Why not bit-by-bit copying with no settings?

[drewmie]

hate to oversimplify matters, but I've never received a good answer to this question:
CDs are just made up of pits that represent data. So why can't we have a copier (and software) that will copy it bit-by-bit, without caring about sectors, tracks, TOC, etc. Just SEE A PIT, WRITE A PIT! What's holding back this TRUE raw reading and writing? Hardware or software? Even the software that claims to use "raw" modes are caught up in sectors, tracks, settings, etc. Even with weak sectors, this shouldn't be a problem. And the so-called "unreadable" parts are not really unreadable, they're UNINTERPRETABLE. If it were truly "unreadable," a writer could just burn garbledy-gook in the same place and no CD-ROM could know the difference. We even have software tools that can compare how closely a CD has been copied, yet we can't use the same technology to copy it better? Why doesn't it forget formatting, interpreting, and settings and JUST WRITE EXACTLY WHAT IT SEES?

Like I said, maybe I'm making it too simple.
Thanks,
Drewmie

[ccb056]

if it were that simple, the ppl designing the copy protections would be out of a job.

[forbjok]

I have thought of that too, yes. It would probably be possible, but you see, it's those donkeymolesters at the MPAA and the record companies that have somehow managed to get the law on their side, and they probably prevent the cd-writer producers from enabling their writers to do that kind of raw writing/reading.

Those m*therf**king b*ttf**ker h**os*xual* horse-r*ping... mumble...

[kaboom]

I agree with forbjok. I was just recently out for a writer and I've noticed that the Liteon 52X can do things the competing drives from LG and Samsung couldn't (like reading the lead-outs during advanced DAE). I mean, with all the brains inside LG and Samsung, you'd be sure they could do it. But being more prominent companies I think they're just being careful not to piss off the big boys.

Then again, maybe Liteon concentrates more on CD writers that's why they're able to pull off more tricks.

Also, it's possible that with all the EFM stuff (error correction and all that), etc., the drive may not read the CD 'as is' (if you read the CD 'as is', all those dust and scratches may be interpreted as 1's and 0's too), but rather, uses some kind of math calculation to see the bits, and copy protection schemes fool the calculation. I could be wrong, of course.

[tazdevl]

I think LiteOn's DVD burner that's supposed to come out in 4Q might have some very interesting capabilities.

[clumzy_oaf]

Well in general, I though it was a hardware issue.
The drives read the "bits" (as it should be doing) as bytes. Reading the character as opposed to the bit I guess speeds things up for them.

Well when they master discs, they have the luxury of actual bit layout, thus how they generate bad bytes/sectors. (mind you I'm a geek, but not [all] knowing)

Thus the problem, when they introduce error bits as thier form of copy resistance, they do have access to bits. When opticals read it, they see the bytes. Also our writers are not "industrial grade" (if such exists) either way there is a presumstion that our writers write in bytes, not bits.

Course, I could just be a "munkies unkle".

[Inertia]

hate to oversimplify matters, but I've never received a good answer to this question:

Yes, as you said, you're making it too simple.

See How do I make a bit-for-bit copy of a disc? for a good answer to this question.