Slashdot Mirror
Content Faction v. Tech Faction
An Anonymous reader writes: "This essay describes the current battle between two former allies in the DMCA fight - The Content Faction (Universal, MPAA, etc.) v The Tech Faction (IBM, Microsoft, etc.). It gives a great overview of what the battle is, who is taking what position, what's at stake - and how consumers are going to be taking it in the *** no matter who wins, it's just a matter of how rough it will be. "
"Hey recording industry! Seeing as we have captured one of the largest audiences currently trading illegal copies of your music, we somehow believe to have transformed ourselves into a valuable commodity. I mean, of course these guys all came to our service in order to get music for free, but I'm certain that if you pay us some money, instead of shutting us down, that the people will GLADLY pay money for the music they once got for free...."
Next month I'm going to start a business to corner the market on killing people. I'm not sure how commercialize my business model, but I'm sure I can convince someone to pay me to stop.
Huh? The content feaction would be the artists who actually create the stuff. These companies are just the Distribution Faction.
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice
"If you think about it, the content industry does not want people to have computers; they're too powerful, too flexible, and too extensible. They want people to have Internet Entertainment Platforms: televisions, VCRs, game consoles, etc."
I don't really know who to cheer for. The content guys are obviously stupid, but MS's tactics and IBMs tendency to forget what one hand is doing means Linux guys get stuck right in the middle. We can access content through 'uncoventional means', without the advertising channels and other marketing gizmos.
You have IBM supporting linux on one hand, and its hard drive people pulling that digital management stuff for IDE drives.
We need to tread lightly before we jump to conclusions...
Everyone bitches about how the record companies are slow to adapt new tech and use it for their own ends...where are the musicians using this stuff? Surely if they are so unhappy about distribution methods, they should get off their butts and do something about it?
So let's see they ram this HDTV stuff down our collective throats and now they are complaining about it?
I don't think it's ever going to be possible to prevent copying anyways- that's not even legal under fair use! (as I understand it)
Just because a technology enables you to break the law should not make the technology itself illegal. That is what we're headed for though.
Maybe someday we'll see a constitutional amendment that gives people the right to own technology. Just like we have the right to bear arms, which may have been equally important to people back in the 1700s.
Just as guns can be used to commit crime, so can technology, but that is more the fault of the perpetrators than the technology itself.
I Heart Sorting Networks
"Because computers are potentially very efficient and capable copying machines, and because the Internet is potentially a very efficient and capable distribution mechanism, even in the hands of ordinary individuals, the Content Faction has set out to restructure the entire digital world we have today. They want to rearchitect not just the Internet, but every computer and digital tool on or off the Net that might be used to make unauthorized copies."
Slashdot article on W3C TAG
" In an effort to build shared understanding of Web Architecture principles, W3C has chartered and assembled a Technical Architecture Group - the TAG for short. The TAG will document cross-technology Web architecture principles, and resolve architectural issues. "
You have IBM supporting linux on one hand, and its hard drive people pulling that digital management stuff for IDE drives.
Thought for the day:
The horror! The horror!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
In all honesty I just skimmed the article because I didn't find it all that interesting. I don't really see so much of a bad point of IBM and company winning this fight, compared to the nightmare described if the Content faction wins - basically making it all but illegal to have a general purpose computer.
civil offense for anyone who developed (for example) a new computer that did not include a federally approved security standard preventing the unlicensed copying of copyrighted works
Now THIS really scares me. That is just a skip away from "having any copyrighted material on your computer will result in prison time". Movies first, then Music (or perhaps at the same time). Then we move on to images. Have a wallpaper of some copyrighted picture? Yeah, that's illegal. At some point we have to draw the line. I don't agree with copying movies, but that could be because I hate watching movies on a computer anyway. I'd much rather sit on my cushy couch and watch a movie myself. Go rent a high quality DVD, or search the internet, find a link that works, and wait for hours downloading it - hmm... I'll just spend a few bucks. And if I liked it I'd probably buy it anyway. I really wonder if movie downloading is as wide spread as the movie industry claims.
As has been said so many times before, all of these stupid ownership and copyright battles can be over and done in a matter of a few months, if consumers would just WISE UP to what it is they're buying, and refuse to purchase anything with unreasonable strings attached. As long as consumers LET them call the shots, they WILL. Without the money, though, they're nothing.
It's time to stop whining, and start doing (like I have). Stop buying the stuff. SIMPLE.
I guess I don't hear people clamoring for "compelling music and movies and television" over the Internet. I already have devices that do all three of those things just fine -- what's going to compell me to buy new devices to do these same things? I don't really want to sit in front of my computer to watch movies or television anyway, and I don't see the digital televisions coming into the _really_ affordable range (sub $1k) anyway.
I'd be happy to keep it that way as long as nobody tries to mandate how my computer treats bits! Why would I want to give up my existing devices for new content-controlled, digital rights managed devices? Is it somehow going to be "better" for me? What are the benefits to the consumer? It seems like (almost?) all the benefits are for the content companies, not me! Why would somebody pay money for this?
I find it somewhat scary that 'content companies' have willing allies in congress for this kind of oppressive legislation.
To me it's a symptom of too much prosperity. Think about it, these 'content companies' are no more than _businessmen_ who profit from other people's work. They say it's their god-given right to buy something and then sell it repeatedly forever making billions of dollars. Yet they forget (and it would seem congress forgets) that money != value. Money is supposed to represent value so that people can trade goods. Throwing more middle-men into the equation doesn't increase value UNLESS they provide quality-assurance, shipping, or some other thing that the producer themselves doesn't want to do but is nevertheless necessary.
Our quality of life is determined by how many goods and services get produced, not how much money is spent. Because the United States is so rich, we forget that the value of money comes from all our hard work. If we suddenly start devoting man-hours to stifling distribution of existing work and regulating everything so that every pasty-faced exec can get his stock options + bonus, where will the value be?
In the information age it's clear that the richest society is the one with the most information. The way to achieve that goal is to spend our time researching and developing new information, not creating a world where trading information becomes harder.
Note that this is not an "information wants to be free" argument. I think people who contribute to society should get paid, and get paid well. Currently there is not an efficient mechanism whereby information producers can get paid small amounts by the masses who enjoy their work. That's the 'content companies' niche.
I grudgingly admit that there is a place for middle-men in this world, but we have to draw the line at legislation that just makes them fatter and reduces our cultural value.
I think this problem, like so many in our society is caused by too much money in government. The founding fathers knew that religion had to be separated from government in order to be fair and just. Sadly we were too poor then for them to realize that the economy must also be kept strictly out of government. I say we have publicly funded elections with standard forums where candidates can express their views. Outlaw political advertising as subversive propaganda, and let Joe Schmoe run for office. It has been said that "You can't legislate morality." But that is a falacy because what else is legislation for?
