Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Philips Says Compact Discs Can't be Copyprotected 588

Posted by CmdrTaco from the voice-of-reason dept.
Tomcat666 writes "tecChannel has a story about Philips, the holder of the most CD digital audio (CD-DA) patents. Apparently, they don't like the audio CD copy protection many record companies want to enforce in the future. They break the CD-DA standard and therefore are not allowed to use the logo. As a conclusion, Philips' next audio CD copier will be able to detect and probably circumvent the copy protection of audio CDs." This article is Auf Deutsch but the fish does a tolerable job of making it sane for those who can't remember the proper gender of all their nouns.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Philips Says Compact Discs Can't be Copyprotected More

Philips Says Compact Discs Can't be Copyprotected

Comments Filter:
  • Now just give me a domestic region-less DVD player and I'll be your customer for life!
    • Get a Apex AD-500w at your local walmart for $99 ..then go to http://www.apexmodchip.com/order.html and oder you a mod chip for $20 bucks and your set. Unless you mean a DVD player for your pc.

  • Perfect. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jwilhelm ( 238084 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:18PM (#2824876) Homepage Journal
    This is exactly what we need. Someone to stand up to the new practice of wrecking the CDs so they can't be played on certain players. I never actually pictured one of the larger companies doing that, but Phillips is apparently in a perfect position to do it.

    • Re:Perfect. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Peter Dyck ( 201979 )
      Too bad this won't last. >p> Phillips will be fall in back the line after a few major US distributors express their discontent.

      Just watch it happen.

      • Re:Perfect. (Score:2, Interesting)

        by rhost89 ( 522547 )
        The distributers wont complain, its less code the r&d department have to write for the firmware, the RIAA on the other hand is going to have a field day with this.

      • A Different Spin (Score:5, Interesting)

        by virg_mattes ( 230616 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @05:08PM (#2826141)
        I'm not so certain that Philips will fall in line, but a different scenario occurred to me. Perhaps the RIAA will simply dump the "CD Compact Disc" logo and put a disclaimer on that says something to the effect of "may not work in all CD(tm) players" and then Philips wouldn't have any leverage against them.

        Virg

    • Re:Perfect. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Fembot ( 442827 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:22PM (#2824912)
      I never thought id say this but maybe having patents isnt such a bad thing after all as long as there owned by resonible people or companies

      And phillips are certainly playing their cards quite nicely except for one thing. Can they be got under the dmca for this?? Although that might have the added bonus of a large coropartion with their big army of lawyers taking on the dmca

      • Re:Perfect. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:40PM (#2825083)
        Can they be got under the dmca for this??

        No. Copy protected audio CD's are no audio CDs and may therefore not carry the CD logo. If Phillips would want to enforce that, nobody could do anything about it. The article calls copy protected audio CD's "silver disks that look similar to audio CDs but are no audio CDs".

        They will likely not enforce the logo issue as the patents expire this and next year.

        As to the copying itself, as long as they make audio CD copiers, bypassing any deviations from the standard (like copy protection on silver disks that look like audio CDs ) is just a form of error correction, as an audio CDs cannot have a copy protection by definition. And if people use audio CD copiers to copy something completely different (namely silver disks that ....) it is not their fault.

        • logo (Score:5, Informative)

          by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @03:14PM (#2825342) Homepage
          The logo does not expire.


          The logo is a trademark indicating certain specifications and recognition. The patent is different from the logo.

      • Re:Perfect. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by xonker ( 29382 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @03:13PM (#2825334) Homepage Journal
        I never thought id say this but maybe having patents isnt such a bad thing after all as long as there owned by resonible people or companies

        Well, the really big difference between Phillips CD patent and many that are being used now is that the CD patent was truly innovative. It's not a patent over a process or of something totally obvious. Also, as far as I can tell, Phillips hasn't been punative with it or tried to stifle competition with it. The infamous Amazon "one-click" patent on the other hand, is the worst of both worlds. They're only using it to try to harm Barnes & Noble. Patents have largely devolved from a way to protect innovation to a way to stifle it.

        It is likely to raise DMCA questions, but I really think that this highlights the innate stupidity of the DMCA and might represent a good way to challenge it in court.

      • Could we at least get the name right, please? (Score:5, Troll)

        by Fruit ( 31966 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @03:23PM (#2825418)

        It's Philips, not "Phillips".

        Philips, Eindhoven [philips.nl]

  • My eyes are bugging out here... (Score:5, Funny)

    by alleria ( 144919 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:18PM (#2824881)
    Phillips is doing practically everything I would have wanted a hardware manufacturer (and holder of the CD Rom license) to do!

    So, mmm, what's the giant conspiracy? Why is this happening?

