That CD you just bought? It might not be a CD at all according to Philips, the Dutch company that specifies just what, exactly, is and is not an audio compact disc. Philips, you see, is none to happy that the record labels have begun to distribute silver discs with music on them that do not meet the specifications of the audio compact disc standard.
The problem is that the record labels want to keep you from playing that CD on your computer and have begun to use the Cactus Data Shield technology to prevent just that. Their reasoning is that if you can’t play that CD on your computer, you can’t rip the audio tracks into unprotected .mp3 files.
Well, that’s the theory. In practice, it turns out that while your computer’s CD player probably can’t play the disc, your computer’s DVD player probably can. A second, more important, downside for the record labels is that some consumers have begun complaining that the protected CDs won’t play properly on legitimate equipment. That’s where Philips’ righteous indignation comes into play. In Europe, BMG has had to offer a free trade-in program for consumers with discs that won’t play properly.
All of this is mostly a smokescreen anyway. As Neil McAllister explains in a story for SF Gate, the record labels have been trying to contain digital audio since it was first introduced. The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992 made it illegal to manufacture Digital Audio Tape (DAT) recorders that didn’t prevent serial tape copying.
Every digital recording technology since has been subject to the AHRA. Until PCs that is. Diamond Multimedia successfully defended its .mp3 player in a suit brought against it by the record labels by pointing out that its player was incapable of creating .mp3 files, only playing them. Because PCs are capable of doing so much more than recording digital information, they can’t be classified as digital audio recording devices and aren’t subject to the AHRA.
McAllister nails the record labels:
“The real irony of digital copy-prevention measures is that the industry has invested heavily in these technologies, with monies coming from compact-disc sales. But not only do their measures not have the desired effect (preventing copying), they also produce an inferior product overall—a distinction not unlike that between a second-generation service like PressPlay and traditional file-sharing networks.”
What the record labels clearly don’t understand is that a cogent argument can be made that their attempts to prevent copying violate other aspects of U.S. intellectual property law, including fair use. What’s much worse, however, is the record labels’ collective insistence on alienating their customers. Incident after incident has shown that any copy-protection scheme is dead shortly after arrival and escalation in commerce, like war, is rarely a viable alternative.
0 responses. Comments closed for this article.