This article on the register made me happy! :)

A little quote:
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.

Read the whole story here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23736.html

Simply, copy protection will protect the sales revenue of Record Houses (Sony included) at the expense of hardware vendors like Philips. So why wouldn't you say 'well stuff those guys, just because they say This is Copyright protection why should our sales suffer'.

There's a backlash to this new 'copyright protection' in Oz aswell. Australian Copywrite laws do not give absolute control and ownership of a work to the copyright owner, they give fair use and enjoyment rights to people who purchase works (ie books, recordings etc). Also copyright here expires 50 years after the authors death, if you copy protect a CD it will be unavailable for copying indefenitely, even 50 years after the authors demise, that breeches the Aussie copyright laws.

when Sony et al scream 'it's theft to copy our CDs', well that's not strictly correct. When you illegally copy a CD/ Book/ Film you do not breech property ownership laws (ie theft) you breech copyright laws, ie you did not have the right to copy it. However as I've said copyright is not absolute ownership like say ownership of real estate.
It is still possible to claim 'fair use and enjoyment' in copying a CD (well in Oz anyway), So I could easily defend copying a CD, I play the original at home and the duplicate in my car, use is mutually exclusive, I can't play both at the same time.

Copy Protection removes my right to do this.

It will be interesting to see what happens, but my call is either through technology or legal challenge this wave of copy protection on Audio CDs will fall by the wayside.

It's only good business sense for the hardware vendors to look out for their customers rights. I don't understand why it's not done more. Why did Creative add digital rights protection to their Audigy soundcards? You can't use the digital input to recorded copyrighted media from a MiniDisc Player, for example. :tdown:

It was only been few years ago since you could purchase a dubbing (dual) VHS deck in the US. How can the manufacturers make the assumption that you are going to use something for illegal purposes? I can understand if I go to jail that I can't have a metal knife and fork... But it's ridiculous and where would it end to try to suppress every instrument as a potential instrument of crime.

Originally posted by Keymaster
But it's ridiculous and where would it end to try to suppress every instrument as a potential instrument of crime.

Almost everything can be used illegally in some way. Cars, guns, knifes, baseball bats, you name it. It can not be done, but some poiticians seems to think so, at least here in Norway.
Our copyright laws seems to be pretty much the same as in Australia.
I have no pity with the recording industry. When CD`s replaced the LP`s, we were told that the cheaper manufacturing process of a cd would cause the prices to go down, but only after most people had switched to cd.
Yeah right! :mad:

A couple of weeks ago, I read another statement from Philips. It said that these copy protected audio cds that not play in a cdrom does not comply with the red book standard, hence the disc could not be called a CD, it should be labeled as something else.
Philips and Sony invented the cd together, if my memory is correct, so Philips should know. But Sony seems to go in another direction? :confused:
Heh, anything that can be played, can be recorded, so it does not worry me too much! :p

Originally posted by Darkman
There's a backlash to this new 'copyright protection' in Oz aswell. Australian Copywrite laws do not give absolute control and ownership of a work to the copyright owner, they give fair use and enjoyment rights to people who purchase works (ie books, recordings etc). Also copyright here expires 50 years after the authors death, if you copy protect a CD it will be unavailable for copying indefenitely, even 50 years after the authors demise, that breeches the Aussie copyright laws.

While that is a correct reading of Australian Law, it is not applicable in this case. Have a look at any CD released these days... It's not (c) Joe Blow... it's (c) Sony Music Corp.

While books and other original works are copyrighted by their authors, the music industry wised up to this many years ago and worked out a way around it. An author of a book owns the copyright, and licences it to the publisher. For music, it's owned by the corporation.

A corporation is simply a legal body, without a soul. It will be in existance in perpetuity, until it goes out of business or decides to no longer trade. In any case, the legal body will never die, and therefor the 50 year rule will never apply.

That's why musicians are getting screwed in the industry, and why anyone with some success then goes on to create their own record label, instead of just releasing more CDs.

Thanks for reading my rant... sorry my post was so long.

D@mn! For a sec I thought Keymaster had just come back!!! :laugh:

I was amazed to see a thread started by me appearing on the first page! :cool:

Thats good news for us, hope other manufactureres follow suit

good to see Philips taking control of their product again