    • Re:My eyes are bugging out here... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jason Earl ( 1894 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:30PM (#2825004) Homepage Journal

      It's simple. Phillips is in the hardware business. They know that most of their customers want to copy CDs, and they figure that they probably can make some money by being the hardware manufacturer to sell a CD player that will copy so called copy-protected CDs.

      I know that I would pay extra for a CD player that would allow me to make a backup copy. Wouldn't you?

      That's really the beauty of the free enterprise system. As long as their is competition the customer gets what they want at the lowest possible price. Of course, in reality sometimes it's more miss than hit.

      • I know that I would pay extra for a CD player that would allow me to make a backup copy. Wouldn't you?

        A fool and his money are soon parted.

        Don't you realize you already have a CD player that allows you to make a backup copy? Why would you pay extra to buy a new one?

        So, if I threw a brick through your window with a note tied to it saying "We fix broken windows, prompt service, please call" you'd call us right up and say "gosh, I just happen to have a broken window that needs fixing...

  • It's nice to see... (Score:4, Offtopic)

    by wo1verin3 ( 473094 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:18PM (#2824883) Homepage
    big business supporting the little guys.

    Regardless of copyright, would they not be in violation of copyright for producing a device that bypasses a circumvention method?

    DMCA seems to be more important then other laws, such as fair use lately.

    I wonder if Phillips is prepared to fight against the DMCA, that would be a huge boost in the fight.
    If they do, my next cd-rom will be phillips.

    • Re:It's nice to see... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by xonker ( 29382 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:23PM (#2824925) Homepage Journal
      Regardless of copyright, would they not be in violation of copyright for producing a device that bypasses a circumvention method?

      Maybe, but that means the RIAA would have to sue someone their own size, which would be very interesting. It also would pit the DCMA against patent rights and other goodies... I'd love to see Phillips get sued. Not because I don't like them, but because they have the means to fight back.

      I suddenly feel very good about having bought a Phillips CD/CD-R for my stereo system...

      • Re:It's nice to see... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CodeShark ( 17400 ) <ellsworthpc AT yahoo DOT com> on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:39PM (#2825073) Homepage
        Oh.... this could be good. See if my logic holds water or not...:
        1. The RIAA tries to clobber Phillips with the DCMA,
        2. Phillips replies in effect saying "okay fine. Since your CD's don't comply to the CD-DA standard which we licensed to you in our patents, you are in violation of the licensing agreements which allowed you to use our patented technologies."
        3. Phillips sues the RIAA for breach of contract and obtains an injunction blocking future sales of all or just the incompatible CDs.
        4. RIAA companies can no longer sell a certain amount of music until the court case is finished.
        5. The RIAA folds on copy protection because they can't afford to lose that much money in sales.
        Myself, I'd bet against any such thing happening, because Phillips would lose alot of money as well, but wouldn't it be nice if I was wrong?

        • Re:It's nice to see... (Score:4, Redundant)

          by CodeShark ( 17400 ) <ellsworthpc AT yahoo DOT com> on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:45PM (#2825128) Homepage
          Dang. Read the article... Phillips patents expire in 2002 and 2003, and it would take that long just to get the litigation moving. We may be screwed.

          • Re:It's nice to see... (Score:4, Redundant)

            by b1t r0t ( 216468 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @03:16PM (#2825358)
            Phillips patents expire in 2002 and 2003, and it would take that long just to get the litigation moving. We may be screwed.

            This isn't just a patent issue. Patents don't cover that little logo that says "CD Digital Audio", trademarks do. All they have to do is keep enforcing it, and it will stay in effect. The result is still that "broken" audio CDs will not be able to use the official logo.

          • Re:It's nice to see... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by ScaryPhil ( 30589 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @03:22PM (#2825405)
            I'm guessing it's the "compact disc" logo that wields the power here. If it's not a kosher "red book" CD, the owner of that logo has a good case for withholding the logo and/or prosecuting its abuse.

            You might also find that the mark "compact disc" is protected, so parading "compact disc"-alikes, but calling them "compact disc"s damages the mark, and could be prosecuted.

            IANAL, BTW.

            • Re:It's nice to see... (Score:5, Interesting)

              by PolyDwarf ( 156355 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @03:36PM (#2825510)
              I wonder if Philips has the right to sue outlet stores (Best Buy, Wherehouse, Sam Goody, etc) if they put the copy-protected silver discs that sort of look like and sort of play like Audio CD's in their CD section? By definition, since the copy-protected discs aren't CDs (Assuminng Compact Disc, CD, etc are trademarked), they shouldn't be in the CD section, because it could lead to diluting of trademark...

