Slashdot Mirror
Today's Helping Of The DMCA
El pointed us to this nice DMCA story in UpsideToday. Time Warner says that it needs "effective protection, both technological and legal, against unauthorized uses of copyrighted works," showing that even AOL-TW agrees that the DMCA is intended to restrain personal use of copyrighted works rather than copying. For anyone around Stanford University, note that a protest is being organized for May 18 and 19.
Paragraph 229:
Protests against the DMCA are to be considered strictly in violation of the DMCA
Oh my god, Time Warner does not want people to steal their property. I find this greatly offensive. This goes against the rigid communist ideals presented on slashdot. I propose that we invate Time Warner HQ and execute all those capitalist pigs, including Steve Case. Viva la revolution!
If we let Time Warner protect their property, what will happen next? Will people try to protect their own cars, houses, foods, etc from theft? This can not stand if we are to create a communist society! Liberate all assets! Steal from the rich! They are only rich because they cheated and stepped on us honest masses. Down with money and greed!
Dr Kool
Loyal Slashdot Communist
DMCA is corporate america tool for making the individual use their technology and buy their products. For example: DVD technology.
DMCA is just a new way of repression of consumer freedom in the internet age. Everybody know that this is not a law for protecting authors and copyrights. It is for making consumers buy products of big corporations
What should we do? Boycott almost every product?
Most citizens are unaware how the DMCA affects them, or will affect their lives even if "pay-per-use" becomes standard.
Furthermore, the hearings will probably be a love-feast of the media business types. So, if we mere users wish to get our point across and educate the public, we need to do it in a way that not only gets the public's attention but also informs them of the real issues. It's the DMCA that's bad, not necessarily all of copyright law, and whether or not you believe in free software.
Another thing, it's really sad reading this thread right after reading the thread of the development of BSD and how academics at that time were more interested in the truth, and software that worked, instead of just the money and power.
As an example of our failure in one instance of getting our point across, please see yesterday's triumphant "beacon of light" message from the attorney who won the CyberPatrol case--it was decided under the DMCA too.
Um, it will end when they knock it off and leave us alone. When they stop rewriting US law at whim to help their bottom line, when the politicians work for us again, and when they are no longer able to use their lawyers, guns, and money to hurt everyone who doesn't want to be a conforming, obedient little consumer. So basically, never.
Communication is only possible between equals
There is already a body of law that prohibits "unauthorized use" of copyrighted materials in all domains: Copyright law.
Rather than allow our rights to be bled by further legislation, TW/AOL has a right to help the federal government enforce the laws that already exist. To do anything more, particularly in the form of the DMCA, unconstitutionally inhibits fair use of copyrighted materials in favor of stronger rights for copyright holders.
If TW/AOL wants to protect themselves against "unauthorized use" they should either increase their contribution to the federal government so they can afford to pursue their valid claims (do they have any?) of copyright violation by loosening their accounting standards to indicate a higher taxable income (a simple numbers manipulation), or they should make their product in a manner that does not encourage the market to ignore their copyright and create a grey market for their copyrighted goods (less expensive, copy-prohibitive media such as cave walls, or not selling it).
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
I just wanted to see "anti-circumvention" written like that one more time, because gosh darn it, they only did it 12 fscking times in the article.
Rule of journalism #27: You only put an unfamiliar phrase in quotes once. After that your "readers" are probably "smart enough" to be "comfortable" with the "new" "phrase".
Here comes another DMCA-bashing session. So, here comes another obligatory Typical Slashdot Response Parody poll from the Poll Mastah...
What would you post in response to this article?
Poll Mastah
Send this news to your local media relations and get some air time for us. Bay Area channels 5 (KPIX), 11 (KNTV), 2 (KTVU), etc. would be great.
Also, if someone could find the email address of the Mercury News & SF Chronicle, that'd get us some coverage as well.
We'll never do any good until people outside of our little circles are well informed about what the DMCA means to them.
Peace
-jt
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
-cwk.
