Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs (Read 27274 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

First let me say that I do not have anything against the users who have posted in this thread.. if one has bought a CD (technically a copy-protected disc is not a red book CD), IMHO he/she is entitled to listen/rip it as he/she likes with computers too. BUT, the laws (in some countries) do not condone bypassing protections, AND, the forum TOS #9 clearly states that: "Discussion containing information... how to bypass protection methodologies of such material... will not be tolerated".

Greynol, in recent discussion you said that at least you are "now inclined to enforce the rule by the letter rather than attach additional meaning to it.".. I wonder what's the case with this thread then. Ultimately I guess my MO is to have the rule amended to include a no-no for pirates who come here for help with their pirated music.  But also I'd like to see that the rules are enforced consistently.
/crusade
 

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #1 –
Quote from: Akkurat on
BUT, the laws (in some countries) do not condone bypassing protections, AND, the forum TOS #9 clearly states that: "Discussion containing information... how to bypass protection methodologies of such material... will not be tolerated".
/crusade


Well at this point I think it's far from certain that the problem even is copy protection, so I think that rant is a bit premature.

Quote
I've now tried to simply play the CD in 3 different computers. None would play it.


Also he can't even play the CD and I doubt there is any law anywhere that would want to prevent him from attemping to do that!

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #2 –
Quote
if one has bought a CD (technically a copy-protected disc is not a red book CD), IMHO he/she is entitled to listen/rip it as he/she likes with computers too. BUT, the laws (in some countries) do not condone bypassing protection


Many of the 'protection' methods involve installing some really nasty software to hide on your PC - which I think courts might take as more Illegal than you telling someone how to by-pass (ie not getting this security-hole-malware on your PC).

The other methods of 'protection' (again in ' because they are not valid protections) involve just a false last session - the audio is there, it is unprotected if the PC reads the TOC just as a HiFi CD Drive reads it it can get the data, assuming it can read out side of the false lead-in/out (or is there a law which states all computers have to read the last session...?  )

Finally there is the false c2 errors, this is no protection either, there are errors in the audio, and if you go an buy a CD/DVD which auto-interpolates (most now) you would not hear those intentional errors.

Lets not hide behind a cloak of "by-passing protections", the only valid protection is the malware, which is Illegal in many countries also (as Sony found out).

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #3 –
Quote from: tigerucla on
I was under the impression that it is OK to make a copy for personal use.

Morally, like I wrote previously, IMHO you are. But the law might say that you can't "break" the copy-protection.

Quote from: tigerucla on
the CD I have has a copyright date of 1976, and that is probably about when I bought it.

Definitely doesn't have any protections then.

Quote from: tigerucla on
Boiled Beans- how do I rip in Burst Mode?

EAC-> Drive Options -> Extraction Method tab -> select Burst mode


@uart & spoon:

Maybe you should read my previous post again. And if you still can't figure it out, let me try again:

There's discussion in this thread (not by OP) that is clearly against the TOS #9 rule (e.g. mentioning at least 2 different software to use to bypass protections), it doesn't matter if the OP has a copy protected CD or not! And spoon, your interpretation of what is considered protection or not, is not the truth how the topic is interpreted by law & in courts around the world.. and that's what counts.. not who's morally right or wrong. Bottom line: the HA TOS #9 clearly forbids any discussion of bypassing protections.. you don't respect the rules here?

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #4 –
Re the legal position....................

In the UK (and most other countries I think) it is a breach of copyright to make a copy without the permission of the copyright holder - Check the wording on a CD or two. I'm not sure where that leaves us with regard to TOS or anything else, though. Presumably everybody just carries on ripping as it seems to be morally justifiable.

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #5 –
Quote
your interpretation of what is considered protection or not, is not the truth how the topic is interpreted by law & in courts around the world.. and that's what counts.. not who's morally right or wrong. Bottom line: the HA TOS #9 clearly forbids any discussion of bypassing protections.. you don't respect the rules here?


