Re: BPI's reply to a complaint about protected CDs

To: Matt Phillips <Matt.Phillips-WcQI5Ly86Rxaa/[email protected]>
From: Jim Peters <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Technical misunderstandings in your copy-controlled CD argument
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 12:29:21 +0100

Matt Phillips wrote:
> Thanks for your mail. Sorry I haven't been back to you before now,
> but it's been a hectic few weeks.
> 
> I think that discussing the intricacies of different copy protection
> misses the point; the music industry is in the unenviable position
> where its product can be stolen and shared for free. 

Actually, I think that focussing too much on the (fear of) piracy and
not being concerned at all about the technical details of whether CD
copy-control is appropriate or effective is what has got us into this
mess.

I'm not campaigning against SACDs, for example, or against Apple's
iTunes DRM (both of which also restrict copying).  Those are different
issues as far as I am concerned.

Degrading the CD format is different.  Only by ignoring the details
can you pretend that this is an acceptable compromise.  Knowing the
details, however, to me it is absolutely completely unacceptable.


> I've offered a few comments to your comments below, which should
> help clear up some of the misunderstandings.

Your position is very reasonable and it makes sense within its own
boundaries.  However, unfortunately the real world of CDs and CD
drives is based on technology, and that plays by its own rules.  No
amount of propaganda can change the laws of physics, for instance.

I hope you understand that I have nothing personally to gain from the
elimination of CD copy-protection.  I no longer buy CDs, nor follow
mainstream music.

Instead, this is about fighting the corruption of the CD medium and
the propaganda required to hide that from the public.  It is about the
dishonesty of degrading a medium whose major selling point has always
been quality.  The musician and the engineer in me both find the
corruption of the CD format highly objectionable.


> It's a matter for the record companies whether they adopt the
> BPI-recommended copy-protection labelling. It's also up to retailers
> how they stock the product. We're not an enforcement body in that
> sense.

You could be if you wanted to be.

> My point is that optical audio discs with or without copy-protection
> are designed to play on audio players - and those that don't are
> very much in the minority. The industry continues to work towards
> making sure that the tiny minority of audio players that don't
> accept copy protection stay in the minority. Problems arise when
> non-audio players are passed off as audio players. It's a happy
> coincidence for manufacturers that most audio discs do play on these
> drives - but the record industry should not, in my view, be blamed
> when they don't.

It is not a "happy coincidence" -- it is by design.  The CD audio
standards were published, drive manufacturers created compatible
drives, and then the CD audio discs played in them without problem.
This is the whole point of standards.  Only by breaking standards can
this engineering process go wrong -- and it is not the car audio
player manufacturers who are the ones breaking the standards.


> Car manufacturers should ensure that their suppliers supply them
> with audio players to install in their cars - and not anything
> else. Audio-player manufacturers are aware of the developments in
> optical discs since 1980. The point above explains what Red Book is
> - and I believe it to be accurate.

Audio players manufactured according to what standard?  "Red Book"?
No, as you point out, conformance to that is no longer enough to
ensure that modern discs are played correctly.  So, by what standard,
then?  There simply isn't a published standard that a drive can be
made to conform to that will guarantee that it plays modern
copy-control discs.


> > It is very clearly your fault because you are creating
> > non-standard discs.  Okay, these discs happen to play on most "Red
> > Book"-compliant hardware, but the entire purpose of these discs is
> > that they do not play on *all* "Red Book" hardware, but only on
> > some of it.
> 
> > Not only does this hit car players, but also many other high-end
> > systems that use high-end transports, which are typically based on
> > CD-ROM drives because they are more advanced and take more care of
> > the quality of the data.  Just because most CD players are stupid
> > enough to carry on despite the errors intentionally introduced
> > into these discs does not make CD-ROM drive based transports
> > inferior.
> 
> I disagree with you. You say that the entire purpose of the discs is
> to prevent them playing on some red book hardware. No. The purpose
> of using copy-protection on audio discs is to prevent them being
> copied. 

A technical point: at a hardware level, playing is exactly the same
process as copying.  In playback, the data is read off the disc and is
sent to the audio outputs.  In copying, the data is read from the disc
and is instead directed to the S/PDIF outputs or to the hard drive on
a computer.  The process of reading the audio data from the disc is
the same.

Typically, if a drive can play a disc, it can also be used to copy it.

