[Reader-list] Phillips moves to put 'poison' label on protected audio CDs

[Jaswinder Singh Kohli]

Philips moves to put 'poison' label on protected audio CDs
By John Lettice
Posted: 18/01/2002 at 13:19 GMT


Netherlands giant Philips Electronics has lobbed a grenade into the
audio copy protection arena by insisting that that CDs including
anti-copying technology should bear what is effectively a plague
warning. They should in Philips' view clearly inform users that they are
copy-protected, and they shouldn't use the "Compact Disc" logo because
they are not, in Philips' considered view, proper compact discs at all.

The Philips move comes as the major record companies start to introduce
copy-protection as quietly as they can. Unfortunate incidents such as
Bertelsmann's Natalie Imbruglia lash-up have had the humorously opposite
effect, widely publicising copy-protected CDs as poison packages to be
avoided at all costs, and they've also clearly had an effect on Philips'
thinking. As custodian of the standard, the company has decided it will
oppose anything that will degrade it, and detract from the consumer's
experience of it.

But we mustn't at this juncture run away with the notion that :Philips
is going to fight a long-term heroic battle from the standpoint of the
company that supports our MP3s. So far, it is opposing the copy
protection technology because it is "troublesome and cumbersome," not
because it thinks an audio free-for-all should be maintained (well, it
wouldn't think that, would it?)

That probably means that Philips will act to impede the introduction of
the flakier copy-protection mechanisms, but that as and when technology
that doesn't break things is available, it may be open to cutting a deal
with the record companies. Even that, however, is a serious set-back for
the music industry's plans, because practically every test CD they're
putting out now will have to be relabelled in some way.

The labelling itself will be an interesting issue. It's not clear that
Philips could require protected CDs to be prominently labelled as such,
and although it can force the removal of the logo, you'll note that this
is generally on the CD itself, inside the packaging, so you're probably
not going to get a prominent skull and crossbones to prompt you to pass
on to the next rack in the store. Philips might however be able to argue
that companies are "passing off" by selling something that consumers
think is a CD, but isn't.

Meanwhile, the second barrel of the Philips shotgun is CD burning. In a
Reuters interview Gerry Wirtz, general manager of Philips' copyright
office, said that the company would be building CD burners that can read
and burn copy protected CDs. He argues that the protection system is not
a protection system as such, but simply a mechanism for stopping the
playback of music. This interesting claim allows him to contend that the
protection systems are not covered by the Digital Millenium Copyright
Act, and lays the ground for the mother of all sue-fests with the number
of large and rich companies who are most certainly not going to agree
with him. Tin hats all round

taken from theregister.co.uk

--


Regards
Jaswinder Singh Kohli
jskohli at fig.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The Uni(multi)verse is a figment of its own imagination.
In truth time is but an illusion of 3D frequency grid programs.