>is not the truth how the topic is interpreted by law & in courts around the world..

Who would care if it was Illegal in Kazakhstan?, only those who live there -  HA is run form the USA so it is the law which is referenced to and in this instance the DMCA. I have read the act on by-passing protections it states that they must be a valid protection method (if I sent you an audio CD and it has written on it, Copy Protected do not insert into a PC, and that is the only protection, then it is not a valid copy protection).

2 years ago we looked at this law in depth and took the decision that Copy Protections on CD were not valid (unless installing the Sony Rootkit type program, which as mentioned has other implementations - because whoever discusses the Sony-root kit should NEVER mention ways of getting rid of it or avoiding it - instead you should be happy the DMCA is protecting a companies (Sony) selfish quest for $$$ and be happy that all sorts of crap is installed on your computer which you do not know about)., We took the decision if we needed to go to court to defend the idea that audio CD copy-protections were not valid, we were well placed to deliver a technical insight into why it is not valid (at the potential damage or loss to our company), we would do just that, nothing has changed our position. What has happened in those 2 years? - labels have since dropped all CD protections (as far as I know), there are going to be no trials for telling people to use a black marker pen to scrub off the last session...the war is over and the consumer won, do not let labels 'win' on default.

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #6 –
Quote from: botface on
Re the legal position....................

In the UK (and most other countries I think) it is a breach of copyright to make a copy without the permission of the copyright holder - Check the wording on a CD or two. I'm not sure where that leaves us with regard to TOS or anything else, though. Presumably everybody just carries on ripping as it seems to be morally justifiable.


Quite, Despite the fact that that ripping software, blank media etc are all widely available and distributed by companies like Apple, making copies of your CDs or other digital media is almost always illegal in the UK (although there is some talk of changes to the law). Basically, it's impossible to live in this country without breaking the law, but laws are selectively enforced. It means the authorities can choose who to go after (i.e. large-scale commercial copyright infringement).

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #7 –
Dear spoon, you have mixed up 2 things here.

1) Forum TOS (#9 which clearly states that: "Discussion containing information... how to bypass protection methodologies of such material... will not be tolerated", it doesn't say anything about validity of protections).
2) Laws against breaking copy-protections in whatever country.

I was interested in the 1st point merely because there has been some talk about the TOS #9 and how to interpret it, loosely or by the letter. And I thought that my post was clearly targeted (mainly) to greynol.

And by the way, the HA server is in Netherlands. (hydrogenaudio.org -> bender.sjeng.org (94.75.209.35) -> LeaseWeb (Netherlands))

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #8 –
Quote from: Akkurat on
1) Forum TOS (#9 which clearly states that: "Discussion containing information... how to bypass protection methodologies of such material... will not be tolerated", it doesn't say anything about validity of protections).


Is my suggestion of recording via analog also considered "bypassing protection methodologies"? It would make as much sense as that recent suggestion from some copyright organization that royalties should be payed whenever a ringtone plays in a public area.
Ceterum censeo, there should be an "%is_stop_after_current%".

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #9 –
Quote from: pawelq on
Is my suggestion of recording via analog also considered "bypassing protection methodologies"?

Dunno. That's why it would be nice to know what the bleep the TOS#9 covers. In a sense we both are on the same quest.. though if I understood correctly, that was not what you meant by your post.  Jeez you people are hostile and defensive around here, don't you think that it's good for all of us to talk about this topic? At least I do want to know how the TOS is enforced here. This is going very OT.

@tigerucla: Did the burst mode work for the cd?

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Akkurat on
Jeez you people are hostile and defensive around here, don't you think that it's good for all of us to talk about this topic?


Sorry, hostility not intended. Blame it on language differences. Actually, I also just wanted to talk, and get these things clarified.
Ceterum censeo, there should be an "%is_stop_after_current%".

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #11 –
Ok, sorry, misunderstood.. though it was not directed at you alone.