That being said, it's a real pity that the story on the 2600 freedom-to-link case didn't make it to the front page. The only reason given was that it was a long, long article that not everybody might want to read. So what? People should still know about it. It provides some dynamite anti-DMCA arguments that I hadn't even known about. Check it out.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Because as much as I love the right of Americans to fairly exchange knowledge, I am not going down to Cali to do it. Are we going to have any mirror demonstrations in other cities?
In my own city of Portland, it will be interesting hearing the police explain why it was immanently neccesary to gas those dangerous free software protesters, who have been known to riot and destroy public property.
And BTW, I am glad that Slashdot is providing some links to "real world" political action. I only hope that eventually it will be some political action involving something more pressing, such as a living wage for all workers.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Maybe we should not view movies as information but rather as enterntainment-cultural achievement combination? If we thought about movies as of service instead of thinking about films as of information, maybe then there would not be a confusion that arises as DMCA comes into our small internet based world. If movies are service then it is easy to see that the service providers may actually ask or even force their clients to some restrictions. For example: If you did not pay for your service, you can not use it. If you do not agree with the conditions of our service (such as only allowing to use the Video Materials with prescribed Video Viewing systems) then you can not legally use the service. etc.
In any case, information should be defined more precisely, movies are just copyrighted material, not information (even though they can be stored as a set of bits). I am not sure what exactly a good defenition of information is, but I would exclude most movies (except for scientific films) from having status of informative.
You can't handle the truth.
Why not try to add provisions that make the DMCA undesirable to AOL-TW and friends?
For example, put a requirement in there that protects "fair use". Maybe something that requires "fair use" to be easily accomplished. I know we can't think of ways off hand to to make it easy, but it would force the other side to have to come up with it.
This would be like what the FBI did (or at least tried to do) to laws attempting to allow the free use of encryption.
Seems strange that only "uses" is in bold in this story. If you put "unauthorised" in bold also, the story becomes a little more benign.
Come, on. The DCMA may be bad, but so is "unauthorised use" of copyrighted material. Why shouldn't TW do their best to minimise it?
The Open Source world is searching for the most effective business model. The Music world should be spending more time embracing such technologies and adapting their business model, instead of pursuing traditionalism.
IMHO, NOTHING will prevent consumers from getting what they'd like if they have the tools (decss) and the materials (the DVD stuff). The record industry must not deny this because this IS the future. Well, I can't say much more than this, as I think I've made my point :-)
The US Constitution grants Congress the power to grant copyrights for a limited time. If they keep upping the ante each time the deadline draws near, that is not "limited", because TW will never lose the copyrights of their characters to the public domain. Congress has overstepped its authority.
So, if TW invokes the DMCA to protect its characters, it's using an unconstitutional law to protect an unconstitutional franchise.
Normally, a copyright holder dies sometime, and their copyright fades. Not so for corporations like Time-Warner. Our legal system has been made into a twisted mockery of justice, in which immortal corporations are above the law.
The whole legal fiction of corporations being "persons" stems back to the 1886 Supreme Court decision in County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, in which the Court cited the "equal protection" clause of the fourteenth amendment. Equal. That means that the entire reason corporations are allowed to have rights as distinct entities is because all people have equal protection under the law.
This is a complete crock. Do the actions of corporations ever kill people? You betcha! So when was the last time you saw a corporation sentenced to death?
And, no, monopoly breakups don't count. Those are to keep the other corporations happy, and any benefit to real people is incidental.
Why do we as a society constantly reward and look up to these faceless legal machines which are designed to grow larger and make money at any cost?
The corporation may be an efficient way to run the economy, but it's a sick joke to even think of them as "persons". We need a system of laws that recognizes that corporations are a group of people, working together, and not some entity in and of itself.
Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
There *has* to be another side, no? Personally, I
encourage everyone I know to ignore intellectual
property laws of all sorts. Data and ideas cannot
be owned -- they lack scarcity. 'Pirating' is
not theft because nothing is *taken*. Post it
everywhere! Encourage your friends to ignore
'Intellectual Property'. IP is inherently invalid,
and it seems the DCMA is just taking us closer to
the inevitable conclusion of a pointless concept.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Ok, time for self-aggrandizing... when I read things like
/. readers & Linux activists may have more political/PR clout than they realize.
