Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

John Naughton on the RIAA and SDMI

Posted by michael on from the in-fine-form dept.

Tzoq writes: "John Naughton has a fine article concerning the SDMI debacle in this Sunday's "The Observer", called "The American crocodile that swallowed freedom"." This is not news to any regular slashdot reader, but it's a good, articulate rant, fun to read.

6 of 9 comments (clear)

  1. "This is not news to any regular slashdot reader" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Indeed, it looks as though John Naughton did a search on Slashdot and concatenated all the slashdot summaries.

  2. Forbidden by GoofyBoy · · Score: 2


    Pretty soon trading copywrited material is going to be like pr0n.

    Its forbidden/rebellious, a challange/puzzle to get, and gratifying once you get it.

    --
    The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
  3. Re:"This is not news to any regular slashdot reade by BlackHat · · Score: 3

    I think you may be right as it includes the RIAA vs 2600 error often seen here on /.

    ...RIAA is suing a US magazine for publishing the code of a small computer program called DeCSS...

  4. I'm E-mailing this article's address... by SaxMaster · · Score: 3

    to my friends and parents and THEIR friends as well. It's a good concise and easily understandable write up of the current copyright (wrong?) situation, and things like this (DMCA, etc...) are EXACTLY why I'm going into IP law.

    --
    "Dancing is the vertical expression of a horizontal desire" --Robert Frost
  5. RIAA MPAA confused by bludstone · · Score: 3

    The RIAA is suing over DeCSS?

    This guy got his **AAs mixed up

    --

    no .sig
  6. Re:RIAA's first move by GungaDan · · Score: 3

    If I understand correctly, he's referring to Sonny Bono's last enduring monument (unless you count that bit of spleen he left on the tree, which has begun to rot by now), the copyright extension act. This extends (as the name suggests) copyright protections from some absurd number of years following the creation of the work, to some absurd number of years following the death of the work's creator. Not sure what the logic was, or why anyone in congress besides bonzo would've thought this was a good idea. Could be that the RIAA got Ricky Martin to give a live performance or something. But I ask you - why do I need to be guaranteed monopoly distribution power over use of my creative works AFTER I'M DEAD??? Would be really interesting to see how the profits generated for descendents of rich bastards by this bone-headed act measure up to the estate taxes that will no longer be collected...

    --
    Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!