[EDIT]Thread split from here[/EDIT]


There is one very simple tactics you can use as a customer ... if you see a copy protected audio disc (avoiding the term "Audio CD" here on purpose), do not buy that piece of crap.

The only language that the executives of all companies understand is money ... the customer spends that money on products so he/she has the final word ...

What about must-buy stuff?

There are at least two copy-protected CDs in my country that I could have not lived without.

Not buying them was a no-option for me.

Downloading?
Buying the bootlegged copy?
I still like to own CDs.

There's no such thing as must-buy stuff

If you balance the pros and cons, and even knowing you're supporting that kind of practice (CD protection) you really think you should buy them...Go ahead

But the truth is that as long as people accept and buy copy-protected CDs, they will not only keep being produced, but those protections will spread to more and more CDs... If you don't agree with copy-protection, maybe you should think about it and make a statement, stop buying those CDs

You can't have it both ways...

(Notice I'm not telling you what to do as I don't really care and it is none of my business, it’s just a personal opinion...)

Now isn't this a bit off-topic? The guy just asked for an open source cd ripper, and everyone talked about everything except that single question

edit: forgot to quote

I never buy Audio CD's because they're made of plastic and plastic is made of oil which is starting to run low..Overburning a CD beyond its maximum capacity is acceptable though, that way none of the oil gets wasted. So I really just borrow CD's (from friends and the library) and rip them. I suggest you do the same with your must-buy albums.

Try it - you'll be amazed to find that you won't die!


As a serious point: find somewhere in the world where the release isn't copy protected, and get it from there.

Or buy a CD player that won't play copy protected CDs. Then you can return them to the manufacturer and say honestly "it doesn't play on my CD player". See what they do.

Cheers,
David.

Yes, there is.

Maybe not objectively, but subjectively... hell yes! I certainly understand AtaqueEG. Maybe other people simply don't care as much about some music as we do.


That might have worked if piracy wasn't running rampant as it is now. If everybody who is opposed to copy protection stops buying CDs, the RIAA would attribute the drop in sales to increasing piracy, and they would lobby the government to be able to use even more draconian measures against illegal downloading and copying. They could use the drop in sales to justify it. Quite the opposite of what we want.

I don't think anybody is going to benefit from a boycott. The most important thing we can do against it is spread awareness of how evil copy protections are.

Do you really believe I would survive without my Floyd? :B

(Of course, thankfully, all my Floyd CDs are unprotected)

Same thing counts for my Steely Dan collection *big grin here*, for my Dire Straist collection, for every Jazz CD, every classical piece of work, latin american music etc.

As a reminder, sometimes the artists themselves become overly greedy and vote for TOC manipulation ... so from my point of view, they really have to be punished for that.

And if you search online stores around the world, you might find non-protected albums that are protected in your country ... all you need is a credit card and some patience ...

LISTEN UP I HAVE THE ANSWER...


go to www.slysoft.com and download AnyDVD (I know DVD!) try it, tick the box that says remove the copy protection from CDs, try it with some copy protected CDs and laugh!!!! All of mine can be ripped now.

If you like it buy it and support the continued development.

I used to have to burn a copy with Blindwrite and then rip it but this is a lot faster, seamless it just sits there hiding the Extras and fixing the TOC!

Wonderful!

Love,
Fairy
(one very satisfied customer)

I think that's a very simplistic statement.

For one thing, only some CDs are copy protected. If the copy protection worked, and if piracy was a major cause in the decline of music sales, then these copy protected discs would sell more than "standard" CDs. However, neither is true, and so this simply isn't the case.

Therefore, if people choose not to buy copy protected CDs, then these CDs will sell in fewer numbers than other, non copy protected CDs, and the message to the record companies will be clear.

What will happen in reality is that such a small percentage of consumers will care that individual decisions will have almost no effect.


I've already made my suggestion in my previous post.


What I don't understand is why titles are released protected in some countries, but unprotected in others. Even if the copy protection worked, the internet, being a global thing, would mean that rips from the unprotected version would spread throughout the world. I don't understand the point of copy protecting a disc in one country, but releasing the same title "in the clear" in another.

Then again, I don't understand the point of largely ineffective copy protection in this scenario. If it worked, and was applied to titles worldwide, then at least it would do its job. As it is, I'm not sure what it achieves. I suspect it's just a perception of being protected, and a perception of "doing something" which appeals in some quarters.

Cheers,
David.

