Music industry must put warning labels on copy protected CD's

I just posted the article Music industry must put warning labels on copy protected CD’s.

We are all too familiar about the Charley Pride album “A Tribute to Jim Reeves” copy protection by Sunncomm.

A women purchased said album and she didn’t know it was copyprotected and took it home…

Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/4731-Music-industry-must-put-warning-labels-on-copy-protected-CDs.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/4731-Music-industry-must-put-warning-labels-on-copy-protected-CDs.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

With this in mind go buy a Charlie Pride album and sue the balls off Sunncomm! Ive been waiting for a reason to upgrade my computer! LOL :9

I would like to see a label. If I were buying a CD I wouldn’t want a copy protected one. I would want to be warned. I think they should be forced to put a label on it. The reason is, is because the copy protection messes around with the error correction codes on the CD. Which means the CD won’t last as long as a normal CD. But if they don’t wanna put a label on the CD, they should at least have to take the CD compact disc label off it. Because it’s not a true compact disc. So people would just have to look for that before buying a CD.

Most of the digital audio discs I see in stores these days don’t have the “compact disc digital audio” logo, the words “compact disc” or even the term “CD” on them. However, I do agree that labelling of a copy protected audio CD should be mandatory as such a disc does NOT conform to audio CD standards. I’d go a step further and force them to have on the label a notice that the disc is intentionally defective.

chsbiking said “I think they should be forced to put a label on it. The reason is, is because the copy protection messes around with the error correction codes on the CD. Which means the CD won’t last as long as a normal CD.” But this is false information. The following text describes what role error correcting codes play on compact discs: “The storage medium used is a compact disc (CD), a flat circular disc resembling a conventional phonograph record but less that 5 inches in diameter, aluminized (for reflectivity, as we shall see is necessary) and coated with a clear protective plastic. Rather than representing an audio signal as a continuous waveform, for digital recordings the signal is sampled at a fixed time intervals, quantized and stored as a sequence of binary numbers. The method of coding sound for storage and playback is called (linear) pulse code modulation (PCM). At a given instance in the time the sound wave is sampled, and the amplitude is determined and assigned a discrete value from 1 to (2^16)-1. This value is given as a binary 16-tuple. Actually two samples, one for the left channel and one for the right, are taken. These samples are taken at a rate of 44,100 per second (44.1 kHz). Each binary 16-tuple is taken to represent two field elements from GF(2^8), and hence each sample produces 4 GF(2^8) symbols. On playback, the compact disc player will have to process (44,100)(32)=1,411,200 bits of audio data per second. As will be seen shortly, for various reasons the number of bits actually processed per second is substantially higher than this. For purposes of error correction, information is grouped into segments called ‘frames’, with each frame holding 24 data symbols. The code used for error correction is a Cross-Interleaved-Reed-Solomon Code (CIRC), obtained by cross-interleaving two Reed-Solomon codes. The 24 symbols from GF(2^8) from 6 samples are used as information symbols in a (28,24)-RS code C1 over GF(2^8). The code is now interleaved to a depth of 28 using a 4-frame delay interleave. The resulting columns of 28 symbols are used as information symbols in a (32,28)-RS code C2 over GF(2^8), with 4 additional parity check symbols determined by each column. (We note that these codes are actually shortened Reed-Solomon codes. Shortened codes are defined in a later exercise). The symbols in a frame, which now corresponds to a C2 codeword, are then regrouped to separate the odd and even-numbered symbols of that frame into distinct frames, with the symbols in odd-numbered symbol positions of one frame grouped with symbols in even-numbered positions from the next frame in time to form a new frame. At this stage the frame consists of 32 8-bit symbols (24 audio data symbols and 8 parity symbols). One more 8-bit symbol is addede which holds ‘control and display’ information, including information for the disc directory and unused bits (possibly for future use). In order to complete the bit description of a frame we require some knowledge of how the information is stored and read from the disc itself.” After that it gets a little technical, but a nice theorem tells us that “An (n,k)-RS code over GF(2^m) implies the existence of a binary (nm,km)-code with burst error correcting capability m(floor((n-k)/2)-1)+1.” The significance of the above observation is that Reed-Solomon codes have a high burst error correction rate. A burst error that occurs over the binary channel will affect a number of sequential bits. If the RS-code chosen can correct this burst error, then, in a nutshell, you’ll have your audio played back without any problems. So, copy protection of compact discs and the error correcting codes that are used to ensure proper audio playback (from things like scratches, dirt or other minor problems) have nothing to do with each other. The text excerpts I quoted above are both from “An Introduction to Error Correcting Codes with Applications” by Vanstone and Oorschot. Thus your CDs will last just as long… probably DUE to the error correcting codes used, rather than the other way around.