:)
Critics of the DMCA have long argued that the "anti-circumvention" provisions tilt the balance too far in favor of copyright owners, while depriving the public of the ability to use and access information.
I equate "Critics of the DMCA" with "Readers of Slashdot and Linux users." Perhaps this is silly... are there other large groups of people organized against the DMCA? I think librarians in general probably are... but I also think that
Or I could be on crack.
---
From TWX:
"a fair use defense might allow a user to quote a passage from a book but it does not follow that the user is allowed to break into a bookstore and steal a book."
The "technological protection" clauses of the DMCA are not an inadvertent extension of copywrite holders' rights by a naïve Congress, the limitation of fair use is entirely intentional. The argument that a digital work is fundamentally different from a pre-digital work was swallowed hook, line and sinker. The statement quoted above is absurd hyperbole; in a more accurate analogy, loaning a copy of Orifice2K to a friend is likened not to loaning a book but to loaning the press-plates for the book. The previously sufficient technical protection inherent in the expense of building a letterpress allowed for fair use to function without undue anxiety on the part of copywrite holders.
Congress is only too well aware of the technical issues, thanks to their friends in the content industries. Their eyes were wide open and their ears filled with the sound of the bell on the till.
Fair use is a dead letter, as intended. Arguments to restore it will fall on deaf ears. It remains to make clear that, in consequence, the very basis of copywrite, its ostensible role in supporting productive endeavor and the common weal, is subverted. Is this line persuasive? I doubt it. The DMCA effectively creates the conditions for a lively black market, essentially ensuring piracy. And this may be the key to its undoing. We may thus look on software piracy as a moral imperative.
In the immortal words of Wat Tyler (the punkers, not the 14th C. revolutionary):
Copywrite is for tools.
illegitimii non ingravare
Artists, and software authors, don't have to use the DMCA - they don't have to restrict access to their work.
Your local newspaper will take story ideas, call them during business hours tomorrow, they may actually be happy to hear from someone who isn't a paid publicist looking to have their press release run.
Offer to write an editorial after you've explained the location and purpose of the story. They will be unlikely to cover the story themselves--instead they will take your suggestion to mean: "look for this story on the wire for the next two days." If it doesn't make Reuters or the AP, you probably won't see it in your paper. If they are at all interested in the story, they might want to see an editorial in case the story doesn't surface or as a tie-in to the wire copy. Local editorials on a timely issue are more valuable than an archive or wire editorial, and cheaper. If you are "credentialed" all the better.
We in the twin cities that have a local econ professor battling the stadium builders tooth and nail through editorials. The point being that his modest credentials (prof at a community college), combined with his rhetoric have earned him quite a loud voice in the region.
Have URLs handy (2600.com, opendvd.org slashdot) to start the editors on the right track. Give them the MPAA/RIAA's webpage too, so they can feel they're being complete.
Anyone have any more suggestions?
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
(1) Prohibition. When alcohol was banned, people still produced, transported, and consumed it. "But it was the law!" The amendment was withdrawn by a subsequent amendment. Work through proper channels? Write your representatives? Convince legislators through proper means? Didn't happen. And the people were REWARDED for their disregard of an unjust law.
(2) Segregation laws. Blacks must yield their seat on busses to whites. Rosa Parks refused. "But it was the law!" Should she have complied? I think not. Her refusal spawned the great civil rights movement. Work through proper channels? Write your representatives? Convince legislators through proper means? Didn't happen. And the people were REWARDED for their disregard of an unjust law.
(3) The 55 MPH speed limit. The Federal Gov't, which is not supposed to be involved in making local state law (10th amendment) effectively extorted states into mandating 55MPH by refusing them federal highway dollars if they refused to comply and legislate 55. The law was widely ignored by the public. "But it's the law!" The threat was finally ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL and highway funds were ordered maintained regardless of local state speed limits. The result? Most states hiked local speed limits imediately. (And BTW, no increase in traffic fatalities appeared unkile what the naysayers predicted). Work through proper channels? Write your representatives? Convince legislators through proper means? Didn't happen. And the people were REWARDED for their disregard of an unjust law.