I don't have an international CC :-/

As you suggested, consumer resistance works, but they are judging it on a market by market basis.


The only real MUST BUY music is some case like your SO is in the band and you will catch hell if you don't get the CD.

But CD isn't the only game anymore... There was a piece on NPR over the weekend about SACD and DVD-A not doing so well. The spin from the stereophile commentator was that only a very few care about the extra fidelity... of course this is the crowd that lists the popularity of CD over vinyl as further evidence.

There was no suggestion that people are resisting the inherent copy protection of these new formats... can't say that out loud.

What is the point? If everyone is aware that copy protection is on a CD and people continue to buy it, all it does is ligitamize the practice.
Since in the near future it seems that file sharing is still increasing, hense the RIAA & record companies will be using more & more CD protections along with the trend to compress the s**t out of them.
Personally I believe there are 2 usual ways that producers change their habits - negative feedback and reduced sales. Since I think the number of people who are bothered by copy protection and compression are fairly small in terms of total sales I don't think a boycott will make them alter their crusade against piracy. Maybe a well mounted public display against this practice will have more effect? Maybe HA should start something?

For me I chose the boycott just because I really don't believe in supporting a system that has obviously lost track of what art & music really means, where to these companies & the RIAA it is really just a matter of pure economics & desperately trying to keep the monopoly & status-quo. 1 person protests usually do no fair very well but I would rather give $10 to a local band at a pub then to give that money to the RIAA so they can continue this stupidity.

The point is I buy online....

Kings of Leon, BRMC, and others (BMG) all copy protected!!!!

The first I find out is a low bit rate player popping up in my PC or I stick it in my £2000 hi fi (official red book licenced code CD player) and my cd player crashes coz it just doesn't understand what is happening with the disk.

This used to really annoy and then I got the s/w I talked about above and now I don't mind!

Fairy )

King Of Leon "Young & Young Manhood" isn't a copy protected CD in my country (argentina). I can't find copy protected CDs here, ; but the piracy is big, around 80% of CD sales coming from pirated copies. A pirate copy costs only U$ 1 and an original CD around U$ 13. And the quality of pirated copies are good enough except by the art work. The people only buy pirated copies here, the sellers of pirated cds are everywhere and the autorities do nothing for stop this illegal market.

Well, there are several reasons I can think of. They probably wanna see how much a copy protection will affect the CD sells...this might happen when they release a CD with CP in the US and without a CP in Australia.

At the other hand, in rather poor countries the majority of people might have old CD Players, so too many people would be affected by this. Mostly in those countries people won't buy CD's anyway, simply because they can get it in special stores for very cheap and almost look alike with the original. So if they would put a copy protection on a CD, it would be even harder to sell original CD's. Why would someone want to spend more as the double amount to get a CD that probably doesn't even play in his/her CD-Player? Besides that, there are license fees which the company has to pay for the used copy-protection and since it isn't a big market in such countries there is no point of wasting this money...people that have money will buy the CD even if it isn't copy-protected and they would only loose their loyal customers...and last, I don't think that people in this kind of countries got T1 everywhere so that they can share it over the net. They might be happy when they have a 56k dial up...and I don't think they got flat rates after all

Well, they win on those few, don't they? I've had the same dilemma.

But, on the other hand, the awareness of copy protection has made me much more selective and narrowed my would- and must-buy's quite down.

Hadn't Peter Gabriel's new compilation been copy-protected I would have bought it. Now I'm going to go without. (And my local wrecka stow certainly knows why )
Same goes for the Sylvian reissues. Pet Shop Boys too.

I have not bought a cd yet that presented a problem to rip.

But if I do, I am going to return it and ask for a working copy.

I am like lots of people here.My computer is the central component of my home system.I listen to compressed files and I don't think I could live without the instant access and convenience of my box.

I also use a portable cd player and love the convenience of selecting a handful of favourites to burn.

THIS IS CLEARLY FAIR USE OF THE CD'S I BUY!

Analog rips do not make the grade either. I would be VERY tempted to analog rip, compress and offer the album to the world though if I can't use the product that I buy as I wish.

Most of the time it's probably for no other reason than bad timing from a logistics point of view. I'm sure if everything was in it's right place at the right time they would've been.

Edit: Ever worked for a large scale company? Nothing ever goes to plan.

THIS IS WHY they are copy protecting them. If this was to be the case in the US and Europe it would ruin the music industry. I think they should maybe look at clamping down on these vendors instead.

