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."
Name one? What, is this some kind of joke? Have you even looked at the headline that you are posting under? Professor Felton was specifically threatened with "enforcement actions under the DMCA and possibly other federal laws." if he presented his paper which discussed how SDMI watermarking techniques worked. That's what this whole article is about! Jeez. Go back under your bridge, troll.
However, if somebody could organize a system with a couple of $million behind it, things might be different. There would be leverage to negotiate the best rates with CD pressers, shippers, distributors, etc.
This kind of large scale nonprofit enterprise has been done in the past. IIRC, until they recently sold out, most Blue Cross/Blue Shield HMOs were run as nonprofit organizations. Even for-profit businesses can be arranged around an interest other than shareholders; my auto insurance is through a mutual insurance company that is supposedly owned by the policy holders.
I think that it is mainly a question of getting the thing off of the ground. The music industry should be full of the dedicated types of people who could make this work. It's strange that nobody has stepped up to the plate (not even a any rich over-the-hill superstars).
BTW, that UPC fee business is pretty outrageous. I'm suprised that there hasn't been an uproar on /. along the lines of the DNS root debates. I guess the issue is just way off of the radar screen of any geek. I wonder if there are any UPC squatters, like for the code 66666 66666.
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]
Ummm, where to start. Perhaps you should read the provisions of the DMCA. It does not address whether or not people are allowed to copy your works. At all. That's not what it does. That issue is addressed by copyright law. The DMCA does not change who is allowed to legally copy your works. So, as far as this debate is concerned, your whole second paragraph is irrelevant.
You've completely ignored the 1st amendment aspects of the law. Discussion of any technique which controls access to copyrighted material is banned. In your third paragraph you imply that freedom of speech is a perceived freedom of hackers and crackers. Fortunately, your disbelief in the Bill of Rights will not be a factor in court. Neither will your belief that Princeton Univerisity professors are crackers/hackers.
As to your belief in a median compromise, I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is that copyright law is based upon a balance between the rights of the copyright holders, and the rights of the people. The DMCA destroys this balance by allowing the copyright holders to enforce whatever restrictions the technology allows with no concern for the rights of the public. Copyright law, despite the name, doesn't even really address copying. It really only addresses distribution. I'm allowed to copy my books, my software, my music, whatever, as long as I don't distribute the copies. Most importantly, I can use the material I've purchased however I want. The DMCA allows restrictions not on distribution, but on the use, storage, and copying of media. Restrictions that copyright holders have never really had the right to. Moreover, it allows these restrictions to be imposed with no judicial or legislative oversight. It's as though the whole body of copyright law has been trumped by whatever technical measures the RIAA can manage to dream up. And if the technical measures don't really work, well that's OK because you can still have people locked up for discussing the fact that they don't work! If you think this is a balance, I'm curious if you realize that it's not a balanced one. One of the pans is pinned to the base by an 800lb gorilla named DMCA.
- 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.
- "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.
- "IP" - the proceeds evidently majorly do not go to the actual artists, who should own the IP.
Michael---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
Hopefully you will agree, though, that stopping people from playing the DVDs they bought on the computers they own (and the same for music) is not "freedom". Michael
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
www.pharmacycare.co.nz is where I order :)
They're generally very prompt, have a good selection, and will reship your package free of charge if, for some reason, some customs officer decides to be mean (under the Fair Use Import Policy, its the officer's discresion on whether or not to sieze.). Their prices are also better than US prices, if you don't have prescription coverage.
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
The lawsuit proceeds. Somewhat by coincidence, our latest set of court papers were finished today, look for them on EFF's site later today or tomorrow.
-J, one of the Felten team lawyers
Actually it's very difficult for a person to calculate the amount of taxation they pay. It's easiest for me to explain this by example.
First of all you have your income tax; a certain amount chopped off your check. Easy. Then you have the "social security" portion of your income tax, which is also fairly easy but you have to double the amount you are shown since the other half is designed as a hidden cost of income ("your employer pays half", they say. Hogwash.) Once you have money you still have to pay sales tax on anything you purchase, so that's another chunk right there (goes to the "state", of course, but who cares which portion of a unified government the money is distributed to?)