The problem here is a question of balance. Yes copyright infringement is a generally bad thing. It pushes up prices for the rest of us and threatens the profitiability of the providers. Is stopping piracy the most important thing in the world ??
heck no !
The content industry has been screaming "The monsters are coming" for years yet entertainment is still masively profitable for them. The current law already shifts the balance too far in favour of the industry and away from consumers. If the quest to stop infrigement is going to interfere with everyday life then it's going too far.
We know the SSSCA does not make sense from a technical point of view. We know that it is akin to smothering basic freedoms. But of course, these considerations do not compute in the dollar terms that are the only things filtering through your average executive's thick ears (not to mention many Congresscritters).
So let's humor Eisner's point of view and talk greenbacks here. Let's see: Unless my sources are totally wrong, Hollywood's revenue is about $9 to $13 billion a year. Among which a lot of derived products reimported in the USA (e.g. console games on movie licenses) which actually degrade the US trade balance. But let's retain the $13 billion/year for the sake of this discussion.
On the other hand, the IT industry represents $600 billion at least. Heck, just adding up IBM, Microsoft, HP/Compaq and EDS gives you more than $300 billion/year.
So let me get this straight, Mr. Eisner: in order to "protect" a $13B/year industry branch against a problem that isn't an effective threat yet, and might never be, you and other SSSCA supporters want to hamper and possibly seriously harm an industry that is at least 25 times bigger?
And this is going to help the US economy?
So even from a strickly financial point, SSSCA does not make any sense. Eisner is a fraud. He is athreat to the IT industry, which produced far more jobs, wealth and well-being than any other industry since WWII.
With business executives like that at the head of American corporations, who needs Ben Laden?
P.S. Actually, from the moment Eisner started draping himself into patriotic self-righteousness, it sounded fishy. The guy is a patriot the way a televangelist is a believer.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
I don't think consumers will ever except this. Even if some politician who's been paid off by the industry tries to make it fly it will fail. The idea that your own liberties, such as managing the videos you shot, are limited just in case some greedy record comany or film studio might have their copyright voilated, is outrageous.
If people (who are old enough) cast their mind back, copy protection on software largely disappeared in the eighties. It was just too much of a burden on people who didn't pirate software. And ultimately it didn't work.
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
I hope no one thinks that there is an actual chance that IBM or Microsoft will oppose the RIAA, MPAA, et al? Their long-term interests are identical; it is just dividing the spoils in the short term that is creating the appearance of conflict.
sPh
What's the difference between "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." and "Hard drives don't commit piracy, people commit piracy." I'd like to think that limiting a person's ability to quickly and easily murder from a distance would be more important than limiting their ability to pirate a song. Does anyone here think we'll see laws that force gunmakers to limit what people can shoot at anytime soon?
--- Submission is feudal.
First, the Federal Communications Commission requires that broadcast television be sent "in the clear" -- in unencrypted form -- as a matter of public policy. The argument here is that broadcasters are custodians of a public resource -- the part of the broadcasting spectrum used for television, and need to make whatever they pump into that spectrum available to everyone.
Oh man, the US gov talking about an entertainment medium as a "public resource"??? Am I the only one that sees a giant price tag on this? "Dear corporate America: for two million dollars, the airwaves will no longer be 'a public resource', but will instead be rebranded as 'an essential component to American innovation' and 'a vital tool in the fight against media piracy'.. and a law will be passed that says ALL content must be encrypted... any takers?"
Remember kids, our US government consists of four parts: the executive, the judicial, the legislative, and the corporate.
Look at guns, they are legal, but with many restrictions. They can be used for legal and illegal reasons. The same thing with computers, CD-Rs, casette tapes, pencils, etc. As with gun control people - you can't have people doing anything illegal with guns, if there are no guns, which restricts people using guns for legal reasons (and yes, I know that guns are not the greatest analogy, but I am taking license).
What should be is go after people who break the law, not people who make tools that may be able to be used to break the law. Or ones who advertise tools for breaking laws (like the SPAMMER that advertises Never pay for a DVD again.
Fight Spammers!
"Do you hear that, Mister Andersen?"
Listening to this argument is interesting, because you can see just how much these companies, the Tech giants on one side and the Distribution giants on the other continue to rail against what they call the 'Destruction of the Intellectual Property Industry', at least as what they said in the article.
All I have to say is: The Sooner the Better.
Seriously. These guys are fighting obsolescence. They were obsolete the second the first computer disk was digitally written. That was the shot that killed them. Not Napster... not Gnutella, not Morpheus. Not even DivX or DeCSS. What these industries do not know is that they've been doomed to slow death the second mankind invented digital storage. The ability to store and manipulate data in a digital format is one of those watershed inventions, like fire, the wheel, gunpowder, or the combustion engine. Too much has changed for the existing order to survive. Just like there are no wagon makers any more, there will be no 'content distributors' in the future.
The fact that information can be reproduced endlessly, perfectly and easily by individuals, invalidates all the companies who sprung up in order to fill the gap that existed before digital information storage was possible.
The record industry bitterly, bitterly regrets the invention of the CD. It's very nearly a perfect format for storing audio. The people who make CD's and hardware for and software for creating CD's sure as hell don't, though. Roxio, as well as others like Phillips and Magnavox all have commercials on TV that encourage their customers to make CD's full of 'free' MP3's.
Yeah, right. As if. 'Free'. Sure....
The same thing is going on between the distribution industry and the computer hardware industry. Sure, it's a good thing for hard drives and CPU's to be altered so that information cannot be copied on them. That makes them a lot more expensive to produce, however. Why should one industry suffer because another is obsolete? That's the thought going through the minds of the people at Maxtor, Western Digital, and Iomega. It's also the thought going through the minds of people at Intel and AMD.
For the recording and entertainment industries to survive, they're very literally trying to cripple an entire industry with players from all around the globe. They're buying legislation right now because that's the only chance they have to force companies like ABit and Acer, who aren't even headquartered in the United States to tow the line.
But it's already too late. The first step in any kind of revolution is civil disobedience. Sometimes that's enough. Sometimes the flow of ideas is just too powerful to allow the existing order to stay in power. Gandhi believed this when he led India against Britain, and he ended up being right.
Even if the recording and entertainment industries manage to buy all the legislation they want, they're still faced with the daunting task of stopping the civil disobedience they've created. They'll very literally have to march into every home and take away non-DRM compliant computers and TVs.
Here's a quick hint. The U.S. government tried to do this in the 30's with alcohol. It ended up being one of the single greatest failures of the government and has created criminal and social problems that live on today.