Am I making my point here?
Right now it's the internet turning IP law on its ear, just as the press removed literacy from the sole realm of high society. IP law cannot survive in a world of instantaneous global communication with each and every one of us granted equal power to publish anything. The dinosaurs will roar loudly, but they're already sinking into the tar pit.
Will the fall of IP law hurt a lot of people? Certainly. Recorded music put a lot of musicians out of business. Automatic pinsetters put a lot of people out of work. Computers and robots put a lot of factory workers out of work. Refrigeration put the ice deliverers out or work. The automobile hurt sales of horses. Airplanes depressed the commuter ship industry. The film camera hurt portrait artists. Cellular phones hurt the operators of coin operated phones. Something must be hurt or killed so that something new can live and grow. The fall of IP law will usher in a new wave of "information brokers" and "knowledge dealers". Knowledge will cease being for the wealthy or the "authoirized" and will become an omnipotent commodity upon which a new and better society will be built upon.
I for one am looking forward to the future.
It looks like it might just be a matter of time before the DMCA takes full effect. If the protests fail, and the courts rule in favor of the corporations, we still have a response. Lets simply ignore the monolithic, monopolistic, pay-per-use culture and come up with something better. How about creting an information/media refuge by creatively applying shrinkwrap style licensing?
In the software world, the GPL is an effective response to overly restrictive End-User License Agreements. Some of the best software in the world has been released under the GPL. The author chooses to use that license, and their works are protected under it. On this side of the fence, everything is working pretty well.
Wouldnt it be possible to release other media under a license that is more permissive than the DMCA tainted Copyright? Draw up a new contract that preserves the rights of the artist to profit, and protects the consumers rights to fair use. Include a provision that makes peer-to-peer distribution possible under certain, well defined conditions (payment for example). Make it easy for the end users to be legit, and stay legit.
Recruit artists who are benevolent and informed to start publishing under this license. Show them the benefits to their fans. Demonstrate that it wont cause a loss in revenue. This might take awhile (and some legal precedent), but it could be fairly feasable.
Push the benefits of this style of licensing to the consumer. Put little stickers on all permissively licensed merchandise, so people know when their rights are protected. Show them the benefits of the new licensing, highlighting the added value of having more rights to use the content at their convenience. Maybe even rally around someone who gets busted for doing something innocent under the DMCA copyright (linux DVD anyone?) to have a poster child for the cause. If we could get some consumer demand, then we have more pressure on the artists to release material under the new license.
So how about it? Can we take our ball and go home?
-BW
Quick question for all you legal eagle types out there - how does the DCMA apply to CANADA? I thought my country was sort of out of the jurisdiction of any US institutions. I AM Canadian, after all, so can a US court has a say in what I do up here?
Last time I looked, the DCMA was a US law, not an International law. Fuck 'em.
(BTW, the link needs QuickTime. Sorry)
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
"I am not sure what exactly a good defenition of information is, but I would exclude most movies (except for scientific films) from having status of informative."
Sneaking into a theatre and watching without paying is theft of a service. Downloading a film may be illegal but in no way whatsoever is it theft of a service. Services are things like haircuts, legal advice, and blow jobs.
If copyrighted works are not information, then what the heck is a copyright protecting? Copyrights don't generally protect services, if ever. Words, images, sounds, software and generally everything that is represented by bits.
In a perfect world, I'd grant anyone creating anything the ability to state precise terms of use. This is not a perfect world. Theatres require permits (greasing local politicians). TV and radio stations require airwaves (greasing the FCC). Movies require union cooperation (overpaying the politically well connected).
There probably is a way to accomadate both camps - restrictive and unrestrictive copyright usage. Unfortunately, the intricate power structure of governments and corporations makes having 2 competing methods for popular media close to impossible. DIVX version 1.0 died a quick and well-deserved death. DMCA is DIVX 2.0. Beware. Boycotting Circuit City is easy. Boycotting Uncle Sam will get you locked-up and ass raped.
