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.
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!
There's an enlish-language article on the subject at New Scientist:9 91783
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns999 91783
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.
(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.
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
The logo is a trademark indicating certain specifications and recognition. The patent is different from the logo.
Fight Spammers!
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.
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?