Slashdot Mirror
Is CD Copy Protection Illegal?
ribbiting writes "US Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va. is asking RIAA execs to explain how they can collect royalties on various blank media at the same time that the RIAA members are implementing copy protection mechanisms, with particular reference to the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992."
Glad someone is asking the question.
I don't think it's illegal, they're free to make them, and I'm free to not buy them. Simple as that.
Y'know, I'm at the point where I'd move to VA just to be able to someday vote for him ;-)
According to the US constitution, Congress may pass law to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
But it doesn't have to.
And several million voters got used to Napster.
I doubt that there will be any dramatic steps in either direction, but disallowing and preventing everything probably won't happen.
The issue is whether or not they should be receiving money for every piece of blank media sold if they're selling cd's that can't be copied.
A few years back they added a "tax" to recordable media to "help compensate the recording industry" for pirating that happens on such media.
Now, if the RIAA were to "prevent" (haha) such pirating through copy protection, why should they get to double-dip by continuing to collect the revenues from that "tax"?
You can't have your Cake and Rip it too.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Yeah, well if they weren't pushing all the boy bands down everyones throats maybe sales might have been better. Blame everyone for poor album sales ... maybe they should look at the dreck they are foisting on the consumer.
I think we all know the answer though. A massive bribe by the RIAA's lobbyists should answer any of the congressman's dilemas.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Yes, it is, if they don't tell you what they're selling. When a company, any company sells you a product, if they sell you something different than what they tell you they're selling you, it's fraud. It's simple. if they tell you that they're selling you a copy-protected CD, then you can choose not to buy it (as most of us would). As is, a music "CD" is definated as a CD disk with music files in a certain format. If they were to sell a CD that is NOT that, then it's clearly fraud.
This seems similar to the Bells and AT&T selling the consumer Caller ID, then CID blocker to the telemarketers, then selling caller id blocker blocker to the consumer, then ....
They must be, and this (which I, like many other /.-ers, apparently, hadn't thought of before even though it makes perfect sense) proves it.
Or does it? It's still possible to make *analog* copies of cd's, just not *digital* ones. Does the law state anything about allowing analog (imperfect) but not digital (perfect) copies?
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
From the article:
The labels are worried that the rise of home CD-burners has eaten into album sales, particularly after the worst year in a decade for the music industry.
These sales figures couldn't possibly shaped by the fact that the RIAA is releasing the shittiest music in a decade, could it?
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
They can either make it hard to dupilicate (read rip) cd's OR take a cut on every blank (audio) cd made. .... Assuming this holds up (which it should)
... Have you ever bought a box of those?), DATs, and MDs compared to how much they think they loose by people not buying CDs since they pirate them.
:-)
What they will have to do is figure out if they make more from the pennies they get on those blank Audio CDs (Humm
In this case, the RIAA cant have their cake if you can't eat it
Are you paranoid if you know that they just want to know everything you say and do?
The 'blank media' tax has been touted in every country it's been implimented in as a way to pay publishers and artists for the perceived costs of media copying, be it fair use or piracy.
In the U.S., the media companies get a large piece of that fee.
That they want the right to collect both this fee *and* impliment copy controls is what is being questioned here.
Personally, I think it should boil down to one or the other. Pay the tax or pay for copy protected CD's. Not that either is really effective, but...
Hopefully, Boucher will raise a large enough stink over this that it will actually cause some changes. Not likely, but there's always hope...
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
What the RIAA is doing is like paying the luxury tax on a new car and then being told "Here's the keys, but remember you can only drive within a 15 mile radius of your house". If I can't transfer from one media to another for my own personal use... then why am I being taxed then?
Intellectual property laws have done their job -- they've created a massive amount of stuff -- some good, some bad. But now the system is choking itself.
Copy protection schemes are the wrong target.
Taking a copy of a rare disk on a trip instead of the original - a decent use for copying CD's and should be absolutely legal IMHO.
I once lost this 4 CD Eric Clapton book/cd set on a trip, got robbed. Won't happen again!
Broken Hearts are for Assholes. - Frank Zappa
They're being asked to explain how they can collect a tithe on all blank media sales and at the same time act to prevent copying... and I think the answer is obvious. They have lots of money, they have their artists in a rather nasty spot (work with us or you don't get the exposure and distribution you want), and they have a billion lawyers.
I hardly think the "how" is a mystery. The why is equally obvious: More money == more power == more control. And we all know (don't we Mr. Gates?) that more control is a Very Good Thing (TM)... for the person or agency who holds that control!
Since you can rent studio time and since you can now market your music over the Internet, shouldn't most bands and artists be telling the RIAA to "blow!"? Wouldn't that be the best way to put them in their place? They derive their revenue from a symbiotic (or probably more likely parasitic) relationship with artists. If the artists said "No siree, we ain't having that no more!", things would have to change.
Of course, that might be one way to ensure you never make it big, but what happened to artistic integrity anyway?
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
I am glad someone is finally looking into this. Quite simply right now the record companies are getting royalties from both sides... Cd's that cant be copied as well as the media that you cant (well shouldnt, cause we all know how well these schemes work) copy the new cds too.
On another note I am still skeptical about the companies lowering cd prices, but if it happens I will feel as though we the people actually won something since we cant compete with the money thrown around by corporations on capitol hill.
FINALLY! Some congress-critters are beginning to think that the RIAA might not be the next best thing since apple-pie. I wonder if this is in any way the result of the wonderful efforts of this community and others like it. It is a nice thing to see when you see the Great Machine begin to slowly turn the right way...
But don't stop now. Not only should you continue to keep those letters and emails flowing, but you should also send new letters and email praising the efforts of those congress-folk who make a good descision, after all, they like to get a pat on the head as much as the next person...
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
It depends on how they do it. If they do anything to your hardware to damage/disable it, then, it should be illegal. It should also be illegal to raise prices/lower quality for 'copy protection' reasons. I mean, making a CD that can't be copied without sacrificing sound quality/portability would be nice (for them) instead of making a CD that can destroy your equipment.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
As I pointed out in another discussion AHRA imposes penalties for manipulating the existing copy protection (SCMS) to prevent legitimate copying - so it makes sense that other technology would similarly be a violation of the AHRA.
Ah, we can explain that, Senator... I'll just write you an explanation... let me find a piece of paper... ah, here's one, in the ledger! A signature on the line there on the other side to prove our sincerity and... there you go! I think that should explain everything.
who this representative's backers are? I mean, most of the time you hear a politician say something like this to the media, it usually just means that he's fishing for some campaign money.
But maybe this isn't the case, maybe this guy is already backed by the CDR Companies / MP3 Device companies / Any company who doesn't profit from CD copy protection. Because almost certainly, that is why a question like this would be asked.
-- Dan
Asking Cmdr "Story Repost" Taco if he hasn't been reading /.? Have YOU not been reading /.?
Because of the cayenne pepper that just got blow into my eyes. But I digress...
This is very good news. They certainly need to look into this practice, since rights we have been given by law are being taken away by corporations. Though I'd be grossly dissapointed if, as the comments at least make possible, this ends only the blank media royalty.
Though this isn't the only time fair use issues have been brought up. In the DeCSS case the judge was quite unapproving of the MPAA's thoughts on fair use... not that it ended up helping much.
The enemies of Democracy are
If you think about it. The RIAA is create a monolpy against the CD burner companys trying to put them out of business with CD-Protection. Thank god for CLoneCD and other coping software.
is that the blank media tax (at least in Canada, and I think the States) goes exclusively to the music publishers. So everytime I download a new Slack version or whatever, I'm giving money to support N'Sync. That's the really criminal part. Why would you assume every blank CD is used to copy music that you didn't buy? If I'm making a backup copy of my legally purchased disc, why am I paying more money to give myself an extra?
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
Isn't the CD-R "tax" only levied on "music" CD-Rs (The more expensive kind that you always pass up for the same brand but cheaper "normal" CD-Rs next to them)? At some point, home audio CD-recorders would only use the "music" CD-R variety, as the sale of those included a royalty payment. I didn't think there was a royalty included on normal CD-Rs.
SCMS & the blank disc royalty was the bargain struck between congress and the industry to allow private home copying. If they fail to uphold their side of the deal it's only fair that they should be held accountable.
They steal your music, your culture, your ideas, your stories, your language, mass produce it, shrink-wrap it and then sell it back to you.
This is exactly the problem... The RIAA/MPAA are the forces driving western culture into the ground, creating generations of bumbling, sex-mad idiots with carbon-copy personalities and giving capitalism a bad name.
Aside from any legal problems, I think it's damned unethical the way today's media giants operate.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
...which is why I'm as pissed off about it now as I am, whereas just a week ago I simply shrugged and thought: "well, that's for people who want to copy Britney records is all".
... right, didn't think so) disk in the mail. Guess what? I couldn't review it until I remembered there was a half broken diskman up in the attic somewhere because it was copy protected and couldn't be played on a cd-rom drive (I don't have - or didn't think I had - a regular cd player, it's either cd's in cd-rom drives or records for me, thank you). This is an album that will sell poorly by major label standards, even if it sells extremely well (two thousand copies at most). No one on Napster++ is going to be interested in mp3's I rip off it (not that I do, but ...). Finally, it's something that will appeal primarily to a somewhat technophile audience likely to play it on a cd-romplayer - why the fuck do they do this? Is this worth alienating the 1000 or so fans Oval has? Don't think so...
Today I got a review copy of an Oval (raise your hands if you've heard about them
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
I was in school at the time, and our University had maybe a couple CD burners for student use, and that was actually later than 1992. Broadband was available only at work and in the computer labs. Our dorms didn't start getting ethernet until a year later.
So in 1992, when the RIAA managed to get the law passed compensating them for piracy, there was a whole lot less digital piracy occurring simply because most people didn't have access to equipment to make digital copies. It seems we now have the choice between allowing copy protection or increasing the compensation to the RIAA if we assume that the 1992 law was just. :-(
Nevertheless, piracy will continue. If I buy CDs that force me to use a special player, you can bet that I'll decide to rip them to mp3s just so I can use XMMS. The RIAA could argue that piracy will continue, and they should be compensated accordingly, though now they can claim that hard drives, memory sticks, compact flash, and smart media storage also contribute to their allegedly lost sales and that these should also be taxed.
end of line
Is CD copy protection legal?
Does that really change whether we will be saddled with it or not?
We all know the story:
ConHugeCo does something evil and of dubious legality. Someone calls them on it (like the high tech community's good friend Rick Boucher or the Justice Department, or Ralph Nader), the matter gets talking head time on the enws channels... gets debated for a while... maybe goes to court... drags on a few years... Congress passes a law that would have helped before the fact, but not after... even the media get bored with the story... and finally gets resolved with a slap on the wrist long to ConHugeCo after the issue has ceased to be relevant.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
This is pissing me off, why do I have to pay royalties to music
companies, while I am not listening to their crap. (Britney Spears and etc.)
I mostly buy trance music, that is produced by independnt lables, and outside of USA.
And when I buy blank cd's, I used it for backup purposes nothing else
along side this is a question i've had for a while: why, after paying this "tax" on blank media, have i not been considered to have paid for the copies i have made (or will make)? since it is assumed that i will use my blank media for music copies, why is it wrong for me to then use my blank media for copies of music?
geek friendly VPS's and free API enabled DNS : zerigo.com
take a portion of blank media sales, then what keeps them from taking a portion of CD-burner sales, or for that matter, processors, motherboards, ram, the list goes on.
Seriously, after the Napster debacle and the self-defeating copy protection on CD's it's like asking a the man who kills his parents how it feels to be an orphan.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The main thrusts of the law are:
-No copyright infringment suit can be brought against someone making home digital recordings.
-Retailers have the right to sell copying equipment and media, so long as they contain serial copy protection.
-The RIAA collects a royalty of 2% on copying equipment and 3% on media.
That the RIAA might be violating this law by making copy-proof cds is not immediately apparent from a quick reading. In fact, the definitions of what is and is not a "digital musical recording" do not seem to hinge in any way on the "copyability" of the recording, and the only qualification for entitlement to payments is that an entity is making and distributing recordings so defined.
The point that copy-proof cds violate the spirit of this law is a good one. I think that any argument that the letter of the law is violated is weak, however. Anyone who can determine otherwise would make me happy, though, since IANAL.
As a final point, the fact that a congressman is looking into this might make violation of the letter of the law irrelevant since congress, of course, has the power to create new law.
"The labels are worried that the rise of home CD-burners has eaten into album sales, particularly after the worst year in a decade for the music industry. "....
Maybe the reason it's the worst year in a decade is that nobody wants to listen to the crap they're trying to sell.
Hmmm lets see if I can follow this:
1: a recession
2: cd prices keep going UP
3: and for some reason sales go down.....
Looks like a toughie to me.
And why are prices still going up considering the FTC already found them guilty of essentially price fixing with their minimum price scheme, yet since then I have only seen prices go up.
I'd buy CD's again if the prices were far more reasonable, but $19 or more for a single disk with maybe 12 songs on it, especially when I don't even like all the songs, is a bleeping joke!
Since you can rent studio time and since you can now market your music over the Internet, shouldn't most bands and artists be telling the RIAA to "blow!"?
Yeah, you would think. But the record companies seem to have convinced everyone that there is such a thing as a "star". Of course, everybody knows that stars were just an invention of the manufacturing divisions of the record industry giants. They complained to their bosses about always having to change the damn plates on the record press. They said "Hey, instead of promoting 50 artists who each sell 100,000 albums, could you please just have one artist who sells 50*100,000 albums? It would be *so* much more convenient and *profitable*.
So the record companies realized that they could make much more money by having 1 big star and mass producing copies than by having regional music with no economies of scale.
So every garage band and coffee house wannabe still labours under the illusion that one day they will be great. Maybe they will, but they won't be in control.
Not only are you paying a tax to the "music providers" for using a CD-R or CD-R/W or blank tape, they ARE NOT PAYING IT TO:
the musicians listed on MP3.com - where is their cut of the pie?
the indie recorder who got listed on Napster - where is their cut of the pie?
Face it - the money only goes to those musicians stupid enough to have signed a contract with a RIAA music provider. In which they lost their copyright ability to earn the most money from the sale of their music, and in return get less than a penny per song played from many dollars collected on the sale of the CD.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
So why don't the Linux vendors get a cut of the blank CD media tax? Only seem fair.
now that we have 2390482398 copies of the same general idea posted... i have a new one to add to the melee.
what is going to happen when the people who use operating systems produced by people outside this company... aren't able to access the music on a copy-protected cd?
"no, i'm sorry mom. you can't use your imac to listen to that cd because the record companies don't want you to."
when I compile your comment I get the following errors:: no such file
Line 3; undertermined character constant
Line 8; I_realize_Napster_is_not_equivalent_to_Fair_Use.h
can you help me?
Please help! I'm stuck inside my virtual reality headset!
Companies are out for profit. I don't hold ill will toward them for trying all they can to do so. We just need to make sure that all "protected" cds are labelled as such. That way we don't by them. Besides..has anyone heard an original guitar lic in the last 15 years? Explore music history! Believe me...it's far more rewarding than the new release wall.
Also, an A/D converter can bypass any protection scheme. If it plays, you can rip it.
(Disclaimer: I think the tax on recordable media is stupid and completely unjustifiable - it is not the job of the government to compensate people for flawed business models)
Assuming that you can somehow justify paying a tax on recordable media, IIRC the way it works right now is that the copyright owners get a proportion of the money based on the sales of the particular records.
Records which are copy-protected should simply be removed from the equation and everything should continue the way it is. Why is this so hard?
Mmmm.. Donuts
I hardly think the "how" is a mystery. The why is equally obvious: More money == more power == more control. And we all know (don't we Mr. Gates?) that more control is a Very Good Thing (TM)... for the person or agency who holds that control!
Record company executives make Bill Gates look like the Dalai Lama.
Does computer software have a similar 'right'? I seem to recall that software buyers have a right to make personal backup copies of install media just as media buyers do. If I am remembering correctly it would seem that the same arguments would apply to the attempts to copy protect software CDs as well.
Doesn't look like there is actually anything in the Audio Home Recording Act that says that the RIAA members can't do what they are doing. (Moral considerations aside.) Apparently, the drafters of the Act back in 1992 didn't think that there would ever be enough copy protection to worry about. Of course, that's why the Act was passed-- the recording industry was all whipped up about the revenue it was going to loose as a result of people making digital copies.
:
Here's the text of the Audio Home Recording Act.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.html
(Arranged in easy to navigate sections from Cornell Law School)
http://www.hrrc.org/html/ahra.html
(Full text on one page from Audio Home Recording Rights Coalition)
Subchapter C is the part that is particularly interesting in that it sets out the details on royalty payments. You will have to cross reference to the definitions section is Subchapter A, however, in order to fully understand who is entitled to collect payments. Love the method of splitting up the royalty payments!
Incidentally I expect that the record companies make even more money from tax exemptions due to to what they claim are losses due to piracy in their account books but I don't have hard data on that.
-- SIGFPE
The problem the recording industry was trying to combat in 1992 was people making physical bit-identical copies of CD's. They failed massively because they didn't predict that home audio cd-recorders would be a complete failure while computer based cd-recorders would be a massive success. That turned out, however, to not be a problem. The issue they are battling now is electronic exchange of compressed music. Audio CD "copy" protection is actual raw-read protection. I'm sure the labels could actually care less about physical copies being made in the US. (East Asia is, of course, a completely different story). They just want to prevent casual users from being able to electronically exchange compressed tracks, a la, Napster.
There has been a shooting. Let's take guns away from the people who did not do it.
Do they get royalties for all CD-Rs or just those overpriced ones that they claim are meant for audio? I can't see why they should get paid for someone writing data.
Finally someone is paying attention to this issue. I've posted this information in a couple of slashdot threads, and here it is again. It's one of the most incredible recording industry lies/ripoffs. Maybe now it will get some attention.
...
...
The upshot of it is that every time you purchase a digital audio recorder, or blank digital audio recording media, such as audio CDRs, you pay a small statutory royalty into a fund. This fund is collected by the Federal Government, and turned over directly to the music industry. The name of the fund is the DART fund. DART stands for "Digital Audio Recording Technology". The best source of information on the DART fund is right here
These documents are very interesting. They show how the money was paid out. The law was written to allow all of the major copyright interests to gather together and collect all the money in one lump sum. According to the first report on the page, we find that 99.997% (LITERALLY!) of all of the statutory royalties collected on blank digital audio media (mostly CDRs), and digital audio recording devices went to the following organizations:
Broadcast Music, Inc. (``BMI'');
the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (``ASCAP'');
SESAC, Inc. (``SESAC'');
the Harry Fox Agency (``HFA'');
the Songwriters Guild of America (``SGA'');
and Copyright Management, Inc. (``CMI'')
Copyright Management, Inc. is a blanket organization that represents all of the major record labels.
In other words, all of the people who are raising hell that they aren't being paid when people burn music onto CDRs are being
you got it
paid every time a blank CDR is purchased!
However, nowhere in any of these web pages will you find the actual dollar figures. The reports go to laughable extremes to avoid disclosing exactly how much money we are talking about. For instance, according to the report, for the 1995 funds collected, 99.998034% was paid to the music industry, 0.001966% was paid to one individual claimant, and 0.000614% was paid to Ms. Alicia Evelyn.
I obtained the actual royalty yearly figures by contacting Ms. Evelyn, one of the individual claimants. Ms. Evelyn is a songwriter who, unable to obtain any royalty payments from ASCAP for her work, petitioned the copyright office directly for payment. She read me these numbers over the phone which she received in the course of her research. If you do the math, you'll find that she received a few pennies for her efforts. Literally.
Here are the total amounts collected year by year since 1992. These statutory royalties were all paid out to the recording industry:
1992 $118,227.42
1993 $520,162.84
1994 $521,999.64
1995 $473,592.20
1996 $397,152.52
1997 $969,178.06
1998 $1,978,457.93
1999 $3,551,030.86
2000 $5,285,246.32
So, while on the one hand, the music industry is claiming that they are not being paid when individuals make audio CDRs of their music, yet on the other hand, they are quietly collecting millions of dollars in statutory royalties from consumers when they purchase blank digital audio media.
The key here is that these are statutory royalties. They are NOT a tax. They are described as royalties in the law, and they function exactly as royalties.
A royalty is what you pay in exchange for the right to make a copy. This is the ordinary meaning of the term "royalty", as it is used throughout copyright law, and there is absolutely no evidence that it means anything else in the context of the AHRA.
I submit that by accepting these statutory royalty payments from the general public, the recording industry, and every major record label claimed this money, has incurred an obligation to permit the public to exercise the rights that they have paid for, to the tune of millions of dollars per year.
This is NOT an issue of fair use. This is an issue of consumers receiving the rights that they have paid for.
Kudos for Rep. Boucher. We need more representatives of his caliber with his level of committment to the rights of the people.
What we have here is a brick (RIAA), a window (music rights), and the House (perfect metaphore, isn't it!). In themselves there is nothing wrong with them, they're all perfectly legal.
Now the brick was thrown at the window, shattering people's fair use rights (IMHO). The brick is now in the house, and it runs off with some CDs, a Stero, and a HDTV (so it isn't the perfect metaphore after all).
Now the owner of the house has noticed that some of his stuff is missing and is starting to investigate. Let's just hope he looks into things farther and sees that not only was stuff stolen, but his window was broken, and all the other houses on his block are the same way. Maybe they'll get really smart and outlaw the brick, which in this specific case would be a good thing.
Note: If you aren't good with metaphores (or you think that my metaphores aren't good) what I'm saying is that I'm glad they're investigating, maybe now they'll get into all of the other illegal things that the RIAA is doing, IMHO.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Why should we have a welfare state? Entertainment is just that - entertainment. We shouldn't have to pay for piss-poor bands who sound like ass. You either sink or swim. If the public likes you, they buy your CDs and go to your gigs. If they don't like you, they ignore you. Why pay for somoene that sucks OR someone that can make it on their own? Besides, most artists make their $ off of concerts and promo materials, NOT CDs, so there's no reason for the levies.
The recording industry gets a tax on blank digital media....In other words they get PAID for every blank piece of media.. NOW they want to make it so you CAN'T record on said media? Then why should they get PAID then? In fact why shouldn't they HAVE TO REFUND all that $$? Greedier bastards have never roamed the earth....
If they decide to give up the few cents' cut of CD sales, and just have copy-protected CD's, what's to stop them charging more for those CD's so that they regain the money they just lost? Nothing. You can bet they're not just going to eat the revenue loss and not pass the cost on to the consumers. (Us!)
Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
hoping your rules and wisdom choke you, since 1976
Not to mention that by adding the "copy protection" to the CD (in the form of bad TOC entries and ECC noise) means that the CD in question does not comply with the CDDA (Compact Disc Digital Audio) specification, so they can't call it a CD and can't use the little CDDA logo.
on the subject. First, consumers and people have fair use rights to make copies for personal use. That is something that has to be considered and something that has proven over time to not cause content providers to go out of business. Now has it hurt their sales? Potentially, I'd even argue probably, but to what extent I am not sure. However, I'd lean towards a change in the format to prevent fair use being illegal.
Second, personal means personal and I'd wager that personal extends to your immediate family only. Not to brothers across the country, and definitely not to neighbors. Does this mean that your neighbor/friend/co-worker can't come watch your tape of the Super Bowl or listen to the latest Michael Jackson CD? No, but you can't make them a copy of the tape/CD or send them an MP3. That is not fair use, that is abuse and theft.
Lastly, whether the practices of the RIAA/Sony/Columbia/Every distributor is right wrong or immoral is a separate argument. Their business practices regarding musicians is separate from their right to hold copyrights. Personally I think that music/video/etc. is not "work for hire", and artists should see more $$, but who holds the copyright is separate from whether or not it should be enforced.
If the recording companies are taking a cut on very CD sold to cover "pirating", wouldnt this mean that any audio CD copied was then paid for in full and hence not illegal???
Wow, not only did he think arresting Dmitri Sklyarov was a bad idea:
)
m )
p ?CID=N00002171&cycle=2000)
This unfortunate legal action highlights the overly broad terms of the criminal provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). It clearly demonstrates the intrusion of these provisions on the ability of American citizens to exercise their legally protected fair use rights,
(http://www.house.gov/boucher/docs/sklyarov.htm
but he also gets that the entertainment industry wants money off the public everytime you listen to music or watch a movie.
As NTIA recognized in its letter, one of the foremost concerns reflected in the Congressional report upon passage of the DMCA was that changes in the law could chill the exercise of consumers' traditional "fair use" rights, and move us all toward a "pay-per-use" society.
Unfortunately, the announced exceptions to the rule are so narrow as to be practically meaningless. Fair use is not protected.
...Congress in its next session should act to prevent the creation of a "pay per use" society, in which what is available today on the library shelf for free is available in the future only upon payment of a fee for each use.
(http://www.house.gov/boucher/docs/payperuse.ht
Wow! That'll teach the entertainment industry to only give him $18,500 when the telephone industry gave him $49,000 (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/detail.as
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
That's the difference...that and the fact that some audio deck recorders only use Audio CD-Rs.
That's all I can offer up right now.
Everyone now, say it together:
Fuck you, RIAA!
Feel better now? I do.
Rep. Boucher has a brilliant idea here. Send him a note of support, especially if you live in the 9th district of Virginia: Rep. Rick Boucher jeff
This won't work long term for paying off the record companies, because in a few years we'll have removable media that you can store an entire music collection on one disc. Sales will go down along with revenue for the record companies. I'm sure they are well aware of this which is why they're looking for other ways to protect their income.
Simply put, their attempt to claim royalties on CD-R's and CD-RW's sold, while also putting copy protection on their music CDs, is fraudulent and an unfair business practice. If they're going to claim that they should get royalties of blank CD's sold, because those CD's can be used to create copies of their audio CD's, then they can't put copy protection on their audio CD's. Simple as that.
2 443
Not that their copy protection works anyway. Copy protection mechanisms fail when dealing with DVD drives. Furthermore, alt. OS people can always set up a minimal Win98 partition to play and rip the "copy-protected" CDs. Simply put, you play the CD and open up a program like Creative Recorder, which directly and digitally records to output of the sound card...this kind of copying cannot be gaurded against unless you don't allow the CD to be played on a computer. If record companies start preventing ppl from playing CD's on computers, they're in for big profit losses and bad publicity. No one's going to put up with that crap. No one's putting up with this copy-protection crap, either. In a previous post, I outlined a recipee for ripping their "copy-protected" CD's:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=25052&cid=272
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I.T.R.A.R.K. wrote:
Re:It's not just boy bands anymore (Score:-1)
by I.T.R.A.R.K. on Friday January 04, @07:32PM (#2788643)
(User #533627 Info | http://povo-hat.besmella-quake.com/test/)
Write fan mail to the band and tell them why you can't listen to their music anymore. It may not accomplish much beyond pissing off the band, but at least your voice will be heard. It's bands like that who care about every last fan, because they don't have many to begin with.
If your/our complaints reach the right people, we might have an uprising one of these days. You never know. But you'll never know unless you take the time to complain to someone. It's your right. Use it.
"Adequacy.org: Where congenital stupidity is not an option, but a requirement."
Rocky J. Squirrel
While I was sitting here reading the comments, I realized that we have all seen this before.
The software industry went through this many years ago. They started with simple copy protection using 'bad sectors'. It was countered with various copying software. Then they added microscopic laser burned holes in the disks. That was counterered again by copying software like CopyIIPC (boy am I dating myself). Some tried various codes such as serial numbers and books with codes on certain pages. The algorithms were simple and the books got copied. Then most if not all but M$ gave up. I became too costly to keep trying.
Next was the movie companies with trying to copy protect video tapes. Very quickly there were companies making devices to circumvent that as well. Even magazines like Radio Electronics were publishing articles on how to build them. Then most gave up as well. Again too costly to keep trying.
The various movie stations like HBO, etc. tried too by scrambling their satallite transmissions. that too has been easily defeated and they are beginning to give up as well.
Cable companies tried it too when they were charging for each set connected. They were defeated as well. Then the government decided it should work like phone service and they could no longer charge for each set but only a house connection. (I'm glad someone sued them)
So I say let them keep trying to copy protect their CDs. It'll cost them more and more money and it will get feated time and time again. The focus should be on stooping them from getting this royalty on blank media. In 1992 there weren't too many people using CDs for anything but music. Today there are - computer software, Backups, videogames, etc.. They sould NOT be able to make money from something that has nothing to do with their business. That is the message we need to get to Rick Bouche.
Personally I use blanks to burn the latest distro ISO's. I use them to ... get this... actually back up legally bought software. I've only made about 10 actual audio CDs.
I back up everything onto CD. It's so nice. I've copied entire directory trees onto a CD. Just because.
I pay a 'what-if' tax on the media and such. No big deal. But the reason for the tax is kind of ridiculous. Not everyone is copying N*Sync or movies. Some of us are putting our own works on CD!
So as a home user we are paying tax on the RIGHT to use this technology?
It's a funny business. But how far up does the tax go? What if I run a mom-and-pop shop creating CD's for people who sing covers? Who is paying this tax? [please respond]
What if the 'new' Napster takes off? People are legally buying music to legally put it on CD. Either in a compressed format or a regualar CDDA form. So they pay taxes on illegal copying?
How about breaking the distribution monopoly the RIAA holds? Let's look into why we can't walk into a Media Play and create a CD in two minutes. I mean we've been wanting custom mixes for years.
Jeeeez
--
Get your Unix fortune now!
Copy protecting CDs seems illegal, in light of the Home Audio Recording Act. Does that mean the RIAA won't do it? Of course not. It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is permission. Especially if you have highly paid and influential lobbyists helping you to ask for forgiveness.
I have seen the face of evil, and it is the RIAA. As far as I'm concerned, they can go **** themselves. I've bought hundreds of CDs legitimately, and ripped them all for personal use only. I'm allowed to do this, by law. I only listen to MP3s now, because I've discovered that I hate dealing with CDs in great stacks on my stereo cabinet. I have no interest in going back to that. However, I will not buy music in any form other than CD (or other digital physical media, when it's available in the future), because I don't want to lose my MP3s forever when my hard disk crashes and my backups fail. Should the RIAA ever implement a form of copy protection that removes my ability to lawfully convert my CDs to the audio format of my choosing, for personal use, then I will stop buying CDs.
I have to believe that copy protecting CDs will only increase piracy, because those who lack the technical savvy to rip their CDs will simply acquire them from those who do (via Morpheus or other download service du jour). Until recently, for ethical reasons I've never really 'stolen' music using an online service like Morpheus. Due to the RIAA's practices, though, I've started using those services. Should copy protected CDs become ubiquitous, I, and probably droves of others, will no longer buy music, but will just go steal it instead.
When you file your taxes this year take special note of the "Federal Individual Surtax". I think this should answer your question.
---
I didn't want to leave this space blank.
At least someone in our govt. has a clue. I was getting worried there for a while.
The recording industry needs to make up their mind. Either they want the royalty fees, or they want copy protection. If I were them, I'd go with the royalty fees, since their attempts at copy protection are going to fail so miserably that its not worth their time. Where there is a will, there is a way.
And, they wonder why sales are so bad last year? Maybe its because of the music that was released last year?
Brielle
I agree completly.
I can't remember the number of times I've sat here and listened to all the armchair QBs on slashdot say "If I had the chance I'd make a diffrence.". Well, guess what! This is your chance. Get up, find a stamp and do your part. It's easy, even a post card will work. Even if doubt your letter will effect anything, don't worry it's cheap, easy and it will definitly benifit a postal system that could use some help anyway.
Communication is about content not presentation.
Classical music.
Dirt Cheap / Free.
Sounds better then the dog sh*t the RIAA is crapping out these days.
Tada.
Problem solved.
Though there is still that issue of the RIAA charging a fee for blank CDR media.
I'd like to see how long they live soly off of funds from that though. Heh.
(or alternativly use a Memory Stick reading device and just pump all of your sound outa that. Heh, alot more expensive, but the RIAA gets NONE of the profits then. Unless of course they start charging a fee for those too. . . . )
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
This combination of requiring royalties for blank media and implementing copy protection that often doesn't EVEN allow listening on some CD players is bad enough. Add the fact that most of these music publishing houses are stiffing their artists on royalties and these guys are printing money three different ways.
Say you are a band and you get differing royalty rates for various countries? You get a number one hit in England, right? Go to buy your CD major retailer in the UK, and you'll notice that the CD is printed in, say Austria. Imagine that! It would then be a reasonable guess that the required royalty for Austria is, say, 20 points less.
Not illegal in this case, but shady.
To offer a devil's advocate perspective though?
The rate the RIAA gets for blank media is very low and the cost for that same media is pennies on the dollar gotten for prerecorded content. Thus they lose more on the blank media period.
If some congress person raises the question, and suddenly he/she is silenced by a flood of lobbyist money (Boucher is not like that, is he?), then we are back to square one, and nothing is achieved, besides shining a bright light in this age of darkness for a little while.
Now, if this can build up a momentum of grass root movement, and put real pressure on the legislation people to change things, then that would be a kudo.
But that's a start.
If copy-protection + Tax kickbacks is found to be illegal, this would lead to an interesting choice. If forced to choose, will the music industry choose the right to copy-protect or the cash flow produced from goverment protections?
Communication is about content not presentation.
For CDR/CDRW (non-audio), the 2001/2002 price is $0.21 (originally it was $0.052).
The sad part is, he's the only one asking questions like this, and no one is listening except the choir.
You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
I remember reading a web page a few years ago, written by a PI investigating Kurt Cobains death. He presented a pretty good case that Courtney had him killed because Mr. Cobain was about to file for divorce and was expected to get custody of their child. One of the most convincing parts of the theory was the "suicide" note, which appeared to be non-suicidal up to the end, where, curiously, the handwriting changed and the tone of the letter turned suicidal.
There was also the [suppressed, lost, destroyed] police report that explained how the body appeared to have been arranged very neatly, with the hair being recently(like after death) brushed and styled.
I printed the note out, and have it laying around somewhere. If you cant find it on google, I might be convinced to scan it and post it on the web somewhere.
file:
RockyJSquirel wrote:
Re:Why the hell was this at -1? (Score:1)
I.T.R.A.R.K. wrote:
Re:It's not just boy bands anymore (Score:-1)
by I.T.R.A.R.K. on Friday January 04, @07:32PM (#2788643)
(User #533627 Info | http://povo-hat.besmella-quake.com/test/)
Write fan mail to the band and tell them why you can't listen to their music anymore. It may not accomplish much beyond pissing off the band, but at least your voice will be heard. It's bands like that who care about every last fan, because they don't have many to begin with.
If your/our complaints reach the right people, we might have an uprising one of these days. You never know. But you'll never know unless you take the time to complain to someone. It's your right. Use it.
"Adequacy.org: Where congenital stupidity is not an option, but a requirement."
Rocky J. Squirrel
Listen to what he says people! Tell the bands why you won't buy thier music. Make them aware of what the RIAA is doing to thier sales!
(P.S. Mod up I.T.R.A.R.K., not me. I've got karma coming out of my ears)
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
I've never burned audio to a CD, unless it was a file within the back-ups I've made. Never.
It really sucks when the RIAA assumes that every CD-R purchase is for copying music. I pay money for music, when I don't even work with music.
This year, I'm going to make it a point to write my US representatives about once a month, on this issue (and similar ones). I didn't mind (well, I do, but I've gained some apathy) when the RIAA made me pay money to them for backing up my data, in the interest of compensating others' "abuse of their artists". I do mind paying them money when they are actively preventing "abuse of their artists" (or at least attempting to).
I would urge all of you out there (that are US citizens, of course), to write to your representatives. Given enough letters saying (essentially) the same thing, the rep's (most likely) going to listen. Even with all the money raised and spent in election campaigns, they can't afford to ignore their constituents. To paraphrase Bill Cosby, "We brought you into that world, and we can take you out." Just let your reps know that you know this (well, gently let them know).
BUT...Microsoft's own EULA -- which in their own words is a legal agreement -- states that if the original media is required to play the game (as is the case here), then it is permissible to make a backup copy of the game CDs. To quote:
So as you can see there is a major contradiction here. Microsoft explicitly and legally states that it is okay to make backup copies, but they implicitly state that it is not. Are they contradicting their own agreement here? Is this legal?
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
I assume this double dip only applies to the "music" cdr's.
How can someone determine exactly what blank data cd's are being used for?
Ask 20 people the same question and you will get 20 completely different breakdowns.
Based on my burning habits, how much should be a per disk gift to the RIAA to cover their simulated paper loses?
If I had a decent vid capture card I would be saving tv shows to cdrom but not yet..
My last hundred burned cd's breakdown to this..
5 Playstation backups
yes I own the originals
5 Dreamcast stuff
not games but emu's, and extra stuff that others have made.
10 Audio cd's of music that I made.
I made - meaning original music. I sequence midi files and record and edit the final product in wav format.
5 computer game discs
yes I own the originals
15 Software discs
Software I have downloaded, like patches, IE updates, MS service packs, plugins, Netscape, driver updates, Star Office etc..
15 Linux distros and software
10 MP3 disks
mp3's that were converted from CD's I own or I created (see above). I use these in my home DVD player and my laptop when on the road.
15 data disks with pictures from my digital camera
5 data disks filled with prOn and car pictures from various usenet groups
5 data backups - various data files that need backed up
3 stuff I do not own..
d/l mp3's, game roms, cracked software etc..
7 coaster - ran into problems copying some of the above.. I could probably make this better but I try disc-disc on the fly first, if that doesnt work I see why (orignal scratched, copy protection that slows reading etc..) and try another method.
Is that 100?
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
I realize that the law in question is the AUDIO Home Recording Act, but how are other entertainment recordings (namely videos and DVDs) qualitatively different? Either the same (or similar) laws should apply to both, or be prepared to watch the RIAA sqeeze through those loopholes. DVD audio is already starting to catch on... and all it takes is one little video file on a music disc for them to call it a movie and sell it under those different standards. (I much prefer the converse, allowing us to copy DVDs for personal use)
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
It could be that the CD prices (blanks not the other kind) have fallen so much I don't bother with RW disks anymore for my perodic backups. Re formatting them takes too long. This has nothing to do with music of any kind and has everyting to do with keeping the family photo ablums up to date and the tax records, E-Mail and school homework projects archived. I quit using streaming tape. A 250 Meg backup on a tape takes a lot of time and isn't reliable. It's also a waste of time retensioning and reformatting them. I don't buy audio blank CD's because there is no reason to pay a tax to the music industry to back up my server.
The truth shall set you free!
How much would slashdotters pay to be guaranteed never to hear another song by insync, Brittney Spears, (insert other group here)?
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
Since it's Oval, it's more probably just a spec-violating "Track 0" that's confusing your CD-ROM. I have a handful of discs that I can't play on any of my computers because of that--and one (Melt-Banana, "Charlie") that just locks 'em all up.
Stick the disc in a regular CD player, press Play, then shuttle backward past the 00:00 of Track 1. It's probably a good song, since they went to the trouble of hiding it--if it's there.
And that skipping-disc sound was so "out" by 1993, it was already kitsch, you know-nothing poseur!!!
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
...if I were the music industry I would point out that vastly more music sits on hard drives than CDs, and hard drives are exempt from royalties under the Digital Audio Recording Act.
However, it seems to me they could just broaden the scope of royalties to INCLUDE harddrives, and make it definitively legal to download and exchange music over the 'net.
It would be worth it for me to pay an extra $50 for my new HD if I knew I never had to hear about or deal with the RIAA again.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Perhaps we should "acquire" some 18-wheelers loaded up with blank audio CD-Rs, drive to Boston Harbor, and toss them in?
I would like to happily note that two high-class consumer electronic companies notice that people want mp3 playback from custom-mixed cds. one of which, already tried the SDMI route.
Sony
Bose
People want simplicity... not the ball-and-chain "digital rights management" approach of WindowsMedia.
IANAL, but I feel pretty confident about this: You have the *right* to copy it, but you can't do it in any normal way because it would have to be a DMCA violation. Since DMCA is law, the law takes precedence over any agreement. Of course you could stamp (as in cd press) a perfect copy and it'd be legal (as you're not breaking any copyright method), so you can't claim the right has been entirely taken away from you. Thus your right exists, but as 99.9999% doesn't have a cd stamper around, you can't exercise it. It's like giving you TV broadcast rights in the US, but if and only if you send from the back of the moon.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I think this guy is one of the few we have in Congress that "get it" and IMHO one of the few in Congress not paid for by a major media conglomerate.
Although this is going to sound like a political commercial, I have followed this guys record, he has opposed virtually every fascist piece of legislation pushed by "big media".
I believe the linux and free software community should support him just like most of us support the EFF.
This sig is taken.
In Canada, the "blank media" levy is bigger and applied to more media, including data CD-R discs, so it's even more upsetting. Activists there have already noted that it's incompatible with the arguments for anti-fair-dealing measures. The record companies have to give up one or the other (at least!). The earliest mention of this issue that I've seen is in the September 14, 2001 submission of Eric R. Smith, PhD to the Canadian government's copyright reform comment process, and flagged in a reply comment of Matthew Skala.
But of course, it wasn't news for Slashdot until a U.S. Congressman thought to mention it.
If you don't spend that $4.00/day on a cup of overpriced coffee you would have (4.00 * 5 * 52) $1040 per year to invest and save so when the next recession comes you will have some savings so you can survive it...
The labels are worried that the rise of home CD-burners has eaten into album sales, particularly after the worst year in a decade for the music industry.
Has the music industry thought about how much negative press the RIAA has given them. How it has made users like myself hate them and many of the artists the represent.
I use to love Metallica, I felt like they backstabed me as a fan. I swear, if I ever buy a copy protected CD, I maybe a nobody, but to the Senators question, I'd at least try and sue. Never know, maybe a class action could be brewing here.
Go after major copyright infringement and use Joe Home User alone.
God Moving Over the Face of Waters
He He, two moderator points left and I decide to give up that democratic right and post instead.
I'd put it down to the incomahole.
Lemme tell you what I mean.
Near on twenty years ago I started fiddling around with computers, and had much fun doing so. That was in the days when ones operating system was written in stone. In the days when the OS was burnt onto a rom and they had to get it right when they went for a burn 'coz it cost an awful amount of money when they got it wrong.
Then came along HD's and it was worked out,
one no longer had to give so much commitment to accuracy, one could issue the operating system in software, sort of flashupgrade on steroids, and charge in the process. Yeah big time, well clever keep em in the dark and suck em dry. Well the chickens are coming home to roost sorry.
Economics on its most real level, is about resource management and I think us homo saps are making a poor fist of it. Raping the present and mortgaging the future. Why? Maybe because of intellectual capitalism.
The understanding of how computers work should be shared, not hoarded. The proliferation of different computer languages demonstrates the antithesis to this idea. Almost as though kind of following the fat wallet and empty bollocks syndrome grows bigger antlers, irrelevant of the environment of ones children. They vainly try to delineate logoize encapsulate alienate obfuscate towards a fat wallet and empty bollocks as though that was the sum total of what life means. Capture the intellectual territory by beating the shit out people if they do not agree with your labels.
Well to end all this, I would like to say I think intellectual capitalism stinks and resource capitalism has a grain of sense.
Init nice to waste karma when you are that old and fucked up.
Peter
It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
I couldn't agree more. It isn't the job of Governments to get involved in bailing out one industry at the expense of another. What gives them the right to burden the makers of writeable media just because it happens to affect another industry. That's like putting a tax on cheap breakfast joints because they take profits away from luncheonettes? Not to mention the profits the makers of nicotine gum are taking away from cigarette makers!
Our officials seem to have no concept of economic realities surrounding piracy. I'd say that in 90% of "piracy" cases the individual would not have bought the product legitimately no matter what, so in reality it counts as no loss for the company.
And forget about silly "protecting the artists" arguments. No one takes more advantage of musicians and does them more harm than record companies. God, how many promising artists have lost their purity and soul in the name of record-sales, popularity, and fame? Capitalism corrupts, kids, for all the good it does.
When it comes down to it the "either-tax-or-copy-protect" choice is totally artificial. These are not the only alternatives so let's not allow the pundits to fool us into arguing one over the other. If creativity wasn't constantly being whored to the highest bidder maybe it would come back around to the service of quality and culture. Maybe artists would realize that the new media revolution means the record companies have become obsolete!
Let's face it, our courts and law enforcement have enough to do without becoming the muscle for corporate interests, and that's exactly the direction the US is going. Am I the only person who became physically ill when the aftermath of the 9/11 attack segued straight from heartfelt mourning to "save the economy, go out and spend" bullshit?
Fuck the profit-mongers. May their blue blood freeze in their veins....
-- thinkyhead software and media
It's great that you can complain about how mass media is destroying your culture... but what do you propose to do about it? Establish some government oversight preventing more than 20K copies of any CD from being distributed? Require the taxpayers to fund the publication of any artist who thinks they have something worth distributing?
Capitalism may be a poor method of resource distribution -- but there is none better.
The article says 'sightings are rare' - don't think so, see here.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
"-No copyright infringment suit can be brought against someone making home digital recordings."
The DMCA forbids the bypassing of copy protection, which the record companys plan on putting on every disc. Does that mean that the record companys can't do anything about someone making the copy for personal fair use of they break the DCMA?
-john
...put that in your review. Or send it back saying that you won't bother to make a review of it if you can't play it in your (for you) normal player.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
- It's still possible to make *analog* copies of cd's, just not *digital* ones. Does the law state anything about allowing analog (imperfect) but not digital (perfect) copies?
.mp3 "copy" of a track is not perfect even at the highest rate: mp3 is a lossy algorithm.
Don't know about the law, but a
A couple years back, the state of arizona thought it would be sneaky and try to screw drug dealers out of more money. They created a cannabis tax - The idea being that if you were caught with a bunch of bud that you hadn't paid taxes on, they could use the "tax" to extort that money out of you.
Funny thing is, because they had the tax, they had to then create a cannabis license. So, people started applying for licenses to sell cannabis.
When all was said and done, and everything went through court, it was decided that these people who had applied for and received cannabis sale licenses and had paid the tax, could not then be prosecuted for selling cannabis.
So...If I pay a tax on the blank media I buy - a tax that was put in place to compensate the various content holders for "piracy" - does that not then give me the implicit right to use that media for "piracy"? I mean, hell, I *did* pay the tax after all...
HAHA
I knew that cron job would get some attention!
"I'll just chip in a bit for RedHat: I actually have that installed on my university machine." - Linus, '95
then maybe more people would buy cd's.
for the record, i stopped buying commercial cd's a couple of years ago. I'm a musician and am mostly interested in my own damned songs. I was very opposed to the Home Taping Tax (royalty, tax, they still come out of your pocket), as every single tape I stuck in my four track put a couple of bucks in Sony's/Michael Jackson's pocket.
As was worded on the back of the Catholic Girls lp, "HOME MUSIC IS KILLING TAPING".
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Come to think of it, when I had Napster at my beck and call I downloaded a lot of music (for a 56k guy, that is--if only I had my cable uplink back then!). But I also bothered to go out and buy CDs, something I seldom did before and haven't done since.
When I had Napster, I logged into its chatrooms, talked with people, and got pointers on what to listen to. Then I downloaded a few songs, listened--and if I liked I often went out and bought a CD. That's how I got intorduced to music like Cat Power and P.J. Harvey. But even when I could find > 160kbps MP3s of their songs, I still often wanted the better sound and the liner notes and images of the CDs.
A trip to Best Buy to pick up some blank CDs or a new PCI card or game often led to a new CD purchase, too. But not any more. I don't get introduced to new music I really like, since MTV is 99% kiddie-pop or shitty rapcrap, VH1 is 90% stuff I heard 10 years ago, and nowhere else is there in my area to get into music and explore.
I think that's what the RIAA bitches don't understand. The piracy angle is insignificant if the side-channels it creates get millions of people to be more enthusiastic about music and let them find the kind of music they really want. You see, it turns a largely indifferent market--and let's face it, unless you're a child or young adult into the MTV sort of demographic, the odds are you're pretty indifferent about music and only buy it on occasion--into the same sort of excited MTV-kiddiez who rush out to buy the latest NSYNC crapola, only about a far broader range of music. For every Britney Spears lover who downloads her whole new album at 128kbps instead of buying the CD, there are several people who sample a few dozen tracks and then get inspired to buy a CD or two when they never would have bought one before.
That's exactly the sort of person I met in the Napster chatrooms quite often. I mean, if they were still in print I'd buy every Cat Power album ever recorded, all thanks to someone at the Napster forums, and I know there are lots of others who'd say the same about an artist they never would have known but for online "piracy."
Incidentally, if anyone can point me to a copy of Cat Power's "Darling Said Sir" from one of her old out of print singles, I NEED THAT SONG. I can't find it, not even in online record stores, and only have a very bad and scratchy MP3 of it at 128kbps. I had to mention it beause I've been searching for sooooo long.
Anyway, I think the nail has been hit right on the head. All those increased record sales pre-Napster shutdown were due to ordinary people becoming excited music lovers and buying music they never would have known about before. The decline in music sales ever since has been due to the fact that no real replacement for Napster's community exists yet--no place with an easy interface that anyone and everyone can log into, with integrated chat functions and real ease of finding almost anything at almost any bitrate. I've tried stuff like Limewire, WinMX, Kazaa/Morpheus--each has fatal flaws. Some lack Napster's nice integrated chat communities. Some only find crappy 128k music and won't let you limit your seaches to better quality stuff. Some is too hard for an average guy to use. Some are just too obscure with too few users. Some never provide stable connections when you try to make a transfer.
In short, nothing is what Napster was. If the recording industry were to be beaten within an inch of its life with a clue-stick, it would realize that what it needs to do is just remake Napster exactly like it was, with open MP3 and OGG file formats freely allowed, with a reasonable subscription fee to be doled out to artists and labels according to number of downloads for each song. If it were a reasonable flat monthly fee and the file formats were open and unencumbered, most old Napster users and a bunch more would jump on it--as I said, the other file trading networks just aren't as good, with all the features and ease and connectivity Napster had. And most people would continue to buy CDs, and just as before a lot of non-CD-buyers would become CD buyers thanks to the music they're introduced to. Let's face it: a real album still usually offers something an MP3 doesn't. Tangibility. Pictures. Notes and information about the band and the album production. Show-off-ability--easier to point a friend to an album on the shelf and tell him how great it is, than to point him to your hard drives.
Not that I like the RIAA, but they could have easily consolidated their power over the industry into the next millennium by embracing Napster and working with it toward a fee-based licensing regime. Instead, by fighting the new media, and trying to impose control under their own unnatural terms, they're pissing away their power and influence. Stupid, stupid RIAA.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
is this something we can look for one music cds we buy? if no "cdda" logo then don't buy cuz it's copy protected??
MOD THIS UP!
/.ers personal convictions.
In a nutshell: follow the money!
I like Boucher and he's done some other stuff that I'm too lazy to go look up, but he's pretty much serving the special interests of the internet... it just happens to align with most of
Humorless sig goes here.
Something just hit me. This is so obvious to me now based on what you just said and based on my previous comment.
You know how in 1984 by George Orwell, he talks about the "Versificator" (it's in Part II, chapter IV)?
I'll quote it for you:
"The tune had been haunting London for weeks past. It was one of countless similar songs published for the benefit of the proles by a sub-section of the Music Department. The words of these songs were composed without any human intervention on an instrument known as a versificator." - George Orwell, 1984, Part II, Chapter IV
And so here we are today with clone-bands singing cloned songs that all sounds the same. Have you noticed that "oops i did it again" and "baby one more time" have the same music and different words? Doesn't it seem like those BSB and NSync songs all sound the same and are cranked out from the same machine-liked process? There are other songs within (and between!) the boyband groups with the same music and different lyrics. Try finding them. You'll be surprised.
I'm not sure which idea scares me most:
1. In this picture, WE (or at least most of the wealthy countries' youth of today) are the proles.
2. Most people don't even have a clue how accurately our situation portrays a portion of Orwell's book that was written decades ago.
Way to think one layer deep. If record companies didn't know how well used record stores worked they would have tried to sue them out of existance by saying that the license to listen to the music in non-transferable. The reason used music stores are around is because when people sell old music they tend to buy NEW MUSIC. Now i know this isn't you, and you're probably going to say that none of your friends do it either because you all hate the RIAA and read Slashdot everyday because you like your news to be true. But another news flash: the slashdot crowd isn't the majority. The fact is, we need these stupid laws gone, and so does the rest of the country, they just don't know it. But then again, who am I to talk, I hardly ever listen to music, I haven't bought a CD in years. I was really just trying to point out that only buying used music doesn't really help much. Try writing your congressman
So if music is destined not to be readable by a PC, isn't that going to totally kill sales of portable players like the Rio?
These players, afaik, only have computer interfaces, so it's not like you can put music on them from any other source.
Perhaps companies producing these products should wake up and smell the stinky stuff before it gets totally rancid.
Nothing new? all during the 90s most/all techno wasnt taken seriously by traditional labels, only small time euro labels.
Now it is... tell me Pal Van dyke isnt great, or GaryD
I'm sure I'll get the chance to metamod that moron moderator for ya soon.
:)
We all hafta watch out for each other on slashdot. Don't forget to return the favour!
US Rep. Rick Boucher: "How can the RIAA collect royalties on various blank media at the same time that the RIAA members are implementing copy protection mechanisms..?"
RIAA's Hillary Rosen: "Simple. We pay you - or your comrades - to hush up."
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
The fact that the record companies do this, or that our culture is stupid enough to buy into it (again, and again, and again)?
Don't believe me? Read these articles.
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/ index.html / love_in_sacto/index.html
http://www.salon.com/ent/music/feature/2001/09/06
If anything should be made illegal, it's the thievery of the record industry.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
At least they're not charging you in *real* dollars :-)
You can perfectly well make a copy of it with a normal burner. If it is the old SafeDisc (version 1) you just need a burner that supports RAW+96 reading and writing and software like CloneCD that can take advantage of that fact. For the new SafeDisc (version 2) you also need a burner that does correct EFM encoding. Those are still somewhat scarce, but available.
Even under the DCMA, these aren't illegal. CloneCD and these burners don't circumvent copy protection, they jsut copy the whole disc, copy protection and all. IF you copy a SafeDisc'd CD with a burner that can handle it, then try and copy the copy with a burner that can't it won't work. However the DCMA now makes illegal programs that just remove the SafeDisc checks, like SafeDisc unwrappers.