          • Re:It's nice to see... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 ) <tms&infamous,net> on Friday January 11, 2002 @03:50PM (#2825607) Homepage
            Phillips patents expire in 2002 and 2003, and it would take that long just to get the litigation moving.

            Ah, but there's not just a patent issue here, there's a trademark one. I belive that "Compact Disc", "CD", and simliar marks are registered to Phillips. You can't call it a CD without their ok...Phillips could have a lot of fun with that.

        • Re:It's nice to see... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by monkeydo ( 173558 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:53PM (#2825195) Homepage
          1. Assuming there is a case to be made under the DMCA
          2. The only thing Phillips could do is demand that the copyprotected CD's not carry the "CD" label.
          3. I doubt that Phillips licensing agreement requires licensees to sell CD's
          4. They would be able to sell as much music as they want. They just wouldn't be able to sell copy-protect disks with the CD label. They could still sell non-copyprotected "CDs" or copy-protected "non-CD's".
          5. RIAA is an association of music distrubuters et al, they don't sell CDs. They would only cave on the issue if the member companies di, and rest assured they won't.

          The problem with all of the arguments here on /. is that these companies are literaly fighting for their existence. If Napster continued in existance and gained a few orders of magnitude in popularity it could quite realistincally put many of these music producers out of business. The irony of that would be that there'd be no new music left to trade since the over produced modern pop crap is always the most popular.

          • Commercials to "look for the logo" (Score:5, Interesting)

            by yerricde ( 125198 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @03:56PM (#2825659) Homepage Journal

            The only thing Phillips could do is demand that the copyprotected CD's not carry the "CD" label.

            And run smear ads against the RIAA labels accusing them of not producing CDs. (RIAA will attempt to sue Philips for libel, but in the US, the truth cannot constitute libel.) Make like the dairy industry: "If you want real CDs, look for the logo."

            RIAA is an association of music distrubuters et al, they don't sell CDs.

            Common Slashdot practice accepts "RIAA" as shorthand for "RIAA member labels" in appropriate contexts.

            The irony of that would be that there'd be no new music left to trade since the over produced modern pop crap is always the most popular.

            *NSHIT fans will just have to find new music such as independent punk or electro.

          • Who modded this 'informative'?

            At its peak, Napster didn't cause even a blip in music sales. And who's to say file sharing is lower now than when Napster was going strong?

            This whole thing has been about the *potential* loss to the music industry. If they could demonstrate a real loss, you can bet they'd be trumpeting it from the highest peaks as we speak.

      • Re:It's nice to see... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dougmc ( 70836 ) <dougmc+slashdot@frenzied.us> on Friday January 11, 2002 @03:46PM (#2825574) Homepage
        It also would pit the DCMA against patent rights and other goodies...
        As far as I can tell, none of this really has anything to do with patents.

        What matters is that Philips owns the little `CD' logo, and can control how it's used. They have decided that since the copy protected CD's do not fit their specifications, their logo cannot be used with them. This ownership of the logo will not expire like a patent. (I assume it's a trademark?)

        This will not stop the RIAA. What it may do is prompt them to stop including that logo -- and it's not like it matters anyways. Back when CD's were new, maybe it [the logo] did make people happier that the logo was there. Now that most people are familiar with CD's, I doubt it matters at all.

        (Of course, it may eventually mean that this logo means `Unprotected CD. Fair Use rights not restricted' and so it'll be a good thing to have on your CDs again.)

        As far as Phillips making a copier that can copy these CDs goes, this really has nothing to do with the logo. It may be interesting to see how the RIAA responds to that, however -- and if Philips does actually make it and touts it's ability to copy `protected' CDs, I'd fully expect the RIAA to at least try to get them with the DMCA.

        Do CD copiers `rip' the CD digitally like a computer does, or do they just take the analog output and write it to the destination disc? If it's the latter, I'd fully expect CD copiers to copy most `protected' CD's right now. (What's probably the case is that there are CD Audio copiers that work in each way.)

        Even so, few people would use it or buy it. I only have two friends with CD Audio burners -- both musicians. Most of the rest of my friends have computers with CD Burners. And at least one of the musicians never uses this drive anymore -- he now uses the one on his computer, even for his own music.

        The difference is important for several reasons --

        Computer CDR drives are cheap.

        Audio CDR drives cost a lot more

        Computer CDR drives use cheap media.

        Audio CDR drives use expensive media. (The media is exactly the same, but the Audio blanks have a bit set that says `Ok for Audio', which most Audio CDR drives check for and require. Along with this bit being set, there's a tax being payed to somebody (RIAA?) that greatly increases the cost of the blank.)

        Computer CDR drives can do more than write audio tracks -- they can write audio tracks, data tracks, copy disks completely, etc. Even for writing straight audio tracks, the computer often makes this easier and faster (you're not limited to 1x) than the Audio CDR drive.