@Moderators: Can you move this OT discussion to e.g. Site Related Discussion forum? Under "discussion of TOS #9" topic? I do apologize, I should have done that myself from the beginning. Lesson learned. Sorry for the possible extra work.

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #12 –
I think it would be helpful to break this up a little into components and then ask whether an analogous position outside of audio would sit well with people.

This is how I see it:

We have two components:

1) The Law
2) The Agenda (which shapes the law)

In the case of audio we have the law shaped by copyright owners (generally businesses who have not created the work but own the rights). But what if we imagine the agenda was something else:

Let's say the agenda is not corporate greed but ideological power. Let's say the creationists won and it's their agenda that now shapes the law. So now it's against the law to discuss Darwinism and evolution. Would HA members be "good citizens" and follow the law? TOS #9 now states it's not permissible to refer to any scientific evidence in relation to evolution. I'd like to think that HA wouldn't adopt such a policy.

The point is the law is an ass when it's shaped by powerful interests whose agenda is counter to the prevailing morals of the general population. What ends up happening is that one is forced to choose between ones conscience and the law. Where the law runs counter to my conscience I will choose my conscience every time.

That's really what this debate is about.
The question is NOT the law, but the agenda that shapes it. Personally I find that agenda offensive. I could go further and suggest in such situations upholding the law is endorsing the agenda, and I think it is. Furthermore, the law changes; a homosexual is consistently homosexual, but not that long ago, that person was breaking the law and then suddenly they weren't.

Where the law makes no sense why not just ignore it?

C.
PC = TAK + LossyWAV  ::  Portable = Opus (130)

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #13 –
If you don't like the rules of the game, don't play. 

We're not talking about food, water, shelter, or sexual identity here.  It is not as if there is a lack of music which doesn't come from such draconian labels available.  The analogy about creationists in charge is sooooo far off base I hope you were kidding.  This isn't about "truth" vs "fiction" - this isn't about controlling what you say and how you say it.  This is about specific consumer goods being sold with strings attached you don't like.  This is about specific consumer goods which there are more than adequate substitutes for.

Describing the situation as some sort of freedom fight we all must join in - some sort of revolution against the man - it's a little much.

Creature of habit.

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #14 –
Interesting points carpman in general, though IMHO analogues just confuse and rarely are good. I wouldn't take this into a general discussion about our society systems, we are simply talking about circumventing protections of music products. This law (where active) doesn't deprive your right to listen and enjoy music in general, it forbids you to break a protection of a music CD product that you might have bought for your listening pleasure. Just don't buy those things. Hardly a revolutionary law which shapes the society. Music is not a basic human need/right, although many pirates like to justify their actions to themselves (fooling themselves to think that they're not doing anything wrong) by saying that it's a cultural thing and that it's a basic human right/need which should be free for everyone.

>> Where the law runs counter to my conscience I will choose my conscience every time.
>> Where the law makes no sense why not just ignore it?

I wouldn't state this so freely. There's people who really think that having sex with children is a-ok. Is it ok to f&#k kiddies if one only follows one's conscience? (here we go, (bad) analogues ) The society need rules. It's hard to look at the world and realize and accept that other people and their conscience might have different ideas what is ok because you see the situation always from your position and your mindset. And you're never wrong and your conscience is immaculate, right?  Objectivity = subjective objectiveness.

This said, there's a fine line between which one should shape the society, the law or the general moral. These interact with each other. There's no ideal or permanent situation, it's on the move all the time. And with this protection issue, I don't see a reason to make a revolution.


I personally don't have anything against breaking protections of music CD's that you've bought for your own listening purposes. I've 2 of those myself because those can't be found without it (Finnish artist, no other pressings) and I NEED those CD's.  With other CD's I've been fortunate enough to find other pressings without any protections (with some, I've searched high and low.. and paid hefty sums of money).

The ones who admin HA must consider their actions and make rules so that the existence of this board would not be in danger.. and think what you think, this topic is a threat (minor, major, doesn't matter, there's a possibility). And IMHO this is where the debate should be directed. HA TOS are the "laws" of our little society which keeps it all together without all going down the drain.