Typical prices at Fry's are about 15 cents for el-cheapo CDRs on sale, and maybe 50 cents for name-brand not-on-sale. So if that's 50 cents Canadian, that's still got room for 22 cents tax, though only for the cheap brands.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
On a related point, your link has got me thinking about philanthropy on Slashdot. I'm still baffled why this site does not run drives to raise money for various causes - like a "Cause of the Month" type of thing. Kuro5hin has been doing this lately. There are always cause de jours that need money (Sklyarov) and the EFF could be the default. Hell, create a Slashdot poll to determine who gets the money for the next month. Taco could set up a Paypal account and donate the proceeds to each cause at the end of the month. Put the link on the homepage and BAM! donate with a single click, as you read.
Various posters talk about contributing to groups like the EFF - perhaps we can make this a community priority (as well as making it as easy as possible for people to do so).
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
I suppose it might randomly overload your speakers, but if your equipment is decent it'll have some kind of anti-self-destruction limitations built in. The copy protection dreck just gives you lots of bad bits which a computer player will reject and an audio player will error-correct (unless, of course, somebody writes different error-correction software for the computer-based players.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
...because I seem to have no trouble burning CD-A tracks onto CD-Rs (not audio!) amd playing them in my CD player.
You're using her as bait, Master!
Note: the payments aren't per taxpayer, of course, they're per piece of recording medium, which is much less obnoxious, since it's not taxing people who aren't recording anything. So if it bothers you that the tax covers media that you record non-audio material on, go get yourself a copy of Morpheus and download some Metallica tunes.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Second I think that your point that this representative might have these companies in his district and that somehow make his potentially corrupt is crazy. The reason we have particular districts elect particular reps is to EPHPASIZE the interest of those districts!!! If we did not want to emphasize these differences we would have national elections for every senator and rep.
For instance, no one is going to look out for the auto industry like reps in Michigan. In the ebb and flow of congress these guys should go to battle against the airline guys from Seattle, the computer guys form Silicon Valley and the rep form any town USA who wants a new damn. I am not naive enough to believe there is not any corruption surrounding this process, but it is our process. And it is the way our process is SOPOSED to work.
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time.
Sir Winston Churchill
And that's what it is. A MESS. A mess created by a government illegally getting itself involved where it shouldn't have.
There should be no regulation by the government in any of this. Copyright constitutionally extends 7+7 years, that's it. All other laws extending it were unconstitutional per the 9th or 10th amendments.
An artist's ability to protect his artform for up to 14 years is fine. If someone finds a way to break their "protection scheme" they should not be punished -- the free market lets them try again with another scheme to prevent "breaking the code."
This is all a mess creating strictly by our government's being bribed by big music and film industry to "protect them" so they don't have to spend the R&D to protect themselves.
It would have been easy, in fact, SIMPLE for the music industry to make their own propriertary listening devices -- give them away even. Then surcharge the music format, an uncopyable format at that. Easy enough. Instead, us taxpayers have to pay for all this government spending and waste trying to protect copyright that was supposed to be protected by the authors.
If someone copies a CD, they should be held liable, not the manufacturer of the hardware, software, or media used to copy that material. End of story.
Get government out of copyright management issues -- vote libertarian.
What the label is providing is knowledge about how to sell music, and how to make music that sells, which is only partially related to how to make music that sounds good. But what they're really providing in return for your soul, first-born child, and ownership of your music is that they're running the business and hiring you to play music for them, like a bar owner hiring you to play for the evening, unlike the computer venture capitalist deal where the VC lends you money, owns much of the stock, but you run the business as well as making the product. Why can't you just buy studio time yourself? Theoretically you can, and if you can market your music successfully, cool. Studios are a lot less expensive than they used to be, but advertising is more expensive, but delivering product is less expensive. It's getting to be time to kick the chair out from under the traditional industry structure.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
i have a 192kb version of "Darling Said Sir"
if you would like a copy email me at Clonezilla@softhome.net
i know this is offtopic, do what you have to do.
This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper. - TS Eliot
Washington, DC. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.
So when the act came out, did you believe it was the record industry's Final Answer, or did you believe it was the stinkin' camel's nose getting into the tent, or just another milepost along the way?
It's one of those "eternal vigilance" things. If you care about it, keep watching them, keep lobbying your Congresscritters, support groups like the EFF and ACLU and NRA and keep watching them too.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
05 $i = 0;
10 Fold Paper In Half
20 Unfold Paper
30 Print "I've now folded it in half $i times";
40 $i = $i + 1
50 Goto 10
60 Rem this is probably not what you had in mind
Karma-whoring for those that are too lazy to search google =)
THE SNEETCHES
by Dr. Suess
Now the Star-bellied Sneetches had bellies with stars.
The Plain-bellied Sneetches had none upon thars.
The stars weren't so big; they were really quite small.
You would think such a thing wouldn't matter at all.
But because they had stars, all the Star-bellied Sneetches
would brag, "We're the best kind of Sneetch on the beaches."
With their snoots in the air, they would sniff and they'd snort, "
We'll have nothing to do with the plain-bellied sort."
And whenever they met some, when they were out walking,
they'd hike right on past them without even talking.
When the Star-bellied children went out to play ball,
could the Plain-bellies join in their game? Not at all!
You could only play ball if your bellies had stars,
and the Plain-bellied children had none upon thars.
When the Star-bellied Sneetches had frankfurter roasts,
or picnics or parties or marshmallow toasts,
they never invited the Plain-bellied Sneetches.
Left them out cold in the dark of the beaches.
Kept them away; never let them come near,
and that's how they treated them year after year.
Then one day, it seems, while the Plain-bellied Sneetches
were moping, just moping alone on the beaches,
sitting there, wishing their bellies had stars,
up zipped a stranger in the strangest of cars.
"My friends, " he announced in a voice clear and keen,
"My name is Sylvester McMonkey McBean.
I've heard of your troubles; I've heard you're unhappy.
But I can fix that; I'm the fix-it-up chappie.
I've come here to help you; I have what you need.
My prices are low, and I work with great speed,
and my work is one hundred per cent guaranteed."
Then quickly, Sylvester McMonkey McBean
put together a very peculiar machine.
Then he said, "You want stars like a Star-bellied Sneetch?
My friends, you can have them . . . . for three dollars each.
Just hand me your money and climb on aboard."
They clambered inside and the big machine roared.
It bonked. It clonked. It jerked. It berked.
It bopped them around, but the thing really worked.
When the Plain-bellied Sneetches popped out, they had stars!
They actually did, they had stars upon thars!
Then they yelled at the ones who had stars from the start,
"We're exactly like you; you can't tell us apart.
We're all just the same now, you snooty old smarties.
Now we can come to your frankfurter parties!"
"Good grief!" groaned the one who had stars from the first.
"We're still the best Sneetches, and they are the worst.
But how in the world will we know," they all frowned,
"if which kind is what or the other way 'round?"
Then up stepped McBean with a very sly wink, and he said,
"Things are not quite as bad as you think.
You don't know who's who, that is perfectly true.
But come with me, friends, do you know what I'll do?
I'll make you again the best Sneetches on beaches,
and all it will cost you is ten dollars eaches.
Belly stars are no longer in style, " said McBean.
"What you need is a trip through my stars-off machine.
This wondrous contraption will take off your stars,
so you won't look like Sneetches who have them on thars."
That handy machine, working very precisely,
removed all the stars from their bellies quite nicely.
Then, with snoots in the air, they paraded about.
They opened their beaks and proceeded to shout,
"We now know who's who, and there isn't a doubt,
the best kind of Sneetches are Sneetches without."
Then, of course those with stars all got frightfully mad.
To be wearing a star now was frightfully bad.
Then, of course old Sylvester McMonkey McBean
invited them into his stars-off machine.
Then, of course from then on, you can probably guess,
things really got into a horrible mess.
All the rest of the day on those wild screaming beaches,
the Fix-it-up-Chappie was fixing up Sneetches.
Off again, on again, in again, out again,
through the machine and back round about again,
still paying money, still running through,
changing their stars every minute or two,
until neither the Plain- nor the Star-bellies knew
whether this one was that one or that one was this one
or which one was what one or what one was who!
Then, when every last cent of their money was spent,
the Fix-It-Up-Chappie packed up and he went.
And he laughed as he drove in his car up the beach,
"They never will learn; no, you can't teach a Sneetch!"
But McBean was quite wrong, I'm quite happy to say,
the Sneetches got quite a bit smarter that day.
That day, they decided that Sneetches are Sneetches,
and no kind of Sneetch is the BEST on the beaches.
That day, all the Sneetches forgot about stars,
and whether they had one or not upon thars.
All I really listen to these days is: Symphony X, Labÿrinth, Kamelot, Rhapsody, Vision Divine, Onward, etc etc...
Its a shame that many people here in the states never get a chance to listen to this stuff. When I was in Brasil and Europe, these guys are pretty big! Oh well...
-Nick
Ideally, I see no reason why a music company should not be allowed to TRY to thwart CD copying.
Allong the same lines, anyone who is smart enough to hack through such measures should be able to give it a shot--legally.
If I buy a wrench, the wrench-maker should be legally allowed to try to reduce the utility of the wrench as much as I should be allowed to use the wrench however I want to.
Very interesting question really. Amazing that someone in office actually got it right. Kudos to him!
So if I am paying for copies that I might make, that in a sense makes the copies ok so long as they are for personal reasons and I am not directly profiting from them, right? Wrong in their eyes. Being able to create and potentially distribute content without their involvement is the issue.