        Anybody know what the ratio of `Data CDR media' vs `Audio CDR media' sold in the US is? I'll bet it's at least 30:1.

    • Philips doesn't care if you live or die (Score:4, Informative)

      by Codex The Sloth ( 93427 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:29PM (#2824979)
      Honestly, Philips only has there self interest at stake here. I'm sure it's just posturing to get there own CD copy protection scheme in place. Hopefully they will do as bad a job as the DVD people did. The one thing we can all be sure of is that they don't care about you, me or the CD consumer -- these are the same people who try to sell "audio" CD-R's for $20!

      I recall someone who worked at Philips telling me -- "How was copper wire invented? Philips management squeezing a penny".
    • Phillips is merely protecting their intellectual property (ie the CD standard) RIAA member companies were unlawfully violating their licenses of CD-DA technology by labeling non-compliant discs with the Compact Disc logo.
      • Phillips is merely protecting their intellectual property (ie the CD standard) RIAA member companies were unlawfully violating their licenses of CD-DA technology by labeling non-compliant discs with the Compact Disc logo.

        You know, I keep seeing this arugument over and over, but as far as I know, NONE of the "copy-protected" CD's DO display the logo. I know for certain that the "Fast & Furious" and "Charley Pride" CD's do not. And I have never heard anyone confirm that they have ever seen one that actually does. Not that I am supporting them, but they do at least seem to know that they are violating the standard, and aren't trying to pretend otherwise.

    • Several years ago, not long before they started producing audio CD copiers.

      They must have previewed the conflict due to arise between hardware and software (audio) companies.

      I don't think they really support the little guys, but mainly their own business (and rightly so).
    • a device that bypasses a circumvention method

      I knew what you meant at first, but then I read your comment more closely and said, "Huh?"

      I'm not familiar with the exact wording of the DMCA, but the "protection" method that the labels have started using is an addition of noise, not encryption or access control, or anything else that renders the signal unreadable. They add not so much noise that a discman or home audio CD player can't read it, but enough so that CD-ROMs (which don't include the same noise suppression algorithms) are stymied.

      It's amazing how frequently computer and internet terms can be misapplied without objection. Especially when it comes to legal issues... in cyberlaw, it seems that you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear -- you just slap a "Silk Purse" label on it, and voila!

      Anyway, my point is, if someone produces a CD-ROM that uses the same suppression algorithms as an Audio CD player, I suspect the RIAA will have little ground to stand on if they try to sue under the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision. First, those algorithms have been around for 20 years, 18 years longer than the DMCA. And second, you're not circumventing anything, you're just filtering out noise that the publisher intends to be filtered out anyhow.

  • Phillips will probably just create their own copy protection standard, incorporate that into CD-DA, and force other companies to pay for the privilege of using this new standard if they want to call themselves CD-DA compatible. No way Phillips is doing this out of the goodness of their collective hearts.

    • Re:Don't get all excited, ladies and gentlemen (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tekniklr ( 319275 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:26PM (#2824951) Homepage
      Even so, this would still be a good thing. If there is only one "standard" CD copy protection that all record companies would use, then there is only one thing for people to concentrate their efforts on breaking.

      This would be similar to the use of one standard for DVD protection, and we all know about DeCSS....

    • Re:Don't get all excited, ladies and gentlemen (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Ooblek ( 544753 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:30PM (#2825000)
      The AES/EBU digital audio output standard already includes protection bits in the stream. Since this is pretty much the standard for all professional audio equipment, I wonder why they just don't adapt the content to this. My guess is that people don't want to pay for the expensive D-A it requires to listen to the stream.

      An interesting note is that most professional audio systems totally ignore this protection bit. I believe most store-bought CDs have this bit set in their stream if you use a CD player capable of AES/EBU output. We used to plug it direct digital into a professional mixing console, which should have not read it since the bit was set. I think someone didn't have the insight to know that the honor system rarely works.

      • Re:Don't get all excited, ladies and gentlemen (Score:4, Informative)

        by mosch ( 204 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:56PM (#2825221) Homepage
        Those protection bits are in S/PDIF as well as AES/EBU, it's called SCMS (Serial Copy Management System). It can be set to allow unlimited generations of copies (00), one generation of copies (11), or no copies whatsoever (10).

        You're correct, pro equipment generally lets you set it however you want regardless of the source, which is actually fairly appropriate. After all, there's not a huge market for things like $1000 standalone 1x cd burners, or $1500 DAT drives. People who own these things tend to actually have a legitimate need to have control over those bits.

