Vote

The form of the protection will dictate whether or not it bothers me. If it is a legitimate tool to stop piracy that is truly inaudible and that survives both digital and analog generations, then fantastic. However---how an inaudible watermark would survive an analog generation remains to be seen. Most likely the scheme will be some pitiful attempt (like SCMS) that is easily circumvented by bootleggers and yet becomes a pain in the consumer's butt. In that instance, it will probably bum me out enough to cause me to stick with "professional" machines (just like with DAT decks).

I feel these copy protection schemes are not dealing the real problems - the people who pirate copies and the people who buy them!

Only matters if it has any effect on the sound of the original or the copy. I generally make copies of recordings for use in the car or bus/train.

Piracy of software is a non-isssue. People who buy and/or sell pirated music and computer software would never buy the real thing anyway. CD quality is already enough for the pirates of this world; upping the quality will make no difference.

As long as whatever copy protection is being used does not affect sound quality or the ability for me to make one generation copy at a time in case I want to make a copy for my car or walkman it's fine. I resent anything that will alter the sound quality, and I feel once I bought it I shouldn't have to buy multiple copies for my car or walkman. However as a business man I also understand the concern for someone making multiple copies and selling it overseas or in schools and loosing big dollars if there is no copy protection at all. Just don't mess things up for the vast majority of us consumers who do support the manufacturers. It is not good to bite the hand that feeds and supports you, but it is OK to bite the head off from someone who steals from you. You should be smart enough to know the difference.

I think copy-protection (of any kind) is a step backward. 1) There will always be someone able to find a way to bypass a copy protection. 2) When someone get a copy of some music, video, or software, if he really likes it or finds the product worth it, in the end, he will buy it. If he is a little bit responsible. 3) Allowing a medium to be copied helps it reach a larger public and a larger market. When you launch something new, you should think about that. 4) Copy protection is like the Inquisition: It does a lot of damage, and doesn't fix the problem in the end.

This is a wonderful format (even SACD). We gotta let the artists, the folks that are making the content, and the folks that are manufacturing and distributing get their cut.

I am only interested in the quality of the software. I am not interested in copying it.

As I'm not in the copying business, copy protection should not prove a major concern. But frankly, I don't see why the record companies bother. There is no copy-protection scheme that a good engineer can't undo, and most of us buy from reputable dealers. Give it a rest.

As long as there is no degradation of audio quality then I am happy. Any player I buy must have a 24/96 digital output facility.

I have no concern about making copies. The cost of getting good recording equipment and making a decent reproduction is too much added effort when I can just buy the disc I want. If the quality is bad, I can return it. Can't do that with pirated items.

Only to the extend it may compromise the sound.

Watermarking could hurt it a lot for me

Greedy bastards! Why can't they just give us another unconstitutional tax on blank media instead? Oh, yeah---they'll do that too.

Yes, it bothers me if honest customers, for their own use, cannot make a copy of a legally bought disc, for use in the car or summer house or elsewhere. This sounds like the odd deals software companys tried to force customers into, where even making a backup was illegal. For commercial pirates, however, I have no compassion. Nail them! This is just as bizarre as the regional coding on DVD-Video. In practice, I am not allowed to use a product I have fully paid for as I please. Where I live, we call this fraud.

I want to make a CD-R copy for the car audio---you know, copies that I can leave in the hot sun, or the damp of the air-conditioner.

I feel I have a right to make a cassette/CD copy for use in the car, etc.

I buy music to listen to at home on my own system. So long as the copy protection doesn't degrade playback performance, I don't give a rodent's patoot!

Provided that it doesn

Only if it affects the sound quality - I'm not worried about being prevented from making copies.

What's the point. All the big piracy happens by the mass production of CD's at foreign pressing plants. This only hinders legit users.

The music industry is exceptionally paranoid. If I pay them more $ for a DVD-Audio than for a CD, I expect to be able to digitally copy the DVD-Audio to a recordable DVD for my own use. The RIAA should publish piracy statistics to convince me otherwise, and charge me less for DVD-Audio if I can't copy it for my own use.

Watermarking will add information to the digital stream, which will find its way to the DAC. Need I say more?

This is what killed off DAT as a mass consumer product; for me, this is what will likely kill off DVD. Perfect sound forever!

with sound quality getting better no need to make copies and doing so would only degrade the music.

I consider myself a serious listener, but I can't hear most of the subtle differences some people claim to hear.

If it's audible, it sucks. If it's not, who cares?

I would be happy with it as long as there was no degradation of sound quality and no major difficulties in getting a broad range of music titles.

Copyright protection will not affect my views of the format. I would not expect "serious" copy cats to bee to bothered either as there will always be some way to get around the schemes. As concerns my own copying of music, it's completely non commercial; and expect the performance margin of the new format to be wide enough to make descent copies with respectable DVD burners or through the analogue channel of my DAT player (which runs with 20 bits and eight times over-sampling).

if it compromises audio quality