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.
Now just give me a domestic region-less DVD player and I'll be your customer for life!
--
I like to watch.
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 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?
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.
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
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.
-- The Hollow Man
Non illegitimati carborundum
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!
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
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?
Dozings.com -- Its kinda funny... If you're as crazy as me.
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!
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.
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....
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
There's an enlish-language article on the subject at New Scientist:9 91783
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99
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
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns999 91783
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
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.
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.
"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'
It looked like good news on the surface, but I've got mixed feelings about that one...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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)
OK,
- B
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
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..."
:-)
If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.
It's *Philips* NOT Phillips, the poster got it right, but almost without exception everyone else is using the superfluous 'l' in the name...
I know it's anal, but there's a big difference between Philips and Phillips... or Phillips for that matter...
No man is an island, but Gary is a city in Indiana.
Hey, I love the phillips dvd player I got. cheap, nice Svideo output, reliable. Plays a cdr/cdrw full of mp3's nicely to boot. No worries.
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
\.
lol is that OSDN's MS-DOS version!
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Readily available mail-order (do a search) and probably at your local china-town as well. The ones in china town where I live are from several different manufacturers and offer karaoke support as well. Sure most of these are 'moded' players, but some are available with upgradeable BIOSes that you just slap in a CD-ROM and it writes the new instructions into the DVD players BIOS.
People are just too lazy to look for items like this if they aren't on the shelf at their local best-buy, radio shack or wal mart, but the products are readily available.
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!
I, for one, would certainly welcome being able to filter out ``broken'' CDs by looking for a label stating that it meets the CD standard.
I'm concerned, though, as to whether the lifetime of some CD-related patent (or several of them) is coming up which would allow major music companies to figure they can make their own without having to meet the standard and tell Philips to take their logo and shove it (leaving the consumer without sufficient information to make an informed choice and avoid purchasing a defective (IMHO) product. Anyone up to date on the patents that cover the CD technologies?
Of course, this all supposes that the major music publishers that are leaning toward selling broken CDs have anything that's really worth purchasing anyway. Personally, I find that the material that's put out by the indie labels is immeasurably better than the drek that the major labels are spewing out. I can't imagine finding much on a major label that worth pirating much less shelling out money for. I may be in a minority (but I doubt it) when I ask the mega music distributors: ``Why would I invest even the paltry US$0.5 for a blank CD (and the 30 minutes of unattended computer time it takes to copy) to pirate something that I wouldn't even listen to once?''
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Indeed, some us were speculating about this very possibility when 'NSync's protected CD was announced about three months ago.
-- Alastair
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).
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
I've got a garage full of Cdi players and video2000 vcr units if anyone wants
:)
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
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.
It's also the little label. If it doesn't have the little icon, normal people might pass it up because obviously it's something screwy, like one of those newfangled mp3 thingies or something. Of course, I could be wrong. Happens lots, actually.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
"Philips indicted for violating DMCA, initiated by complaint from RIAA and MPAA"
Recently law makers have been showing resistance to industry execs who are pushing cd copy-protection. Here is a recent story on this. The recording industry according to this article is rethinking copy protection all together.
Yes but every time I try to see it your way, I get a headache.
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.
I need some blank cdr's too.
Now I have a brand to tell people to buy when they ask me.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
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.
If a commerical company were to circumvent a "copy protection measure" what would the RIAA do? Philips is capable of a big fight and would probably put one up just to improve their geek appeal, and thus sales. DeCSS will never break the DMCA, but this just might. Philips has enough resources to do it, if they want to. Will they be the ones?
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
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).
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. ,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.
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. The article is in german, but google produces a readable version.
Jan
That's okay, just losing the right to the logo is a Good Thing. For one, it could mean an injunction against distribution of any existing copy-protected discs mislabeled with that logo -- which hurts the recording/distribution companies responsible.
:-) which silvery discs are the copy-protected ones -- namely the ones without the CD logo. We can just avoid buying those. (And encourage others likewise).
