Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!rutgers!phri!roy
From: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: CD to DAT agreement
Keywords: DAT, CD, digital audio
Message-ID: <3920@phri.UUCP>
Date: 9 Aug 89 02:29:10 GMT
References: <752@palladium.UUCP> <1104@tukki.jyu.fi> <1064@philmds.UUCP>
Reply-To: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY)
Lines: 21

In article <1064@philmds.UUCP> janpo@sundts.UUCP (Jan Postma) writes:
> A DAT recorder can infinitely copy the same CD BUT it can not copy such a
> digital copy to another DAT recorder. So home taping and making a few
> copies for friends will still be possible. Making lots of copies for
> illegal commercial purposes has become inattractive though.

	I don't see how the copyprotect scheme does anything at all to make
large-scale bootlegging "inattractive".  Let's say I'm a bootlegger.  I buy
1 copy of a CD and 1000 blank DATs.  I put the CD in my digital-output CD
player, stack the DATs up in my auto-feed DAT recorder, and hit the start
button.  Some time later, I pick up my bootleg DATs and I'm all set.
Alternatively, I buy 10 DAT recorders, build a 1-to-10 digital fanout box
(a single 74H00 should do nicely, or some trivial buffer amplifier for the
appropriate logic levels, if it's not TTL) and load 100 blank DATs into
each and I'm all set in 1/10th the time.  What difference does it make that
I can't make second-generation DATs?
-- 
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
{att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu
"The connector is the network"