On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:25:07 +0000, Kosmo Threadbane wrote:

> I think I started with scd0 to begin with, then tried sg0 because I found
> it in the /proc/scsi world and decided to go with that for a while.

ok. what happens when you do:

cat /proc/scsi

? also, does /proc/scsi/ide-scsi exist? if so, what do you get when you
do:

cat /proc/scsi/ide-scsi/0

and/or ....ide-scsi/1 ?

what result does this give:

lsmod | grep scsi

please select and paste the results from the above tests into a message
here.

> Like I said, it shows all the tracks and their correct titles, the
> artist, etc., so it CAN read the cd a little, apparently.

hmmm... i'm not sure that that means anything really. grip doesn't get
that information from the cd itself, it gets it from the freedb.org
datbase if you're online (or if it's already in the cache in your home
directory) - or says "track 1, track 2, etc..." if not. obviously it has
to get *some* data from the disk to do that, but quite how it gets that,
i'm not sure. it may not be via the same route as it rips the audio.

will

will kemp <will@xxxx.swaggie.net> wrote:
>
>On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:25:07 +0000, Kosmo Threadbane wrote:
>
>> I think I started with scd0 to begin with, then tried sg0 because I found
>> it in the /proc/scsi world and decided to go with that for a while.
>
>ok. what happens when you do:
>
>cat /proc/scsi
>
>? also, does /proc/scsi/ide-scsi exist? if so, what do you get when you
>do:
>
>cat /proc/scsi/ide-scsi/0
>
>and/or ....ide-scsi/1 ?
>
>what result does this give:

Okay, guys. I finally managed to get cdparanoia to cough out a wav file
with the -Y -Z switches, but it took HOURS to finish a 3 minute song, but
the quality was poor. Then, buzzing around the man pages I discovered
cdsound-recorder, which makes the wav file directly off the sound card.
It records BETTER quality than cdparanoia in real time! Obviously, this
precludes any copyright or anything else, since it's just recording
the sound itself.

My recommendation? Bag cdparanoia and just use:

cdsound-recorder -s 44100 -b 16 -P -l 5 -c 2 nameofthesong.wav


or some such.

I appreciate your help! Thanks! But really, cdsound-recorder just
seems so much easier and way, way faster -- and the quality is even
better, too.

Kosmo Threadbane <zeteticCXL@hq.eac> writes:

> Okay, guys. I finally managed to get cdparanoia to cough out a wav file
> with the -Y -Z switches, but it took HOURS to finish a 3 minute song, but
> the quality was poor. Then, buzzing around the man pages I discovered
> cdsound-recorder, which makes the wav file directly off the sound card.
> It records BETTER quality than cdparanoia in real time! Obviously, this
> precludes any copyright or anything else, since it's just recording
> the sound itself.
>
> My recommendation? Bag cdparanoia and just use:
>
> cdsound-recorder -s 44100 -b 16 -P -l 5 -c 2 nameofthesong.wav
>
> or some such.
>
> I appreciate your help! Thanks! But really, cdsound-recorder just
> seems so much easier and way, way faster -- and the quality is even
> better, too.

It seems like your CD player is having trouble with the copy-protected
CDs. If cdparanoia can successfully read the digital audio from the
disk, there is no way another program could achieve a better quality.
Do you have any idea which kind of copy protection the CD uses? Have
you tried a real CD?

--
Måns Rullgård
mru@mru.ath.cx

Kosmo Threadbane wrote:

> will kemp <will@xxxx.swaggie.net> wrote:
>>
>>On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:25:07 +0000, Kosmo Threadbane wrote:
>>
>>> I think I started with scd0 to begin with, then tried sg0 because I
>>> found it in the /proc/scsi world and decided to go with that for a
>>> while.
>>
>>ok. what happens when you do:
>>
>>cat /proc/scsi
>>
>>? also, does /proc/scsi/ide-scsi exist? if so, what do you get when you
>>do:
>>
>>cat /proc/scsi/ide-scsi/0
>>
>>and/or ....ide-scsi/1 ?
>>
>>what result does this give:
>
> Okay, guys. I finally managed to get cdparanoia to cough out a wav file
> with the -Y -Z switches, but it took HOURS to finish a 3 minute song, but
> the quality was poor. Then, buzzing around the man pages I discovered
> cdsound-recorder, which makes the wav file directly off the sound card.
> It records BETTER quality than cdparanoia in real time!

