CD vs Computer playback on DirectStream

I don’t think the statute of limitations on a particular infringement (illegal copying, whatever that might encompass) would begin to run until the infringement occurs. However, in the Betamax case, one of the factors cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in finding that the use of a VCR for time shifting was fair use (by consumers, and thus Sony could not be guilty of contributory infringement) was the fact that most content owners did not object. The failure of the music industry to object for such a long period of time (while, for example, cutting deals with Apple to sell downloads using iTunes, the same software that allowed people to rip their CDs) suggests that, even if ripping your own CDs for personal use was not originally within fair use (and I continue to believe it was and is), it probably is now. I suspect the record companies have always been perfectly happy to have people buy CDs to put them on their iPods (whether as lossy compressed, lossless compressed or uncompressed files) as that resulted in sales they might not otherwise have had. I continue to buy CDs to rip to my hard drive (when I can’t find a higher res download) but I haven’t actually played a CD for years. Instead I rip them and store the CD in my basement. But I only listen to one copy at a time. Why should the record company care whether I do that by playing the CD or by ripping it to hard drive and playing through a DAC? Either way, it’s the same content and I’ve paid for the privilege.

The are services to have your sacds ripp,for,you , weather that is legal,or not I do not know . But there is some based here in the states .

I own two such PS3 machines , I did this after buying a few hundred sacd,s and realized I could not get the actual dff files off the cd . It only allows you to copy the cd layer so only 24/48 or less. This is also when I bought my first msb stack . Not long after did I then realize once again how we are cheated and the coveted music was not indeed hirez most times . Various forums have ways that is discussed of just what the actual recorded sample rate was and it is then upsampled. I know I sound sour and I am after all at nearly 59 I cannot count how my times I have bought the same music in my lifetime . This rant may be a bit off topic but where are the legal motions in vetting us to be obtaining correctly what we paid for . Sony never really seem to,care enough to make itnright the first time . There is a history as to why the sacd was made and it’s not all about thievery . computoeraudiophile is a great site and very helpful in digital playback methods a must site to visit . But remember it’s paid for advitiser driven unlike here .

Ripping SACD’s is more problematic because they are copy protected and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits defeating copy protection.

My sense is things are getting better with high res providers but there clearly needs to be a lot more transparency when it comes to provenance (type and resolution of masters used, etc.).

Certain irony that it takes a Sony product to copy a product Sony have copyright over. Does beg the question whether ripping a sacd with hardware made by Sony constitutes infringement! Suppose one should not forget that Philips are Sony’s SACD JV partner so they might not be too pleased that partner mass marketed a product that rips SACDs.

Steve

I agree the statute of limitations only starts to run once the infringement takes place. Though the capability to rip a cd probably goes back to when the first cd writers came onto market probably back in the 80’s, ripping on a mass scale of an unproportional levels arose once iTunes/iPods hit the market and especially after it became Windows compatible. The record companies could have done something about it by then but as you rightly pointed out, income from downloads was more important despite knowing that the sale of a cd was likely to lead to multiple copies of it being made. That happened over ten years ago and the companies did nothing. The VCR case applies to the US but has no standing elsewhere in the world. However, nearly all legal systems throughout the world have limitation laws and in the majority of those countries, it’s too late now.

stevem2 said I respectfully disagree . . .
Perfectly fine. It is all speculation until a Federal court actually addresses the specific issue. I would not lose any sleep over it.
gordon said to ELK

What is the time limitations on “ambiance and effect” or even score of a copyrighted song? Surely the Gaye/Thicke case would be beyond reasonable “time” or did the “jury” trial give it a different spin? [ or is it life + 70 years?]

In the States, for works securing federal statutory protection after January 1, 1978 (Copyright Act of 1976) it is the author’s life, plus 70 years. There are longer periods on certain specified circumstances as well, depending on the nature of the authorship.

Works created but neither published nor registered before January 1, 1978 are protected for the life of the creator, plus 70 years. These works were guaranteed at least 25 years of statutory protection; i.e., at least until December 31, 2002.

Marvin Gaye died in 1984 so the copyright is good for many more years yet.

I would think that any "resemblance" to the original could also be taken as a compliment to the timelessness of said resemblance rather than blatant plagiarism.
Yes, and in fact this is what Thicke and clan were up to and readily admitted - trying to capture the sound of the time. Random Access Memories by Daft Punk sought to capture the 1970s (a spectacularly well-produced and sounding album by the way). Taylor Swift's 1989 seeks to do the same for her birth year of the same date (and does so surprisingly well).

The Gaye case is fascinating. The parties contested whether the “feel” of Gaye’s Got to Give it Up was copyrighted and whether Blurred Lines was infringement. The groove was broken down into a traditional musicological structural analysis, that which could be proven as a copyrightable score and scientifically quantifiable. The jury went with the Gaye camp.

The good thing is that many who did not receive the recognition they deserved, such as early black performers, may now be able to make claims for the sound and feel of music derivative of their work. The bad news is that if this continues, it will have a substantial chilling effect on artists who desire to creatively explore the sounds and styles of previous eras.

John-k, yes, I should have prefaced my remarks by noting I was only talking about the US. And, as I’ve said many times, I’m no expert on IP law, even in the US. And it is ironic that people use PlayStations to break copy protection on SACDs. I doubt Philips cares at this point, particularly since that model is long off the market.

A PlayStation is a very competent purpose-built computer.

The early PS3 consoles could play SACDs, and the older PS3 operating system is able to read SACDs directly. There is no hardware DSD to PCM conversion. Instead it is accomplished in software.

The hacker SACD ripper software can thus access DSDIFF, DSF, and ISO. It is quite slick. I suspect when it made the devices, it did not initially occur to Sony that hackers would access the datastream. And to do so requires a good deal of sophistication - even now when the tools are readily available and need not be reinvented.

Unfortunately, PS3s also overheated and killed themselves (yellow light of death) and the if the OS is updated to a newer version it cannot be rolled back without hardware modification.

Other countries address CD copying differently than the US. Some explicitly state no copes. Period. Regardless of format or how the copies are made. Others state you can make x number of copies for your own use. Etc.

Elk

so other countries forbid any form of copying a CD. They’re probably like most other countries in that they’ll do absolutely nothing about it because the tax revenues from selling equipment and software for copying far outweighs the odd law. Hypocritical and spineless!

Except it is typically not the government which is given the right to enforce a copyright, but the holder of the copyright.

No hypocrisy.

While not addressing the ripping issue, this week Paul released the DS Junior and announced the DirectStream Transport which will pass SACD, BluRay audio and DVD-A through I2S to a DS or Junior coming in October. It is proprietary so won’t pass to any other DSD DACs.

This is terrific news for those of us who have a large physical SACD collections but want to use the DS and don’t have a PS3. Hopefully it will sound superior to the Vanity card and maintain the excellent red book performance the PWT is known for. Plus it will play those handful of BluRay and DVD-A’s in the collection. That’s a nice little bonus. Looks like I’ll be giving up my fantastic EMM Labs player in the future after all. I thought it was going to be my endgame player, LOL.