I think that the TOS #9 is currently ok. If the admins want to do extra work, they could investigate the Dutch law if the protection breaking part of the rule could be lifted. Since the server is in Netherlands, the Dutch law is the only one that affects HA?

I'd like to see that TOS #9 would also forbid "pirates to come here asking help with their pirated music", but since that is not illegal (as far as I know), I understand the possible reluctance to add that to the rules.

EDIT: aah, Soap already covered some of the issues..

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #15 –
And what are your opinions about telling someone to re-record a protected CD from a stand-alone player to a computer via analog? Is this a violation of #9?
Ceterum censeo, there should be an "%is_stop_after_current%".

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #16 –
FWIW, I'd interpret the rule by the letter, so, yes, "Discussion ... how to bypass protection methodologies of such material ... will not be tolerated".. and that method is bypassing the protection, isn't it? Stupid but that's how I see it.

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #17 –
Quote from: Akkurat on
and that method is bypassing the protection, isn't it?


Well, if you take it literally, it is not bypassing these protection schemes. They are designed to prevent you from digital copying, aren't they?  There is nothing in these methods that prevents you from analog copy using a cable and a recorder, or a loudspeaker, a microphone and a recorder.

Ceterum censeo, there should be an "%is_stop_after_current%".

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #18 –
Quote from: Akkurat on
FWIW, I'd interpret the rule by the letter, so, yes, "Discussion ... how to bypass protection methodologies of such material ... will not be tolerated".. and that method is bypassing the protection, isn't it? Stupid but that's how I see it.

The way I see it is that any copy protection is protecting the digital data. The user does of course have permission to play the CD and so to convert it from digital to analog. Now once the signal is analog I don't see how recording it is any different to making a needle drop or tape transfer or whatever. Now that itself may also be illegal, but in that case we've got to TOS9 every single thread that mentions either ripping CD's or making needle drops (vinyl transfers).

I think getting this thread TOS9'ed is setting a real precedent for outlawing any reference to CD ripping or vinyl transfer here and I'm not too sure many people would be very happy with that situation. I certainly wouldn't be around here anymore if that happens.

The other thing that bothers me about the way that this thread was TOS9'ed is that this guy's CD wasn't even copy protected to begin with, but that apparently makes no difference according to some members here. I for one was simply trying to help out a guy who had a difficult to read CD and all of a sudden that's a TOS9 violation. How could we ever help anyone with damaged media in the future if there is a possibility (even an un-stated one) that the media is copy protected.

EDIT : I hadn't seen pawelq's above post before typing this one. Obviously I'm repeating his main point.

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #19 –
Quote from: spoon on
Who would care if it was Illegal in Kazakhstan?, only those who live there -  HA is run form the USA so it is the law which is referenced to and in this instance the DMCA.


As was pointed out in this thread, this used to be so, and the DMCA is indeed what lead to that TOS.

But nowadays HA is hosted in a free country, namely the Netherlands, and the DMCA no longer applies. (It might still apply to posters in the USA, but that is their problem).

The question is what the Dutch law says about (avoiding) copyright protections. They might have similar provisions in their copyright law. Or they might not. I would be interested in (verifiable) feedback on this matter, so we can consider whether the TOS needs revision.

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #20 –
Quote from: Soap on
We're not talking about food, water, shelter, or sexual identity here.  It is not as if there is a lack of music which doesn't come from such draconian labels available.  The analogy about creationists in charge is sooooo far off base I hope you were kidding.  This isn't about "truth" vs "fiction" - this isn't about controlling what you say and how you say it.  This is about specific consumer goods being sold with strings attached you don't like.  This is about specific consumer goods which there are more than adequate substitutes for.

Describing the situation as some sort of freedom fight we all must join in - some sort of revolution against the man - it's a little much.

Well, I didn't think I would be taken so literally. My point was that the law has come from somewhere and it's forbidding people from talking about stuff that they think is okay.