        Though you're also correct that you can buy relatively inexpensive format convertors ($250 or so), that also offer SMCS management, which could be used to defeat the copy protection... or to fix the bits on the demo tape you made, to allow people to distribute it freely.

    • Re:Don't get all excited, ladies and gentlemen (Score:5, Interesting)

      by elefantstn ( 195873 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:31PM (#2825014)
      No, it's not out of the goodness of their collective hearts, it's out of their desire for profit. Why the hell would people buy Philips' products - cd players and burners, if they couldn't use them? Philips "owns" no content, they just make and sell devices to do interesting things with content purchased from other companies? What interest do they have in copy protection? This comment is nothing more than nonsensical "all corporations are evil!" blathering, without even thinking about what might make a company do this.
    • Actually, the biggest drive for Phillips is that they do not own any media companies and are big. They made quite a bit of money on the consumer CD-R drives.

      So they are behaving quite rationally by protecting their CD-R drive income.. ;)
    • Unlike the other major CD standards company Sony, Philips has no content business so they probably have very little interest in protecting CDs, especially if it's going to increase the cost of making the hardware. Copy protection is not something that Philips object to out of general prinicples or "the goodness of their collective hearts", they object to it because it can only hurt their hardware sales.

      What's different between Philips and the other players we've heard from so far is that Philips are technically astute - they know that perfect copy prevention is technically impossible and any copy protection will annoy consumers. The others we've heard from are all media companies (only Sony has a hardware business). Their interest is only protecting their "rights", but more importantly they don't recognise the futility of what they are trying to do.

  • Its good to see that some folks understand that violation of the standard would ensure that customers may not be able to use their equipment (ergo reducing their market share). I may actually go buy something from Philips because of this.
  • Thank You Philips! Finally a company with the power of IP using it to the consumer's benefit. I would love to see Philips sue record companies for deceptively using their certification logo!
    • I would love to see Philips sue record companies for deceptively using their certification logo!

      Can't anyone bring trademark infringement charges in Germany? Wasn't that the gist of the whole Killustrator flap? Does the EFF or EPIC or CDT or have a .de branch? Howabout the CCC? I'll send them a couple hunnert marks towards legal fees!

  • Way to go! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dozing ( 111230 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:21PM (#2824906) Homepage
    I'm impressed that a large corporation is acctually taking a sane stance. But, I'm wonder just how long they'll be able to maintain this position. Surely even their large pockets can't beat the endless pockets of all the other large corporations who are developing these copyprotection schemes. And what about the DMCA?

  • Google Translator... (Score:5, Informative)

    by FortKnox ( 169099 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:22PM (#2824913) Homepage Journal
    Since Hemos is the only one that realizes that the fish isn't the only translator...

    Google [google.com] now has language tools, translates pages, AND will let you link [google.com] to the translated page (that link is to the article in question). And, actually, google's translators are really good. Maybe even better than altavistas...

  • English Version (Score:4, Informative)

    by railyard ( 225247 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:22PM (#2824918)
    NewScientist.com is carrying the same story in english
  • According to the article, Philips is not going to try to get offending companies to remove the logo since the patents are running out in 2003/2004.

  • Almost ALL copy protection is Illegal (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CDWert ( 450988 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:23PM (#2824923) Homepage
    In roughly 85% of all the countries Aucio CD's are being sold, there are Fi Use laws in place that do no allow for manufacturers to circumvent copy ability.

    Im glad to see Phillips is at least protecting their
    property and not allowing it to be emblazoned on a CD that does not conform to those standards, would MS allow their logo to be pasted on a S/390 and say built for windows 98 ?? No dont think so.....

    I hope all this copy circumvention leads to more piracy than ever before. JUST piracy of the stuff that was to be protected, maybe then theyll think twice....

  • Article in New Scientist (Score:5, Informative)

    by y137 ( 227389 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:25PM (#2824942)
    There's an enlish-language article on the subject at New Scientist:
    http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns999 91783 [newscientist.com]
  • It would be good to see more and more of the hardware manufacturers on the side of the consumer rathern than bending over to the content creators.

    How long it will be before the content creators and their lobbying efforts begin an attempt at forcing hardware manufacturers to build "copy protedction" mechanisms in their readers?

    Will we see a similar situation to the DVD players that did not conform to the DVD spec (you know, the ones that would play any region DVDs and did not force you to watch the goddamn FBI warning for the 256,000th time)? Remember how quickly most national resellers stopped carring those brands? How hard it was to find one once the Word was Out?

    Cheers,
    - RLJ

  • patent runs out soon (Score:4, Redundant)

    by jugg ( 265583 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:29PM (#2824982)
    Unfortuneatly according to the article, Philip's patent runs out in 2002/3 (hitting that 20yr mark).

