[EDS_]

1. If a CD is copied to an MP3 file. Can one detect (with equipment) by checking the MP3-that the orig. was CD?

2. If a CD is copied to say an MP3 and beamed via the net to form another MP3 can the latter be ID'd as comming from a CD?

3. If a CD is copied into CD form in a standard CD recorder is the signal on the latter identical to the former? Is there any D to A conversion? I would think that burning the second would casue at least some %age of digital error.

4. Do successive copies of MP3s become "worse" than the first MP3 (say thirty generations)? How about thirty generations of CDs?

I think the answers to one and two are yes and three no, four I think is yes too.

Any good links to how CDs are watermarked--or other detection schemes?
I'd like to know much more about this general topic.

I'm very interested in ways the RIAA and others may be able to catch pirates.

For the record I'm a big believer in private property rights. I don't like much of what the RIAA is doing but I think most of us would do the same if our roles were reversed with their's.


Carry-on.

[Hantra]

1. If a CD is copied to an MP3 file. Can one detect (with equipment) by checking the MP3-that the orig. was CD?

Who is this?  Hello?  Prank caller!  Prank caller!  

   

J/K.  I don't know the answer to your first or second questions.

3. If a CD is copied into CD form in a standard CD recorder is the signal on the latter identical to the former? Is there any D to A conversion? I would think that burning the second would casue at least some %age of digital error.

Most copiers operate digitally.  Sure, there is always a chance for a percentage of error.  Even with digital, this is true.  Any burner that converts to analog first should be run over multiple times in your driveway.

4. Do successive copies of MP3s become "worse" than the first MP3 (say thirty generations)? How about thirty generations of CDs?

If an MP3 is copied digitally to a disc, and from that disc to another disc, I doubt there would be any audible degredation.  If you're talking about ripping an MP3 off a disc into another Mp3, and then burning, that sounds really degenerative, although I can't see why anyone would do it.

As far as generations of CD's degenerating?  When decent digital copying is used, I doubt anyone could tell a 2nd gen from a 100th gen. . .


You can get cool info from the e-tree sites, and from people who burn generations of bootlegs from .shn's.  Also, at the current rate, it will take the RIAA like 2300 years to sue all of the file traders. .  So, you may want to at least curb your file sharing a bit.  hahhaha

[Thump553]

I saw a thread today on another board that stated the RIAA claimed in a recent court filing they could tell the mp3s on the defendant's hardrive came from napster and not from rips from CDs owned by that person.  Other posters there claimed it was highly unlikely this sort of identification could be done.  I don't know the answer to this technical question myself.

[EDS_]

Thump553
I think the RIAA can detect a Napster d/l-even one that is generations old. This process was explained to me very clearly by someone who knows this stuff well. Somehow the encoding scheme used by Napster is specific to Napster or at least ID-able to Napster.

I think 75% of what people say about this issue is wishfull thinking.


I'd like to know the RIAA's basis for this claim as well. But I bet their lips are sealed.

[Sa-dono]

I'm moving this to the Multichannel Audio and the Digital Domain since this is regarding digital and MP3s.

1/2) The ripping program can signify whether it is an original, etc.

3) Jitter can be introduced.

4) I'm unsure what you mean by copies of MP3s. If you mean downloading it from somewhere or copying that file, it will remain the same. Any loss from compression, or errors and jitter added will remain.

[Thump553]

Thump553
I think the RIAA can detect a Napster d/l-even one that is generations old. This process was explained to me very clearly by someone who knows this stuff well. Somehow the encoding scheme used by Napster is specific to Napster or at least ID-able to Napster.

I think 75% of what people say about this issue is wishfull thinking.


I'd like to know the RIAA's basis for this claim as well. But I bet their lips are sealed.

I can't even recall if the Napster software did mp3 encoding.  Even if it did, I think the vast majority of people who rip mp3s from cds used other software.  What I don't understand is that the RIAA is apparently claiming that a mp3, encoded with other software but which has passed through Napster, somehow picked up some kind of digital signature from Napster?  Its wild speculation on my part (I'm not up on the technical aspects) but I find this highly doubtful.

The questions you ask are good ones, but involve complicated technical and unsettled legal issues.  An example of an unsettled legal issue is your right to download a mp3 of a song you own in another format.  For example, say I own Abbey Road on LP but not on CD.  Is it permissible for me to download this?  The RIAA strongly implies it is not, that you have to actually rip the mp3 you use from your own lp or cd.  Needless to say, many legal experts disagree with this overly restrictive definition of fair use.  What will the courts ultimately decide?  Your guess is as good as mine, but remember that common sense is, believe it our not, at the foundation of many legal decisions.

The point is noone can give you a definitive guide as to what you can or cannot do at this point.  If absolute safety from RIAA style vigilantism is your goal, never use any peer to peer sharing whatsoever and only use mp3s you have personally ripped from cds which you possess and have the receipts for.

[Rob Babcock]

Not bad advice, Thump, but I think of the 750+ CDs I own, I could produce the reciept for maybe the newest 3 of 'em.  Who keeps the reciept for a $13 item for 18 years?!