Slashdot Mirror
Felten Will Present SDMI Research At USENIX
iamblades writes: "Edward Felten is scheduled to present his research papers on SDMI on Wednesday at the annual USENIX security conference. Apparently the RIAA backed off their harrassment, which makes sense, as SDMI is almost completely dead already." And a Semi-Anonymous Coward writes: "Despite the RIAA's attempts to silence the Princeton Professor and his students, USENIX will broadcast the SDMI Crack Live via the web. The broadcast will be available for the world here along with a discussion concerning your Freedom."
But seriously, who would put up $million for no profit? Even if they get that million back, they still won't make anything with it, like they could have been doing had they invested it in something else. People with $million to throw around tend not to make poor investments, which is how they gained that money.
--
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]
Fair use from whom? Let me ask you this - who produced the content? Who offered it for use under license/copyright? Now let's look at this from the IP producers' and market point of view.
When I buy a CD or a DVD, I feel I have the right to listen to it/watch it on any device I like. So, I repeat: I paid! Now I want to listen to my CDs on the MP3-player, and watch the DVDs on my PC.
You have the *freedom* NOT to pay for said CD or DVD if you do not agree to the terms of the copyright/license/usage restrictions. The IP holders did not _force_ this upon you.
That's not contrary to IP rights.
Yes it is. The IP holder can and should dictate the terms of usage of his/her IP.
If the potential user does not like the terms of usage, he/she has the freedom NOT to purchase/license said IP.
Yes, the industry is afraid of this.
The industry is understandably trying to protect their investments and profits - when your revenue stream is threatened, wouldn't you try to protect it?
Like I mentioned in the previous post, these IP holders also have a responsibiity to investors and shareholders to maintain and improve performance.
IP protection via encryption, usage restrictions, etc. are all viable and acceptable means of maintaining revenue.
Again, if you don't like this, don't patronize the IP holders. They're not restricting your freedom to choose.
If consumers don't like this, the market will react. This is how the free market works.
www.lp.org
www.cato.org
www.moraldefense.com
Skylarov's product was advertized as a product to backup ebooks for personal use. In fact, it appears not just to be a front, as the company took steps, such as setting a high price to discourage people who just want to pirate, knowing that it would reduce sales. While the DMCA says its illegal to circumvent a copy protection method, it also says the consumer has a right to make backups (a contradiction in terms if the company who provides the envryption method leaves no method for backups). So, its not really that simple
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
While I am happy that Felton managed to get his paper published despite being threatened with the legal equivalent of a *huge* can of whoop-ass (it's actually supposed to be "arse" but that's America for you), I am concerned about the implications that this will have for future research. If people have to hire a lawyer in order for their research to be safely published, then it's likely to seriously restrict the amount and quality of future research. The RIAA may have in fact won after all, if this whole fiasco makes people think twice about publishing material (such as the cracking of SDMI or Adobe's eBook copy protection system) that may go against corporate interests. At any rate, the war for user's rights continues.
----------
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend.
There is no such thing as "Intellectual Property". There are (1) trade secrets, (2) patents, and (3) copyrights. Each is handled completely differently. So we can respond to your vague generalizations, tell us which were you refering to.
I suspect that the RIAA was set-up on this. Since Felton not only is a boy-scout, but looks like one too, and Princeton can't be called a pirates cove, they can't use the pirate/hacker label to villify Felton. The MPAA had done this with the 2600 case.
Fight Spammers!
I have seen several people saying this, but how do you know that he sold software while in the US?
1.We used to have these rights as consumers. Fair use, and all that. We used to be able to copy records to casettes. These rights are being taken away one by one.
Historic point, made more irrelevant by the change in media (digital media, CDs, DVDs). Fair use as in your example of copying records to cassettes is applicable because the copy will never equal the original in quality. Ditto for VHS/Beta consumer media.
2."You have the option not to buy this" - You'd have to be a hermit to live without music or movies. In essence, this is a monopoly, certainly a cartel - and being well trained in economics as you appear to be, you will know that different rules apply there.
And there is *nothing* inherently wrong with a monopoly... The recording and motion picture industry have immense profitability because they were savvy in business, despite some of the means (copyright laws, etc.) that they accomplished this.
It is *wrong* to punish an industry for doing something well.
Certainly different rules apply to ebooks, motion pictures, recorded music - these are generally intended for *entertainment* purposes. They're hardly necessities...
3."IP" - the proceeds evidently majorly do not go to the actual artists, who should own the IP.
Says who? In the record industry, lots of money is spent on promotion and distribution, a lot more than you may surmise...
In addition, it is the artists' responsibility to ensure adequate and fair compensation for their intellectual property. Remember, actors and musicians have unions/trade groups/guilds available to them. If these groups are weak or unwilling to support them, perhaps they should find a different profession?
Nobody is forcing them to choose their employment.
Remember, it is freedom and property rights that advances humanity and promotes yet more freedom. The free market can and does promote excellence and culls inferiority.