> Obviously, this precludes any copyright or anything else,
> since it's just recording the sound itself.

Actually, no, this doesn't preclude copyright protections. Use this rule of
thumb: If copying the original file is a copyright violation, then copying
the sound coming from the file is a violation also.

It is virtually certain that someone will reply by saying "Using that logic,
isn't listening to music a violation?" No, because there is no persistence
to what you hear, no future replay possibilities. When you record the
sound, you can play it back any number of times in the future (that's OK),
or give copies to your friends (that's not). Different matter entirely.

--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com

Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> writes:

> It is virtually certain that someone will reply by saying "Using that logic,
> isn't listening to music a violation?" No, because there is no persistence
> to what you hear, no future replay possibilities.

Ever whistled a tune? Even worse, now that pop chart melodies are
sold as cellphone ringtones, certain birds are picking them up. What
does the law (or the RIAA, whichever takes precedence) have to say
about that?

--
Måns Rullgård
mru@mru.ath.cx

Paul Lutus wrote:

> Kosmo Threadbane wrote:
>
>> will kemp <will@xxxx.swaggie.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:25:07 +0000, Kosmo Threadbane wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think I started with scd0 to begin with, then tried sg0 because
>>>> I found it in the /proc/scsi world and decided to go with that
>>>> for a while.
>>>
>>>ok. what happens when you do:
>>>
>>>cat /proc/scsi
>>>
>>>? also, does /proc/scsi/ide-scsi exist? if so, what do you get when
>>>you do:
>>>
>>>cat /proc/scsi/ide-scsi/0
>>>
>>>and/or ....ide-scsi/1 ?
>>>
>>>what result does this give:
>>
>> Okay, guys. I finally managed to get cdparanoia to cough out a wav
>> file with the -Y -Z switches, but it took HOURS to finish a 3 minute
>> song, but
>> the quality was poor. Then, buzzing around the man pages I
>> discovered cdsound-recorder, which makes the wav file directly off
>> the sound card. It records BETTER quality than cdparanoia in real
>> time!
>
>> Obviously, this precludes any copyright or anything else,
>> since it's just recording the sound itself.
>
> Actually, no, this doesn't preclude copyright protections. Use this
> rule of thumb: If copying the original file is a copyright violation,
> then copying the sound coming from the file is a violation also.

Do not, repeat do not assume that copyright laws are the same
everywhere. In Holland it is perfectly legal to copy music, even if you
do not own the cd.

Also downloading music is perfectly legal in the Netherlands.

>
> It is virtually certain that someone will reply by saying "Using that
> logic, isn't listening to music a violation?" No, because there is no
> persistence to what you hear, no future replay possibilities. When you
> record the sound, you can play it back any number of times in the
> future (that's OK), or give copies to your friends (that's not).
> Different matter entirely.

Nope. See above. It all depends on where you live. Lending out an
original cd, and have your friends copy it is still perfectly legal
here.

EJ
--
Remove the obvious part (including the dot) for my email address.
http://www.vanwesten.net for examples of ipf and pf.

erik wrote:

/ ...

>>> Obviously, this precludes any copyright or anything else,
>>> since it's just recording the sound itself.
>>
>> Actually, no, this doesn't preclude copyright protections. Use this
>> rule of thumb: If copying the original file is a copyright violation,
>> then copying the sound coming from the file is a violation also.
>
> Do not, repeat do not assume that copyright laws are the same
> everywhere. In Holland it is perfectly legal to copy music, even if you
> do not own the cd.

What? I never made any claim about whather copying is legal or not. What I
said was that, if copying a file is a violation, then copying its sound is
also a violation. Read the original above.

>
> Also downloading music is perfectly legal in the Netherlands.

Non sequitur.