    So, they won't be able to enforce it soon anyway.

    • Re:patent runs out soon (Score:5, Informative)

      by sid_vicious ( 157798 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:51PM (#2825183) Homepage Journal
      (From the parent post): Unfortuneatly according to the article, Philip's patent runs out in 2002/3 (hitting that 20yr mark).

      (From the article): They break the CD-DA standard and therefore are not allowed to use the logo. (emphasis mine)

      I'm not an IP lawyer (IANAIL..?), but I'm guessing that if the logo is *trademarked* by Phillips, then they will still get to decide who can put the logo on their disc regardless of whether or not they continue to maintain exclusive rights to the patent.

    • Re:patent runs out soon (Score:5, Funny)

      by n8willis ( 54297 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:55PM (#2825214) Homepage Journal
      Unfortuneatly according to the article, Philip's patent runs out in 2002/3 (hitting that 20yr mark).


      Great Scott! I'm going to write to my Congressperson this very minute and lobby for an extension on patent lifetimes!

      Nate

  • YES! Get excited about this.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thomis ( 136073 ) <thomis@gm a i l .com> on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:36PM (#2825050) Homepage Journal
    This is the argument I've made for a long time, and I think it's a strong one. The Red Book [yangkun.com] standards lay out what a cd is, and the CD mark you see on the back of any disc you buy is supposed to be a guarantee that the enclosed software will play on all compatible hardware. Any copy-protected cd fails this test, and should not legally be sold as a compact audio disc.

    This is great news, because it will take Phillips to enforce the standards

  • Incentive for new Media (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:37PM (#2825058) Homepage Journal
    It's incentive for the recording industry to push a new media, most likely one where the patent holder is more friendly to their goals.

    It looked like good news on the surface, but I've got mixed feelings about that one...

  • Rhetorics (Score:4, Informative)

    by j7953 ( 457666 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:39PM (#2825074)

    I'm happy to see that Slashdot changes is rhetorics from "copyright protection" to the somewhat preferable "copy protection." However, that term is still completely inaccurate. "Copy protection" does not protect copies. It does not protect your right to make a copy. It does, in fact, not protect anything at all (except the greed of the media industry).

    Some of the more accurate terms that you might prefer to use are "copy prevention" (that's what those technologies actually try to do) or "usage control" (that's the effect of copy prevention, e.g. your choice of playback devices is limited). To describe a media that is crippled by usage control technology, you can use something like "restricted use media."

    If you think these terms are too political, think about how political the terminology used by the media industry is. The only reason why "copyright protection" doesn't sound completely laughable to you is that you've heard it so often.

    • Re:Rhetorics (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ewhac ( 5844 )

      I agree that "copy prevention," "usage control," or "crippled media" is more linguistically accurate. Unfortunately, the term "copy protection" has entered the common lexicon, and most immediately conveys the issue at hand to the casual listener.

      When you say "copy protection" to an ordinary computer user, they immediately know what it is, and what it means for their ability to use the data with their computer. Thus, "copy protection" gets you on a common footing quickest. If you use an unfamiliar term at them, you'll have to spend time explaining what you mean -- time that could have been spent building their support, or informing the next person -- after which, your listener will probably say, "Oh, you mean copy protection."

      "Copy protection" isn't an ideal term, but its meaning is almost universally understood. For myself, I plan to stick with it.

      Schwab

    • Re:Rhetorics (Score:3, Funny)

      by moreati ( 119629 )
      Some of the more accurate terms that you might prefer to use are "copy prevention" (that's what those technologies actually try to do) or "usage control" (that's the effect of copy prevention, e.g. your choice of playback devices is limited). To describe a media that is crippled by usage control technology, you can use something like "restricted use media."

      How about Digital Usage Management of Bits, then we can force everyone to say copy control is DUMB. Of course adding Extraction Restrictions makes it DUMBER :).

      Alex

  • Still a good thing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RareHeintz ( 244414 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:39PM (#2825080) Homepage Journal
    While I understand that it's just another megacorporation marking its IP turf, this is still pretty cool. Of course, this may just mean that some companies will release their discs without the logo, and may eventually lead to divergence between the paper and de facto standards both for media and players, but if it puts the screws to the content control freaks, I'm all for it.

    OK,
    - B

  • Everyone sing along... (Score:5, Funny)

    by sid_vicious ( 157798 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:40PM (#2825090) Homepage Journal
    As a conclusion, Philips' next audio CD copier will be able to detect and probably circumvent the copy protection of audio CDs.

    "I've got to admit, it's getting better... it's getting better all the time..."
    :-)

  • So why do the record companies care? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Wing Lover ( 106357 ) <awh@awh.org> on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:43PM (#2825110) Homepage
    If it's in a jewel case that looks like a CD, and is on the shelf in HMV, and costs the same as other CDs, and is on the shelf beside other CDs, do you think that most consumers would stop to look if it has the Philips CD logo on it?