So, the long and short is not how long you can hold on to your computers... It's how long the RIAA, MPAA and any other companies that make money by restricting the flow of information can hold on to life.
Die, bitches, die...
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
I am opposed to copy protection, but up to now I have always defended content makers' "right" to attempt to implement it. As far as I'm concerned, it simply reduces the value of a product, and then natural selection in the marketplace can decide whether or not it is worthwhile.
But I really am starting to get pissed off at all these stealth attempts to move the status quo from "try it if you think it's worth it" to mandated incompatability. I am very much opposed to mandating incompatability, but I don't think I would resent the attempts to do this so much, if it weren't done in such secret. These cockroaches scatter whenever there's light cast upon them and media exposure has been shown to be nearly lethal to this kind of legislation. And that makes sense too, because, after all, this crap really is directly against the interests of the American People. Congresscritters are happy to sell us out, but they really hate getting caught while they are doing it (but interesting, they don't seem care if they get caught after-the-fact -- I still haven't figured out that part yet).
DMCA wouldn't have passed if it had received news coverage instead of the Lewinsky scandal. Now we have the terrorist thing to distract the media, so this really is a good time to attack the American people again. They can get away with it, right now. But if it doesn't happen now, it'll happen later. More distractions can always be found. It never ends.
And that bothers me. Sooner or later, the assholes will find a weakness and push us back a notch, and then another, and then another. We just have to let our guard down once. I don't know about you guys, but I get pretty fucking weary of this, and I know someday I will be taken unaware.
What we need is to stop defending, and start attacking. Put them on the defensive for a change, reacting to us.
And there's a way to do it. It's dirty and underhanded, because IMHO it really will infringe upon what I think hey're rights are. But they are assholes and never give up with stealth attacks, and if it has to come down to "them or us" situation, I'd rather be on the winning side. So fuck 'em.
I think we need to outlaw copy protection. Something on the level of a constitutional ammendment (although that feels like inappropriate overkill) so that stealth attacks can't override it.
I think most Americans would support it. I don't know how we'd get the representatives to vote on it (a democracy would make things a lot easier than our damned republic). But it might be worthy trying anyway.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I suppose I could get a little angry when I consider that now you can be locked up for publishing a computer program, but mostly it just makes me laugh. Because it's funny.
While the article is generally well written, my impression is that the essay is generally just an alarmist piece. There are for sure some things to be concerned about in the future of technology and a lot of the industries in entertainment worry about the change, as they picture the entire future as a 'worst case scenario'. (IMHO, planning on the basis of a WCS means a good business model). Here are the things that come to my mind, in order:
1) My parents have difficulty just checking email, let alone going out and searching for internet music. While there is a whole generation of people growing up with computers and seeing the internet as a distribution channel for free music, there remains quite a large number of people who don't have the level of skill to get free music. 10 years in technology is eternity: Just look at what was around 10 years ago! By the time we reach 2010, many of these companies will have a shift of people in thier management that will understand that they can't fear the future, they must embrace it.
2) The racket around VCRs. I'm not a legal person, or even a historian, but if I recall correctly: there were many legal challenges by the same groups to outlaw VCRs. These legal challenges were not so much thwarted by the lawmakers (who may get paid handsomely by the industry), but rather by the large amount of the populace that rose up and said "We want our rights to record!" The power of the people is great, even if it seems dormant most of the time.
3) Ebooks. Yesterday on NPR, there was a short piece on the failure of Ebooks. While many people believe that it just isn't the time for ebooks yet, many ebook publishers are going out of business. I think there were many reasons for the failures around this technology, but I think the first and foremost was: technology. Each ebook manufacturer used something different, so buying one brand of ebook meant that you couldn't read books from other publishers! You don't see that sort of problem with paperbacks. With all these competing technologies for Content Protection, I don't think that MS DRM will win out, especially with groups of people who couldn't use the technology (can we say Linux?).
All in all, I really don't believe people will sit around and accept the fact that they won't be able to 'buy' music anymore (or any other type of entertainment), despite the intentions of many of these companies to have strict control over content.
As a personal hope, I always find myself hoping that MS will win. Why? Because those people who did nothing to preserve their rights of choice deserve no choice at all. Those of us who make our own decisions will continue to use Linux: just as those who enjoy Macs will continue to do so. It may be a niche market, but it will be our market.
[ if you don't like what I've written, oh well. This is my opinion after all, not yours. ]
You don't cheer for anyone here. You just take the money that the private sector is pouring into what started out as a military-academic network, and run. It's rather too late for any effective resistance, and perhaps resistance is not what is needed at this time at all. We (or, you, rather) lost our opportunity when we bought the hype and ran up the debts. Now that payback time has come, the vultures from finance are in charge again, and we are left bickering petty change. All of this will become just a minor footnote in the history of what they will call the "Digital Media Revolution". There will never have been an actual computer revolution.
Pushin' 'n dealin', shovin' 'n stealin'
And nobody can't close it...
The tech-savvy know how to build almost anything... and there isn't a way to close it down... as for content management... i would like to see that inside a corporation... ha... sorry i can't get your information. I can't copy it to a safe place... no backup available... call another day...
Who is on the other side? The content producers (artists) and the listeners/watchers. Neither the tech side nor the 'content' side want the artists or the audience to have any say in the issue.
Doubtless defenders of the current status quo will spout blather about "Valid contracts" with the artists or how the record companies provide promotion and advertising etc. as excuses for the predatory behavior of companies toward actual content providers. But before you start writing posts like that I am going to propose a shame test: for the sake of argument assume that there really is a God, and that you are going to have to defend your statements in front of Him at your judgment someday. Do you think you could get away with the "valid contract" claim when you know larceny is in your heart? I always apply that shame test to what I have to say - if you don't do it then you are insincere - a troll at best, or evil at the worst.
Why doesn't the tech faction want to see the artist and audience side heard? The answer is that tech companies do the same things to engineers and programmers that recording companies do to artists, and neither faction wants people to be paid what they are actually worth.
Programmers, artists, engineers and the audience to our works belong on one side of the argument along with sincere and honest businessmen (I have met a few; they do exist). On the other side are all the greedy thieves: Mega corps and the RIAA.
By the way -for all of you Libertarians; the standard for a contract ought to be right and wrong, not "what I can get away with". If a contract is not really equally benefiting both sides it is a fraud.
Matthew Gerson, the vice president for public policy at Vivendi Universal S.A., which produces and sells both music (Universal Music Group) and movies (Universal Studios, Inc.), is quick to dispute the prediction that the music companies face cottage-industry status. "We know that if we build a safe, consumer friendly site that has all the 'bells and whistles' and features that music fans want, it will flourish. My hunch is that fans will have no trouble paying for the music that they love, and compensating the artists who bring it to them -- established stars as well as the new voices the labels introduce year after year."
