mm digital camcorders,video and sound editing equipment.
Computers are there for only demonstrating say video editing.
They installed in a friend’s house a 60 inch projection system with surround system in his den and indicated where placement of speakers should be for maximum effect.
By now you get the idea of what sort of store i am in.

I specifically asked for a person who knows sound ,not just a clerk selling equipment.
I ended up with a person who repairs stereo, high end stuff.
The question i posed to him was this
Given a CD that is not protected and you copy it via the computer end or use standalone/cd/player/recorder, what do you truly have?

Previous posts indicate very little difference.

First his credentials besides repairing what is mentioned above.
He indicates he is a purist with regards to sound.
You have a case of files versus signal and of course he prefers files.
His response was that in some cases he could tell the difference between computer versus standalone and said it depended upon the music one is listening to and other times he could not.
He indicated the differences were minor so in reality they were about the same.
He also indicated that cd’s made by the consumer standalone provided a slightly richer tonal quality than that of the computer and he said we could argue into our next lifetimes which is real and which is memorex and we would both come away with no winners.
In short he was saying it is what the brain perceives.

So i went back to my friend’s house and listened to the Original CP album and the copy we made from the standalone. Now i thought the copy sounded a little richer in tonal qualities on the standalone as compared to the computer end.
But then again i may have been biased because i was given that information at the store.
So again it is what the brain perceives it to be.

I’m not sure if i gave a clear explanation of comparing our friend’s file to the one my friend and i made.
Using soundforge and after getting each spectrum one can overlay the printed spectrums on top of each other and see that the audible portion what the ear hears is for all practical purposes identical and the differences lie outside of the audible portion.

Also found out something else on that album just today,
I got out the calculator and added up the times of the 15 songs and came up with 35 mintues or so.
However the cdplayer indicated about 37 minutes or so.
Why is this so?
Went back to the original and there are pauses on the original,and we are not talking 2-3 seconds because that would only be about 45 more seconds and still not add up right.
They are longer than that and of course the copy had the same pauses.
Is it related to the scheme of copy protection?
I tend to lean that way, but then again my computer knowledge is

From another forum:

I was wandering if there could be any difference between recording digital audio onto a CDR from a computer burner vs. a dedicated Audio CD recorder.

As far as the resulting audio quality goes… no, probably not, as
long as you’re using a good burner, good-quality blank, and your
method of converting analog music to digital format is of high quality
(e.g. a good sound card).

Found this on another forum

How to copy a MediaCloQ™ protected audio CD
August 8, 2001

Let me start off by saying that I don’t even know for sure if the protection I am talking about is indeed MediaCloQ™… The symptoms look like it, but I read that MediaCloQ™ protected CD’s would transfer you to the MediaCloQ™ website automatically (as soon as you insert the CD into a CD-ROM drive) where you can download music files.

I recently wanted to make a personal backup of my own CD called “The Loveparade Compilation 2001”. CD2 copied fine, but CD1 could not be read by any CD-ROM player or CD burner. It would however play in any normal audio CD player. Now as a decent reverser you must understand my frustration :wink: A friend tried copying this CD with a custom audio CD copier (Philips CDR 765) which actually worked. But if you haven’t patched yours to be able to write low-cost non-copyrighted CD-R’s with it this is quite expensive. This copy will be able to be grabbed on a normal way.

So, next evenings I spend trying to understand what was going on here. I found out that after insertion the laser first goes to the center of the CD (the TOC or Table Of Contents where the index of the CD is stored). After this the laser went to somewhere on the outer side of the disc and started to try to read there. This is where the reader would never stop doing this and some players will hang forever in this phase…

So what idea could be easier than to prevent the reader from reading this outer part? I made 3 paper stickers of about 25 x 20 mm and placed them on the outer side of the CD. Now the reader would read the inner TOC, then go to the outside again and after not being able to read anything there because of the stickers, the reader would be ‘smart’ enough to decide to stick with the inner TOC, go back to the center and read this TOC as the one and only TOC :slight_smile:

I am certainly not an expert on CD readers but I think this is what is going on here. If anyone has better ideas, let me know. This protected CD has a so called Multi Session TOC. This is the same when you burn a CD-R and set it to MODE2 / Multi Session when you burn an empty CD-R for the first time. After this a MODE2 CD-R can have multi sessions appended afterwards. For every new session a new TOC is written (with the old data about the files already on the CD-R included). My theory is that this protected CD has also a MODE2 / Multi Session TOC which makes a CD-ROM player and burner decide to search for the latest TOC from the outside to the inner side. With the placed stickers it will not be able to and most CD-ROM players will decide to stick with the center TOC.

