You have to understand that the world is far more complex than we will ever comprehend, or science will ever be able to explain. Rejecting a view/ observation/theory because it is inconsistent with today's scientific understanding is itself unscientific.
The above statement is untrue and misrepresents the scientific method. First of all, a view, observation and a theory are all very different things. A view isn't a scientific concept at all. An observation is something noted during an experiment. And a theory is a well established concept that is backed up by significant experimental data. These shysters selling snake oil do not have observations or theories. They may have "views", but that is another word for opinion. And discounting an opinion because it doesn't agree with current scientific understand is very much what science is all about.
Regarding the "Dark Matter" stuff. The creators of the product make multiple claims. Among them:
"address the problem in CD playback produced by invisible, infrared scattered laser light inside the transport compartment"
They claim a problem exists. Yet they have not demonstrated what that problem is or how it manifests.
The next claim "absorbs background scattered infrared light that could otherwise make its way into the photodetector as noise". This claim is easily testable.
They also claim " The reason background scattered light, whether visible red or infrared, degrades the sound is because some of the scattered light makes its way into the photodetector where it is misinterpreted as real signal". This too is testable.
They also claim "Coloring CDs improves the sound because colors, especially green and blue-green (red's complement) affect the visible red color portion of the scattered laser light". This is patently false.
As someone mentioned previously, the person making a positive claim has the burden of proof. Stating "well, can you prove it's not true?" is an argument from ignorance, and a logical fallacy. A negative can't be proven, but even lack of evidence against a claim does not support the claim being true. It's the same as a religious zealot saying "how do you know faith healing doesn't work? Can you prove it?" - as if lack of proof against it proves that it's true.