For another, it makes it obvious (well, in a subtle way
-- Alastair
"Ain't no right way to do a wrong thing."
I link that translation link. I found this quote to be a great summary of the whole CD copy protection issue:
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.sulli
RTFJ.
...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
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
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
Note: This appears not to work in Mozilla 0.9.7. :-(
m ercare/contact.jhtml
Tell Philips you appreciate their stance on fair use (even though, yes, I realize they have their own motivations):
www2.consumer.philips.com/global/b2c/common/custo
Going to pricewatch and purchasing Philips equipment is great, but let them know your doing so and why.
One of the reasons that I became a lawyer was to avoid ever having to hire one. -SPYvSPY
I tried pointing this out a while ago when we first got news of data scrambled CD's.
I pointed out that this is in direct violation of the standard. I guess they read slashdot, although just a little behind.
If I bought a piece of software that says "Made For Windows XP" and it's comprised of a binary RPM.. I'd be pissed. Microsoft would sue to hell, and there would be a big hub-bub.
Hopefully they won't only produce copying equipment [breaking the DMCA?] but they will also take strong legal action against said companies.
Maybe Philips has a new technology they are working on... maybe they read my huge brainstorm under the Gracenote story... but let's hope not.
Hopefully content protection companies, like M$ is trying to be, aren't behind their backs telling them to swear off these data scrambling techniques to push their own.
Get your Unix fortune now!
You see those Phillips commercials on the music and 'techy' shows? The commercial goes something like this:
,from his collection, a mix cd for listening with dates.
"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.
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
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?
Anything that slows down the sale of CD-ROMs and thence plastic resin sales will probably not get their approval.
Philips does not seem to own very many content producers. They don't care who put what on a disc, as long as somebody does.
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
There may be a conflict as some manufacturer is also a member of RIAA/MPAA (e.g. Sony), but the majority are just making consumer electronics.
I'm sure it makes more business sense for manufacturer to have, say, standard encoding scheme for the whole planet, instead of that stupid regional coding scheme for DVD. This regional coding scheme adds nothing but cost, overhead, consumer dissatisfaction, critiques, etc. It's not in their best interest. And devices that allow people to do whatever they want, including making backup copy and creating their own audio/video contents, will only sell more devices, and more related (or even unrelated) devices too. Would you think there's a market for MP3 players if none of the music CDs can be ripped? Me think not.
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.
The logo is a trademark indicating certain specifications and recognition. The patent is different from the logo.
Fight Spammers!
It's Philips, not "Phillips".
Philips, Eindhoven
yeah thats what the original poster said...
The logo is a trademark, and they unlike patents and (in theory) copyright do not run out.
The logo is a trademark, and they (trademarks) unlike patents and copyrights do not run out?
Your parser must be broken.
Need a Catering Connection
They are already 100% safe from me even *thinking* about copying their stuff.
BTW, I haven't been keeping score. NSync is which rev of Menudo, exactly?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
At one time the "Big 5" was the "Big 6."
Universal in the late 90's purchased Philips labels (Polygram, Decca, maybe Deutche Grammphone).
All this wouldn't be interesting, except that the deal involved stock if I remember. Anyone know if Philips still holds stock in Universal Music Group (part of Vivendi)?
Hmm, that's very interesting, I doubt it is the sole legal text that applies, but let's look at it a little mor closely.
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.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
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.
I would start with The Antitrust Terrible 10: Why the Most Reviled "Anti-competitive" Business Practices Can Benefit Consumers in the New Economy and The Government's War on Mergers: The Fatal Conceit of Antitrust Policy, because it is a common misconception that antitrust is even needed. More analysis is found here, here, and these two links. In short, antitrust and monopoly-busting tactics do more damage than good.
"All mankind is at the mercy of a handful of neurotics". - Norman Douglas
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?
You mean like this
-no broken link
I mean, sure, buy a Philips Tivo instead of a Sony one, but its not like they're the avenging angel of fair use.
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.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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
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.
Ergo, since CDs are physical items and sold under the various country's respective trades description acts, ANY AND ALL record companies or retailiers can be sued in a class-action suit, for selling goods under false pretenses.