So now the CD-ROM player will read the CD but unfortunately it will not be able to read the last tracks because my stickers are placed there. So now a second trick is needed. I used a paperclip to push into the little hole on the front of my CD-ROM player to open the door manually. The reader has no idea at all I was doing this so it came out spinning :slight_smile: Then I removed the stickers and pushed the CD back in. The last part I had to push a bit harder to make sure the CD would be totally inserted and fit on the spindle again.

Guess what? I could now play and grab all tracks as I would do with any non-protected CD! I must say that on one CD-ROM player (TEAC) I had to skip the first block (or 0.01 seconds) in Easy CD-DA Extractor for the first track only (still have no clue why). My Plextor 16/10/40A burner and another CD-ROM player had no problem with this first track.

I did try to move the stickers to the outside of the CD until my audio CD player would just be able to play the last track until the last second but the CD-ROM player would not read it anymore. In fact, I would have to move the stickers a whole lot more to the center of the CD before it would be able to read it again. It might be possible that there is no TOC at all on the outside; the inner TOC just points to some music track which will of course not be understood by the CD-ROM player as a valid MODE2 TOC… The reason why this CD does not automatically transfer you to the MediaCloQ™ website like a MediaCloQ™ protected CD would do could be that the protection I discuss here isn’t MediaCloQ™ at all. But it could also be due to the fact that this CD was almost full and that there was simply no space left for a real TOC and a valid data section where an autorun.inf file could be stored which transfers you to their website.

Now to summarize this little trick:

Place 3 (or maybe more on better CD-ROM players / burners) non-transparent stickers of about 25 x 20 mm on the outside of your CD along the edge. Make sure that they wont stick outside of the CD and press them well, otherwise your CD-ROM player will start making funny noises :wink:

Insert the CD into your CD-ROM player and see if the CD-ROM player accepts it (you can see the tracks in your Explorer). If not you can try to move the stickers a bit to the center or place more stickers. Note that my laptop CD-ROM player and one burner I’ve seen would not be able to read it at all so no guarantees are given here…

Now we have to wait until we are sure that the CD is not spinning anymore. After the CD-ROM player accepted the CD it can still be spinning for a few minutes (my TEAC stopped after more than 3 minutes). I guess to be sure, wait about 5 minutes. If you are impatient here you risk to eject it while it is still spinning and this could damage your CD and who knows the laser of your CD-ROM player, so be warned!

Now using a fine screw driver or a paper clip push into the little hole in the door of your CD-ROM player. The trays of some CD-ROM players can be opened totally without the CD-ROM player noticing but I saw one that would re-read the CD after closing the tray again so I would have to open it until halfway, until I was just able to get the CD out. Push your paper clip into the hole until the tray opens. Then pull it out manually (be careful and do it slowly!).

Now remove the CD, remove the stickers and place it back.

Now push the tray to close it again. Do it carefully. At the end you have to push a little faster to make sure the CD will be inserted entirely. If not, take it out again and try again.

Now you can play it and grab it like you would normally do :slight_smile: If the first track will play but not grab skip the first 0.01 seconds or the first block. I use Easy CD-DA Extractor which offers this option (at the bottom of the extract window).

Enjoy and be happy !

I think this may be CACTUS DATA SHIELD protection.

Do you know which version of Loveparade 2001 compilation? There are several different version from different record companies.

I have mentioned in this forum before I came across the BMG LoveParade compilation which had Cactus Data Shield 100 copy-protection. You can easily copy it with CloneCD! :slight_smile: (The tricks used: 3 sessions, errors, large audio pre-gap)

BTW, In my case, it clearly warned the customer on the back of the cd that it is protected by Cactus Data Shield 100 and can’t be played on pc…

CloneCD rulez!!! :smiley:

No I don’t, but i have it on order from the local dj store.
I believe a good standalone will solve that problem.
Sounded like above that person is a surgeon of which i am not.

This copy-protection can still be copied without a stand-alone recorder.

The person you mentioned above is indeed a very creative person… :wink: