Philips Says Compact Discs Can't be Copyprotected 588
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.
Yes! Phillips rocks. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yes! Phillips rocks. (Score:2, Offtopic)
Perfect. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perfect. (Score:2, Interesting)
Just watch it happen.
Re:Perfect. (Score:2, Interesting)
A Different Spin (Score:5, Interesting)
Virg
Re:Perfect. (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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
logo (Score:5, Informative)
The logo is a trademark indicating certain specifications and recognition. The patent is different from the logo.
Patents AND ®s can be renewed. (Score:5, Informative)
Can't patents be renewed
Patents last three and a half years after being granted but can renewed to 7 1/2 after grant, 11 1/2 after grant, and 20 after filing by paying maintenance fees.
Copyrights last 95 years [everything2.com] unless you're a freelancer creating works on or after 1 Jan 1978, in which case they last life plus 70. (To renew a copyright for 20 years, simply stuff millions of dollars into the pockets of both parties in the United States and all major parties in the European Union.) Either way, they last additionally until December 31.
A registered trademark lasts five years. After that, the owner files an affidavit of continued use, which buys another five years; then the trademark can be renewed for ten years at a time until a court decides that the trademark has become too generic to maintain.
Re:Patents AND ®s can be renewed. (Score:3, Informative)
...and, if the new laws that Bush and Ashcroft want, get passed, stuff in the public domain will be able to be re-copyrighted. [politechbot.com]
Re:Perfect. (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
It's Philips, not "Phillips".
Philips, Eindhoven [philips.nl]
Re:Perfect. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Perfect. (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't fool yourself, Philips just wants to sell more standalone cd burners. Say, your computer won't copy that cd...our product can! It just happens to work out that the consumer benefits (which is really the way it was intended to work under capitalism).
My eyes are bugging out here... (Score:5, Funny)
So, mmm, what's the giant conspiracy? Why is this happening?
Re:My eyes are bugging out here... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:My eyes are bugging out here... (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
Re:My eyes are bugging out here... (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, more like CD Rom drives seem to have a rather low Mean Time Between Failure. Thanks for playing though.
Re:My eyes are bugging out here... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:My eyes are bugging out here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Minidisc failed before it got going (Score:3, Informative)
No, the US market simply decided not to waste money on a half-baked idea like MiniDisc. Now that there is a solution which does everything that Minidisc can do, except 10-50x faster, and with over 50% market penetration; America has decided the time is right for a portable solution. They just let you be the guinea pigs with MiniDisc.
So what is the solution that bests MiniDisc in every single way known?
8 cm Re-Writeable CDs and MP3 encoders/players designed for these. Expect this open format to become HOT as more people realize MiniCD lets them put multiple albums on a disc of similar size to MD, of similar quality to MD, and allows them to play it in well over half the locations they might travel. And don't forget the ace-in-the-hole of most any format over MD, ease of copying. Not to mention the full data compatibility of the disc, allowing people to store interesting tidbits like music videos, album art, and other things MiniDisc either wasn't designed to handle, or which Sony forced format incompatibility with. Let me repeat the most important point: Philips, a very large investor in the CD format, actually wants you to be able to use these CDs to copy as much music as you like, unlike Sony and their proprietary MiniDisc format.
If you ask me, MD needs to rest with Sony's many other stillborn consumer formats, such as Beta and MemoryStick.
>They are extremely popular in Asia,
That's great, but virtually no music that appeals to the American market is produced in Asia. This makes the format further unappealing to us.
What's good for Asia isn't always good for us. If MiniDisc has worked out for them, good for them. It didn't here simply because people here want easy to use, unemcumbered music formats.
It's nice to see... (Score:4, Offtopic)
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)
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)
- The RIAA tries to clobber Phillips with the DCMA,
- 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."
- Phillips sues the RIAA for breach of contract and obtains an injunction blocking future sales of all or just the incompatible CDs.
- RIAA companies can no longer sell a certain amount of music until the court case is finished.
- 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)
Re:It's nice to see... (Score:4, Redundant)
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)
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)
Re:It's nice to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
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, Funny)
Re:It's nice to see... (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Commercials to "look for the logo" (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:It's nice to see... (Score:3)
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)
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)
I recall someone who worked at Philips telling me -- "How was copper wire invented? Philips management squeezing a penny".
Re:It's nice to see... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's nice to see... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Philips sold its record company (Score:3, Redundant)
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).
Re:It's nice to see... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fair use (Score:5, Informative)
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
US Code: TITLE 17, CHAPTER 1, Sec. 107.
Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Sec. 108 covers copies made by libraries and archives.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/108.html
Re:Fair use (Score:3, Interesting)
Number one, section 108 does provide for making a copy for archival purposes. I remember reading somewhere that precedent was established that a consumer IS allowed to make a copy as a backup of their digital media, in fact in every PC game I've bought I've seen that in the EULA.
This text however, says that the collections of the library or archive MUST be open to the public. And that up to three copies may be made assuming that the original is still in possesion of the copier. Let me preface this with the fact that I know it's not that simple, but this almost gauruntees the right to rip your cd's and make them streamable in such a way that you are never transferring a whole copy of the media to the remote computer, as long as you aren't making money off of it of course. I know this is a simplistic scenario and there's a lot more that goes into it, but I am also sure that there are loopholes in the laws that protect copyright holders that are ripe for taking advantage of.
