makela@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela) (08/07/89)
In article <752@palladium.UUCP>, rsilvers@palladium.UUCP (rsilvers) says: > The Sony-Betamax case won in court. It allows you to make a single >copy of any copywrited material for your own use. I do not think this >should be ignored in the DAT issue. I am tired of advancing technology >being crippled. Actually, over here in Finland, the copyright laws have always permitted unlimited copies of copyrighted material FOR PERSONAL USE. I have always assumed it was based on international agreements ? I recently read that the DAT manufacturers and the audio companies had finally reached an agreement on making DATs which allow copying of CDs. The catch was, the DAT was supposed to make only one copy of each CD. Does anyone have any idea how a silly restriction like this would be enforced ? Putting huge NV-RAMs inside DATs or something ? This would also seem easily defeatable... Otto J. Makela, University of Jyvaskyla InterNet: makela@tukki.jyu.fi, BitNet: MAKELA_OTTO_@FINJYU.BITNET BBS: +358 41 211 562 (V.22bis/V.22/V.21, 24h/d), Phone: +358 41 613 847 Mail: Kauppakatu 1 B 18, SF-40100 Jyvaskyla, Finland, EUROPE
janpo@philmds.UUCP (Jan Postma) (08/08/89)
In article <1104@tukki.jyu.fi> makela@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela) writes: >I recently read that the DAT manufacturers and the audio companies had >finally reached an agreement on making DATs which allow copying of CDs. >The catch was, the DAT was supposed to make only one copy of each CD. No, not quite true. 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. An recording on a DAT from an analog source can be digitally copied twice, i.e. a digital copy of a digital copy of an analog recording on a DAT is possible, any further digital copying of this third generation is not. Professional machines for recording purposes in studios will not have this restriction. Jan Postma janpo@dts.philips.nl
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (08/09/89)
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"
wolfgang@mgm.mit.edu (Wolfgang Rupprecht) (08/09/89)
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