  • Is this a hook for other legal action? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ErikTheRed ( 162431 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:44PM (#2825121) Homepage
    Even though I'm not the hugest fan of government intervention in everything, Philips does raise a legitimate issue (one that we probably should have noticed first, but oh well) - that the copy protected CDs are being labelled and sold with the "Compact Disc - Digital Audio" logos even though they do not comply with the standards.

    Even in Philips doesn't pursue litigation, the US Gov't could certainly prosecute the record labels for defrauding consumers. It would be interesting to see if a class-action lawsuit could be filed under similar reasoning (although a class of N'Sync fans is probably something the world is better off without).

  • This is a non-event (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NateTG ( 93930 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:45PM (#2825125)
    If you read the article you will discover that:

    I. Phillip's patents expire in 2002 and 2003. So even if Phillips goes hog wild, the issue in court will be over before it goes to trial. So Phillips is not going to try to stop the copy protected CD's in court

    II. Sony is also a major CD patent holder, and is quite happily pressing massive numbers of CD's that don't even work with some of their equipment.

    III. The head of Phillips made the comment that consumer activism is the means to stop CD copy protection.

    IV. The Phillips CD copier hardware will probably not disable the copy protection, but just ignore it.

    If I wasn't so cynical I might see this as a corporation doing the "right thing," but I cannot see this as anything but a PR sound byte. Phillips is going to sit around for the last year of its patent and collect royalties like nothing was going on. The discussion with the exec. was purely technical.

  • I can see it now... (Score:3, Funny)

    by bani ( 467531 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:47PM (#2825146)
    "Philips indicted for violating DMCA, initiated by complaint from RIAA and MPAA"

  • CD Copy-Protection Up Hill Battle (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rootmonkey ( 457887 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:47PM (#2825154)
    Recently law makers have been showing resistance to industry execs who are pushing cd copy-protection. Here is a recent story [cnet.com] on this. The recording industry according to this article [newscientist.com] is rethinking copy protection all together.

  • DVD-R (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ahde ( 95143 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:49PM (#2825166) Homepage
    Philips tried to release a DVD-R last year too, I think. At least they demo'ed it at some expo. They are a hardware company and want to sell hardware. Think of competitors like Sony, whose vested interest is in the Movies/Music/Software instead of the products that play them. That is the sort of thing anti-trust legislation is meant to stop.

  • English-language story on this ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:51PM (#2825181) Homepage Journal
    Philips says copy-protected CDs have no future [newscientist.com] at New Scientist [newscientist.com]. As an aside, I find New Scientist to be one of the best all-around sources for sci/tech news.

  • Is copyprotection computer fraud ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tempmpi ( 233132 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:53PM (#2825201)
    There is an interesting court case against BMG that is linked to the violations of the CD-DA standard all current cd copyproctions use. In germany it is a punishable act to use false or incomplete data to affect the result of data processing in a way that someone loses property. This offence is called "computer fraud" and is punishable with up to 5 years jail.
    It is easy to see that these copyprotections use false data. They all contain the CD-DA logo but contain data that isn't valid in the current standard. That there is a lose of property is also easy to show. You could easily waste a cd-r ,disk space or your time while you try to make a legal copy as it is allowed by fair use rules. It doesn't matter how much money or property you lose.
    Read all about it in a real nice article by telepolis. [heise.de] The article is in german, but google produces a readable version. [google.com]

  • Universal's new protection... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by feldkamp ( 146657 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:58PM (#2825240)
    ...is really easy to break. It's a simple integer underrun error that is placed on the first track of the disc (in the LBA field of the TOC). Simple sanity checking in future cd rippers will easily circumvent this. In fact, the latest beta of CoolEdit is able to rip these discs by accident (they do the sanity checking, I think).

    If anyone that writes CD rippers wants a more in depth description of how to circumvent this, just email me (m-i-k-e-f-e-l-d@engin.umich.edu without the dashes). It's really simple.

    Anyhow, I only know of one disc that has this "protection" from universal on it... "The Fast and the Furious Vol. 2". I was trying to run some audio analysis algorithms on its tracks, and couldn't rip the audio... which is why I investigated. Once more discs with this "protection" come out, it will just be a matter of patching existing mp3 rippers.

    mike

  • On a similar note - Proposed DMCA Amendment (Score:4, Informative)

    by gorillasoft ( 463718 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @02:58PM (#2825241)
    Since Slashdot rejected this story, I will post it here.

