Sony cameras and "Copy protected" batteries

Laurence wrote on 11/27/2005, 10:17 PM

I bought some generic batteries for my new Sony HVR-A1. I got an error message saying "use Sony Infolithium batteries". OK, so Sony put some kind of copy protection on the batteries. I looked around on eBay and got some good prices on "real" Sony batteries... from China. I order three batteries from two sources. They come. the packaging and labelling are perfect: holograms and all. Anyway, they seem to work OK so I throw away the packaging. After the first recharge, once again I get the "use Sony Infolithium batteries" message on all three batteries. I guess they must be fakes .

Anyway, I post some negative feedback on the sellers explaining the situation. I get complaints back saying that I should have talked to them first so that they could resolve the situation. That would be ok except that they will probably give my money back in exchange for withdrawing my complaint and future buyers will have no warning.

Anyway, I have five batteries that don't work at all because of this stupid copy protection. Now just by chance, a couple of years ago, my family was involved in a franchise dispute that involved a franchiser forcing a franchisee (us) to buy raw materials at an inflated price from them. We won that lawsuit. It seems to me that this is a similar case and that what Sony is doing is probably illegal. I can easily imagine a situation where a Sony camera will only work with Sony tape. I think it really kind of sucks. Does anyone have opinions on this other than me?

Oh yeah, where can I buy "real" Sony batteries that actually work with this camera for a reasonable price. I don't think they're any better: they'll last about two years just like the generics. But at least they won't make my camera turn itself off!

Back to post

Comments

DelCallo wrote on 12/3/2005, 3:02 AM

This thread reads not unlike the history of radar detectors and detector detectors or software copy protection / software crack schemes that have been part of their respective business sectors since day one.

The manufacturer produces a system that users/competitors and even criminals circumvent. The manufacturer enhances the protection and the users enhances the circumvention, and on and on, not unlike the nuclear arms race (way back when).

Those off brand batteries may not work (by Sony's design - I haven't heard this confirmed so far in this thread) now, but, when it becomes cost effective for off brand manufacturers to do so, they will develop and market off brands that overcome whatever protection Sony may have designed into the product.

I'm not sure what alternative, if any, exists.

Caruso

riredale wrote on 12/3/2005, 9:42 AM

Two thoughts:

Sony is probably doing the battery thing because they can, but also because batteries have become more exotic and sometimes tempermental. Sony doesn't want the legal hassles of a battery exploding while recharging. This is just a guess on my part, but I think an accurate one.

Secondly, recent computer magazines have highlighted the fact that some cheapo inkjet printers cost a lot more for ink, but also point out that it's as much a brand issue as price. For example, I recall that Lexmark printers cost a fortune for ink on a per-page basis, while Epson and Canon are about the cheapest.

We have a Canon Multipass F30, an Epson C86, and an HP 2410 Multifunction printer in our home. I use the C86 for CD and DVD labels because it uses smearproof, waterproof, and lightproof pigment ink; I use the F30 as my all-around printer. The Epson requires Epson cartridges (nobody makes refilled pigment ink cartridges, as far as I know) and the cartridges are chipped, making refilling somewhat harder. The Canon uses elegantly-simple clear plastic cartridges that can be trivially refilled with one of the numerous refill kits on the market. When one of the Canon tanks run dry I can get it going again for maybe $0.50 rather than $10.

teaktart wrote on 8/23/2008, 6:31 PM

I'm curious if there has been any major changes/improvements in this debate?

Would you/or can you use off brand batteries in today's cameras?

I'm moving into a Sony V1 and am looking to buy some more batteries for longer recordings. Before making any purchases I'm wondering how others decide if its possible to save on off brands with large capacities? Anyone having success? Or more problems and not being able to get them to work with newer camera models...

Thanks for any advice,
Eileen

farss wrote on 8/23/2008, 6:42 PM

Only with cameras that have external DC inputs such as the EX1. Works fine with Sony V lock, AB and even "Big Bob" 17AH Gell batteries. All the alter are is Panasonic Lead Calcium batteries on a box.

Bob.

TheHappyFriar wrote on 8/23/2008, 6:43 PM

I have genc batteries for my HD1000U. I'd be interested in what came of this too.

richard-courtney wrote on 8/23/2008, 7:22 PM

I too don't like the printer ink issue.

Batteries I see the charging safety issue and convenience of the battery level
on screen.

If you had a standard for relaying voltage/current to the camera and if the camera
has no part in battery charging then ANY battery should be used.

I am hesitant in saving a few dollars on cheap batteries when it could
potentially damage my camera. I will use Sony batteries or at least industry
standard. (Anton Bauer for example)

fldave wrote on 8/23/2008, 8:13 PM

I just got two additional Bescor (?) batteries from B&H for my FX1 for a Hawaii trip. They work great, run longer than my original Sony batteries. Multiple recharges, no warnings, no problems.

I did however get a Fuji digital camera from Amazon, with a "recommended" additional generic battery. The generic battery will no longer hold a charge, only about 8 months old.

edited: corrected the brand name to "Bescor"

kairosmatt wrote on 8/23/2008, 8:22 PM

I had a problem using a friends UX5. Wouldn't take the generic batteries without the DC cable that Bob mentioned. Really annoying cause it boots up first, then tells you your not using a sony battery and BAM, its done.
And the mini-DVD thing, c'mon, only Sony makes good ones. EVERYTIME you put one in there it tells you that Sony brand are recommended, at least you can get past it though and still shot with the other brands.
I don't know about the legality of it, but its sure annoying. And our Sony Batteries are the ones that go dead the quickest too.

kairosmatt

john-beale wrote on 8/24/2008, 12:15 PM

For what it's worth, I took apart the small NP-F570 battery that came with a D8 camcorder I got about 8 years ago. It has several chips inside, including a 48-pin QFP marked LRS68010 SHARP JAPAN which I assume is a custom microprocessor. It looks plenty complex enough to implement a digital signature protocol with the camera, if they chose to do so back then.

teaktart wrote on 8/24/2008, 2:12 PM

Interesting seeing the guts of the battery, more complicated than I would have guessed.