The really annoying thing is it's luck if your online vendor gives you copy protected or not, I had read about the protection on the new Travis album but there is none on my copy

I think it's a crime not to pay for your music. I also think that it's a pity most of the world does not have Fair Use laws. I am in the UK, and there is no Fair Use law here

People read US websites and assume their is, but there isn't.

Fairy

Copy protection won't stop these kind of sales.

As long as you can listen to a record, it is possible to copy it. It may be more complicated (and/or need better equipment), but those who sell copies can still do it. In worst case they can do a analog copy - they will still be able to sell the them.

To stop this you need completely different strategies. ( ie. you need to find the people responsible)

For this reason, NoAudio™ was created:
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2001/08/encrypt.html

not only that, but most of the copy protection schemes used thus far have been bypassed one way or another, digitally, by software. these protections don't solve any piracy problems. they just create more public relations problems for the record labels.

EMI, for instance, being the dumbass cunts that they are, have recently moved to protect their entire catalogue here in canada. the problem is many people have been calling and/or coming in non-stop to complain that EMI CDs are not playing properly on their equipment. i know this for a fact because a friend of mine works for a major HMV branch and she's dealing with these kinds of problems day in and out.

most people who return corrupt CDs just say they don't work properly (some tracks skip, some start playing from the middle of the song, some discs don't work at all in the car stereo or dvd players, etc.). and most of the people who return these CDs don't have a clue about what copy protection is and how it is affecting the product that they buy. they just think it's a "manufacturing" defect when in fact it's not.

so, my friend tells them to contact EMI and sort this problem out. people do just that. and EMI sends them an unprotected version free of charge through the post. oh gee, guess where that disc is gonna end up? on the web, p2p networks. pathetic isn't it? so what is copy protection solving exactly? absolutely nothing! this whole copy protection process costs EMI more money, yes. they have to pay more to press copy protected CDs and on top of that there are the logistical costs of sending unprotected CDs to consumers who complain 'cause after all you don't wanna piss the very people who keep you in business.

roflmfao

... A focus group of listeners agreed unanimously that *NSYNC's latest album Celebrity sounded much better after it had been encrypted using NoAudio. "There were no more annoying dance tunes or formula ballads getting in the way of my enjoyment," said one listener.

Way to go, man !

And it strikes again.

TotalAttenuation is crap. They take the input stream and perform a convolution function on it with using a well known avant garde piece, 4'33".

For a must have cd, I do the wrong thing attempting to be right.. I buy the cd, rip it, return it saying explicitly why I am, and then if the artist isn't well known I find an address and mail them £10 to get rid of the guilt with an accompanying note saying why.

Howdy,

I buy all releases that have been released with copy control in Australia, from

http://www.cd-wow.com

If you email support and double check before ordering your CD they can confirm if there stock has copy control or not. Pretty much 100% of there stuff isn't copy controlled and most CD's are imported from HK or other places that have top quality stock without copy control...

Like the Red Hot Chilli Peppers Greatest Hits was released with copy control here in Australia, I ordered from cd-wow.com and it contained no copy control ...

Very good prices as well...8.99 pound for any single CD release, includes postage to ANYWHERE in the word

Cheers,
Burgerings

We are witnessing the collapse of a fetid industry. Sooner than later the people are going to notice who the real culprits are and the corrupt politicians that keep protecting them.

There are generations of people who have grown up with the concept that music is about sharing, to try and keep profitting of the replication of intangible goods won't last much longer.

In any case Artists almost never get anything from sold discs from the labels. Arguably the most they can hope for is to earn some recognition, but thats what talent and internet are here for these days.

Yes, for the recording industry is an uphill battle. Everyone is a pirate, everyone is a thief, they represent the innocent, the poor and the opressed...

When people want to buy the real thing, they go out and get the real thing even if everyone else has the mp3. So yes, they should continue to exist, but they shoudln't be granted special powers anymore and accept the reality: People can and will bypass them. It is a matter of choice, not obligation.

The industry doesn't have the right to start with hunts and prosecute anyone they want, just because a bunch of corrupt politicians decided so. So yes, thats where you can really do something, the guys that sit in congress today may not be the same tomorrow. The laws were made by humans, and humans do change them overtime.

If you buy an original, the artist will get nothing, if you buy a bootleg, the artist will still get nothing. It is a lose/lose situation for that model. Sending money directly to the artist, is akin of buying discs of unsigned artists when they do a live shows, usually made with their own resources and they get the full credit. The artist will love it, but the label won't.