There's more. When you buy something from a corporation, you as a consumer are going to be paying the cost of the company's income tax for that item (who did you think paid that?) It's also the consumers who pay, for example, the taxes on commercial trucks; it's just added on to the cost of whatever you buy. No tax modifies the optimum profit margin for those in a given industry, so all corporate taxes are paid by consumers.
"Tax the wealthy! Tax the corporations!" These are myths. Wealth distribution is not a product of taxation. The government taxes the economy as a whole, no matter what it tries to do. Governments do not create wealth, any more than corporations do.
Morning! It's sure been a while. I'm not refuting the core of your post, which was a correction of an error its parent made. I do debate the value of the various separate aspects of the "Social Security" brand name, but that's another story.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Not only that, but the Association for Computing Machinery is getting behind Dr. Felten as well. Methinks that the RIAA has blundered badly this time...
-- Shamus
O Brave New World, with such People in it!
grr, I wish I hadn't posted, I'd have loved to moderate this up ;)
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
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.
Heh, I can't tell you about how to buy beer online, but I can tell you how to get prescription drugs online w/o a script, mostly legally ;) (Fair Use Import Policy is nice :) )
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
I run a small, pretty much non-profit record label (See my URL above). Let me tell you, it's about the hardest thing to do in the world.
First, let's start with the basics. Say I want to do a short run of CD's -- in the neighborhood of 500-1000 (Very modest). Any band that is half decent should unload that amount no sweat. That will cost about $1000 - $1700 (Could be cheaper without things like, oh say, cover artwork and tray/shrinkwrap). So fine, let's say you have that kind of cash just laying around and are feeling charitable. You get your 1000 cd's via UPS (Cost you about 300 bucks in shipping -- that many cd's are heavy) and have it at your apartment/home/whatever. How are you getting this to people? Shipping, of course. -- Costing you about $1.25 per CD for 5-7 day snail mail, or $3.00+ for UPS/Fedex. Larger quantities cost less, but very few people order more than 1 CD at a time. So, it cost you about $2 - $3 dollars right there, just basics. This "CD's cost about $0.20 to make" you here is refering to Major Label deals, where they go and press 100,000,000 Madona CD's and get the sweetest deal you can imagine from the plant. Little labels, however, pay WAY more per CD. (Isn't that funny?)
Ok, We didn't even talk about Hosting fee's (For your website -- you do have a website right?) about 10 - 15 bucks a month (Conservative). Tack on Domain Registration ($50 for 2 years??). On top of that, advertising -- People wont buy ANYTHING if they don't know about it -- So you place a couple ads in a few indie zines -- around $500 a month in advertising (This is small fry shit). The cost continues to rise.
Guess what? Only about 5-10 people buy a CD a month! So you figure, you could really rake it in if you had distribution (Ya know, putting your CD's in stores and all that good stuff). You go shopping for Distributor's. First thing you find, is that NOBODY will touch you unless you have a UPC. So you go looking into getting a UPC code for your CD. Anybody wanna take a guess at how much a freakin' UPC number costs? Anyone? Depending on volume and format, it can run you anywhere from $1200 - $100,000!!!!! This is no lie. For one CD, UPC codes cost you as much, if not more than the actual Pressing costs!
So you get a UPC (Because your a sucker), and then go to talk to the distro houses again. Guess what? They STILL won't touch you until you have a catalog of at least 40 LP's!!! So how excatly do you get the capital together to release 40 records, so you can get distribution, and sell more than 5-10 Stinking CD's per month, and EVER hope to cover your costs and not loose $2000 (Low estimate) on each cd you put out?
I think you know the answer. You either charge what the majors charge (What I do -- about $8 - $13 Per CD), or you give up, go home, and stop trying to put out cd's for people (What I consider doing every day).
It's very very very hard to be an independent. Honestly, I don't know how some of the smaller labels with some degree of integrety left (Dischord, Drag City, K, Kill Rock Stars, etc) manage to do it. All you can hope is that you accidently sign the next Sleater-Kinney, Smog, etc.. It's very discouraging.
