Page 2 of 2
Posted:
Tue Jun 24, 2003 7:12 pmby BillyG
Im dissapointed this new 52x32x52x drive cant write CD-RW's at 4X. It's still the most popular kind of CD-RW's where I live. Looks like I'll stick with my 52x and 48x Lite-On drives for now.
Otherwise I hope the media incompatablity problems can be solved with newer bios upgrades. I also thought it was strange the drive preferred Maxell-made media over TY - which older Lite-On drives worked best with.
Posted:
Tue Jun 24, 2003 7:49 pmby Ian
BillyG wrote:Im dissapointed this new 52x32x52x drive cant write CD-RW's at 4X. It's still the most popular kind of CD-RW's where I live. Looks like I'll stick with my 52x and 48x Lite-On drives for now.
Otherwise I hope the media incompatablity problems can be solved with newer bios upgrades. I also thought it was strange the drive preferred Maxell-made media over TY - which older Lite-On drives worked best with.
It does rewrite at 4x. Their specs are wrong.
I had very good luck with Fuji and Taiyo 48x discs with this drive.
Posted:
Wed Jun 25, 2003 5:19 pmby BillyG
I just looked at their review of the 52246S and they listed 8X as the lowest CD-RW write speed. They need to do a little correcting on thier specs so I wont get misled again. I also wish they had more information in their reviews on how the drive ripps and copys copy-protected audio and game CD's.
Posted:
Wed Jun 25, 2003 5:58 pmby Ian
BillyG wrote:I also wish they had more information in their reviews on how the drive ripps and copys copy-protected audio and game CD's.
Well, not every website/magazine is ready to cross that line. Personally, I don't want a RIAA lawsuit because I said so and so drive can defeat this or that copy protection.
Posted:
Thu Jun 26, 2003 7:54 pmby BillyG
Ian wrote:Well, not every website/magazine is ready to cross that line. Personally, I don't want a RIAA lawsuit because I said so and so drive can defeat this or that copy protection.
I know of one website where they do this, forgot the name. But has the RIAA warned a website or magazine for doing this? I guess you are thinking of the DeCSS lawsuit but thats a little different. (PS: sorry for going off topic)
Posted:
Thu Jun 26, 2003 8:29 pmby dolphinius_rex
defeating copy protection is legal if you only do it for 1 personal backup, made from a purchased original. So I don't expect any forums to be shut down over it
Posted:
Thu Jun 26, 2003 11:19 pmby Ian
BillyG wrote:I know of one website where they do this, forgot the name. But has the RIAA warned a website or magazine for doing this? I guess you are thinking of the DeCSS lawsuit but thats a little different. (PS: sorry for going off topic)
Not that I know of, but with them sending out lawsuits by the truckload, I don't want to tempt fate. We don't make enough $$$ off the ads to pay a lawyer.
dolphinius_rex wrote:defeating copy protection is legal if you only do it for 1 personal backup, made from a purchased original. So I don't expect any forums to be shut down over it
Isn't this a fairy tale?
Posted:
Thu Jun 26, 2003 11:49 pmby CDRecorder
dolphinius_rex wrote:defeating copy protection is legal if you only do it for 1 personal backup, made from a purchased original. So I don't expect any forums to be shut down over it
I thought that defeating copy protection for any reason was illegal.
Posted:
Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:13 amby dhc014
According to the DMCA, the illegal part is circumventing copy protection. We have a legal right to make a single backup of any software that we buy (unless they give us a single backup disc), but in order to do so we must use software technology which circumvents copy protection. Kind of messed up, no?
Posted:
Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:41 amby dolphinius_rex
So it is legal to make a backup copy that DOESN"T work???
Posted:
Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:59 amby dhc014
dolphinius_rex wrote:So it is legal to make a backup copy that DOESN"T work???
That is 100% correct.
Posted:
Fri Jun 27, 2003 1:10 amby dolphinius_rex
yup, that sounds like the government!
Posted:
Fri Jun 27, 2003 1:13 amby CDRecorder
dhc014 wrote:According to the DMCA, the illegal part is circumventing copy protection. We have a legal right to make a single backup of any software that we buy (unless they give us a single backup disc), but in order to do so we must use software technology which circumvents copy protection. Kind of messed up, no?
Very messed up.