The labels are currently investing obsene amounts of money in lawyers and "copy protection technologies" only because the system protects them... And of course, abuse with this power, but this doesn't need to last forever. The more they tight their grips, the more people will slip from their hands. For 10 p2p systems they shut down, 100 new ones will come. For each "copy control technology" they develop, 10 workarounds will apear. The numbers are totally against their favor, their only advantage is the control they have over governments, that is, until more and more people realize the truth. Who are the ones in excess from the equation? The Artists? The Labels? or the Consumers?

Their model won't work forever. You can get a glimpse of the future if you come to "under developed" countries, there you will see the "bootlegs" rampant, yet originals still available. Depending in how you value something, you will pick one over the other, but there is no witch hunt against the people selling the bootlegs, because, frankly, its impossible. Get out of the States, and see the reality. Of course, in some of these countries you can see the ocasional with hunt depending in how much money they filled the pockets of the corrupt politician in turn, but don't expect the facade to work always, numbers determine the popularity as well... They just do it sometimes to "please their foreign contributors" a little

The world is filled with much more urgent and severe problems than to be worried of protecting the "intangible property" of a few individuals, much less "foreign" ones.

Does the message get across? No problem, someday it will.

I had to return a copy protected disc to them only this week (Let it be Naked). It doesn't play on my CD player at all.

They were very good about it, and appologised that they couldn't list which CDs were copy protected on their website.

The disc is actually unprotected in the UK, so I just went out and bought it. It cost £9.97 vs CD-wow's £8.99 though.

Cheers,
David.

Well in france it's likewise. And you can ask for an unprotected one.
But, it will be a special made CD for you, labeled in your name and Watermarked.

Progressively I have less and less envy to buy CDs with these tactics.
My only protected CD is "Harem" by "Sarah Brightman" an EMI CD.
And I don't feel like exchanging it for a watermarked (data corrupted) one.

The thing is I shouldn't have bought it in france (though it was interesting 20 euros CD & DVD)

The problem with internet stores is to know wether they sell protected CDs or not.

But we do have Fair Dealing:

http://www.cityu.edu.hk/cityutoday/news/ca...20011113_04.htm

Do you know if this is certainly the case?

I ask because, whilst this would seem quite sensible from the labels point of view (if the copy protection worked, which it doesn't!), it's also impractical for two reasons.

Firstly, a one-off tracable watermarked version on a CD-R may be workable, but if you really do have a player which rejects copy protected discs, there's a chance that it will reject a CD-R too! So what are they going to do - master and press a unique "real" CD?

Secondly, I'd be quite happy with the watermarked CD-R. It would be an interesting item to have. Releasing a non watermarked (but protected with easily hacked protection) version of a disc, and then giving someone a watermarked version of exactly the same material is a great way to get the watermark examined and hacked.

Cheers,
David.

As I explained it in another thread : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=10762&hl=
Which leaded to that : http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.p...2003-11-22#7268

It seems to be a specially built CD for the requester.

I translated the text :


Well as the guy said on MacBidouille it begins to ressemble to Big Brother.
And it doesn't seem to be CD-Rs. They would have talked about that, I'm quite certain.

Seems a very rude tone to take with a customer to me. Would make me want to rip the CD straight away and put it up on the net Does the watermark come through on an MP3, I wonder.

Your car has a uniquely identifiable number plate - is that Big Brother?

Didn't Big Brother watch everything? The existence of a watermark (which surely cannot be unique unless it's on a CD-R, or unless they spent a lot of money to make one unique copy) doesn't let anyone watch you or monitor your use, if you're using the disc legally.


It still seems a strange thing for a record company to do, for all the reasons I've already mentioned.

Cheers,
David.

very interesting. i never heard about intentionally watermarking CDs. to think that a record label would go to all that trouble for a few customers

personally i think they're full of crap when they say that they need to press and master a new copy. i think they keep quite a few copies of unprotected versions "just in case" someone complains. with EMI here in canada i read that they didn't even ask for the original disc back. you just fax or email them a receipt and they send you a free replacement. i have no idea whether this replacement have any kind watermarking technology. from what i read it doesn't. it's just a normal unprotected version. money well wasted if you ask me.

so, i suggest you to buy at the same site, but at the Hong Kong version:

http://www.cd-wow.com.hk

if you pay 8.99 £ in UK cdwow site, here you'll pay 95 HKD, as it more or less 10 Euros (9.50 $ - 7 £): much cheaper!