That, is why nobody has done this idea -- and succeeded.
g00z
"The Wright brothers were the first to fly with a heavier-than-air machine, but boy did they have a lousy plane"
The original music lawsuits were over bootlegged sheet music. Oftentimes it got as bad as people with good ears and quick hands scribbling down music as they heard it performed. :) The music industry was *visceous* over that. Instead of the figurative broken legs, there were actual, physical broken legs over that.
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
hmm... I kant spel tooday :P
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
Yes; the EFF is doing so on his behalf.
You're correct. My opinion on whether or not the law is enforced equitably doesn't preclude the existance of the law. Someone mod my stupidity down please.
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.
Shall we set a web site up now to start collecting bail for him? Once you settle the juristiction stupidity, Sklyarov doesn't do a whole lot more than this guy...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Will there be a rebate to those mp3 player customers who bought one featuring SDMI support, sorta like the rebate when DiVX went under?
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!
"Or what about a "minimum profit" record label ?"
I'll make this as short as possible, it's a worthy, but complex question. (Lameness Filter here i come.)
I have done a bit of work in/around the major labels (IT consulting/web design, incl over 50 signed artists websites) and plenty of independent labels have been started very sincerely with the "artist" mind, and in the last few years a number of them have been started as "digital-distribution centric", prob the best known of these is "Atomic Pop"....
here's the problems, Spinster Aunt Maude dies, she leaves $10M, you decide to take half of that money and start an independent label, you have good ears, you know how to club, how to rap the artist, and you figure out how to get studio time and replication...
...that leaves you with 2 Big Problems; Promotion and Distribution....
let's say that you find a hot band, get them a good first EP/LP, solid producer, nice mix, good master...
how do you PROMOTE the band?
radio airplay???...yeah, sure...the Program Directors of radio stations derive their airplay list from who they are paid to play (***legally***, through marketing flacks "registered" as "influencers"), these influencers pay "consultant" fees to the PD's....
BUT, let's say that you spend $25K (1 station, 1 mid-sized city) of your own money on promoing the band, a station's PD puts the band on their "Fresh Cuts" program, assuming that the PD DOESN'T set you up and put your artist against the brand new B182 song (therefore never to be heard again) and assuming that you can "arrange" a grass roots "call-in" campaign...BTW, what did you think the band's "Fan Club" is for????
...and now this radio station is getting a lot of demand for your artist, the station's competitors are programming your artist in morning and/or afternoon "drive time"..you've now won the "Promotion" game...now how do you sell your CD's?????
the station WON'T be giving out your website's URL, and most fans wouldn't think about going there anyway, so you have to put your CD in Blockbuster/Virgin/Camelot/KMart/etc (call em BVC)..how does it get there??????
...IT DOESN'T, let's say that somehow your artist makes into the "Top Ten" airplay list in a mid-sized market (Cleveland, St Louis, Twin Cities, yada-yada)
BVC won't even talk to unless you can sell (nationwide) a half-million, and if you do, one of the major labels will come along, offer your artist 5X-10X more than you can afford to pay...the artist WILL jump ship, you probably won't even make a breakeven...
if you can do this with 3-5 artists, the labels will come along and buy your catalog for more money than you ever dreamed of (rem? Interscope/DeathRow Records)...and if you don't take their offer, you will find that every marketable artist will be taken from you and if somehow that doesn't work, you won't ever get decent distribution deals for your remaining artists through the major retailers...
This ***EXACTLY*** how Coca-Cola marketed up until, say 2012, it worked well for Coke and it works for the major labels
THAT'S WHY the RIAA is SO FREAKED about digital distribution..it can bust the labels promotion/distribution lockout wide open, the retailers and radio stations are the "lock", MP3 is is the "key"..the labels are SCARED and fighting back
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
In other words he seems to have decided to take a chance and be able to be sued by the RIAA if the court says "No" for some reason...
If its a business, the big playersll just buy it out like they do everyone else. Otherwise, can a non-profit organization (offical NPO status granted by the government) be formed to sell something?
Liberty in your lifetime
I for one, by example, believe I should have the "freedom" to not allow others to copy my creative works, including my writing. That's a personal preference that falls in line with other arguments that have been made over the past 200 years (You have the "freedom" to beat someone up on the street, but they have the "freedom" to not be beaten up. Who has the more personable and greater rights in this instance?)