"Only with cameras that have external DC inputs such as the EX1."
I'm confused by what you mean here ?

Are Sony cams more fussy than Canons? I bought some 'off brand' batteries for my Canon HV10 and they've been just fine with no shortcomings. Are Sony's that much different?

I was also wondering if anyone had used the 'Impact UF-C30 Ultra Fast 30 minute Battery Charger'?
From B & H>
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/505886-REG/Impact_UFC_30KDQ_UF_C30_Ultra_Fast_30.html

riredale wrote on 8/24/2008, 4:48 PM

Interesting to see this thread resurface after lying dormant for 3 years. How time flies...

(1) I no longer use an Epson printer. Got fed up with nozzle clogs in multiple printers.

(2) I've learned that, if Wilhelm Imaging tests are to be believed, generic ink probably works okay in inkjet printers, but will fade MUCH more quickly than OEM inks, some in a matter of months. There's a reason the printer guys are spending millions in ink research.

(3) On the battery issue, my opinion (still) is that Sony certainly wants to sell product and gain additional profit, but in addition they want to cover their rear ends in the event of a million-dollar mishap. Imagine a Sony camcorder or laptop catching fire with a generic battery inside. Now imagine that happening in a 767. Guilty or not, Sony would be spending many millions just on legal fees. Since I've read in many places that li-ion batteries are surprisingly freakish devices, it would be natural to conclude that Sony doesn't want any surprises with no-name batteries.

(4) Oh, the other thing I've read about li-ion batteries is that they have a very definite service life, measured in just a few years, whether in regular use or not. Again, the technology is a bit finicky.

EDIT:
By the way, it came as news to me last year that there are different types of nickel-metal-hydride cells. The conventional ones work fine but rapidly self-discharge over just a few months. The newer ones (Sanyo's "Enerloop" is one brand; Sony also makes them, but I can't remember the name) can hold a charge for years.

ushere wrote on 8/24/2008, 5:01 PM

i bought some 750's off an ebay (hk) seller. the blurb had v1p as one of the suitable models.

life is 2x that of my sony bats, so far (1.5 yrs) no problems.

my old generic bats i used in my 170 DIDN'T carry over to the v1p and they were ion...

leslie

Robert W wrote on 8/25/2008, 9:48 AM

I wonder if this is an issue on cameras retailed inside of Europe? I am fairly sure we use non Sony batteries with our Z1, and we have had non-Sony batteries provided with hire cams. The same goes for printers. Our Epson R300 and R340 report that a non-Epson cartridge is being used, but it still accepts it. I think maybe European competition rules prevent them arbitrarily closing the market and maintaining exclusivity in that way.

Steve Mann wrote on 8/25/2008, 10:05 PM

Bastinado said: "6. I am totally disgusted by Sony's rootkits on CDs and won't buy any of their hardware products ever again."

When will you guys get it?

Sony Music is NOT the same company that sells Sony Electronics and not the same company that makes Sony Creative Software, etc., etc.

Not buying Sony Cameras because the Sony Music Company did something really stupid is, well, really shortsighted.

Do you not watch NBC Television because GM makes crappy cars?
Do you not watch the inane "reality" shows on ABC because Disney World has a gay-friendly policy?
Do you avoid watching the sex and gore in Fox Movies because you disagree with their unfair and unbalanced "news"

Each of these pairs of companies are owned by the same corporate parent. Just like the many Sony companies owned by the Sony Corporation.

John_Cline wrote on 8/25/2008, 10:09 PM

Steve, if you had noticed, Bastinado posted that message on 11/29/2005. Maybe he's "gotten it" by now.

Steve Mann wrote on 8/25/2008, 10:17 PM

"I bought some generic batteries for my new Sony HVR-A1. I got an error message saying 'use Sony Infolithium batteries'. OK, so Sony put some kind of copy protection on the batteries."

Use the generic batteries in a Sony camera light, or buy an adapter from nebtek.com that will let you power an external LCD monitor from your faux Sony batteries.

Complaining won't get you anywhere..

TheHappyFriar wrote on 8/26/2008, 5:22 AM

if no division of sony was related to each other then the company wouldn't be in business. profitable parts keep other parts strong. IE ps3 lost millions initially, $$ to pay people had to come from somewhere! Odds are buying a high-profit sony battery paid someone's salary.

Avanti wrote on 8/26/2008, 10:30 AM

I purchase only generic (Sunpac and Lenmar) batteries for my 2 Sony vx2000's and HD-1000. I never buy anything on e-bay. All 3 cameras use the same type battery.

I had one battery DOA and wouldn't take a charge and I got the Sony error message. I sent it back, and they gave me a full refund $35 for a np970, quite a good deal. I don't think you have a "copy protection" issue, I think you have crappy batteries.

R0cky wrote on 8/26/2008, 12:13 PM

Sony's top management is responsible for what their child companies do. If their subsidiary installs a rootkit on my machine (a criminal act), they should sack the management of that subsidiary. Only if that is done will they set the example and tone for how they want their businesses to be run. If they do not then the message to subsidiary managers is go ahead shaft the customer as long as we make more money that way than not.

I am voting with my pocketbook for their bad management. As I said, I'm locked into SCS now. The cost and learning curve of changing is too steep, at least for the moment. However, every time Vegas doesn't work I think about changing.

Rocky