The articles I've read about two recent schemes involve messing with the
error checking on the disc.

The first scheme simply puts a many bad blocks on each track, but gives
bad error correcting info so when a regular CD sees those blocks it
doesn't use the data, and instead interpolates and filters from the
previous and next blocks.  So while a regular CD player will see the
errors, they never show up on the speakers.  A CD-ROM, however, being a
data reader sees those bad blocks and at minimum will stop reading the
disc when it runs into bad data, or at best pick up the bad data which
introduces pops and clicks in the music.

The next scheme takes this further.  A company has claimed that not only
can they insert bad pops and clicks, but they can send special waveforms
designed to blow speakers and possibly damage amplifier equipment.  This
has more serious ramifications...

Of course, programs will appear to overcome the effects of these schemes
on computers which will work with most CD-ROM drives, but many people
are asking if these CDs actually follow the red-book standard, which
specifies how many bad blocks can exist in a sector/on a disc and still
carry the "CD COMPACT DISC" logo from Phillips, and if not, then can the
companies be liable to consumers for selling "defective" or "deceptive"
product.  Even if it doesn't carry the CD logo, it looks like one, is
presented like one and is sold like one.

So far the company that sells the destructive protection claims that
there are currently no CDs on the market which have that destructive
feature, only the innocuous pop-click 'feature'.  Chances are they may
never release it since they would essentially have to make each consumer
accept liability for possible damages - OR accept a lot of lawsuits.
 Their lawyers are probably never going to let them release it,
especially in countries where backups of copyrighted materials are
explicitly permitted.

-Adam

Benjamin Bromilow wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>Quoted from a reputable paper over the weekend.
>What does anyone think??
>High frequencies get removed in MP3 so modulating higher frequencies to make
>the lower ones??? Or is it all BS??
>
>Ben
>
>[direct quote from here down]
>
>Independant On Sunday, UK 26/8/2001
>by Leo Lewis
>
>"....
>Music's 'big five' test new CDs that cannot be downloaded
>
>British, European and American CD buyers have unwittingly become part of a
>secret global experiment by the 'big five' record companies to stop people
>downloading music.
>The five- Sony, EMI, BMG, Warner and Universal- are said to be testing a new
>technology that will make it impossible to transfer music properly from
>shop-bought CD to a home computer.
>The "stealth CDs" are being slipped quitely into music stores around the
>world, though most of the one million secretely altered discs are though to
>have landed here and on the Continent. They look and play like normal CDs
>but hidden in the music is a ground-breaking piece of encryption software.
>If played on standard equipment, the CD sounds normal. But if the music is
>transfered to the hard disk of a computer, the quality will be so low that
>the file will be unplayable. Even those who own CD-burning equipment will
>find the resultant copy will sound terrible. The project has been kept under
>close wraps, and one particularly guarded secret is which artists are being
>targeted.
>The experiment is part of the developing relationship between music
>companies and the internet. Companies are eager to find ways to reverse
>slumps in shop sales. Music-sharing websites such as Napster sent a chill
>through the industry. Computer technology has given any PC-user the ability
>to make perfect digital copes and distribute them for free around the world.
>Although record companies are becoming increasinly involved with selling
>music online, the new encryption technology is seen as the first serious
>move the industry has made to protect its artists and their intellectual
>property
>..."
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
>ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.
>
>
>
>
>

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.