Sure, the suits would likely be dismissed, if they ever went to court, but think of the negative publicity it would generate! The RIAA and MPAA are unlikely to welcome that kind of exposure. Especially if it puts their precious DMCA at risk.
As such, it's entirely possible they would settle and just change their labelling, rather than take the gamble that it might hurt their image.
Even if they don't, there's a slim chance that Philips would use such a class-action to eliminate a few headaches of their own. After all, the defendents would include companies making rival technologies. Also, because it would be a civil suit, it might be possible for something like this to reach court before any case Philips could bring would. All they'd have to do is tag along for the ride, and smooth the way a bit.
And if the whole thing gets dismissed out of hand? Then the supporters of copy-protected CDs, amongst the techno-media, might find themselves a bit squished. They'd have to openly take sides against one giant, or another. And once they do that, they could find themselves in dire straights with their editors. More than one journalist has been sacked for pissing off the wrong advertiser, at the wrong time.
Is any of this probable? No. Is it possible? Certainly. And that might be all that's needed, at the very least to put the Intellectual Property philosophy under a microscope. We might not be able to save the Universe, but we can bring to the attention of those who can that it really does need saving.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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.
lol is that OSDN's MS-DOS version!
;)
No actually, its Backslashdot, the opposite of Slashdot: News for companies, cash that matters
"I remember Y1K, every abacus had to get another bead"
Everyone get out there and buy a Philips product of some sort, doesn't matter what, it's just important you tell Philips what you did and why. Showing a tangible result will only encourage them in the future.
It's little known, but Philips makes sound cards too. The best one they have is the Philips Acoustic Edge, which is better than that Audigy shit.
http://www.pcsound.philips.com/flash_intro.html
More importantly, it gives a tangible thing to show to the proles and help them identify what is a "good" CD and what is "bad" "CD". And that will be "great".
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
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.
Yes, that's exactly what I said, except you expanded the "in theory". In theory (USA) copyrights are for a limited time, and the pre WWII ones expired (they lasted like 18 years past the creators death back then, I think). In practice currently copyrights last for a very long time after death (70+ years? 98 years?), but that seems to be just a pretext as the "limited time" keeps getting extended. I think the big deal is Disney wants to keep Mickey mouse under their thumb.
Personally I would be Ok if there was a way to keep activaly produced items in copyright, and let the others fall out. It would be far better then the current scheme of having nothing ever go out of copyright. Maybe a modest additonal fee, and a requirement that the item must be available on the open market for a reasonable price. The fee to cover a filing cost, and the avilable requirment to keep people from just sitting on stuff if the fee is too low (i.e. I don't really want a publisher to pay just to keep a book rights, I want the thing published so I can buy it, or to fall into the public domain so I can download it).
I would also be Ok if stuff would actually fall out of copyright (and yes, I do have comercially valuable works protected by copyright, but as long as my wife doesn't outlive the copyright that won't be a problem, plus I have savings and life insurance...)
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
In the other New Scientist article there is this jucy tidbit:
/.
If you look at Philips' history in regards to audio tape cassettes (which are based on Nazi technology, like most magnetic recording)I think you will find that they recognize the obvious benefits of unrestricted recording hardware.
Hey, doesn't Philips own several content providers? Polygram for one?
--Charlie
Well, then, it won't be long before companies quit using the logo. Just call it a "Music disc" and drop the logo. But maybe you'd need help from retailers to change their advertising nomenclature.
if the new laws that Bush and Ashcroft want, get passed, stuff in the public domain will be able to be re-copyrighted.
But that stuff fell out of copyright due to a technicality, not expiration; Congress is simply correcting the balance. No copyright is being enacted on works whose copyright has expired. The Uruguay Round treaty simply recognizes the same "limited" copyrights that other countries recognized.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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
Looking at a random selection of recent CDs (the ones sitting on my desk right now), I notice that the only "Compact Disc Digital Audio" logos displayed are on the plastic inlay holding the disc. And you can't see those logos when the jewel box is shrinkwrapped. So not showing the logo doesn't help -- it's barely shown now.