Um, I don't know where to start... Let's see, "safe, consumer friendly site," isn't that a contradiction? I have a feeling that "all the 'bells and whistles' and features that music fans want" doesn't include crippled CDs, but Universal seems to like that idea... Sure, "fans will have no trouble paying for the music that they love," but that assumes that you produce that music and not the usual garbage. Lots of people are interested in "compensating the artists who bring it to them," which is why they don't want to deal with the major labels. As for "the new voices the labels introduce year after year," exactly which ones are these? They all look and sound the same to me...
This is precisely what Disney CEO Michael Eisner, in a speech to Congress in summer of 2000, was referring to when he warned of "the perilous irony of the digital age." Eisner's statement of the problem is shared by virtually everybody in the movie industry: "Just as computers make it possible to create remarkably pristine images, they also make it possible to make remarkably pristine copies."
Then perhaps there is no longer enough value in the "making and copying remarkably pristine images" business to sustain so many huge companies. Either make your content something people want to pay for, or find another business strategy. People tend to dislike having the government tell them what to do in the privacy of their own homes, how do you think they will feel about Disney doing it instead?
"Back in the nineties, when we bought a movie on video, your grandma and me could watch it as many times as we wanted, without paying for it again each time. We could pause it to get up and get a soda, and we could rewind it if we missed something and it didn't cost no extra to do that."
"Wow, gramps. You mean there were no coin slots on TVs back then?"
"That's right. And if the movie was a dud, we could sell the tape at a garage sale, or give it to a friend, or even just throw it in the trash."
"Weren't you afraid you'd get arrested, grandpa?"
"They didn't arrest people for those things back then, boy. Didn't need no stinking TV license, heck, nobody didn't even have to own a TV if they didn't want to."
"When grandma gets out of prison for muting commercials, can she tell us some stories about the old days too?"
Technology giveth, there was no real music industry until the phonograph was invented, and technology taketh away. Limiting technology in favor of business is shortsited, ill founded, anti-capitalistic, and doomed to fail.
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
> [Tech Faction: Hundreds of billions, maybe a trillion, in revenue]
I think we'd all agree that government operates by the Golden Rule: Those that have the gold, make the rules. But if we truly live in a "one dollar, one vote" society, why the fsck is anyone in Congress listening to the Content Faction at all? Do Content Faction lobbyists hire better hookers, with cocaine instead of silicone in their tits?
> So even from a strictly financial point, SSSCA does not make any sense. Eisner is a fraud. He is a threat to the IT industry, which produced far more jobs, wealth and well-being than any other industry since WWII.
>
> With business executives like that at the head of American corporations, who needs bin Laden?
I thought my "Hollywood hookers and better coke" crack was good, but I think you've got the better soundbite, by far.
Rack up the dollar cost of the WTC disaster. (Conservatively $100B), and compare it to the dollar cost to the Tech Faction if the Content Faction gets its way, and discover that a mere 10-15% "hit" in Tech Faction revenues is the equivalent of a WTC attack when it comes to GDP. The Eisner-Valenti-Rosen triumvirate is a greater threat to the economy than bin Laden ever was.
I think we need to push three talking points:
- The memes "Content Faction" and "Technology Faction". Portraying Hollywood as a "faction", rather than an "industry" makes it clear that there are opposing interests here.
- The fact that tech is at least an order of magnitude larger - in jobs, revenues, profits, and taxes remitted to the government - than the Content Faction.
When you write your Congresscritter, you can call them "industries" instead of "factions". And instead of asking him which industry is likely to give him the most campaign dollars over the next 30 years, ask him which industry is most likely to provide the most jobs for his constituents. He'll do the campaign contribution math by himself, and you've pointed out there's a compelling "it's the economy, stupid" excuse his opponent can use against him, should he side against the Tech Faction.When you talk to your co-workers, write letters to the editor, or post to weblogs, feel free to be honest - call 'em Factions, and ask the campaign contribution question. The readers will do the "Hollywood must have better hookers, if my Congresscritter supports the Hollywood faction, he must be corrupt" math by themselves, and vote accordingly.
The golden rule used to be "whoever has the gold makes the rule" but I would observe from current machinations the golden collorary "he who writes the rules, defines the gold".
... think what the internet does .. every single piece of information whether written in the past or immediate future (think trailers) is now immediately available. It's like a thirsty man in a desert being swept away by a flash flood. All the historical economic models based on a content/distribution model is now completely invalidated. Historically media studios could release stuff at different price/time points (movies, videos, cable reruns, etc) with the nice kicker that a popular franchise can be remastered with relatively little marginal cost.
The reason
Now suddenly anyone (with a modicum of hacker skill) can bypass their time/space-controls (cough DVD-region-coding), the TiVo is just one small example. Suddenly all their media libraries is implicity devalued as they can't withdraw "obsolescent" titles. The First Sale doctrine means that anyone can resell their "original" copy which creates competition for their newest overhyped gee-whiz production. Hence their incentive, nay long-term economic survival, in pushing Digital Rights Managment (aka service selectivity/variability) by stealth (submarine legislation) or by wealth (trial by litigation).
Of course, they don't always have much of a clue (cough*CueCat*cough) so they have to rely on the tech experts to provide them with the tools to control/segment the entertainment market. Which means that unless you have a tech department under your belt like AOL, they are held over the barrel by the likes of Microsoft who have their own ambitions of being the broadband toll-keepers.
Economics alway always been about scarcity (whoever dies with the biggest toys wins) but the internet inverts all that into a surplus. The "gift culture" that ESR mentions is thus anathema to any self-respecting aspiring monopolist as infinite replication/distribution of information-based products limits their market of gullible fools.
It will be an interesting decade as all these economic forces resolve themselves.
LL
Of course, there are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.
What I find amazing about all of this is that noone is talking about how much we are expected to spend to participate in our on-line culture.
Radio is free (for now) but I'd have to get a $ub$cription to listen to satellite XM broadcasts. Likewise, I'll need a subscription to be able to listen to music on-line, and I'll need a high-bandwidth connection to be able to download it all...
How much is all this going to cost me? Digital Cable $50/month, Cable/DSL Internet $50/month, XM subscription $10/month, On-line music $10/month.
I'm already up to $120/month and I haven't even started talking about what my kids want/need... or how much my cost of living has increased because I have to live in an urban area where these services are offered...
How much money are we talking about, and how many people, realistically, can afford this ?
If this were really true, how come the company that took these public resources and made them more widely available still was so summarily shut down?
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
The real issues at hand are far more reaching than copyrights. The Digital Media functionality that computers provides all of us with most certainly goes way beyond the copyright dimension.
