Ripping SACD to Music Server via PS3 method, legal or not?

[Bobbeanbags]

I didn't know where to post this but I have a question about the legality of ripping SACD's to a music server. Can one legally rip SACD's one owns to a music server? I would think the answer is yes because copyright law allows one to make copies for backup use, etc (fair use act?). I am looking to try this, but I am concerned about the legality of it. If there is an audiophile lawyer familiar with copyright law, could you give some free advice? :-) Thanks!

 

[ted_b]

In the US if one were to copy his/her own music collection for personal use or as backup/archive, this is all legal. HOWEVER, because with both DVD-Audio (MLP) and SACD (DSD) these tools are breaking encryption codes that were put there to protect the formats and their sponsors...in the US (and some other countries, don't know off the top of my head) that encryption breaking is considered illegal. Perform at your own risk.

 

[audiozorro]

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3341-Ripping-SACDs-the-right-way

 

The main difference I see is the price. In both cases you are capturing the DSD data from the SACDs.

 

Is the expensive right way legal and the inexpensive cheap way illegal? And if you legally bought the SACDs that you ripped and did not sell or transfer the DSD files to anyone else are you likely to be prosecuted, probably not.

 

I assume for every one person that has ripped a SACD, there are over one hundred persons who have ripped their Blu ray discs that are also covered by DRM. Read the below section on DRM Shortcomings and you will realize that once you sell content, you give up some control, which is one reason why some businesses are pushing "Cloud" concepts that can be better controlled, locked down or taken away.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management

 

If you find a case where someone has ripped SACDs or Blu ray discs that they bought and never sold or transferred let me know.

 

[Larry B]

Per the DMCA, it is illegal to make a copy of a disc if doing so requires one to bypass copy-protection. This is discussed in an aticle I wrote a few years ago:

 

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/905copy/index.html

 

 

Regards,

 

Larry

 

[Kevin_O]

By merely using any EMM Labs, DCS, Esoteric or Playback Designs SACD transport, you are bypassing the SACD encryption because each has the capability of passing a Pure DSD data stream without any modifications to the equipment. So, does that make the manufacturers liable, or everyone who bought one?

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"By merely using any EMM Labs, DCS, Esoteric or Playback Designs SACD transport, you are bypassing the SACD encryption"

 

This is untrue.

 

Each transport passes an encrypted stream to the DAC.

 

 

 

[Kevin_O]

BS.... we record the DSD data stream into our Pyramix and Sonoma workstations everyday via the AES Standard DSD delivery of SDIF-3 and MADI ST/SC-optical.

 

[Larry B]

is that the end-user would be guilty. As the device has another purpose, the manufactuer would have a defense against contributory infringement. But please note that I am not a lawyer.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Kevin - I'm a bit lost why your suggesting this is BS. Recording into Pyramix and Sonoma is vastly different than playback sending an encrypted DSD stream via IEEE1394 cable from transport to DAC like dCS units.

 

 

 

 

 

[Kevin_O]

You said: "Each transport passes an encrypted stream to the DAC".

 

This is untrue. If it were an encrypted data stream, you would not be able to capture it with a Sonoma, Pyramix or a Tascam DV-RA1000. These devices, especially the Pyramix and Tascam, have no way to decrypt a DSD data stream.

 

 

[audiozorro]

It was my understanding that there are a few very expensive players that output unencrypted DSD.

 

Can we at least agree that the analog hole is legal for SACDs since analog is not digital subject to DRM?

 

I would imagine if I use the analog output from a Playback Designs MPS-5 SACD/CD player into my Korg MR-2000S and record to DSD128, the playback of the captured digital file is likely to be sonically superior to 95% of the SACD playback systems out there.

 

The quality of the DSD128 file depends on the quality of the MPS-5 player just as when digitizing vinyl the quality of the DSD128 file depends on the excellent performance of your vinyl playback components including the record.

