Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!mgm.mit.edu!wolfgang
From: wolfgang@mgm.mit.edu (Wolfgang Rupprecht)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: CD to DAT agreement
Keywords: DAT, CD, digital audio, shaft-job
Message-ID: <13380@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 9 Aug 89 13:41:02 GMT
References: <752@palladium.UUCP> <1104@tukki.jyu.fi> <1064@philmds.UUCP> <3920@phri.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: wolfgang@mgm.mit.edu (Wolfgang Rupprecht)
Organization: Freelance Software Consultant, Washington DC.
Lines: 48

In article <3920@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes:
>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.
>	I don't see how the copyprotect scheme does anything at all to make
>large-scale bootlegging "inattractive".

The way I understand the scheme:  
Current CD's are recorded w. the copy protection bits of '00'.  This
allows (unlimited) copies. 

Copies of a '00' source get incremented to '01' on the copy.  An '01'
source can't be copied by a 'copy-protected' DAT.  

Analog recordings (original or from prerecorded tapes) get marked as
copy once also.

Now the rub...  I don't see what prevents to the recording industry
from marking ALL CD's and DAT tapes with the '01' "Cant make any more
copies" code.

>>> editorial mode on <<<

I wish that legislators would stop hobbling the technology with poorly
thought out "protection" schemes.  If copying copyrighted material is
illegal then pass a law and penalties for *that*, not for something
else.  I don't condone breaking the law, but I don't see how the
public's best interest is served by hardware copy-protection mania.

As it is this scheme prevents many perfectly legal operations, like
making copies of tapes that one made oneself.  Whatever happened to
innocent til proven guilty?  This scheme effectively assumes that one
is trying to do something illegal when making a DAT tape from an
analog source.  Wonderful.

What next?  Copy codes for Xerox machines?  Mandated copy-code
protection bits for Unix?  Cameras that require a "release form" to be
signed before they let you take a picture. I can see it now...

>>> editorial mode off <<<
 
-wolfgang




Wolfgang Rupprecht	ARPA:  wolfgang@mgm.mit.edu (IP 18.82.0.114)
TEL: (703) 768-2640	UUCP:  mit-eddie!mgm.mit.edu!wolfgang