That you apply different standards of "freedom" is misleading and hypocritical. Those states that did so were socialist states, and hardly free.
www.lp.org
www.cato.org
www.moraldefense.com
True, but they're on far thinner ice than natives, and have less resources to fight with. There are more than a few people within the system who'll quietly fail to keep up equal protection for non-citizens, especially when they feel that the non-citizen "doesn't deserve" the equal protection rights for whatever reason.
see, they need votes, that's you, to get elected to positions of power.
they get those votes, again that's you, by running radio/tv spots, printing flyers, ordering yard signs etc, so that you know what a great american they are and how they are fer/agin' whatever you are fer or agin'.
they get the money for all this paraphernalia from campaign contributions, such as the $20K checks sent by $$$$$Corp.
once they have been elected, they are well-disposed to act favorably towards $$$$$Corp., being very careful to throw the occasional social bones of GettingToughOnCrime or some other fluff bill that won't, you can be sure, conflict with the interests of $$$$$Corp.
when this cycle is firmly established, the votes, again that's you, become abstract demographic cattle to be manipulated by propaganda generated with more of $$$$$Corp's money; the elected officials then began to operate more like employees of $$$$$Corp. than public servants.
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
Who'd pay $20 million to ride on a Russian rocket? There's certainly no profit in that.
Yes, the actual criminal charge against Dmitri is for selling the software.
However, if the crime was "selling" this software why didn't they arrest the sales and marketing guys of Elcomsoft or people from the US company that collects their registration fees (regnow.com)? They arrested the author of the program, who merely had an incidental role in selling the software. There were many people in the US that day who were involved in "selling" or "traffiking" the software, but they chose to only arrest the programmer.
That's too bad. It was better when the RIAA didn't know how to pick its battles -- they would've lost serious points if this had gone to court.
Is Felten planning a suit for harassment?
First, the RIAA used "us" (I am using that term loosely, as I am not a programmer) to crack SDMI, and will use the work done by "us" to come up with a more secure encryption scheme.
Second, they *were* successful in delaying the release of the SDMI crack long enough where it is no longer relevant.
The only "good thing"(tm) that really happened was we were able to embarrass the RIAA a bit. Mind you, they are embarrassing themselves on a constant basis, and laughing all the way to the bank.
This is not a victory. Far from it.....
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
Ok, I was thinking about this the other nite a bit.
Why hasn't someone started a Non-profit record label. Could that work ? Or what about a "minimum profit" record label ?
I mean, if the end users, and the artists, and everyone is getting screwed over.. there seems like there's not only an ethical reason to do so, but a good solid _market_ to get into... if you reverse the business and set it up such that the artist owns all the rights to everything, and the record company is just that - someone that makes records (and does other things like putting up money for recording studio time perhaps) then it seems like everyone involved could come out ahead.
Honestly, if a CD can be mass produced for $1, and its costing $16, and the artists aren't getting any, there has to be room for someone to cut away a _lot_ of fat in that operation.. enough to give the artists enough to make them consider switching.
Yeah, record companies take a risk when they sign someone and they spend 1m in studio time and the album flops.. but its hard to get signed to record labels now... its not like they price things as an insurance measure as opposed to a profit motive..
Someone that knows a lot more about this stuff than me should think it through. Maybe initially its only feasiable to do small-volume recordings... i.e. CDR's as opposed to pressed cds ? or maybe simultanous low bit-rate mp3/ogg distribution with all releases. Maybe just a "musical venture capital" front end for mp3.com or something.
In any case, i dont konw the economics of the music business, just what i've read. It seems like there's an incredible opportuniy for someone who loves music and has plenty of money to back it, to try and make a reasonable record label that deals with artists in a reasonable fashion. I know musicians can be crummy people, especailly with agents, lawyers, and money issues, but there doesn't seem to be the need for awful contracts and outright company ownership of artists works.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
I consider it freedom. I think what you meant -- and what I would agree with you on -- is that it is restrictive, however what about the record company's freedom? To deny them the right to licence their product as they wish, you are serverely infringing upon their freedom, as opposed to an annoyance over what you seem to consider an inalienable right. If you aren't happy with the licencing, don't buy it! If enough people boycott to make the lost profit an issue, things will change. If it's a small, insignificant group of whiny zealots, it's not profitable. Remember, business is for profit -- not for the "public good". Maybe you'd be happier in a Socialist country? -- Platypii (not signed in)
(I still don't agree with Dmitry's imprisonment, but you can help "The Cause" by trying to hide from the facts, and you can do a great deal of damage from it.)
Its not actually "owing allegence". This is a common public misconception.
People in congress work *hard*. They have virtually no free time, incredible amounts of stress, incredibly boring/tiring work on many things, and emotionally straining issues on others. They usually end up with severe health problems. Every action they do is watched and criticized. They have to give up a tremendous amount usually just to make it into office (my uncle had to sell his retirement home, to go live in a tiny apartment in DC). Then, he had to leave after one term because of stress-induced health problems.
With that said, the only reason a person would *ever* get involved in national politics is because they want to make a difference. The people in congress actually do believe in what they're doing. They feel the nation really needs them to fight for it, they want to make a difference.
The problem is, while things like the ability to raise money and get votes and having a strong motivation are requirements for getting in office, intelligence and common sense aren't. You'll find a very wide range of intellects there. Far too many aren't that bright. Then, who do they spend time with? Lobbyists. Who are lobbyists? Professional manipulators.
I think you can take it from there, what happens.
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
This guy is such an interesting person. Did other people also notice he was a key element in the DOJ vs Microsoft case? You know, this guy may be, in his own inconspicuous style, one of the best things happening to us as of late. Let's not lose trace of him.
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.