Since the law has come from somewhere, perhaps it would be helpful to state which law we're having to abide by. The DMCA is a US based law, how much of that has been integrated into TRIPS I don't know? IP harmonisation hasn't really happened so it would be helpful to state which law of which land we're having to abide by.

Regarding the gay thing. Again perhaps I shouldn't have used an anology - it was merely an illustration of how the law changes.

Quote from: Akkurat on
>> Where the law runs counter to my conscience I will choose my conscience every time.
>> Where the law makes no sense why not just ignore it?

I wouldn't state this so freely. There's people who really think that having sex with children is a-ok. Is it ok to f&#k kiddies if one only follows one's conscience? (here we go, (bad) analogues ) The society need rules.

I was speaking personally. I believe that every human being knows that forcing another (regardless of age) against their will to do something (i.e. the coercive elimination of another's choice) is wrong. That said, many people operate against their consciences, and those that do a) habitualy shed responsibility for their actions and b) as such require a more basic set of rules than those offered by ones conscience - thus the law is suitable. i.e. If you're going to act like a child abide by these rules laid down by the state.

Quote from: Akkurat on
The ones who admin HA must consider their actions and make rules so that the existence of this board would not be in danger.. and think what you think, this topic is a threat (minor, major, doesn't matter, there's a possibility). And IMHO this is where the debate should be directed. HA TOS are the "laws" of our little society which keeps it all together without all going down the drain.

I think that the TOS #9 is currently ok. If the admins want to do extra work, they could investigate the Dutch law if the protection breaking part of the rule could be lifted. Since the server is in Netherlands, the Dutch law is the only one that affects HA?

Yes, this is a good point. I was going to say something about this, but chose to keep my post simple. 

I read the post which spawned this one, and I have to say I'm a little confused. The OP seemed to have purchased his/her CD  before copy protections began to be implimented. So why was it closed?

I think TOS #9 could be a bit more specific.

Quote
9. All members must refrain from posting links to -- or information regarding how to obtain -- copyrighted or illegal material. Discussion containing information of how to obtain such material, how to bypass protection methodologies of such material, or how to otherwise violate laws pertaining to such matters will not be tolerated, and participating members may be subject to administrative action.


So no links to Google (especially google images) since that has to be the number one tool / point of entry to copyrighted material. If you search for any album cover, blog after blog will offer that music for download. The internet IS copyrighted material - it's just that the RIAA and MPAA have focused the law and our minds on music and film. Also, presumably no links or discussion of DVD Fab HD Decrypter? Even in regard to ripping audio from DVD since that software breaks a number of copy protection schemes?

Finally, I agree with uart and pawelq. Perhaps it's a good time to clarify TOS #9.

C.

[Ah, posted before seeing Garf's reply.]
PC = TAK + LossyWAV  ::  Portable = Opus (130)

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #21 –
Quote from: pawelq on
Well, if you take it literally, it is not bypassing these protection schemes.

The key word here is the "methodologies" word in the TOS, does it mean techniques (as I understood you meant by "schemes")? A bit ambiguous term.

Quote from: pawelq on
They are designed to prevent you from digital copying, aren't they?

Well kind of because the "analog hole" can't be protected. Can you link or quote where or who has said that "they are designed to prevent you from digital copying"?

Quote from: uart on
The way I see it is that any copy protection is protecting the digital data. The user does of course have permission to play the CD and so to convert it from digital to analog. Now once the signal is analog I don't see how recording it is any different to making a needle drop or tape transfer or whatever. Now that itself may also be illegal, but in that case we've got to TOS9 every single thread that mentions either ripping CD's or making needle drops (vinyl transfers).

I think getting this thread TOS9'ed is setting a real precedent for outlawing any reference to CD ripping or vinyl transfer here and I'm not too sure many people would be very happy with that situation. I certainly wouldn't be around here anymore if that happens.