They may not realize it yet, but eventually will have no other choice but to recoignize that the "CANNOT" base intellectual property laws will have to be changed to be "CAN" based.
I'm all for artists, creators, those who produce additional productive and pleasure values to be recognized and rewarded. For such carrots is how we teach our children to help make our society a better place of all of us to enjoy.
But the bottom line is to get people to want to recognize and reward those who do good. And the only way that is going to happen is change the laws so as to motivate and inspire people to do so.
Lawrence Lessig pointed out to me that there are two parts to dealing with Intellectual Property. The first part I believe was in reference to beng granted IP rights as a creator, the second part being liability law. I suppose this is the part in most need of changing into "asset" law.
comments?
maybe see other slashdot posts by your truely?
We? Okay, so we must continue trading. Kazaa is right about they can't shutdown clients. Even if they do, Gnutella, Freenet etc.. will survive.
Why am I on Morpheus? Because it has 500.000 users. The minute it shuts down, other p2p protocol will get these users. And this time many people will have learned their lesson.. Don't go p2p'ing if it has a company backing up almost everything.
That's why I like gnutella. Sadly it doesn't have all the users. BUT IT'S UNSTOPPABLE. 500.000 from Kazaa/Morpheus/Grokster users, please come to Gnutella. Nobody will ever shutdown your ability to trade files.
BUT, they might try to 'shutdown' your RIGHT to trade files, correct? Yes, that's what they are trying to do. But hey, how many people CAN share files in the world? Anyone connected on the internet? Okay... how much does this mean nowadays, 500 million? Maybe more? None can put this amount of people on jail, na, nothing can be done.
Warez sites are easier to shutdown. Pretty much because you have one tunnel where data flows. With millions of tunnels, bam! Impossible.
So, even our 'right' to share is secured somehow (based on 'they can't prosecute every body premise'). Fine, so another way is to make the hardware in a way that it doesn't allow file sharing.
So here goes what I think everyone should do. Tell everyone you know this. DO NOT buy these hardware. It's that simple. Hardware is a lot harder to make them software. So, you rarely will see 'pirated' hardware that allows file sharing. It's an enormous task, and this yes, the governament/RIAA/companies/ has the resource to stop.
Just don't buy the hardware when it comes. Or if contains a return policy (like the soon to be released cds in America), spend your whole bank account and savings on it and ask for the money back. If, I don't know, 5000 people do this, the company will go bankrupt.
It's a matter of value. Who cares what the governament and the companies want? What matters is what the people want.
Our laws are just this, common sense. If we stick to the value that trading files should become the common sense, there's nothing to do.
Just don't buy the hardware, remember.
PS: For developers and content producers. I feel sorry in a way for you. You're are not going to get money now from the usual way (produce, distribute, sell, royalties, etc..)
And don't ask me how to make money too when your new cd can be traded and none is going to buy it. I honestly don't know, but hey, I sincerely hope you find a way.
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
If musicians had a good way to deliver their music/art/books/etc directly to the consumer, what need would they have of the big[1] distribution companies?
;-)
Instead the authors would need:
a) server hosting
b) advertising
c) agents who could get them airplay and/or tour venues
and would no longer need
d) to press CDs, DVDs, etc.
e) select the least painful contract from a handful of distrubutors
This would:
-reduce costs- by cutting out the middleman/distributor.
-increase competition- cheaper "distribution" costs would allow more artists to compete for your money.
-decrease pollution- no need to burn fuel for cd making factories, delivery trucks
-increase greenspace- no more need for brick and mortar stores
-shift jobs from music retail stores and fat cat distributors[1] to high tech server hosting companies and slimy advertising firms. (In other words they would have to get "real" jobs.)
[1] aka the Evil Greedy Screw the Consumers Coporations
Well, I don't know what to make of this. Any way they handle this we're screwed. The only way I think this problem will go away is to stop paying for big name albums and movies entirely. When the revenue stream dries up, lawyers tend to wither and blow away.
The problem with this is that there are a lot of extremely gifted artists and musician who would be left out in the cold. Bands like Metallica already have more money than God and can easily afford to set up their own distribution channels, so the little guys are the only people who would be hurt by it.
What to do about it? Support yout local music/film making/Art scene like you support your local LUG. When they get the support they need locally, they don't need to go to LA to get it and it's only a matter of time before this kind of stupidity and personal rights violation goes away permanently.
You are all fartheads.
It seemed like most of those who thought Napster was in the Constitution also opposed gun ownership, at least on /. They thought it was more important to be able to copy music than to defend themselves.
Just on the note of music here, I know that what I want when I buy a CD or an MP3 online, besides the music, is for the author to be compensated appropriately. I think it would be a great public service to foce music companies and their ilk to publish how much of a CD sale goes back to the authors (whether to pay their debts or in their pockets) and how much is kept by the record company.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
The writer forgets to mention that this would happen only in the U.S.
The rest of the world would happily chug along without these wild restrictions on what people can do with their computers.
The irony of it is that innovation is a product of the freedom to think and do whatever you want with the means at your disposal. Today, the U.S. is the best place for it.
The minute these limitations are put into place, the U.S. can kiss its technological supremacy goodbye. The bleeding edge will move elsewhere.
It's just not intuitive to label artists that way. I would say the record companies have the "comparative advantage" in selling the music. Whether that advantange is greatly diminished thru technology(internet) or greater access to knowledge is debatable. Artists have to be "found" and promoted in the old days. Now music can be shared and words of mouth spreads electronically.
Contracting the music distribution, yes, but artists aren't workers in a firm.
http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/1348770p-14 18333c.html
Elton John, No Doubt and the Eagles are among a group of musicians who will perform at five benefit concerts the night before the Grammy Awards telecast to raise money for a legislative fight against the record industry. [...] "It's about time for artists to take control of their work and how it is presented to our fans," said Dexter Holland of the band Offspring, which will perform as part of the effort. [...] The tentative lineup is Billy Joel, Sheryl Crow, the Eagles, Dixie Chicks and Stevie Nicks at the Forum in Inglewood; Offspring, No Doubt, Weezer at the Long Beach Convention Center; Ozzy Osborne at the Los Angeles Sports Arena; rhythm and blues acts to be announced at the Universal Amphitheatre; and country artists at an undetermined fifth site.
Of course, the record companies are denying any allegations.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
"how consumers are going to be taking it in the *** no matter who wins"
/. "are going to be taking it in the ***" anytime soon.
That all depends on how smart the consumer is. When pushed, consumers split into 4 groups:
1) Give in and accept it
2) Find a new option
3) Do without
4) Acquire it with less than legal means.