The problem, quite simply, is that the DCMA does *not* tread on the freedoms of the populace as a whole, but the *perceived freedoms* of a scant percentage of the population. This is the same hacker/cracker group that will fight so diligently to keep their information away from prying eyes, but will then turn around and argue that all information "should be free". Security and personal freedom *don't* coexist, my friend, so a reasonable median compromise must be found. And I for one do not believe the DCMA treads on my freedom.
I agree with the majority of your post. However, I must contest a single assertion of yours.
... These are myths. Wealth distribution is not a product of taxation"
"Tax the wealthy!
There is a tremendous amount of evidence to refute this. First off, there is a basic logical flaw in here, in that, if you tax all of a wealthy person's money, but don't do anything to increase their income; and, likewise, give all of that money to a poor person without doing anything to decrease their income - there is no way that this could accomplish anything other than reducing wealth distribution. Now, we can debate the pros and cons of this, and implementations, intents, allocations, et al, but the basic premise is incorrect. This is further evidenced by looking at countries all throughout history with various tax rates. Flat tax rates and complete deregulation, like have been historically common, have nearly universally led to a small elite class and a massively huge, poor working class, set up on an antiexponential distribution, with little to no economic mobility. Complete socialism and regulation (everything taxed and redistributed evently) has lead to no wealthy class. Both extremes are fallacies, btw, the former leading to atrocious living conditions for the poor and little chance for economic mobility, and the latter leading to economic failure. The middle ground is what one has to take. A small, minimum standard, to guarantee the ability to A) live, be healthy, and B) get an education. These two things are essential to allowing economic mobility; but, having too much of them is neither fair to the successful, or, on the much more important scale, economically and socially justifiable.
BTW, I'll agree with you that social security flawed. The intent of social security is to provide a minimum standard of living for the elderly - and, yet, the benefits vary depending on how much you put in. The value-added part of social security income should be dropped, letting the people who have the money to afford to save up for retirement to do so on their own, while still guaranteeing noone will sleep on the streets - you may have a minimal life (if you're poor, about the same as you had all along), but you will never just be discarded like human garbage when you can't support yourself any more.
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
You're right - many US radio stations do operate a pay for play system. This is supposed to be illegal, but there are loopholes.
Not really. Socialism is supposed to be about providing for people, not for corporations.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
50%? What sort of bracket are you in? BTW, that doesn't compare to a lot of western europe. Or the top US bracket dureing our economy's biggest boom period (1946-1968, 80%, if I remember right). The wealth distribution, overall economic status (local and worldwide), charitable contribution, et al, were the best the US has ever seen, and amongst the best the world has ever seen.
"Feed the lumpens". Yeah, right, mhmm. Try again. AFDC, JOBS, and Food Stamps (the non-corporate-welfare welfare programs) are a 55 billion dollar block grant, ir I recall correctly. 55 billion dollars is almost nothing to the federal government, a fraction of a percent.
"Sponsor government police acting in corporate interests". No, the judicial system is a "pay-for-itself" system.
The government spends the largest portion of money on social securty, defense, medicare/medicaid, and other large programs. You can debate the value of those programs, but your straw-man defenses just don't cut it.
-= rei =-
*Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
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.
This could very well be the biggest slashdotting in all recorded human history.
Is hasn't happened yet because the RIAA owns the distribution and advertising channels. You can build a better mousetrap, but if you can't tell anyone about it, and you can't get it to the stores, no one will ever buy it.
That is, if you have a book, CD, movie, etc that you want published, you can go to a so-called publishing house, pay the necessary fee plus a small profit to them to make X copies of your work in whatever form. You retain all copyrights, they retain nothing beyond that fee.
You could then sell these on the net on your own, or you could ask this publishing house to distribute them for you (for an added fee).
I look at how Plan 9 works (the ones that are currently helping many online comics sell their anthologies in archive form), and think that a similar model would work in many other areas.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
No, I would not be happier in a Socialist country - I've lived in some, like Iraq and Libya, and seen others, like China and (then) Eastern Europe. In socialist countries you do not get the right to go to court and establish "fair use". And that is exactly what Americans (no socialists they!) did in the 1960s, when technology first appeared that enabled people to tape records (and a bit later, TV shows). Nothing socialist in people trying to establish those rights.