A bit hysterical to claim that it would make ripping un-protected media illegal too don't you think? We are talking about bypassing protected media. Anyways, that's your view. What do you think about this:

"Copyright law has been defined in terms of general definitions of infringement in any concrete medium. This classically focused such law on whether there is infringement, rather than focus on particular engineering techniques. Detecting infringement within the social and legal system avoids a legacy of outlawing generic, universal, popular, widespread, useful, and possibly uncontrollable engineering techniques in response to specific misuses."
(Analog hole - Copyright law vs. particular techniques)

To me this sounds very logical and right. And thus the "analog hole" bypassing method would most definitely break the #9 rule.

Quote from: uart on
The other thing that bothers me about the way that this thread was TOS9'ed is that this guy's CD wasn't even copy protected to begin with, but that apparently makes no difference according to some members here.

FYI, the fact that greynol closed that original thread surprised me too. There was no evidence of a protected CD.. BUT, one has to remember that some people broke the #9 rule! I don't know who you're referring to with that "some members" but in case it means me too, it makes no sense pointing a gun towards me, I'm not a moderator nor admin here, I don't have rights to close threads. And I didn't report any TOS violations.

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #22 –
Quote from: Akkurat on
Well kind of because the "analog hole" can't be protected.

That's not the essence of the problem, really. 

Quote from: Akkurat on
Can you link or quote where or who has said that "they are designed to prevent you from digital copying"?


I think that it is pretty obvious. They do not affect analog copying, they affect digital copying.


Quote from: Akkurat on
"Copyright law has been defined in terms of general definitions of infringement in any concrete medium. This classically focused such law on whether there is infringement, rather than focus on particular engineering techniques. Detecting infringement within the social and legal system avoids a legacy of outlawing generic, universal, popular, widespread, useful, and possibly uncontrollable engineering techniques in response to specific misuses."
(Analog hole - Copyright law vs. particular techniques)

To me this sounds very logical and right. And thus the "analog hole" bypassing method would most definitely break the #9 rule.


I see you point, and it makes sense. But proposing using the analog hole (by the way, it's funny how it is called a "hole", like it was some accidental lapse in security - analog output is the ultimate purpose of the CD-Audio technology...) in my opinion does not violate the "How to bypass protection metodologies" part of #9.  It may break the "or how to otherwise violate laws"  part, but this really depends on which country's laws govern the board,

Ceterum censeo, there should be an "%is_stop_after_current%".

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #23 –
Quote from: carpman on
I read the post which spawned this one, and I have to say I'm a little confused. The OP seemed to have purchased his/her CD  before copy protections began to be implimented. So why was it closed?

It was closed because people started freely offering advice about bypassing copy protection; a clear violation of TOS #9 as it is currently written.  Perhaps they're off-topic yet that was the direction the thread took, so it was closed.

The idea that the guy bought the CD before copy protection began or that there is clear evidence that the CD doesn't have copy protection based on what was said by the OP is ludicrous.

I'll gladly re-open the thread, but don't be surprised if I also issue warnings to those who broke either TOS #9 or TOS #5.

TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs

Reply #24 –
Quote from: greynol on
The idea that the guy bought the CD before copy protection began or that there is clear evidence that the CD doesn't have copy protection based on what was said by the OP is ludicrous.

Quoting the OP:
Quote
Uart- the CD I have has a copyright date of 1976, and that is probably about when I bought it. I looked for pinholes and didn't see any. Good info, though.

If it was bought even 10 years after 1976 it's pretty safe to assume there's no copy protection, surely?
Quackalist said (the 1976 reference aside):
Quote
Being serious, we can take as read its much too old for copy protection so its likely its 'faulty' in some way.


Quote from: greynol on
I'll gladly re-open the thread, but don't be surprised if I also issue warnings to those who broke either TOS #9 or TOS #5.

No, I think you were right to close it for the reasons you stated (i.e. the OT copy-protection statements), and it should remain closed until TOS #9 is clarified.

C.
PC = TAK + LossyWAV  ::  Portable = Opus (130)