If there is going to be one way, it damn well better be one that errs on the side of freedom and doesn't toss people in jail en masse. Corporations and media owners will stop at nothing to use government power to trample on your rights to ensure your business. Don't let them.
The "funny" poster who talked about boycotting everything was right. I say, bankrupt the mother fuckers until/unless they clean up their act. If copyright holders want ANY respect from me of their rights, they have a lot to learn and do to not infringe on mine.
Something that may be good to remember...
Copyright is *not* an inalienable, natural right. It is an artificial right, granted by a government FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY AS A WHOLE.
Protecting a good authors work helps society, as that author can go ahead and produce more work.
This applies to patent, as well as other IP laws. Remember, laws like this are for THE BETTERMENT OF SOCIETY, *NOT* FOR THE BETTERMENT OF A COMPANY'S BANK ACCOUNT.
Remember. They will tell us it is 'illegal' for us to copy their DVD's, or to decode them.. let's remember who granted them those protections in the first place. Don't let this get any more out of hand than it already is.
Just some thoughts on implied contracts. I was thinking about why software/music/blah blah is so confusing.. why isn't this legal ground already covered.. and here's why.
When Joe Smith walks into a store and buys a pack of twinkies, he grabs the twinkies off the shelf, pays the clerk, and eats his twinkies. There is an implied contract here, namely, the transfer of ownership of the twinkies to Joe, in exchange for money. We don't put it in writing, we don't attach 'terms of use' to the twinkies.. it's just assumed that, after the purchase, joe owns the pack of twinkies.
When Joe Smith walks into the same store and buys computer software, or a CD, or a DVD, he does the exact same thing. He takes it to the counter, gives them money, and walks away. The implied contract, again, is that Joe now *OWNS* the stuff he just bought.
Oh.. but wait.. there are OTHER things joe wasn't aware of. He wasn't aware that his software will force him to agree to a legally binding (debatable) agreement when he runs it.. so he may *own* the media, but he doesn't own the bits....
Oh. And running the bits on the DVD through some kind of algorithm and coming up with a decrypted movie to store on his HD? That's not legal, Joe.. even though it *IS* your DVD, and you *DO* own it..
The problem, folks, is that people don't understand the issues around what they are buying. They don't understand when they buy software that they aren't really buying it.. that they are just purchasing a license to use it... oh, but the store treats it as merchandise. They aren't a licensing agent of any sort... deceptive, no? The software industry DOES have their cake and eat it too.
Hey. Pirating movies is *ILLEGAL* already. So is pirating music. So. Tough. We can buffer these existing laws with other laws, just to make it seem scarier (sort of like, getting caught for armed robery, but also getting charged with assault with a deadly weapon (steak knife), posession of stolen goods (the twinkies you stole), illegal use of an automobile (getaway car), illegal posession of a steak knife, entering a business with intent to rob the store, and resisting arrest (running when the cops show up, oh, and posession of criminal equipment (the otherwise legal radio scanner you were using to listen to cop frequencies. It's totally legal, until you use it in conjunction with a crime)
Kiddie porn, piracy, soliciting minors for sex, all these things are already illegal.
A previous poster posted a really good note about how existing laws are fine, and about how AOL should spend their money to help enforce todays laws, rather than simply create newer ones.
When Joe Smith goes to the store to buy a DVD, he's buying a movie. He sees these laws as 'fair'. His percetion is that, as long as he can watch his movies freely, he doesn't care.
When I go to buy a DVD, as I am more informed, I know that I am buying a plastic disc with digitally encoded & encrypted media on it. I know the basiscs of the laser mechanism that reads the disc, and I know how the data is encrypted. In other words, the 'creative work' that *I* am purchasing is very different than what Joe Smith is purchasing. I am not 'circumventing' a mechanism. I am just disassembling a work that I already purchased the right to 'use'.
Same disc, but different things to different people.