Sorry for my typos in the above response (ie: affect instead of ‘effect’). I just started using a new keyboard and it’s taking a bit of time to get used to :slight_smile:

@dx50azlm Very nice all this theory you presented, but it is a fact that CDS200 uses deliberate errors on the C2 level. Because C2 is part of the error protection/correction, a CDS200 is more sensitive to scratches than a non protected cd.

Phillips themselves (the creator and gaurdian of the Compact Disc label and technology) said they feel that companies with copy protection such as these are infringing and tampering with the Compact Disc techonology so much, that in the future Phillips may force them to remove all reference and branding that states that the copy protected discs are CDs. They would have to be labelled something else, because that isn’t what a true CD is. Go Phillips!

If I were a manufacturer of PC CD-ROM/RW drives or DVD-ROM drives, I’d consider adding software to enable a ‘legacy Audio CD’ mode, i.e. force the drive to read the CD as a standard single sessin Audio CD regardless of its content (data tracks, second session, etc.). E.g. a standard Audio CD player only expects Audio CDs to be loaded and will actually attempt to play data CDs too :9 This addon would also come useful should a user write a second session to a CD and it fails for some reason. :slight_smile:

These discs will HAVE to be labelled with the words “Copy protected” or similar for the consumer to choose whether or not he/she will buy it. Maybe that isn’t far enough… should they also be forced to put the TYPE of protection on the disc for consumer awareness? To say that this would leave the disc open to hacking is rather silly because they already are anyway - protected or not. I for one will never really want to buy a protected disc but how long will it be before ALL discs are protected anyway? That’s the way these silly sods will have it if they get their way. But, hopefully, that’ll never happen. As for Phillips stating that they would ask for all references to CD’s etc etc being removed from media if they are copy protected tehn I totally agree here. Go on Phillips… shove it up 'em… :8

So they mess around with the error correction. Then you get a scratch on the disc that normally wouldn’t affect the playback. But now it may because the error correction does match the standard used by CD players. If your saying that messing with the error correction doesn’t effect the quality of the CD. Then why put the error correction there. Just leave it out. It’s there for a reason. It shouldn’t be tampered with.

And another note. Your post explains how standard error correction works on a CD. That’s great. but copy protected discs don’t use standard error protection, and the methods used are not well documented. Unless you have the copy protection white paper on your desk. You can’t really prove weather or not it effects the quality of the CD or not. But I have read many articles that claim that a copy protected disc will not last as long as normal standard CD.

And one last final note. (sorry). You said that error correcting codes and copy protection don’t have anything to do with each other. True on some copy protections but a lot of copy protections do work by messing up the error correction codes on a CD to confuse a computer. This is a well known fact. They have a lot to do with each other.

What no one seems to have mentioned, even though I’m sure we all thought of it, is that this is one more way for the RIAA member sales to decrease. Thus, blaming the internet once again, and file sharing, which would give them even more power in congress because we cant have another major industry collapse the way the airline industry has. So they will be bailed out, dumbass laws will be passed, lifetime sentences handed-out. Luckily though since so much is done by underage kids maybe they will only have to serve until they’re 18 and can then have their records expunged. Dont forget extradition, we will fill all the jails with international file swappers as well. DAMN the RIAA, there is not a doubt in my mind that there is some ingenious person there that decided the best course of action IS to LOSE money, just so they can cry foul and get everything their way, that goes for the MPAA as well.

Well as you all know if you have gone out and paid hard earned dosh for a music cd, and want too make a legitimate backup too protect your investment then you are entitled to. As for a lable which states this cd is “protected” and possibly won’t play in most stack systems, in simple terms I wouldn’t buy it :4 Greetz too all The diplomat :8

"The disadvantage to the companie(s) of course is that it would be an obvious target for hacking. " NO! The disadvantage would be that there would be less sales due to people not wanting their friggin’ fair use rights taken away!