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.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Despite having the occasionally crappy product, I've always experienced a high level of customer service from them...
A little bit ago, my CD burner died. Not only did they RMA it, (and paid my shipping...) They sent me personal email when a new firmware revision came out for the drive later.
Of course your milage may vary...
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
This copy protection effectively bars you from listening to CD's on your Computer or DVD player. So why is it that only Phillips is the only big name company that has come out against it? Mac users are especially screwed, as they can't listen to CD's even in analog mode, so why hasn't Apple railed against it? It also can't be good for anyone that makes an MP3 player. It seems to me that copy protection not only hurts the consumer, but also the bottom line of a good number of hardware/software companies, all for the sake of the Music Industry.
Why the silence from the tech industry? I'm honestly curious to know.
It's definitely not a non-event, quite the opposite actually.
Stated more simply:
It's an event.
" I amazed that organisations like the RIAA don't go after the companies that create CDR/RW drives.
This is a nice blow to those record companies trying to stop us from "stealing" music."
Two reasons. Some of them are RIAA members, and it'd be difficult to make a case against SOME and not all of them.
But the main reason: money. A company like Phillips, or Hewlett-Packard have the money and the lobbyists to be able to counter the RIAA in all respects.
By going after Phillips, the RIAA/MPAA would be writing checks with their mouths that their asses can't cash.
This is why they've exclusively gone after individuals (Jon Johansen), and by smaller companies (Napster).
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
That is a bit strange because if you rip your own WMVs (not like I do that, though) from a CD, the encoder will only encode them at a maximum of 56 kbps (I think).
Microsoft has more "power" than of Hewlett Packard and Phillips, therefore why would they stop you from going above 56 kbps when the codec is capable of doing so?
Then again, Microsoft is not _yet_ in the music industry.
If Philips gets strict about their ownership of the CD-DA patent and logo, what might the RIAA do in response? I can only think of two different possibilities:
1.) Forsake the CD logo and "reverse engineer" the CD-DA technology to make something that works in genuine CD players. After all, how many of you checked to make sure that it was a genuine CD-DA disk you were buying and not some cheak, shiny knock-off?
2.) Revert to some other technology they have more control over. For example, DVD audio is a bit of a red herring right now, but if push comes to shove, the RIAA people could just buy out the technology behind it and start pushing it. Other ideas might be resuscitating DATs or they could even just tinker with minicasettes just enough to make them proprietary.
Either way, they can still get what they want.
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
Their equipment is often sub par (remember, they own Magnavox, there may be some old'uns who remember their ads where the sound quality appeared to be recorded with a can and string connected to the microphone, but I digress), but at least their morals are not... Guess that IP lawyers aren't *all* evil, ehwot?
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
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.
Just what I told them to do
However, another part of Philips has dopier ideas:
Philips is leading the charge to start yet another industry initiative to tackle digital rights management, this time focusing on the wirelessly networked home, EE Times has learned.
At stake here, said Leon Husson, executive vice president of consumer businesses at Philips Semiconductors, is the "free-floating" copyrighted content that will soon be "redistributed" or "rebroadcast" to different TV sets throughout a home by consumers using wireless networking technologies like IEEE802.11.
Rather than wait for Hollywood studios to raise a red flag over unprotected wirelessly transmitted content, some technology companies want to tackle the issue in advance and develop solutions together with content owners.
"We are dying to lobby Hollywood studios on this issue," Husson said
Meanwhile, Thomson's Lafaye seems to think people will buy lots of technology from him so they can be prevented from using it:
The SmartRight technology will honor a local "entitlement control message" -- such digital rights management rules as copy never or copy once, for example -- originally attached to the content. By putting the SmartRight technology in place, which enforces rights management in the home, said Lafaye, "we can help content owners create a new business revenue model." Content owners, for example, can start charging consumers every time their digital content is re-distributed within the home, or viewed several times during a certain number of days specified by them.