So, perhaps the point would be better expressed as: The purpose of a
'copy-control' disc is to break the Red Book standards in such a way
that it cannot be *read* correctly on some types of Red Book hardware
(especially Red Book hardware that has digital outputs or computer
storage), whilst still reading mostly without problem on all the
remaining Red Book hardware.


> The points I made above hold true here: (1) record companies
> have the right to protect their audio discs from being copied

I disagree only with the methods used and the lack of honesty and
openness.  SACD is an uncopyable medium, but it retains excellent
quality.  I have no argument with SACD.

> (2) copy protection companies continue to work as best they can
> with audio player manufacturers to ensure the technology is not
> prohibitive to consumers

This is a contradiction.  They may claim that they are working with
player manufacturers, but if they tell the manufacturers how to read
the disc to make it play correctly, then those same drives can also be
used to copy the audio, because copying and playing are both based on
the same process (i.e. both are based on reading the disc).

> (3) if manufacturers are installing drives in their cars/PCs to
> play audio discs, they should make sure that they are fit for that
> purpose. 

But based on what technical standard can they ensure this?  The only
people who know how to make drives that will play copy-control CDs are
the copy-control format companies (Midbar/etc), and they can't tell
anyone their trade secrets or else they would be out of a job.

The CD drive companies have to reverse-engineer the 'copy-control'
discs to get their drives to play them.  That is the only way that
most advanced modern drives know how to play copy-control CDs, and
then that only gives them security until the next mutation of the
corrupt formats comes along.

This issue won't go away so long as the corrupt format companies
(Midbar/etc) keep making new variations on their formats.  However as
soon as they stop making new variations, then all the drive
manufacturers will catch up with them and the corrupt discs will be
playable everywhere (i.e. readable, and therefore also copyable).


> I'd also like to re-iterate the point I made at the top of this
> email; a balance has to be found between offering consumers the
> product they want and ensuring the artists and creators get paid.

I object to unnecessarily degrading the CD medium.  Get paid for your
products if you like -- this has little to do with the argument as far
as I can see, because "copy-control" doesn't effectively control
copying, so it can't improve sales.

Nor is this a balance.  Maybe it looks like a balance to record execs,
but that is just an illusion.  The copy-protection gives an illusion
of protection, but no counterfeiter will be stopped by this.  In fact
just about anyone with a feel for technology will be able to get
around this just by trying different things until something works.  
I know this because people write and say, "I'm no technical expert,
but I could find a way to copy it, so what is the point?"

The cost of this illusion is drive incompatibility, degrading the
medium, degrading the quality (yes, people with really good equipment
can easily hear the difference between the protected and unprotected
discs, especially Cactus), inconveniencing many honest customers, and
causing constant problems for the CD equipment industry due to the
constantly mutating corrupt formats.

Please continue to believe whatever you want to believe, though --
feel free to continue to blame the wrong people, and disaffect the
consumer, and pay vast sums to the people selling the industry a big
lie, for a "solution" which solves nothing.  After two and a half
years of campaigning, I no longer hold any great hope of the music
industry seeing sense.

With best regards --

Jim Peters

-- 
 Jim Peters                  (_)/=\~/_(_)                 [email protected]
                          (_)  /=\  ~/_  (_)
 Uazú                  (_)    /=\    ~/_    (_)                http://
 Brighton, UK       (_) ____ /=\ ____ ~/_ ____ (_)            uazu.net

 Design/view/compare digital filters with Fiview:   http://uazu.net/FI

To: "Jim Peters" <[email protected]>
From: "Matt Phillips" <Matt.Phillips-WcQI5Ly86Rxaa/[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Technical misunderstandings in your copy-controlled CD argument
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:22:12 +0100

Hi Jim

Thanks for your mail. Sorry I haven't been back to you before now, but
it's been a hectic few weeks.

I think that discussing the intricacies of different copy protection
misses the point; the music industry is in the unenviable position
where its product can be stolen and shared for free. A balance has to
be found between offering consumers the product they want and ensuring
the artists and creators get paid - this is especially true in the
digital age.

I've offered a few comments to your comments below, which should help
clear up some of the misunderstandings.

With best wishes

Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Peters [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: 11 March 2004 10:36
To: Matt Phillips
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Technical misunderstandings in your copy-controlled CD argument


Matt Phillips

I run the UKCDR.org anti-corrupt-CD campaign, and someone forwarded to
me a reply you made to them some time ago.  Your arguments seem to me
to be totally bogus, and seem to rest on an incomplete technical
understanding of the issues.  For this reason, I thought I would point
out these errors in the hope that a more informed discussion might
take place.


