iLounge

1

There’s “no such thing” as a copy protected CD, so stop calling them that.

Posted by m.s. on June 23, 2005 at 5:17 PM (PDT)

2

What would you call them?
‘End User Restrictive Compact Discs’?
‘Copy Control CDs?’
‘Corrupt Audio CDs’?
If the CD is produced in such a manner as to prevent or control the way the consumer can “copy” it fairly for personal use on a DAP or computer, in a format which allows a decent quality of their choosing, then it is protected/controlled/corrupted.
Perhaps all these labels are made up?
:o)

Posted by Bob Levens in UK on June 23, 2005 at 5:58 PM (PDT)

3

Bob, they’re not CDs

CD is a tradmark. CD means that the product meets certain specifications. Those specifications (in the case of audio, the “Red Book”) don’t provide for any means of copy protection, and the copy protection used to protect audio content makes the resulting product violate the specification. Hence, they are NOT CDs.

They therefore shouldn’t be called CDs. In fact, they cannot legally be called CDs, as that is trademark infringement. Not here, and not in a store. Doing so is deliberately misleading.

Personally, I would call them “worthless pieces of plastic,” but it’s not my problem. Ask those who produce these totally non-standard things what they would like to call them. It’s obvious that they thrive on the easy confusion with real CDs, something poor reporting, such as presented here, encourages.

Posted by m.s. on June 24, 2005 at 4:11 AM (PDT)

4

Oh, Philips owns the trademark “CD”, and here’s what they have to say about things:

http://www.vnunet.com/news/1128540

Posted by m.s. on June 24, 2005 at 4:20 AM (PDT)

5

m.s.
I am aware of the “books” and the standards they ‘impose’ and I totally agree that they are not Audio CDs in terms of the Red Book standard.

But the term “compact disc” has come to be used as a generic term for all those shiny little discs. It may be wrong but everyone knows what it refers to. For the average guy on the street that is the only term they know.

If Philips really felt that strongly about the misuse or abuse of their trademark why aren’t thet doing more about it? Maybe they are behind the scenes…but your link is to an article over 3 years old.

If you read through my posts in the forums on this subject you will see that I often advise people to return Copy Protected Worthless Pieces of Plastic to the store and point out they are not Audio CDs.

My reference to “Sony BMG and EMI are offering iPod incompatible audio CDs” is as a follow up to the report HERE - maybe you should take up the “poor reporting” with Forbes.com?

Posted by Bob Levens in UK on June 24, 2005 at 8:00 AM (PDT)

6

Hey, To all that produce the Copy Protected BS It gives me more the reason to pirate your songs.  All Must boycott CPcds and Pirate. FYI i buy all my music llegally but once you mess with my abllity to get it on my mp3 player you won’t see a dime of my money! 

All should boycott record labels that tries to mess with your right to listen to music!!!!

Posted by bmxing85 on July 2, 2005 at 11:49 PM (PDT)