I don't think most of the people reading
------
Today's Top Deals
In the 1850's, even many of the factory leaders in the north supported laws that contained slavery to the south, and exported them back from the north. But no matter what happened the factory model of business was incompatable with the plantation model. With factories, a mobile workforce was essential - but with plantations it was a nightmare. Having a society that was compatable with both was going to be impossible.
All these people were rich business men, had close relations, and a lot of cross investment. However, inspite of all the things that bound them together - the forces that tore them apart were even greater. Today this manifests itself in the Content model and the Tech model. The content model can not be successfull without placing significant profit limitations on the tech model or visa versa. Contention will boil over until we finally decide that copyrights are bad and rid ourselves of them.
Moral, don't be one of those poor fools who thought that the slave states could peacefully get along with the free states. Those people just didn't get it.
It's not unprecedented anyway, the FCC allows satellite broadcasts to be encrypted. It's the same airwaves, only different frequencies.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
which is the _last_ line of defense against government totalitarianism.
... hi bingo
HINT: figure out what the words "airwaves" and "broadcasting spectrum" mean. It has something to do with electromagnetic radiation. (Oooh, that's so 1930's, I know.)
I think i'm going to be moving to Eastern Europe..maybe russia... what's china like this time of year ? or maybe the cayman islands.. ? or.. what about switzerland?
"There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness."- Friedrich Nietzsche
Except that we would eventually wind up with trash, and it because a dwinding spiral of quality. paying more and more for trash.
Hopefully it will wind up with people just turning it all off. (right!)
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Working for a "slimy advertising firm" is a real job?
Everyone talks about technology and its implications. I see it as Universal and the sorts protecting the rights of artists. How do you think people in this field strive for success? Technology doesn't change the fundamental way business works. The liberal view is some no-name artist will rise to the top with the help with a computer, software, and broadband internet. It is of utter importance to protect the rights of artists' content. Those guys at Universal, albeit flawed and profit-seeking, represents them. Who will? You want another conglomerate to rise and slowly evolve into the same function? It's capitalism.
There are audiophiles who have expensive systems and music that they buy for the more-pristine quality, videophiles who supports the DVD industry, despite the whole pirating behavior on the internet. It's the whole spectrum. This forum is like the geeks in high school who seeks redemption from underrepresentation, overprotecting rights of Napster and similar while burning movie ISO's for their own viewing.
I sent a few of them to the MPAA.
Hopefully it dosen't come to that any time soon, but the way people and the government are acting about security against terrorisim I fear this may be soon. The Media and the stupid people who believe them think that giving up rights will stop terrorisim; wow, are they in for a suprise! If we aren't more careful we will have a totalitarian government, and that is not a good thing. People need to learn that patriotisim isn't buying a flag sticker and putting it in your car, it means helping your country and make sure it dosen't make any stupid mistakes.
DON'T GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS TO THESE FOOLS CALLED THE MEDIA
Ummm...never underestimate the governments interest in preserving a channel to the attention of its citizens. Think of how much Hollywood can affect the opinions of the populus (especially in this country, but to a lesser extent all over the rest of the world), and you realize the incentive to be strongly allied with the "Content Faction."
And, should anyone in congress forget this fact, they need only run down to the local Blockbuster and rent a copy of "Gladiator" (the one with Russell Crowe, not Cuba Gooding Jr):
(Paraphrasing)"Rome is the mob. Keep them entertained and you control Rome."
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
But, you have to understand that the media that these players represent is even more critical to Congressmen than the money they can get from the tech side. What happens if a Congressman finds it difficult to buy air time during the next election cycle? He won't be a Congressman for long. And, although the Internet has grown as an alternative information distribution medium, it can't make up for that kind of lack of access.
Another thing to remember is that the main thing that leaders need to provide are bread and circuses. You can trade off a fairly good amount of bread to have a good circus before the rubes revolt. And this is an especially tasty tradeoff if you happen to get to be head clown.
In short, never, ever assume that a politician will make a decision based solely on economic issues. In this situation, the issue hits at the heart of any politician's decision-making calculus - getting elected.
That is all.
One of the users we support has studied this subject in some detail. Check our his article at/
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue6_2/odlyzko
One could also argue that the right to bear arms already applies to computers. Since they Can be used as a weapon, people have a constitutional right to have them.
;)
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't supercomputers considered munitions under export laws? As was until recently encryption above 56-bit?
On a side note, I am not a complete fan of Richard Stallman but I thought his short story, "The Right to Read" was very thought-provoking and moving. I have been sending it to various microsofties I know
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Without, for a millisecond, defending the record companies:
Some solution must be found so that creative/performing artists can be paid for their recorded/filmed work. A great song, a great symphony, a great movie might only happen once.
Assuming that, say, musicians should simply tour more, please remember that a goodly number of musicians don't perform live. One prominent example was, of course, the Beatles, post '66, when they did their best work, imo. There are lots more.
It is a tremendous risk to be an artist and good art is rare. Most of us labor in obscurity and sacrifice a considerable amount of material comfort for our art. If, somehow, we get lucky and actually make art that someone wants to hear/see/experience, we deserve compensation for it.
Any realistic ideas on how we're going to be paid?
A Composer
I agree what "distribution" is a more appropriate term, since large media companies add absolutely no value to the artist's works besides marketing and disseminating it. Whatever you call it, it is an obsolete industry.
What this faction is doing is following their preservation instincts. Executives want to keep their jobs and will try ALL avenues to do so. It seems to me that the biggest efforts put into mandated DRM benefit neither the actual content creator nor the consumer--the consumer suffers for not being allowed to take full advantage of technology, and the content creator (artist) cannot fully and freely distribute their works.
The alternate scenario to the one in the article would be that what happened to the typewriter industry is what will happen to the big media companies. With the advent of computers, the market for typewriters collapsed. Today, a relative handful of typewriters are made compared with 20 years ago--many companies went under and jobs were lost, but the additional benefits broght by the computer far exceeded the loss of the typewriter industry. THAT is what I hope happens with big media companies. They have become irrelevant because of technological progress. The government didn't legislate laser printers for PCs out of existence in order to protect typewriter companies and the thought of doing so would be considered ridiculous, so whay should the members of the MPAA be afforded such protection? The world didn't end because 90% of typewriter makers disappeared, and it wont if/when big media distributers do. In the LONG term, the vacuum will be filled with something better that works WITH and not against technology (so far history had always shown that to be the case if things are allowed to proceed naturally).