>
>>
>> It is virtually certain that someone will reply by saying "Using that
>> logic, isn't listening to music a violation?" No, because there is no
>> persistence to what you hear, no future replay possibilities. When you
>> record the sound, you can play it back any number of times in the
>> future (that's OK), or give copies to your friends (that's not).
>> Different matter entirely.
>
> Nope.

Yes. If your assertion were correct, people could simply move to Holland,
copy to their hearts' content, and mail the results to people in other
countries. But this is not true, because copyright laws are international
in nature, as they must be.

> See above. It all depends on where you live. Lending out an
> original cd, and have your friends copy it is still perfectly legal
> here.

My assertion applies in the general, international case.

--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com

Måns Rullgård wrote:

> Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> writes:
>
>> It is virtually certain that someone will reply by saying "Using that
>> logic, isn't listening to music a violation?" No, because there is no
>> persistence to what you hear, no future replay possibilities.
>
> Ever whistled a tune? Even worse, now that pop chart melodies are
> sold as cellphone ringtones, certain birds are picking them up.

That's nice. A nice example of nature undermininig the marketing department.
In Australia's outback I once heard a talented bird sing a surprisingly
long excerpt from a classical piece. At least he had the sense to sing
something in the public domain.

> What
> does the law (or the RIAA, whichever takes precedence) have to say
> about that?

I know you think your question is a rhetorical one, but as to a specific
piece of music (my favorite example), the "birthday song", because it is
copyrighted, it is a technical violation to perform it in public. And what
is more public than a birthday party? This, by the way, is why one rarely
sees this piece of music performed in movies.

As to cellphone ring tones, elevator music, et. al., all are part of a
low-level royalty scheme, for those tunes that are copyrighted.

I think the old rule was that one could copy and perform up to (one, two, I
can't remember) measures of a song without entering into copyright issues,
so small bits of a song might appear without causing problems. But more
recently, as to the practice known as "sampling", e.g. the use of a small
sample of a popular piece of music in another work, this has now come under
copyright protections as well.

Conclusion? This is not at all clear-cut, and there is an increasing
tendency to assert copyright rights on seemingly small bits of melody.

--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com

Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> writes:

> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>> Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> writes:
>>
>>> It is virtually certain that someone will reply by saying "Using that
>>> logic, isn't listening to music a violation?" No, because there is no
>>> persistence to what you hear, no future replay possibilities.
>>
>> Ever whistled a tune? Even worse, now that pop chart melodies are
>> sold as cellphone ringtones, certain birds are picking them up.
>
> That's nice. A nice example of nature undermininig the marketing department.
> In Australia's outback I once heard a talented bird sing a surprisingly
> long excerpt from a classical piece. At least he had the sense to sing
> something in the public domain.
>
>> What does the law (or the RIAA, whichever takes precedence) have to
>> say about that?
>
> I know you think your question is a rhetorical one, but as to a specific
> piece of music (my favorite example), the "birthday song", because it is
> copyrighted, it is a technical violation to perform it in public. And what
> is more public than a birthday party?

At least in Sweden, there are two categories of parties and similar
arrangements: (1) those open to anyone, i.e. gate crashers are
welcome, and (2) those for only a closed group of people, such as by
invitation. This categorization is mostly for regulations of the
serving of alcoholic drinks, but I suppose something similar could be
used with copyright issues. I've never heard of any cases where
anyone was sued for performing music at a party, though.

> As to cellphone ring tones, elevator music, et. al., all are part of a
> low-level royalty scheme, for those tunes that are copyrighted.

As long as they don't start charging for each time it rings it's fine
by me.

--
Måns Rullgård
mru@mru.ath.cx

"Paul Lutus" <nospam@nosite.zzz> wrote in message
news:10lj9eudf9u5cde@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I know you think your question is a rhetorical one, but as to a specific
> piece of music (my favorite example), the "birthday song", because it is
> copyrighted, it is a technical violation to perform it in public. And what
> is more public than a birthday party? This, by the way, is why one rarely
> sees this piece of music performed in movies.

I don't believe that the issue is whether it is performed in public, but
whether it is performed by a business as part of entertaining it's guests.
Something that restaurants used to commonly do when one of the patrons had a
birthday.