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020111S0060
>Just because the head-in-the-sand US market has never been very enthusiastic about them doesn't mean they have failed.
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.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
IIRC the CD-DA protection scheme takes advantages of differences between the CD-DA (Red Book) and CD-ROM (Yellow Book) specifications. The manufacturer fucks with the TOC (table of contents) on the disc to make it appear to a computer's CD-ROM as a data disc or not report correctly as an audio disc which for the most part keeps typical CD playback programs from functioning. If you've ever tried using an enhanced CD (Blue Book spec) CD with some software CD players you can't get to the audio track because the system refused to look at anything but the data session. The problem Philips has with the CD protection is messing with the TOC breaks the rules set in the red book specification. Another method used involved putting intentional errors on the audio tracks that under the red book spec a CD player skips over but a yellow book compliant CD-ROM will loop back trying to read the corrupted frame. Both of these schemes allow the CDs to be played on red book compatible CD players but cause problems when they're put in CD-ROM drives.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Having the logo on the CD is actually kind of important legally. When you buy a CD with the CD-Audio logo on it and it doesn't work in your particular CD player you can only take it back to the store or write a letter to the record company. They produced a red book compliant CD and the fact your particular CD player doesn't read it yet reads all others must be some fluke. No harm no foul. However if a record company sells you a CD that purports to be a CD-Audio disc yet doesn't comply with the specification all Cd players comply with and doesn't work in any CD players they will get fucked in court. Conducting business in bad faith is a surefire way to piss off a judge and get fined and have to pay out buckets of cash to everyone you sold defective products to. Compliance with an industry accepted standard is important in terms of liability. People aren't not going to buy a CD because it doesn't have the "Compact Disc" logo on it but if they do buy it and something is wrong with it a class action lawsuit would be pretty easy especially if you could prove more likely than not (all you need in a civil trial) a record company was hocing non-compliant CDs as compliant CDs and win a fat class action lawsuit. Imagine an album going triple platinum only to cost a record company three times the revenues in legal fees and penalties.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Philips is a seriously cool company. They make good equipment (listening to their 4.1 amplifier hooked up to my computer right now), and the only thing they're interested in is selling it. What you do with it is none of their business, and they come right out and say so.
If copy prevention schemes impede their sales, they will fight them. Note that according to them, they would not care about copy prevention anyway, because it just doesn't work.
Second, do a grep -ri philips /usr/src/linux/ | wc -l on your machine. Most of the lines are of course merely variables to deal with cd-rom hardware, but you will also find that one of the developers is a Philips employee. So Philips is also supportive of Free Software because, once again, it helps them shift units and of course being open with specs saves them the trouble with writing drivers.
Of course I'm biased here (I'm Dutch and so is the Philips Corporation), but I made it a point to buy most of my equipment from them. Kudos Philips! You gain loyal customers with this attitude!
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Often hacking is not required. I picked up an Apex AD-660 (sold under the marque Hiteker in Australia) a while ago. The box bore a Region 4 logo, as required by law. However, the player itself happily played Region 1 discs as well as Region 4 ones, with no modifications required.
The Red Book standard does include a "copy allow" bit, which is set or cleared for individual tracks. On virtually all CDs, it is off, ostensibly forbidding copying.
In theory, future technologies would have looked at the bit and refused to copy tracks, disabled perfect digital output or what have you. (The flag may in fact affect the SCMS code sent to DAT recorders, which nobody actually uses for copying CDs to.) However, they did not count on CD-ROM drives capable of sucking the ones and zeroes off a CD directly, and as such, the "copy allow" bit is a fossil.
Which goes to the point and doesn't mess around with euphemisms.
Which was the largest recording company; then, in 1998 or so, PolyGram was bought out and swallowed up by our old friends Universal.
Yes, well, it's one thing hearing a penguinhead saying that copy protection doesn't work, the DMCA is futile or that Bill Gates is a Sith Lord; you'd sort of expect that. However, hearing it from a multinational consumer electronics giant is another matter altogether.