HTH

bye

Ciroopi

ps. You usually bought for 95 HKD; now -goddamnit!- I see the prices are around 105 HKD [for standard cds, excluding special bonus cds, dvd and bargain offers which are different, but of course at the lowest prices I ever seen for Major's products]: is it always cheaper than pay in pounds, but i hope that, after Xmas, the prices will go down as before....

@ciropizza Thanks heaps for that..I didn't know there was a .hk site. Even at $105.99HKD it is still cheaper that there normal .com site...$105.99HKD = 7.85GBP...
I'll be doing more of my ordering from there from now on
Cheers,
Burgerings

I am very aware of pirate copies. There are many MP3 sourced CDs among them. And if MP3s were encoded foxy there are no way to distinguish original from MP3

Substract the channels (as Karaoke DSPs do) and listen. You'll hear obvious artifacts that haven't been there before, no matter how foxy encoding was.

The harder copy protection - the harder is pirate's job. The harder is pirate's job - more organized and foxy they become. More organized and foxy they become - more difficult for RIAA to fight them. More difficult for RIAA to fight them - harder copy protection and so on.
For years RIAA cultivated pirates and the strongest survived.
I am not supporter of piracy but I also don't want to pay so much for a CD, knowing that most part will not go to Artist. RIAA and others waste my moneyto develope their dumb copy protections. I think they chose wrong politics. And IMHO RIAA has no future.

Here the pirates copies aren't from mp3 sources, I sustracted the channels like Tigre said on many pirates CDs buyed here and I compard with originals ones and I think that are copied from wavs, and the lenght, volume and wave shape are the same. Here average people earns around U$ 150 a month, a CD cost around U$ 10 and a pirate copie only $1, it's difficult to me and the John Average stay away from pirates copies here. Me only buy originals CD from my favorites artists like Pink Floyd, Alan Parsons, Kraftwerk, Jean Michel Jarre, etc meanwhile I buy pirated copies from the rest of the artist that I don't like very much. The p2p is not a problem here becouse only a few people can pay for a DSL connection (around U$ 40 a month).

Ever heard of Musiclink? [Formerly Fairtunes]

But then you'll also need to donate to the people who were involved in the production/mastering/design/marketing et cetera et cetera

I've been holding this view for awhile now, and it might just be the only way to go about things... the best way to fight copy-protection is this:

Buy the CD, defeat the protection and make a good copy or two (one for personal use and one for backup), and then return the CD for a refund.

It's very convincing, because these CD's don't play properly on many CD-players.

And it's more obvious to the industry than just not buying the album, because the companies notice that there is an unusually large quantity of defective product returns.

This is something I'd really not worry about. Lets say that:

1. they indeed did manage to make every CD unique (which I severely doubt with pressed CD's, with CD-R's I'd not buy it since like 50% of my CD-R's turns out unusable after 5 years).
2. they manage to do it in such a way that even from the coded MP3 (or whatever format) they can trace it back to you.
3. they have your name and adress available for prosecution if they desire to do so.

Then when rips of your CD's turn up in the P2P networks it does NOT prove you have pirated, unless they catch you in the act of sharing it.

You could have lost your CD together with your portable player. You could have ripped it to HD for personal use within the scope of fair use laws, while running a windows machine with no firewall and file sharing enabled on your internet link, so every script kiddy can acces your files if they wanted to (which would be theft of your property). I can think of numerous other reasons or constructions they'd not be able to pin it on you.

This is just another 'ignorant consumer intimidation' ploy IMO. They give you the impression that they can get to you, hoping that it will have piracy reducing effect.

However, stuff like this does point out the need of a decent legal cost insurance nowadays, you might just have bad luck and get picked out as an 'example case'.

More generally speaking on the topic of piracy, the ripping and sharing of music is something I really was set against, mainly with regards to the loss of income for the musicians that make the music I love, up to bout 2 months ago. Then I turned 180 degrees and joined the sharing pool to upload what I have and download what I want.

What made me change my mind?:
- Reading that large companies like Microsoft state that filesharing reached/crossed "critical mass" and reading that the P2P programs emule and kazaa took up over 40% of surfnet bandwith (one of the big dutch backbones). The genie is definately out of the bottle and its never goin back in.
- the realization that them greedy people have been overcharging me bout 100% in the first 10 years after the CD's started to get published, and I really want revenge for that.
- Most important, the realization that we are able to get the cash to the people that deserve it, the musicians, without the intervention of greedy people and without big record company bosses deciding who gets a shot at it and who don't. The link below gives an example how.