> 1) Actually all CDs manufactured by the industry conform to clear 
> standards.

That is not true.  Copy-controlled discs do not conform to any known
standard.  In fact, if they conformed to a standard, then they would
no longer be effective, as everyone could make their drives read them
correctly.  For example, Midbar's Cactus Data Shield changes format
from one revision to the next.  Copy-controlled discs are a moving
target, and intentionally so.

<< I disagree - copy-protected optical audio discs are designed to
play on audio CD players. Copy-protection companies work closely with
audio player manufacturers to ensure that copy-protection both a)
restricts copying, and b) plays on audio players. >>

> 3) I don't blame the record industry for the fact that I can't play my 
> CDs in my cassette player. Different format.

Yes, we would be very happy if you would sell 'copy-controlled' CDs as
a separate format, in their own section of the shop, and with clear
labelling on all the E-tailer websites indicating that these are not
in fact CDs, but in fact some other format.  However, as it stands,
these are being sold as CDs, so consumers rightly expect them to
behave as CDs.

<< It's a matter for the record companies whether they adopt the
BPI-recommended copy-protection labelling. It's also up to retailers
how they stock the product. We're not an enforcement body in that
sense. My point is that optical audio discs with or without
copy-protection are designed to play on audio players - and those that
don't are very much in the minority. The industry continues to work
towards making sure that the tiny minority of audio players that don't
accept copy protection stay in the minority. Problems arise when
non-audio players are passed off as audio players. It's a happy
coincidence for manufacturers that most audio discs do play on these
drives - but the record industry should not, in my view, be blamed
when they don't. >>


> 4) The Red Book is not an "industry bible" merely a definition of what 
> a CD is (according to those that patented it in 1980). Strangely 
> enough times have moved on - something that the car manufacturers 
> should be fully aware of.

But what do you expect car manufacturers to do about it given that
there is no standard that they could adhere to that would guarantee
that their players would play all current and future copy-controlled
discs?

<< Car manufacturers should ensure that their suppliers supply them
with audio players to install in their cars - and not anything
else. Audio-player manufacturers are aware of the developments in
optical discs since 1980. The point above explains what Red Book is -
and I believe it to be accurate. >>


> 5) Some car manufacturers installed cheap CD-ROMS in cars rather than 
> audio CD players (not that I wanted to accuse VW of this). They got 
> caught out when copy-protected CDs refused to play on them. Well over 
> 95% of copy protected CDs will play on standard audio CD players - 
> conforming to the Red Book standard. FACT. If the car manufacturer has 
> failed to install an audio player it's not our fault.

It is very clearly your fault because you are creating non-standard
discs.  Okay, these discs happen to play on most "Red Book"-compliant
hardware, but the entire purpose of these discs is that they do not
play on *all* "Red Book" hardware, but only on some of it.

Not only does this hit car players, but also many other high-end
systems that use high-end transports, which are typically based on
CD-ROM drives because they are more advanced and take more care of the
quality of the data.  Just because most CD players are stupid enough
to carry on despite the errors intentionally introduced into these
discs does not make CD-ROM drive based transports inferior.

<< I disagree with you. You say that the entire purpose of the discs
is to prevent them playing on some red book hardware. No. The purpose
of using copy-protection on audio discs is to prevent them being
copied. The points I made above hold true here: (1) record companies
have the right to protect their audio discs from being copied (2) copy
protection companies continue to work as best they can with audio
player manufacturers to ensure the technology is not prohibitive to
consumers (3) if manufacturers are installing drives in their cars/PCs
to play audio discs, they should make sure that they are fit for that
purpose. I'd also like to re-iterate the point I made at the top of
this email; a balance has to be found between offering consumers the
product they want and ensuring the artists and creators get paid. >>

I am unsure as to whether you have merely misunderstood these
fundamental technical issues regarding the CD format, or whether you
are actually presenting arguments knowing full well that they are
technically incorrect.

I would be interested in your response.

Yours faithfully,

Jim Peters

-- 
 Jim Peters                  (_)/=\~/_(_)                 [email protected]
                          (_)  /=\  ~/_  (_)
 Uazú                  (_)    /=\    ~/_    (_)                http://
 Brighton, UK       (_) ____ /=\ ____ ~/_ ____ (_)            uazu.net

 BWView: a fast visual browser for brainwave files: http://uazu.net/BW