Now, let the RIAA sue Philips to _legally_ render the CD trademark useless. Publically. And let them explain WHY.
There's a reason the RIAA are trying to do some of these things as quietly as possible. They are not going to challenge the CD trademark. Can't you see the dumbed down media coverage on that? How would you phrase it? "In media today, the RIAA is suing Philips over the CD trademark! Lawyers are bringing suit to be allowed to use the CD trademark on CDs that won't play in your computer. Philips, who owns the trademark, says no- they want things with the CD trademark to play anywhere, including in your computer..."
How else could you phrase that? The only way to even express the conflict is over 'what you're allowed to do with CDs', which people may well take for granted. Wouldn't you like to see that debate on the evening news? Let it come across the radar of middle America and see if they feel they're being ripped off.
Even the _response_ can be dumbed down and still be relevant. Picture 1,000,000 people going into the Wal-Mart entertainment section with new CDs and asking the cash register person, "Hey, is this really a CD? You know? Or is it, like, not really a CD and it's a fake that won't work on my computer like CDs are sposed to? I saw it on TV." It doesn't take a lot of shrewdness to feel ripped off or be suspicious.
Not yet. If Philips can get the debate featured on 60 minutes or some news TV show, that could change overnight. They are in a singularly good PR position in that they plainly want the publicity whatever the outcome- and JUST GETTING the publicity will help their case. There isn't a lot of room for spin here. The only thing the RIAA side can do is outright silence Philips so nobody ever hears about them, particularly mainstream media. Any slashdotters with contacts in big media (JON KATZ ARE YOU LISTENING?) need to start suggesting that the Philips position is worth a news story. We need the guts of this story to be shown on TV so joe and jane Wal-Mart are made aware of it, and given a dim sense of ripped-offness. Basic element is quite simply, is it a 'real' CD you're buying, or one made not to work? That's perfect for TV news.
Last time I checked at Borders they had play stations, and they would frequently have CDs that could be played on them. Perhaps they would let you see the CD before you bought it? (I was looking for a PDQ Bach album that they didn't have in stock, so I didn't find out how it worked.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Now, this is going to be an interesting battle.
The literal owner of the CD audio format being sued by people who are using that trademark without meeting its conditions, for making the violation irrelevant.
Philips is a sufficiently big player with a lot of money and lawyers. If they get sued under the DCMA, you can be sure it'll go all the way to the Supreme Court - which is the chance for the law to be struck from the books.
On the other hand, if the supreme court rules the law legal, than there's not much more we can ever do about it.
Many S/PDIF recievers assume 24 bits of digital audio, possibly to their dismay if the format IS professional and those bits are carrying sync or other data.
However, you will in theory never hook up an AES/EBU stream to a S/PDIF reciever since the formats are, as you say, different electrically and (usually) mechanically. (balanced 1/4" or XLR)
A note to the AC (parent)...these are digital signals. Don't use something like INA137 which is an audio differential line reciever. Use digital ICs. They are cheaper and will have a much more beneficial effect on your jitter.
But only govt monopolies.
As in govt utility monopolies
With economies of scale monopolies are best, with govt ownership comes voter control, as politicians have learnt here in Oz, they can lose office if the prices jump too much. & ontop of that all net profits go back to the govt meaning less tax is need. Useally the combination of those 2 factors mean they end up breaking even plus a little bit left over.
California wouldn't have had any electricity problems if a state owned utility controlled electricity supplies from the power station to the fuse box in every home (the only state in Oz that's had any trouple is the only state with privatised electricity companies)
Look at all the broadband providers that have gone bust in the US. Now if there was a publically owned cable utility nationwide in the US with the economies of scale that only a govt utility has those problems wouldn't have happened.
Really when its electricty, gas, water & telcos the govt does it best.
It doesn't even stop them expanding overseas, Singapore Telecom Singapore's govt phone 'n broadband monopoly has purchased businesses arround the planet. Telstra, Australia's govt telco (now majority govt owned/minority private owned) has made huge inroads into Asia, particularly Vietnam.