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.
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.
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.
I'm the stranger...posting to
That's got nothing to do with the 'right' to copy or anything similar.
IMHO, Philips is just protecting their business and patents by trying to enforce a standard almost entirely made by them (CD-DA).
And do you think that copyright enforcers will care about carrying a logo when millions/billions are lost (or will be in the future) with people copying their stuff?
Looks like Philips will buy a tought fight if they decided to manufacturate such hardware, a fight my dear \. reader, that on my opinion will be inevitabily lost.
BTW, a quick tip, Google can do better translations...
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
Audio music can *ALWAYS* be copied - no matter what format or what protection!!! You don't need no software solutions to do that - you can capture the audio from the wires to your speakers. There will *NEVER* be any copy protection which could prevent that.
Please remember that Royal Philips Electronics is headquartered in the Netherlands. This doesn't mean that they are immune to the effects of DMCA but they are in a better position than most American companies to challenge it.
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.
"They break the CD-DA standard and therefore are not allowed to use the logo. "
So they release copy-protected CDs with no CD-DA logo. 99.99999999% of all consumers wouldn't even notice.
This is the argument I've made for a long time, and I think it's a strong one. The Red Book 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
ceci n'est pas un 'sig'
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.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
- 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?...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
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?
- In Capitalist America, law violates YOU!
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
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
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.
Note that the article appears to only refer to Philips' audio CD-recorders, not their CD-RW recorders. So hurray! Instead of compiling mix cDs on a computer and burning them to $0.50-$1.00 CD-Rs, you get to use Philips' audio components and burn to $$$ "audio CDs". This is not a huge step forward.
RC
I also would like to add (at the risk of Karma) that Microsoft is not quite as powerful as you think. They are far from being the largest company in the world and even in the US. In terms of revenue (as from Fortune 500) they are number 79 in US and 201 in the world. AOLTW is not listed because of the merger but most likely would have been in the Top 40 in the US. Philips happens to be 107 in the world.
Just because they control the desktop market, don't believe for a second that they control the content providers.
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.
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.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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!
You need to install an RTFM interface.
bipolar companies such as Sony who make great profits off of consumer electronics -- walkman say -- and from content -- their music holdings -- will be engaged in strong internal battles over intellectual property rights (hardies going for lesser protection so as to get more content and more demand for hardware at a lower price point; content protectors the opposite). since Sony and others make much more from hardware look for the challenge to IP to come from them as they turn on the RIAA and MPAA
Certified Black Helicopter Pilot *** Unwitting Dupe of One World Gov'ment
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.
I can see the fnords!
Classical music, at least the stuff which is old enough to be public domain has a very different profile to popular music. Because anyone can record a sonata by Beethoven, then there is great competition between the people who do, and that's great for the consumer. I can buy a CD from a very famous orchestra, or I can buy a CD from a less famous orchestra, or I can even download an MP3 from mp3.com, all of the exact same piece. As economics says, if there is competition, then the price is going to drop.
Not to be cynical or pick on them, because I'm awfully glad they're taking this position. But it's easily explained. Phillips has no interest in copy protection. They're simply an electronics company, not a major media player like Sony. So eliminating the influence of the content side of the business puts Phillips on an even playing field.
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
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
"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."
Sure there would. Imagine this: instead of hearing over-produced fluff pop on the radio and racing home to download it from the Internet (and getting burned in the RIAA-sponsored musical witchhunt in the process), music would simply become more grassroots by way of the Internet. If the RIAA ever lost its grip and corporate music producers went out of business, one fact remains: music lovers will still seek out what they want. I imagine hordes of sites set up by fans who have found new, exciting independent artists. As people hear about these new artists, they would head over to Morpheus to give them a try.
The Internet really does have the power to destroy the RIAA's music industry, and create one of its own. Of course, the right set of circumstances for this to happen haven't come along yet, but it's only a matter of time.
As i wrote, when i submitted this story two weeks ago.. , a spokesperson from Philips said that they expected music companies to clearly LABLE their copyprotected CD's. Indicating that the CD had a much shorter lifespan than a "real" CD, and that it was in fact NOT a real CD.
Apparently the can't prevent people from making small round discs, but they can prevent them from calling them CD's.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I always have liked their commericals and taking stances like this are One Damn Good Way(tm) to gain some strong new customers and gain a heavy dosage of customer loyalty.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
I like the idea of the Philips "look for the logo" ads, but other than that, or a grassroots "don't buy these cds", I don't see this making any difference, even if Philips win. Although the PR surrounding it might do some good.
"Inflammable means flammable? What a strange country!" -Dr. Nick, The Simpsons
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....
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.