No comment. ;-)
As a small bit of historical background, DMCA was enacted in 1998, but there have been legislative proposals to deal with technological circumvention measures since about 1995, IIRC. Many Law Professors were concerned about those proposals from the beginning, fought them, fought DMCA, before ever enacted.
Obviously, the fight was not successful, but the outgrowth of that early work still influences the legal debate today. See, for example, this paper by Professor Pamela Samuelson at Berkeley, published virtually right after DMCA became law, still frequently cited.
In the decision and determinminations of laws and facts, there was no mention of the DMCA. The issue argued was that they violated the stink (oops, shrink) wrap license agreement.
If you look at it, there is no argument from the defendants. It all refers to the "verified complaint" and counsel's affadavit.
Of couse, they repeat some of the same misrepresentations. That they decompiled the object code, onverted object code to source code. In the article, Schwartz claims that CyberPatrol was changed to make CPHack ineffective. But in the their papers, Mattel claimed that by not issuing the injunction, they would be subject to irreperable harm. If CyberPatrol was changed, how would it be subject to harm by an out of date, incompatble program?
Fight Spammers!
Actually corporations used to get killed all the time, up until the 1900's it was pretty common for abusive corporations to lose their charters, even before they became a fascist monopoly.
Anti-corporation sentiment was pretty common in the beginnings of the United States government, because of corporations like the Hudson Bay Company and their trade monopolies.
Now its all been downhill ever since that Supreme Court decision which gives corps the same rights as individuals, well individuals that never age, die, and are incredibly wealthy. Smart move.
Not to toot my own horn here, but I both do currently work for, and have in the immediate past worked for, companies that are potentially hugely affected by the DMCA.
I'm also responsible for our possible compliance thereunder. It Sucks. It makes my job a massive bitch, costs my company a boatload of cash and time to comply with, and generally makes my life miserable.
So, you bet I'm going to be there to let them know it's not just private citizen that are sick of the DMCA. It sucks hard for businesses, too - look at all the budding e-whatever, and I-whatever companies that are getting killed by the hired guns of the big media companies.
If you want a ride Thursday, give me a call. I work in Foster City, so I'll be heading down 101 sometime around 11:30.
650-520-5080
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
Historically, no entity could enter your home without one of two things: One, your permission; or Two, a warrant from a judge.
Obviously, the citizen is in control of issue #1. If you don't want someone on your property, they're gone.
Item 2, a warrant, means the citizen must submit to a search for the items clearly delimited on the warrant. To obtain a warrant, the investigators must show they have reasonable suspicion that a crime has, or is about to be, committed on the property to be searched.
Contrast this with "personal" computers. NetPD was able to scan thousands of computers, obtain information about the users, compile and distribute the information without a warrant or your permission to access your machine.
The situation is grim. In my opinion, all communication between two computers must become legally protected. That is, no sifting or compilation of data about me, without my consent or a warrant from a judge; no monitoring of my communication with other PC users without a warrant or my consent.
Obviously, an employer has a right to know what their machines are being used for. I admit employers and company PCs do not fall under this umbrella.
One reason the presumption of innocence exists is to allow people to communicate freely. When I have a guest over to my house, I know we can speak and act freely -- any monitoring, without my permission or a warrant, is illegal.
My computer has microphones and video equipment attached. All transmissions between my computer and the outside world need to become protected. No monitoring without a warrant, or my express permission.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
The US is *not* the centre of this planet, which is actually some 6000+ kilometres beneath your feet.
<FLAMEBAIT>
It is amazing how some people are saying that the internet is global and should therefore not be regulated, while otherwise they're still trapped in the good-old "We're-the-centre-of-the-universe" vision.