 

 

[Bobbeanbags]

@Larry Re: http://www.stereophile.com/reference/905copy/index.html

 

BTW ... this is assuming that the below actions are for personal use and the copies made are not re-sold.

 

1. Using a PS3 to transfer an SACD to an unencrypted format and eventually to a Music Server circumvents the encryption and violates DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). This "may" be considered illegal.

2. Using the analog out of an SACD player to digitize an SACD is analogous to taping a record and is legal per the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act). This is legal.

3. Using an SACD player and an HDMI de-embedder like the Atlona HD570 (http://www.atlona.com/Atlona-HDMI-1.3-Audio-De-Embedder-with-3D-Support.html) to separate the digital audio and record it to a server is not legal. (I am assuming this since the signal was never converted to analog and so is not covered by AHRA).

 

Great article by the way, very clear and easy to understand for a complex subject like copyright law. Some examples about what is legal and what is not (like above) would be great postscripts to the article, but some of these may still be in a gray zone I suspect.

 

[Teresa]

You are correct recording using the analog hole is legal for SACDs and falls under fair use.

 

It is illegal to defeat Digital Rights Management (DRM) or other copy protection schemes by using tools to break their encryption codes. However if a recording does not use copy protection such as the 24/96 DVDs from Classic Records or Chesky and some DVD-Audios in which the high resolution digital stream can be passed "as is" through a digital cable then that is just as legal as analog recording.

 

I use the Audacity recorder at 32 bit float 96k and save as signed 24/96. Recording DSD legally with the Korg would get even better results DSDâ?'Analogâ?'DSD but since I can't play DSD currently that would make my end result DSDâ?'Analogâ?'DSDâ?'PCM and I think DSDâ?'Analogâ?'PCM is a better choice as there is one less conversion. However the best results would be gained by illegally tapping into the DSD datastream, thus DSDâ?'DSD.

 

I do have a weird observation and a question. I use the "Tape Out" on my tubed preamp to the audio ins on my Mac Mini and I find the computer copy to be more luscious sounding, could it be I am getting a double dose of tubes? As the signal goes through my preamp once when I record and again when it is played back. I have no complaints the sound is absolutely gorgeous I just wonder why.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Kevin - When you're talking professional authoring tools things are quite different.

 

[audiozorro]

I am not sure that using an SACD player and an HDMI de-embedder like the Atlona HD570 to separate the digital audio to playback to a superior DAC is illegal if there is no recording.

 

So I use my existing components to get better sonics than my SACD can deliver. Is that illegal?

 

Or I build a black box audio component for sale to others that contains a small SACD player, the Atlona de-embedder and an excellent DAC with the only output being analog. Is that illegal?

 

I believe the courts are likely to support my manufacturing efforts to build superior audio components. What manufacturer develops audio equipment without assembling and disassembling many internal components? Recording test measurements and sonics are an integral part of that process. I can easily prove in court how inadequate undocumented measurements and aural memory are in designing audio components. So as an established audio DIYer and hobbyist I doubt I have anything to fear or that I am doing something illegal.

 

My second argument is that I am only using three products as intended and commercially available to the public. I have not modified any equipment or developed any software to modify the use of any of these three products. Blame the SACD player manufacturer, Atlona or Korg but I cannot be faulted for using these products as intended.

 

My third argument is that the intent of DRM is to prevent users or hackers from making bit perfect digital copies of protected digital content. I am clearly not making bit perfect copies of the SACD digital content and the encrypted DSD64 data is still protected.

 

Now I don't think I could defend any efforts using a PS3 to rip SACDs, especially using a method created by a person known as Mr. Wicked. But there are better lawyers out there and if O.J. could be declared "Not Guilty" anything is possible.

 

But seriously, the focus of DRM is not to punish buyers that have bought media and use it in various ways. The focus of DRM is to stop or thwart the illegal downloading, sales and transfers of media. Could there be legal challenges? Of course, just like there was against copy machines and tape recorders.

 

The law is not static and ruling outcomes are not predestined or guaranteed.