These are not "inalienable rights". They are, however, rights established in the courts. And when rights suddenly disappear, yes, people get upset.
You see, your point about companies' rights is a good one, except for one point: in a cartel or monopoly situation, you have fewer rights, as the danger of abuse is greater. This was recognised (in the US courts, again!) at the turn of the century. And ask Microsoft if it still holds.
Fortunately, I do not think 'whiny zealots' describes the world's millions of MP3 users, so I guess we'll see change from the record companies, eventually.
Michael
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
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
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.
So that's why the RIAA backed off. Putting on my paranoid geek hat, I'm beginning to wonder: if SDMI had been a success, would they still have gone after him? I think they just might have tried...after all, free speech or no, I can see them arguing that his research threatened the livelihood of thousands of people working for the record companies...or maybe I've just been up too long.
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 ask you a question in return: When did I say he was selling software in the US?
"Why hasn't someone started a Non-profit record label. Could that work ? Or what about a "minimum profit" record label ? " Check out Dischord Records and more specifically Fugazi (Ian owns Dischord). All tapes and records $6 all CD's $9, postage paid. In many cities Fugazi can fill 5-10K shows and only charge $7 even with your ticket master surcharge (Fugazi is the main revenue stream for Dischord and they reinvest the money to the label so others can have their music heard).
Burn Hollywood Burn
Many have. There are loads of indie labels all over the country. The question is, why do most people listen to radio bands?
Of my 300ish CDs, maybe 20 or so are from major labels. It's easy to build a collection of music you like without walking into a national chain and buying from their $16 greatest hits section. It's cheaper, and it feels better too. (Better yet, buy from bands at their shows; they get almost all the money and it is cheaper for you!)
Hell, go on mp3.com and search for a while and you'll find something you like for free. *That* may be the future of music.
Another thing you could do if you feel like you should combat major labels is make music and release it to others on the internet for free. This is a lot easier than selling CDs and usually doesn't cost you anything. And that worries the record companies more than indie labels, since the majors are already comfortable with dealing with labels.
Name one. Keep in mind, there is a difference between "discussing the fact" and physically releasing a tool to aid and abet, like the Adobe hacker did.
(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.)
Ah, yes. Being able to copy music is paramount to my freedom. To say nothing of the thousands of people living under dictatorships, repressive conditions, and near-slavery. But having the rich upper-middle class, like myself, be able to copy music -- that's something that deserves to be in the constitution.
"Equal protection" also doesn't necessarly apply to non-citizens, which leaves Dimitri out in the cold.
As I understand it, it does apply to non-citizens, as long as they're in this country legally.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
From what our Russian friend did? Or is equal protection under the law also now a selective option...either Felton should be arrested or Skylarov should be freed. Actually this might help Skylarov in some respects as an end game, in case of a worst case scenario, by providing another option for appeal. Selective prosecution is a basis for appeal.
Here goes. 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. That's not contrary to IP rights. Yes, the industry is afraid of this.
I think that's certainly the main issue for me and many others here. We're not making a point. We simply want fair use of the IP we paid for.
Michael
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
So, how does this affect the lawsuit? Can Felton still sue to prevent the RIAA from deciding to go after him down the road, or does it simply become a matter of principle?
Buy Hex-Rated Stuff, fight the DMCA!
Cool! Okay, you can have the wealth distribution one, as long as you don't suggest that there should be a minimum wage or minimum welfare that is automatically adjusted to keep pace with inflation. (Hellllo, vicious cycle!) Also, it's fun to experiment with keeping money out of the equation entirely (theoretically it should cancel, and nobody eats money). "Money is the Schroedinger's Cat of economics."
As for Social Security, the reason I don't like it is because it's one of the only government programs that manages to remove value from virtually every American. It removes a very significant amount of (time*capital) from basically everyone... and any bank will tell you that (time*capital) = money. It also equals wealth (by reducing to (time*possession of a producing machine)). Social Security takes that away for no good reason. I just wish everybody knew that it wasn't a fund.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
You know... I almost wish that were true. That way they'd stop having to try to kiss my ass every November. It would really cut down on the political advertising I have to put up with, maintaining the usual level of idiocy in TV commercials.
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.