</FLAMEBAIT>
Perhaps it's time to add a 'US-centric stories' checkbox to the slashdot config page ;-)
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
[Zappa]
Is it my imagination, or has the stance taken by the media shifted slightly regarding DeCSS, and the DMCA. A short time ago, the DeCSS was described as a program that allows copying of DVD's. Here it is described as a "utility that is used to defeat the encryption on DVDs". Perhaps we could keep it up, and get it described as "a tool to allow people to watch DVD's without paying a cut to the MPAA"
The words "limit uses of copyright material" says it all about the mentality of the existing media groups. Basically they want to translate the Internet into a TV but with interaction (which maps to the ability to buy merchandise from them in their minds). Hello .... wakey wakeky guys. The ability for the user to *store* (or more correctly cache) and *transmit* data effectively decouples information in both a temporal and spatial dimension. Content distributors cannot assume that at 6pm, everyone will be settling down to evening news or that they can stagger the release of music titles to ensure word of mouth to control the build-up of hype. Hence their attempts to constrain the *use* of information through end-user licensing arrangements. By putting artificial restrictions (only home use, only link to original, etc) they hope to segment the market (much like aeroplane economy and business class) to sort out the people willing to *pay* for characteristics such as real-time (e.g. stock quotes), time sensitivity (last week's sports results are pretty valueless), or special services (e.g. customisation). However, the *big* assumption is that the consumer is passive and thus willing to have everything handed to them for the convenience (at a convenient markup). However, this IMHO is a serious misjudgement as what people (or at least the early adoptors) are seeking is the ability to combine/modify things to their liking. Star Trek would never have evolved the way it has if Paramount had forbidden the fans to write their own fiction or engage in unofficial conventions. The ability and freedom to mix your own tracks, design your own skin, or hack your own code modifications is viewed as a potential (lost) profit opportunity rather than a way of listening to what people really want. If a dispensing entity can restrict these rights, by fair means or foul, they then should be able to charge for the extra priviledges as per shareholder profit maximisation theory.
Unfortunately, the attempt to limit priviledges is not matched by a reduction in price. By attempting to license music rather than selling the rights to the contents they are effectively devaluing the resale and second-hand market. Some economists have noted that the secondary value of a good is often a more important determinant for marginal pricing, e.g. you can use a CD for the bits on it or as a drink coaster. Passing off a wasting asset as a durable good assumes that the consumers can't tell the difference or detect the reduction in value. Afterall, it's a standard trick when you can't raise the price, you reduce the portion size or dilute the intrinsic value.
One wonders what's worse, not having copyright and people borrowing your ideas, or having copyright protection and people *NOT* listening to you. So what can the Internet do? Well, you can take advantage of laws in other countries, compare and arbitrage prices across countries, or extend the reach of your opinions or new services. In other words, it forces individuals to think on a larger scale than previously.
LL
People in other countries should be concerned about the DMCA. The RIAA, MPAA and U.S. Government are probably going to attempt to shove it down your throat.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
...is the same as the problem with trademarks: dilution.
There's a lot of anti-DMCA, anti-UCITA, anti-MPAA and anti-RIAA sentiment, and a lot of people have called for boycotts. The problem is that no one's organizing anything; there are individuals boycotting all these things (well, the last two, anyway, and the sponsors of the first two), but not in large enough numbers for it to make a difference, and not in a coordinated, public way.
Am I part of the solution? No, I don't guess so. I'm boycotting the MPAA, but I know I'm in a pitifully small minority, and as a result, my actions are doomed to failure. But don't more people care about these issues? Is it just a lack of organization, or publicity, or what?
Are there coordinating organizations for any of these alleged boycotts? Would someone be willing to donate bandwidth and webspace to coordinate one? Until we get organized, we're just going to get trampled on.
phil
Anybody planning a protest around Cornell U.?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Normally I'm a law abiding citizen, but this law and what the industry is trying to do with it makes me so mad, that for the first time in my life I feel obliged to 'civil disobedience'. Today I feel guilty when I buy a DVD and/or CD (money is not the problem, I have enough of it) and only feel right if I make illegal copies.
I feel the same way, and I imagine many of the better informed people (here and elsewhere) do. Alas, I hate to say it, but I am skeptical that any good will come of such civil disobediance.
Why?
Because, to be effective, civil disobedience must reach a certain critical mass and become widespread enough to make a noticable impact. Alas, nearly all of my friends who privately agree with my stance on boycotting DVDs and the Entertainment Industry still cannot live a day without their bread and circuses, and routinely sell their rights to free expression down the river for another daily dose of "Friends" and the "X-Files."