I think the idea is that the broadcasting frequencies are scarce and a scarce resource, so it is in the public's best interest for them to be regulated as a public resource. This is also the rational for allowing the FTC to reasonably censor television (no X-rated movies on normal air-wave television).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
It almost brought tears to my eyes when I watched this week's news footage of Afghani citizens out in their back yards in Kabul, digging up old VCRs and TV sets that they had buried to keep them from being seized by the Taliban. One old gentleman had constructed a secret room in his house to hide thousands of books, magazines, and videotapes that would have been destroyed had they been discovered. People were lining the streets listening to music again after a decade long ban, and many were openly weeping for joy.
But what really choked me up was the whole time I was watching that story, I was thinking to myself "this is your future, this is you digging holes in your yard, in the U.S., to hide computer parts and copies of Linux from your oppressive government".
This is the largest peril likely to emerge from this
clusterfsck. (A poor, bored population is more likely to go along with fascism, after all.) Hopefully the prospect of becoming economic roadkill will help the Congrescritters pick their slack-jawed faces up out of their oatmeal long enough to limit this.
I bought this house and you know I'm boss
Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off
The total revenue of the mass media industry was $250.9 billion in 1998.
Perhaps at some point in the not-too-distant future, the following scenario might be realized.
A woman waits near her departure gate at Newark airport, musing about the glories of days gone by. She inadvertently begins to hum a popular tune from the late nineties. Unfortunately for her, she reproduces the melody with some accuracy; the humming is picked up by several (digital rights law mandated) microphones, and analyzed by the successor to this system, which identifies the "digital property" being reproduced. The woman's location is triangulated by the multiple audio pickups, and she is identified by face. An appropriate license is automatically selected, according to the length of the humming, time of day, location, number of people within earshot, previous digital rights infraction record, and distributor-determined digital rights attributes of the tune itself.
Later in the week, when she receives her monthly IRS debit statement, the woman discovers a $190 charge for a "public performance and audible reproduction license" covering the episode, along with a 28% tax charge. Of course, she doesn't have to worry about the inconvenience of paying; it's already been deducted from her account.
This is screaming for a non-profit company that takes donations. The expenses are cut out and artists are paid as a percentage of the remaining money, equal to the percentage they are downloaded. Sell the idea as a place to get cheap content, drive for-profits out of business, and then remind people that if they do not donate, the content will go away.
Everyone wins.
"Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale . .
Non-commercial pirates are ordinary people, who otherwise would be like you and me (well, ok maybe they're exactly like me.) They are the people who like certain content and are just looking to access it at their leisure. Non-commercial pirates are fans of content. They are students (formal and informal) who want to learn from the content. They are critics who further critical discussion of content. They are consumers who will likely purchase content when they are able. They are archivists saving the content that the distributors have abandoned. They are nurturers who want to see more content and help make content better.
But, in order to have a large enough inventory to attract people to their wares, some pirates may turn their activities into businesses. Turning commercial causes provable financial damage to the content holder (at least whatever the pirate charges, theoretical maximum of up to what the content holder charges, although certainly the discount rates of the pirate may boost his sales over what the legitimate holder would have) With such damages, there is an unquestionable standing for a lawsuit. On-line commercial pirates are especially susceptible. The 24/7 availability that offers such an advantage to on-line business, dramatically increases the pirates' chances of getting caught. Unlike the street-corner pirate, the on-line pirate can't turn off his web site if the cops come strolling by. Suffice it to say, commercial pirates are thieves, they are scum, whatever ugly adjective you want to use probably applies to them. They take the creative labor of others and use it to make a profit for themselves. Laws, regulations, mandates, and technical barriers will not stop them from their piracy. They have access to devices to circumvent whatever barriers put before them. They smell money, and don't care who is hurt in their pursuit of it.
Eric Flint from Baen Publishing isn't worried about online piracy because is a minor problem, any losses are offset by increased exposure of the content, and any attempt to restrict piracy is worse than the problem of priacy in the first place (see this Salon cartoon for an example carried none too far to the extreme ). His own experience has shown that content released freely, and without barriers to priracy (technological, legal, or moral) are the ones that drive exposure to the artist and sell better than similar books not available freely.
Content distributors (especially in the music industry, the RIAA and record companies) tend to justify their existance because of the amount of their marketing of the artists (in addition to the actual production/distributing efforts.) Online piracy is, then, a dilemma for artists. Piracy increases their exposure by definition, but at an inferior quality and no royalties. Piracy should show to consumers the complete uselessness of the content distributors as guardians of good taste. How many awful CD's do you have that you bought because of a catchy tune on the radio.
Current copyright laws almost ensure that there will be a historical hole where content simply disappears. Which company will be the one to ensure that Arthur Byron Cover's 1988 novel Planetfall for future generations? Neither quality nor the commerial success of content should be the judge of whether or not it is to be preserved. Many of Shakespeare's plays where bawdy low-rent entertainment in its era, but is now considered high-art. American Pie 2 deserves no less preservation than American Beauty. Plantfall deserves no less preservation than Snow Falling on Cedars. Married With Children no less than The Honeymooners. With corporate takeovers and massive inventories, content distributors can be the worst preservers of content. While this report notes some possible solutions, it generally suggests working with the content distributors to authorize preservation efforts. This is unworkable when a distribtor is unaware of their content property, has dissolved, or is hostile to the preservation effort. The societal need for preservation outweighs the property rights of the distributor.
It is high time that legislators and regulators stop acquiescing to every demand of the content distributors. The policy pendulum has swung too far in their favor. The problem is that the pendulum has swung quietly, without the public's knowledge. Efforts that the public does know about don't sound as harmful as they actually are, so your constituents (or those who are affected by your regulations) aren't alarmed. But as representatives of the people, you are the guardians of their rights. Fair use rights that the content distributors are attempting to restrict and even to abolish. The most perilous danger with legislative acts recently, such as the DCMA, is that they ingore that all copyrighted materials will eventually reach the public domain, as required by law (via the "limited time" clause). While content entering into the public domain is not advantageous to content distributors, it is vitally important to the general public.
Of course, that's just my opinion... (don't sue me Dennis!)
-sk
I have to say, I believe the recording industry is already doomed. Let's say they do get the intense digital-rights management abilities they appear to be angling for...
What happens? Cheap, sophisticated technology exists for musicians to create and distribute their own music. Heavy-handed digital rights management will spur a market where none now exists. Bands looking for acceptance will easily be able to do so by releasing music without copy restrictions, or with restrictions less onerous than the recording industry's, and they'll stand a better chance of getting heard and gathering an audience. People have gotten used to being able to do whatever they want with content; even if they don't understand the intricacies of the digital rights battles, this inertia will propel them to 'vote with their wallets'. If it means listening to no-name bands, rather than paying an arm and a leg to listen to whoever's on the charts, it will happen.