The Street Performer Protocol and Digital Copyrights

greetings,

Cyberschelm

yes, but remember that there are people like me - who like have original package and so on [and this is not the so called "feticism"

i'm talking about the situation here in Italy...

There are a lot of ways of buying CDs at a lower prices instead that in the shops -ebay, used through amazon, for example, or djangos, or cd-wow- that there weren't before; the prices themselves aren't changed, compared to the wages of 20, 30 years ago, or better still they are lower [there was a long discussion on an italian music magazine]

The problems are others:

1) too many luxury products: a normal pocket money isn't often enough to cover all the buys [of course, you have to make a choice]

2) how radiohead says "anyone coul play guitar": now, anyone could make his own album [see what's happen with electronic music in which the 99 % is shit because one stand in front of the computer and here you are!]: there are too many CDs on the market. Of course, we couldn't modify this but there are more ways than before to understand that XYZ album is good or not -more magazines, newsgroups, internet, listening points in the shops, excerpts on amazon....-

3) the ones who don't buy cds are - apart from, of course, the lack of money- who generally don't care much of what they listen. I mean, a music lover always prefer spend 10€ for his original Velvet Underground & Nico instead of the John Average 17€ for Britney Spears.
I want to say that is changed the way people approach to music: the file sharing systems, that I consider the best way to know artists that i should possibly buy and the best way to listen on-the-fly at home or a good way, think about minidiscs, to listen to music form outside, suggest the idea that the music is totally free, but, it's not - or better, music has costs as 30 years ago, or, less-.


After these stupid points, i naturally don't like copy protections, i love sharing music on soulseek and i'm happy presenting a cd to a friend -a girl it's better -
and then have his/her thanks.

I suppose that RIAA [here there's SIAE which takes more percentage of money than RIAA on the cd-cost] should not change the way chosen; i don't think RIAA will have structural problems in the future as i don't think capitalism do [unfortunately ]

Of course, it seems a no-solution problem. and, it is; i don't think that lowering prices could solve something; i don't think copy protections could disappear -and i hope hydrogenaudio guys will study the way of avoiding them -; i don't think that the year-2k-guys are ready to reconsider their point of view about music.

so, i'll continue buy from ebay, ripping with EAC and sharing the best i can.

sincerely,

ciroopi

I will buy all the copy protected CDs that are interesting to me.

I will then rip them as flawlessly as possible (CDS200 can't be flawlessly ripped though) and then return the discs for a full refund.

The reason for returning the discs are that they do not play in my dvd-player (or portable or car audio or...). Here where I live, the shops cannot refuse my return and they have to refund me for full price of the disc.

This is all perfectly legal although I consider it ethically questionable.

However, as long as the recording companies punish me as a paying customer, while the pirates are barely even slowed down by this process, I will join the legal pirates (remember, this kind of behaviour is legal where I live!).

99% of my few thousand cds/lps are originals. This looks like it's going to change.

Of course, all the CDs that have no copy protection, I keep to myself and do not return for a refund. Had I a choice between a copy protected CD and a non-protected CD I would buy the non-protected CD, even though I can get 100% refund for the copy protected CD and still get the songs off it.

regards,
halcyon

Not knowing where you live, that would have to stand...
But in the US at least, when you return, sell, or give your original, you are legally bound to also give up or erase all of your "fair use" copies.

(assuming the typical, but NOT universal, license terms that you can't redistribute)

An update on what I said earlier. The french firm that seem to do the watermarked CDs is called Level as I could find there : http://www.01net.com/article/224305.html (french)

What I found funny there was the comment of Eric Daugan of Warner Music France, he said, "I'm not sure we would sue the professionnals at the origin of the leak". Comment by the writer "Hard to imagine to sue the FNAC when it does 25% of Warner's sales".

Looking for infos, I stumbled on this link, what was prepared (still is?) makes me shiver. Read the "Fuss about RiO" part : http://www.heise.de/ct/english/99/14/078/
Having to do a software update to allow your MP3 player to play them. Fortunately year 2K wasn't a killer to them either.

Have we had a little premonition here ? : http://www.moremayo.com/rants/mp3-2.shtml
Well Audio CD is not dead yet, but the majors do what they can to expedite it.

And both SACD and DVD-A are SDMI compliant and watermarked, thus maybe if the DIVX had worked and the unsecure CD was killed we would have to rent our music instead of buying it. http://www.moremayo.com/rants/patronism.shtml