I posted this in the Rio receiver section initially, so I'll briefly recap here:

Original question:
I was curious how the HSX-109 fared with copy-protected CDs using Mediacloq, Cactus, Safeaudio, whatever, as more and more CDs seem to be "protected".

I intend to return each every single CD I purchase that is protected in some way (way to go Drakino, BTW).

-----------
Tony fabris replies:

As far as copy-protected CDs are concerned, I don't know. I don't own any to test against the HSX-109.

----------

Now it's my turn again:

On to the subject itself of copy protected CDs, here's a useful link which tells you what CDs are "protected", or more accurately put, corrupted.

http://www.fatchucks.com/corruptcds/index.html

Here's one specifically for the UK, Europe:

http://uk.eurorights.org/issues/cd/bad/

Any of the other HSX-109 testers have experience with this?

They don't work with the HSX109 right now. We know how to make them work - it's a matter of researching the consequences of doing so.

Hopefully Philips will set a good precedent in this respect.

Rob

That's simply too cool for words, Rob.

I'm sure you can't get involved in any debates on the topic, but for the rest of the BBS clientele:

What is your view of the legalities of this matter? I'm not asking for personal opinions on whether you think it should be OK, because we all know that we want to be able to rip our own personal CD collections. What I'm asking for is a discussion of what the current laws are in this area.

Are consumer products currently prohibited by law from copying these mangled CDs? Is there anything, in the current law, that says a device like the HSX shouldn't be able to make a copy? Note that the HSX does implement SCMS (as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong, Rob), so it does comply with the terms of the AHRA as if it were a standalone CD copier.

My view: These particular copy protection schemes were created "outside the law", without the approval or backing of any government agency. They were invented and implemented by private companies and put into the marketplace in an unregulated fashion. The current AHRA doesn't talk about copy-protected CDs because they did not exist when the law was written. The law is very specific on the matter of how copy management should be handled: SCMS. Therefore the law should have no bearing on whether or not consumer devices are allowed to circumvent this protection as long as they implement SCMS on the device. The current laws actually support the consumer being able to copy their own music for personal use, and the people getting in trouble should be those implementing the protection, not the people trying to circumvent it. I don't know if this is an accurate view or not.

Comments?

the RIAA has a primer on the applicable laws here. you might dig a bit into the DMCA implications of attempting to bypass a digital copy protection scheme.

--dan.

(dang, my post got lost. trying again.)

Are these CDs clearly labeled as being "Copy Protected"? And are the mechanisms industry standards? From what I understand, the copy protection system is simply implemented by breaking the Red Book standard for these CDs.

In that case, I agree with Phillips -- these are damaged CDs, and any CD player, be it one in a stereo or in a computer, should be able to play it. If they need to take extra steps to recover from bit errors, then that's simply what's necessary to properly play the CD.

I'm impressed by Phillips' stance on the matter, and I'm also somewhat encouraged by SonicBlue's corporate heritage (with regards to the first Diamond players and ReplayTV). Most companies are simply saying "er, that sounds risky...wouldn't you rather buy this instead?" SB is getting right out there, producing a product, and saying to the industry "if you don't like it, challenge us properly, rather than simply through intimidation." When it got to court, they won, I believe (with MP3 -- not sure if ReplayTV's come to a head yet). And, partially from being first and best in the marketplace, they've got a strong lead as a result.

Hopefully, they can set a good example here, as well.

the RIAA has a primer on the applicable laws here.

The last time I went to the RIAA site, it made statements that were in direct contradiction to the letter (and intent) of the actual AHRA text. For instance, they said that copying CDs onto your home computer was a violation of the AHRA. Which, if you actually read the text of the AHRA, you discover is completely false.

So I no longer trust anything the RIAA prints. Remember, they do not make laws, they are not "the law", they do not represent the law. They are simply an organization of record companies with a vested interest in profitmaking. You can't be intimidated into thinking that everything they say is true, and you can't be fooled into thinking that they are responsible for making laws in the US.

Indeed, a PC is specifically an AHRA exempt device, thanks to the computer manufacturing industry having at least as much political influence as the recording industry.

Rob

Aha! Perhaps this is the reason that the games are there. To make it fill into the category of PC for legal reasons?

-Aaron (wildly speculating)

exactly. this has been alluded to before.

I'm just glad that SB didn't go too far like mp3.com... what in the hell were they thinking with that "we'll host your cd's online for you" thing?!

what in the hell were they thinking with that "we'll host your cd's online for you" thing?!

They were liberating people from physical media much like the empeg. And it's interesting the way they did it. You were required to "scan" in every CD you wanted to use. On their side, they simply gave you permission to that CD. No ripping was involved, thus it only took up a small amount of storage for all the clients who used it. The downside is that not all CDs were available, but a request could be sent to them to get them to buy the disk and put it online.

Nice idea. But they didn't have the lawyers to back it up.