Xref: utzoo rec.music.cd:4514 gnu.misc.discuss:271 rec.audio:15296
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ark1!dtoa3!dtix!curt
From: curt@dtix.dt.navy.mil (Welch)
Newsgroups: rec.music.cd,gnu.misc.discuss,rec.audio
Subject: Re: DAT copy protection
Message-ID: <124@dtoa3.dt.navy.mil>
Date: 16 Sep 89 19:20:52 GMT
References: <8Z4bbOK00WB_0LK28F@andrew.cmu.edu>
Sender: news@dtoa3.dt.navy.mil
Reply-To: curt@dtix.dt.navy.mil (Curt Welch)
Followup-To: rec.music.cd
Organization: David Taylor Research Center, Bethesda, MD
Lines: 45

In an article yh0a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Yary Richard Phillip Hluchan) writes:
>This means you need a pro machine to make a non-copy protected original.

This also means you can make a copy-protected original without a pro
machine!  If your recording is good enough that everyone wants a copy
of it, then you probably want it copy-protected.

>This
>also means my home DAT player will think I want to copyright my daughter's
>glockenshpiel recital, and won't let grandma make a copy of her tape to send
>to Cousin Zeke in Duluth. I'm glad I'm a computer engineer!

It only means that grandma can't make a DIGITAL to DIGITAL copy!  She
can make a copy from the ANALOG input, and then make as many digital
copies of that master as she wants.

Have you ever heard a DAT copy of a CD through the analog inputs?  It's
_much_ better than anything you can do with cassette.  I've done simple
A/B tests between a CD and a DAT recorded from the CD and I can't hear
a difference.

If cousin Zeke needed that good of a copy, why didn't you send your
grandma two copies in the first place?

I know that no one likes to have their rights restricted, but I feel
the proposed copy-protection scheme is _very_ fair.  I didn't like the
CBS system and Solocopy is just stupid.

Two years ago, when DAT first came out, the manufactures decided to
build models that could not recorded at the CD rate of 44.1 kHz, and
when recording from the digital input, it would not record if the input
was marked copy-protected.  The RIAA bitched and said this was not good
enough.  Now, because of their bitching, we have SCMS.

With SCMS, we can still do all the unlimited, unrestricted, analog
copying that we have been dong with cassettes; we can make an unlimited
number of digital copies of copy-protected material; we can make our
own copy-protected recordings without buying pro equipment; and the
recording industry has better protection of their markets than they did
two years ago.

I think we should thank the RIAA for what they did.

Curt Welch
curt@dtix.dt.navy.mil