Lite-On 52x32x52 review ..

[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.

[Ian]

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.

[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.

[Ian]

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.

[BillyG]

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)

[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

[Ian]

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.

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?

[CDRecorder]

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.

[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?

[dolphinius_rex]

So it is legal to make a backup copy that DOESN"T work???

[dhc014]

So it is legal to make a backup copy that DOESN"T work???

That is 100% correct.

[dolphinius_rex]

yup, that sounds like the government!

[CDRecorder]

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.