Slashdot Mirror


Philips Says Compact Discs Can't be Copyprotected

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.

14 of 588 comments (clear)

  1. Google Translator... by FortKnox · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since Hemos is the only one that realizes that the fish isn't the only translator...

    Google now has language tools, translates pages, AND will let you link 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...

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
  2. English Version by railyard · · Score: 4, Informative

    NewScientist.com is carrying the same story in english

  3. Article in New Scientist by y137 · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's an enlish-language article on the subject at New Scientist:
    http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns999 91783

  4. Philips doesn't care if you live or die by Codex+The+Sloth · · Score: 4, Informative

    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".

    --
    I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you ... oh wait, I'm #93427. Ha ha! In your face #93428!
  5. Rhetorics by j7953 · · 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.

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
  6. English-language story on this ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Philips says copy-protected CDs have no future at New Scientist. As an aside, I find New Scientist to be one of the best all-around sources for sci/tech news.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  7. Re:patent runs out soon by sid_vicious · · Score: 5, Informative

    (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.

    --
    If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.
  8. Re:Don't get all excited, ladies and gentlemen by mosch · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

  9. On a similar note - Proposed DMCA Amendment by gorillasoft · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  10. Re:Fair use by monkeydo · · Score: 5, Informative

    No. You are wrong. Fair use, backup copies, etc. are all spelled out in the US Code. Most of the /. crowed doesn't want to know about it however, because it kills most of their arguments.

    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

    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
  11. logo by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 5, Informative
    The logo does not expire.


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

  12. How's that for poetic justice by guttentag · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

  13. Patents AND �s can be renewed. by yerricde · · 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 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.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?