    There is a related item reported in the LA Times about a bill being introduced to amend the DMCA - which will allow for consumers to copy digital works without running afoul of the law.

    LA Times Story [latimes.com]

  • And Don't Forget... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by josh crawley ( 537561 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @03:02PM (#2825271)
    You see those Phillips commercials on the music and 'techy' shows? The commercial goes something like this:

    "1- Guy with date plays cd and has crummy music on it. Date winces.
    2- Guy goes home and 'mixes' ,from his collection, a mix cd for listening with dates.
    3- Guy then plays music with date. Date is happy."

    If anything, Phillips will NOT change the standard, since all cd players operate by it. Nobody would buy thier product if it was incapible of playing other media. They cut thier own throats.

    If you put this all together it makes tremendous sense.

    1: Congressman makes statement questioning legality of 'Blank CD' tax (authorizing fair use in copying) and the Copy-Protection by Universal and other companies.

    2: Copy-Protected CD's are not compatible with the Red Book Standard (therefore will not play in some players). In other words, Stay with Red Book, people stay happy.

    3: There is a large amount of capital involved in copy protection, and Phillips doesn't want to waste money on a scheam that may flop and may be illegal (possible law suits may pursue).

    And past that, more games are being copy-protected by brain dead scheams. If I could buy a decently priced, self contained unit with a reader and a writer and make perfect copies, I'd buy 1, maybe 2.

    Josh Crawley

    ps: About pirating, stopping making cd burners wont stop pirating. It's like saying, "The internet has caused evil stuff to spread, let's shut it down". Both are infeasible, one much more than the other.

  • Trademarks and German laws.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by schon ( 31600 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @03:03PM (#2825283)
    OK, can anyone in Germany tell us if "copy protected" CD's are being sold there?

    Since the "CD Audio" logo is a Trademark, and Phillips has said that "copy protected" CD's do not qualify, can't a private individual (like that ambulance chaser from the Suse and Killustrator stories) start a lawsuit against the media companies?

    From the sound of the Suse case, you could even get Universal shut down even if they're not doing it yet (since they're the principal backers of this..)

    Anyone from Germany care to comment?

  • How's that for poetic justice (Score:5, Informative)

    by guttentag ( 313541 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @03:43PM (#2825552) Journal
    The record labels attempt to dictate how consumers may use their CDs: It's our content so you can only listen to it the way we want you to.

    In turn, Philips attempts to dictate how the record labels may use their CD format: It's our standard, so you can only use it the way we want you to.

  • Solution for RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)

    by warkda rrior ( 23694 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @04:01PM (#2825693) Homepage
    The solution for RIAA and major music labels is to push for another "standard" rather than CD (or CDDA). Simply create Extended Disc (ED) and market it it as such. Make this standard work just like the CDDA standard, but allow for copy protection-style errors. Big marketing campaign to support ED as being "better" than CD. Done!

  • Philips got it right (Score:3, Informative)

    by porky_pig_jr ( 129948 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @04:34PM (#2825902)

    Not many people realize that this is actually a Phillips, not Sony who has invented CD-DA. Sony did come up with a number of substantial enhancements. If I remember correctly, the whole error-correction scheme belongs to Sony. Yet the main inventor is Phillips. Now Sony's position regarding the whole issue is completely schizoid. Parts of Sony which are involved in music business fight the parts of Sony involved in A/V equipment. A good example is Minidisc vs MP3. In case you are not familiar with technology, Minidisc is heavily copy-protected, extremely unflexible, this is its major limitation as a coding scheme, yet Sony doesn't want to open it up. For instance, you cannot digitally copy one MD to another - unless you have a high-end expensive professional MD mastering equipment. From what I've head there was a big conflict inside Sony between those who wanted to release Sony CD/MP3 player, and those against MP3 (for obvious reasons). (the 'good guys' won, btw)


    Well, apparently Phillips doesn't have such type of mentality and this is nice. I'm not sure if they are involved into recording business (I vaguelly remember seeing LPs with 'Phillips' label, but that was many years ago). Probably it is mostly company specializing on A/V equipment


    Now this is what I've been saying all along. So-called 'copy-protected' CDs are nothing else but the violation of Red Book standard. I'm glad to hear it from Phillips.


    Incidently, there is a good article on copyrighted CDs by Steve Rochlin, at http://www.enjoythemusic.com. It also contains some good URLs.

  • The RIAA is already looking for another format. DVD-Audio or something. They know they can't pull the switcheroo quite yet -- not enough DVD players in homes. But at some point, they'll settle on something like that, and then do what they did to kill vinyl: tell distributors/retailers they won't accept their unsold copies of albums back.

    Anyone know who holds the DVD standard? Not that it matters, plenty of provision for copy protection in that....

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close