The Media Moguls know this. They understand their history and know that the most important, and powerful, institutions of the latter centuries of the Roman Empire were Bread and Circuses, initially in the form of the Games(tm) and later in the form of the Catholic Church(tm). They assume, quite correctly I'm afraid, that consumers' craving to be entertained will outweigh their outrage of being stripped of their rights. So far, Disney, Time-Warner, and friends appear to be winning this wager.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you see legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
Actually, the 55 was never ruled uncostitional. Yes, it certainly was unconstititonal, like a majority of today's legislation, but the case was never heard.
Nevada passed a 75 law that had a provision allowing the governor to suspend it if the federal secretary of transportation threatened to pull highway funds. A single 75 sign was posted, and the governor waited for the phone call. ONce it was received, there was a dispute which could be heard in federal court. (Nevada had *no* speed limit other than the basic speed law on most highways before this).
The case was pending for oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court when the federal 65 law passed. A spineless state Attorney General withdrew the case at that point, and it was never heard.
A few years ago, th feds finally dropped the law entirely.
The reason it violates the constitution is that the constitution grants a set of powers to the feds. Recognizing that this law wasn't even close to those powers, the feds did not directly implement a 55 law, but required the states to do so under threat of loss of federal highway funds. If ordering states to pass legislation in this way is within the power of the feds, there is *absolutely* no limit on federal authority.
Note: there were a handful of trial judges around the country that correctly ruled that the law was unconstitutional, but that only applied in those individual courtooms--and they tended to be in jurisdictions with multiple judges. Also, Nevada and Montana "complied" by creating "wasting natural resources" infractions (the 55 was initially justified as an energy saving matter, and then extended as it got credit for the lives saved by improved safety features in cars [three point belt; reinforced doors]). This ticket was not a moving violation, could not be used by insurance companies in calculating rates, was equivalent to a parking ticket, and could be paid at the scene ($5, iirc) in Montana.
hawk, esq., displaced Nevadan
Do I remember wrongly, or isn't the DMCA meant to bring the United States into full compliance with some international copyright treaty or other that's already in effect in most other places? Or am I thinking of something else?
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
It's not going to end,it's just the beginning. More and more people are going to end up in jail for copyright infringment.
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
Yes, this is all well and good, and I used to think as you, but innocent people are dying here.
v es.html
http://www.theonion.com/onion3618/kid_rock_star
Become a FIST.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fists_of_Righteous_
What is important to me is that open content formats continue to be available freely and widely, so that alternative, free, open media and productions can prosper. With digital recording and PC-based audio and video production, a lot of really good content (concerts, theater, etc.) produced by non-profits and non-professionals is going to find its way onto the Internet, as long as the means for recording distributing that content remain open and affordable. Unfortunately, there are some restrictions already (MP3 players, for example, can't copy even free content); this is where we need to be vigilant.
Now, there is one exception where I think fair use provisions for media are really important even when it comes to the bogus content the big media companies are producing: news and other politically related media. It is really important to be able to call these organizations on the factual and logical errors they make. If they get to control who views their content, and when, and how, critics can be prevented from accessing it at all, or be kept from analyzing it carefully.
Of particular concern to us should also be what happens once the written word is customarily consumed using digital devices. The comments of the industry specifically talk about books; with DMCA, access to written materials by critical voices may become difficult, or, worse yet, different individuals may be shown different content altogether without even knowing it. That, too, is a good reason to be concerned about the DMCA and similar efforts even though, as far as the money making media are concerned, many of us couldn't care less what kinds of restrictions Disney puts on the latest Tarzan video.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
And incorporation isn't just for the protection of businesses; the square dance club of which my parents and I used to be members was considering incorporating itself just in case someone fell and injured himself while square dancing and decided to sue.
Don't get me wrong, when a corporation starts acting badly, it needs to be slapped down. But if we didn't have some form of liability-shielding, then people would be too scared to advance anything. While "corporatization" may be a problem in the modern world, I don't think that blind Katzian anti-corporatism is the solution.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org