Re:Fair use (Score:4, Interesting)
this almost gauruntees the right to rip your cd's and make them streamable in such a way that you are never transferring a whole copy of the media to the remote computer, as long as you aren't making money off of it of course.
A library may make 1 copy of a copyrighted work if it has the original in its possestion. A library may make 3 copies of an unpublished work for the purpose of preservation, but any digital copies may not be made available outside of the library. Legality of ripping CD's aside, a *library* could do this if they had someway of "loaning" the stream, and 2 patrons could not have it at once. And it never left the building. It also is not as simple as you not making money off of the use. If the use *deprives* the copyright holder of value (even if it would otherwise be Fair-Use) the use will be deemed infringing.
Backups of software is specifically covered in section 117.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
You are specifically granted the right (or more correctly the copyright holder cannot deny you license) to copy a software program if it is necessary for the use of the program (installing it to your harddrive, copying into RAM, etc.) or to protect angainst damage to the original media. Note that this section *only* applies to computer software, not CDs, DVD, etc.
Don't get all excited, ladies and gentlemen (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't get all excited, ladies and gentlemen (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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:AES/EBU and SPDIF (Score:3, Informative)
S/PDIF is also capable of carring datastreams containing multichannel sound in MPEG2, AC3 and DTS formats. S/PDIF has a bit which indicates whether the payload is digital audio, or something else. This is how your receiver knows not to try to play back that audio feed from your DVD player without decoding it.
There actually is a S/PDIF format which is identical to AES/EBU other than the media, but this is not what is included with consumer equipment.
Additionally, the professional format of AES/EBU and S/PDIF does not carry track marks, which consumer S/PDIF does.
Re:Don't get all excited, ladies and gentlemen (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Don't get all excited, ladies and gentlemen (Score:3, Insightful)
So they are behaving quite rationally by protecting their CD-R drive income..
Re:Don't get all excited, ladies and gentlemen (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Losing the logo is good (Re:Don't get all excited) (Score:3, Interesting)
For another, it makes it obvious (well, in a subtle way
Consumer protection from standards (Score:2, Interesting)
I love the IP Pimpslap!!! (Score:2)
Re:I love the IP Pimpslap!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Way to go! (Score:3, Interesting)
Google Translator... (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Re:Google Translator... (Score:4, Interesting)
Best quote from translated article (Score:5, Funny)
said Philips speaker Klaus Petri: "those are silberscheiben with music drauf, which CDs resemble, but none are."
Damn straight, those new copy protected CD's really are a bunch of silberscheiben with music drauf.
Re:Best quote from translated article (Score:3, Informative)
"silberscheiben with music drauf" = silver discs with music on them
-Erik
Re:Google Translator... (Score:5, Funny)
Heh, my company contracts CSC to provide internet and intranet services, and their web filter spat the following at me when I tried to translate the tecchannel.de page:
"The request was denied, as specified in the SmartFilter Content Filter configuration. The content category reported is sex."
I'd say that's pretty savvy of CSC, 'cuz the article is indeed about how consumers are getting sodomized by the RIAA!
English Version (Score:4, Informative)
The link (Score:5, Informative)
They're not going to act, however (Score:2, Informative)
Almost ALL copy protection is Illegal (Score:4, Interesting)
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....
Re:Almost ALL copy protection is Illegal (Score:2)
Article in New Scientist (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99
get more of these guys on our side (Score:2)
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)
So, they won't be able to enforce it soon anyway.
Re:patent runs out soon (Score:5, Informative)
(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)
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)
This is great news, because it will take Phillips to enforce the standards
Incentive for new Media (Score:3, Interesting)
It looked like good news on the surface, but I've got mixed feelings about that one...
Rhetorics (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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)
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)
OK,
- B
Everyone sing along... (Score:5, Funny)
"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)
Is this a hook for other legal action? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:This is a non-event (Score:4, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with patents, it's about trademarks
Phillips owns the CDDA trademark and controls what is called CDDA and what is not. It is in Phillips' interest not to call "CDDA compliant" a copy-protected disk that is not CDDA compliant.
It's definitely not a non-event, quite the opposite actually. Noone gets happy when he notices that the term under which a technology was licensed are abused, and neither does Phillips.
Mmmm... Triple negatives... (Score:4, Funny)
Stated more simply:
It's an event.
I can see it now... (Score:3, Funny)
CD Copy-Protection Up Hill Battle (Score:5, Interesting)
DVD-R (Score:3, Interesting)
English-language story on this ... (Score:5, Informative)
Is copyprotection computer fraud ? (Score:5, Interesting)
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
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)
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)
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)
"1- Guy with date plays cd and has crummy music on it. Date winces.
2- Guy goes home and 'mixes'
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)
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)
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)
Philips got it right (Score:3, Informative)
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.
RIAA is already looking for another format (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone know who holds the DVD standard? Not that it matters, plenty of provision for copy protection in that....
Let's make things better (Score:5, Interesting)
Philips, the inventor of the Compact Disc, does not expect controversial attempts by the music industry to introduce CD "copy protection" technologies to last very long, because of consumer complaints. Philips is opposed to the use of copy protection systems. ... Philips could refuse to license such copy protected discs as genuine CDs, or pursue some other legal obstruction to the practice. But Gary Wirtz, general manager of the Philips Copyright Office at its headquarters in the Netherlands, believes that copy protection technology will fail all by itself.
These are good guys, just like SonicBlue, Archos, and Apple. They need our support.Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The boy bands don't *need* copy protection.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Audio can *ALWAYS* be copied. (Score:4, Funny)