Home CD copiers
(another component in your stereo/home theater stack along with receiver, DVD player, turntable etc) will only use "audio" CD-Rs. "Audio" CD-Rs cost more because they are tarriffed, with the proceeds distributed to the members of the RIAA through some scheme based on overall sales. The assumption is that you're cheating the record industry when you make copies, so rather than sue the makers of console CD copiers, the recording industry just forced them to agree on a slightly different CD-R format. Nevermind that nearly all home copying is protected under the Fair Use provisions of copyright law so long as you don't distribute copies outside your household.
You'll probably find it easier to copy CDs using a computer and CD-R drive instead of a console - nevermind declining to pay an additiional "tax" to the RIAA's members for engaging in perfectly legal activity.
The record/movie industry makes all sorts of amusing arguments as to
why home copying shouldn't be allowed, but until they manage to destroy the Fair Use provisions, their arguments don't hold water. I remember hearing a spokesman from the MPAA make an analogy that making backup copies of DVDs was like demanding that your flatware maker replace any dishes you happen to break - a false analogy since it's the abstract "content" of the DVD that matters, and there's no cost to members of the MPAA if you absorb the cost of copying a DVD; of course, it does mean in the event of damaging/losing a DVD you resort to a backup copy rather than buying a new DVD at retail again - less revenue for the MPAA's greedy members.
That's one thing that gets me about the whole copyright debate. The media companies like to talk about "theft" when it comes to bootlegs on the internet. No no no - nothing is being phsyically stolen. Physical inventory is being five-fingered, which is an actual loss. The media companies
are looking at a real number of potential sales that don't occur, but saying it's "theft" is quite inaccurate.