The recording industry's got a hell of a challenge ahead of them - protecting their assets while simultaneously satisfying their customers. The number of people who will be willing to pay more for inflexible music from 'name' groups are going to be vastly outnumbered by the less fortunate who will be satisfied just fine with listening to unknown groups (whose music may be even more appealing to them for personal reasons, i.e., closer to their interests, current situation, age, etc) wherever and whenever they want for much less.
Same thing for the movie and television industries. The ability to create content gets cheaper all the time. (How many of you know people who are working on a digital-video movie?
Digital piracy is rightfully scaring the beejesus out of the likes of Disney, and with good reason - but even if they get draconian legal protection, it'll bite 'em in the ass - it will do no good against the mom and pop content shops that will spring up to fill the void between the people who don't care and can afford restricted premium content and those of us who by any combination of economics, idealism or preference buy generic.
MjM
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
components of new home entertainment systems will also likely have to be designed not to play unwatermarked content - otherwise, all you've done is develop an incentive for both inquisitive hackers and copyright "pirates" to learn how to strip out the watermarks.
So the next generation of equipment will only play watermarked content, thus foiling the evil hackers plans of stripping out the watermark. Wow, sounds pretty foolproof. NOT. Someone will just write a utility to change the "Don't copy" flag to "Unlimited copy" without removing the watermark.
"Make something foolproof, and someone will invent a better fool." - Unknown
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
And if you believe this you probably believe that eliminating piracy would make for cheaper games.
I've got a bridge picked out just for you...
Yes, _constitutional_ ammendments must be ratified by the states with a 2/3 majority. But we can learn some great lessons from our communist "friends" like Lenin, who said "He who votes decides nothing. He who counts the votes decides everything."
For those of you "crazy" enough to admit it, both the 16th (income tax ammendment) and 17th (which destroyed the republic and instituted a democracy) were founded on this unique methodology. Niether got 2/3 majority, but some conniving friend decided to posthumously resurrect the overwhelmingly defeated measures.
Another ingenious method of instigating change is the old "Camel's nose in the tent" theory. Nobody wants radical change, but they all accept gradual, small encroachments of freedom. Take again, the income tax fiasco: In 1913 when it was first instituted, the income tax only applied to a small, select few (those who work for the federal government) and it was only 1 or 2 percent. Now it "applies" to everyone, and it's in excess of 30 and 40 percent.
Today's current issues are (as others have mentioned) guns, free speech, and in short all of our God-given rights. Don't be stupid, free speech on the internet is the next to go, mark my words.
At stake in this war, says Eisner, who's the acknowledged leader of the Content Faction, is "the future of the American entertainment industry, the future of American consumers, the future of America's balance of international trade."
Well I'm not American, and I don't give a fuck about "the future of the American entertainment industry". And IIRC, the vast majority of the world is not American either.
And many of these non-Americans are bound to want to keep producing general-purpose computers, with all their limitless functionality intact. So if America does goes the restricted "entertainment device" route we'll have a two tier world - the restricted, controlled, entertainment-centric American world, and the unrestricted computer world that at least some of the rest of the world will produce.
And these two tiers will surely collapse under pressure from Americans who want to get all those freedoms that the rest of the world has. To prevent this would require an enormously expensive law enforcement regime equivalent to the East German stasi or the American War on Drugs. Which I guess is already in place...
If they outlaw your ability to even attempt circumvent the challenging preventative measures (Which is what DMCA and SSSCA are all about)- then you effectively don't have fair use rights even though the law allows you them.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
"Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!"
"The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"
"Shhhh! Quiet, he's on a roll."
My definition of "Copyright pirates" are groups often media giants, who collect copyrights created by others often stealing them and when enough are collected they are used as a weapon against others often those who do or would actually create new material.
Pirates are not individuals but corporations, have you ever seen a pirate dingy? Have you ever seen an individual threaten to drag a court battle to infinity and convince the court to give up? Its time to get political or loose it all.
All big media wants you to have is a remote control with a buy button on it.
I have to agree with you there... the founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves...
The founding fathers expected...
1. Local and state militia to 'defend' the nation. National 'armies' were to be limited by only allowing them to be funded for 2 years at a time.
2. Presidents were meant to be impeached. At the time the impeachment proceeding was drafted they kind of expected that every third or fourth president would need to be 'impeached.' If they were doing bad enough things they would be removed from office as a result. Instead only three presidents have ever even come Close to being impeached. None were removed from office, although Nixon did resign.
3. The government to be overthrown when it became less of a republic. The three ways I know for doing this are: Constitutional Congress, Milita marching on the capital, and Succession. So far only one was attempted and that was for less-than pure motives. This war resulted in a change in the election process for president which forever changed the party system in america.
Keep in mind that the founding fathers also wanted a confederate system, but they couldn't pull it off and instead went with a republic.
I think right now they're working on removing our rights to intellectual property. Eventually there won't be any form of intellectual property that belongs to 'everyone.' Once they control every bit of IP space they have the same lock the nazi's had on information. Then they can abolish the democracy in favor of a facist police state, where the police have secret courts and can wire tap anyone. Wait a minute... The FBI has secret courts and can wire tap anyone.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Amen to that. Now we all see the result of an absenteeism audiance.It got us the government we don't want, and it will get us the corporations we can't shake. We're closer to the mark, than we think.
Maybe someone could come up with a "halloween" memo of the content industry. Hint,hint.
The first step was MIDI - a score goes in, and music comes out. No musicians required. It doesn't sound all that great; we need smarter performance generators. There's research underway on this.
Next step is to eliminate singers. Voice synthesizers exist now, and there are ones that will accept a MIDI track as prosody. Again, this needs to get better.
The best part of this is that there is a compulsory license and statutory royalty rates for this, so the record companies can't say no. The current royalty rate is is $0.0755 per song plus $0.0145 for each additional minute after the first five. Per copy.
It's coming. Click here for examples. Even runs on Linux.
It's a sad thing but China is going to be more Free than america within a decade. The chinese have decided that they're going to use linux because 'Microsoft is an extention on the US government.' Which is a Scary thought... FBI: "we've determined you're using linux, and we've come to arrest you.."
China does supress a number of civil liberties, but soon america will be suppressing those liberties, and requiring you to use 'approved' hardware and software.
I just hope I'm wrong about this. I guess I better study those nuclear physics or start playing around with genetic engineering in my bathtub if I wan't to stand a chance against the oppressive police state that america is moving towards.
"the USA act is a mere tiny step away from the two way, always on televisions of 1984." What about interactive TV complete with targeted ads etc?
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
In the Future, books won't be burned...
They'll be turned off, and their keys revoked.
The article mentions Steve Jobs as a founder of a Tech company.
Well, he is CEO of Apple, but also CEO of Pixar, which is a Content company.
How long before he sues and countersues himself?