If these people were out to actually make some easy money, they would lobby to increase the tax, and they would have also taken the Napster offer. I say they are making enough right now, enough to make these options unattractive given the carrot of pay-per-play.
They are taking the longer view. If they stick to their guns and actually legislate our machines into content receivers then they stand to make a hell of a lot more. It would not surprise me to see them actually make some consessions on the small tax they are collecting now in order to make bigger legislative gains toward their longer term future.
It is no secret that they want the entire pipe between their content and our brains. It is this level of control that drives their current actions, not money. It is getting really easy to produce content on par with theirs and they know it. In music this has pretty much happened already. Movies will follow.
Remember that the movie studios were worried about the VCR because they could not control how many people were watching. My god, a whole room full of people might actually watch that movie!
They need to own content distribution totally, or they face competition and eventual insignificance from whatever creative disruptive technology and content will come from an open content delivery platform.
Until now economics of scale and technology made it easy for them because few could afford to really generate compelling content. As this changes, they will react because they must to exist over the longer term.
This whole battle is not totally over personal copies. It is about the potential for leaks in the channel to be expoited by others in a competitive and potentially disruptive way that changes the game. Since they basically have all current content locked up, the only way they can really lose longer term is to miss out on new content thus diminishing the value of their channel in favor of another.
So I say they will yield somewhat here on the tax issue in a gamble to capture the larger prize.
I will be watching this one with interest.
Blogging because I can...
Rep. Boucher who was rerferred to by John Perry Barlow as "The only person in Congress who gets it." (at the O'Reilly Conference)has some ideas on Fair Use that are well worth reading. As a VA resident who has met and discussed DMCA and fair use with Congressman Boucher, he needs your support in helping to correct many of the problems with the DMCA as it exists, by letting YOUR Congressperson know that you, as a constituent, want them to support the changes. They need your vote, without being elected, they don't get the lobby dollars that the copyright industry scatters around DC like confetti on New Years Eve. Point out to them they work for you not Disney, not Vivendi, etc., etc, not Hilary Rosen or Jack Valenti. They will get the point.
Symphony orchestras are perhaps the musical entities most deserving of your money.
Granted, they get massive endowments as it stands, and have always been reliable charities- but in this case, it's the performance that's being paid for.
So paying for classical music is just as important as the others.
This having been said, the CDs are indeed often dirt cheap, and good buys by anyone's standard.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
It's interesting that the article mentions the "Fast and the Furious" CD as an example of a copy-protected CD. I bought this CD for the purpose of testing the protection, and found that I could rip the tracks without any problems. The "protection" only seems to work under Windows, which means it is purely a software thing, and can potentially be circumvented even in Windows if you use the right software. I think I'll return the CD anyway...
You would probably get arrested under anti-terrorism laws.
"Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation" (www.unusa.org)
About 1/4th down the page
Though it is less on regular CD-R's than so called "Audio CD-R's". http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml http://www.pch.gc.ca/culture/cult_ind/back3.htm
You KNOW that Cowboyneal would just be that much richer every month...
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
Please disregard my pleadings about finding a better copy of Cat Power's hauntingly beautiful song "Darling Said Sir". My latest Google search (and I've been looking on Google of and on every few months for a while) finally turned up the fact that the Headlights single was rereleased on 7 inch on 7/27/01.
! !!!!!!
k u_tag=DBCM957
Forgive my off-topic barbaric yawp, but YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY
I just ordered one. YOU SHOULD TO! Do it. You know you want to. http://www.allegro-music.com/online_catalog.asp?s
Of course, now I need to actually buy a turntable. If you're willing to risk a weenie or two modding you as off-topic, any turntable recommendations in the $300 or less range?
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Damn right. It sucks. I do get the right to copy music CDs for my personal use... if I actually cared about any of the crap these idiots sell. But consider how much they wanted in the first place: http://www.pch.gc.ca/culture/cult_ind/back3.htm http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml On March 31, 1998, five collective societies that represent copyright holders filed proposed tariffs suggesting a levy of $0.25 per 15 minutes for analog blank recording media and $0.50 per 15 minutes for digital blank recording media. The works out to $2.47 per 74 minute CD. THAT'S JUST THE LEVY!!
"'Incidentally I expect that the record companies make even more money from tax exemptions due to to what they claim are losses due to piracy in their account books but I don't have hard data on that."
Apparently they don't either. So how do they figure up these "losses"?
as long as form=content bands like nofx exist, i don't think we'll see the mass migration to electronica that you are predicting.
Downfall of the RIAA , commercial radio, and the general Decline of society, maybe, but good guitar noise will last longer than you think, i think.
As far as I understand, fair use restricts vendors from making a medium that can not be copied for backup purposes. On the other hand, you have the DMCA which states that you can have copy protection on a medium, but that it is illegal to circumvent that protection.
So let's put it in layment terms. You can have copy protection that can be broken, but never tested, since that would be breaking the law.
Lady's and Gentlemen, I do believe its time we start shooting lawyers in mass numbers.......
The purpose of the AHRA was to make sure that consumers (i.e. "the people") were legally allowed to simply copy music (i.e. non-commercially). In exchange the music companies got the blank media "royalty".
I think that we have all been decieved by the RIAA into believing that copying digital audio is illegal, it's not! Read the AHRA!
From Title 17 (Copyrights), Sec. 1008 of the U.S. CodeIf you wonder how this could be true it's because the royalty killed DAT but not CDR. doh! blindsided by the computer industry.
As I remember it the press was all over them asking how it felt to be orphans. When they killed thier parents in cold blood at point blank range.
The terrible state of music today is a problem in itself. Sure there's good stuff out there, but the market for it is rather small. As you describe, the most profitable music is that which appeals to the proles. But Orwell got it wrong. Our hope lies not with them.
The state is the great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everybody else. ~F. Bastiat
However, he mentions the AHRA. The interesting part about the AHRA is that it places a tax on certain blank media, and mandated certain copy protection schemes in digital recording hardware. The record companies get the money from the tax. In exchange for this, consumers got some pretty broad music copying rights.
I think the theory he is thinking about is that consumers have bought copying rights via that tax, and so that the record companies can't take steps to stop that copying, since they have accepted the money from that tax.
If you're using music CD-R's to run backups, with the ~$2.00 (last I read) per disk added to go to the record companies,
YOU'RE A MORON.
More likely, you're using the Computer type CD-R's for about $.50 each;
AND YOU'RE A MORON because you don't know what you're
using for backups.
Get A CLUE before you start talking. Your boss might read this, and fire you. I sure as hell wouldn't want you backing up MY Data.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
All i could find about the abbrev. VA:
;-)
1) The countycode for the Vatican
2) Virtual Acoustic
US law is not yet an issue in the Vatican, therefore i guess it is not where you want to move to.
What is VA in your case?
This sig is a true statement, but I cannot prove it.
which _is_ bullshit production and _is_ charged for. What was your point again?
if I do not deprive you of your property.
When I use an idea that you have in my own program, I don't prevent you from using that idea in your program.
When I copy a music CD, I don't take anything from the producers of music CD's.
Copyright violation is not theft!
Let's discuss the original use of copyright and patents. They were to _further_ the study of knowledge by ensuring that that knowledge was shared and not lost.
People were given a monopoly to produce a book, music, or invention _for_ _a_ _limited_ _time_ in exchange for giving that knowledge to everyone after the time expired.
Patents used to only be good for 17 years and copyrights used to only be good for 25 years after first publication. Patents are now good for at least 20 years, and extensions are available. Look for this to be extended dramatically in the coming few years.
Nothing under copyright has entered the public domain since 1922. I don't expect anything to enter public domain ever again. Our common heiriatage has been stollen by soulless companies like Disney bribing our congressmen and senators.
I am going to be coming into some money in the next few years because of a lot of hard work I have been doing.
I am going to attack these arbitrary extensions of copyright based on the fact that property was taken from me by the government without any compensation being paid to me. I am estimating that value at 1 Billion dollars and this is a very low estimate.
Mickey mouse should have entered the public domain in 1950. How many artists could make money by drawing this American icon?
The works of Tolkien, Howard, and Lovecraft should have entered the public domain in 1960 and had thousands of people extending those mythos.
The works of the Beatles, Elvis, and MoTown would have entered the public domain in 1993.
We have given up our rights to use those works in exchange for a _limited_ monopoly, but that monopoly has never ended, and looks like it will never end.
This is the real danger... what happens when all knowledge is copyrighten, encrypted behind access controls which are illeagle to superceed? The book 1984 portrays a bleak picture, unfortunately it is wrong in one respect, it isn't the government that takes over, it is the rich few which will control everything using the government.
For those of us who do not have the priviledged opportunity to vote for him, contributing money is the next best thing we could do.
That's backwards. You can contribute enough money to buy many votes. If you vote for him you can only cast one vote.
Yesterday I purchased the starwars trlogy VHS casette boxed set , here in Australia. Today when I played episode IV there was a message on the screen that the "Tape is protected by home entertainment approved copy protection" whatever that means. Now how can you copy protect a analog medium like VHS tape. Also I dont know if it is legal under Aussie laws which are a bit crazy at times :)
Does anyone know how the copy protection is implemented ?
It is illegal to copy a cd.
2+2 will always equal 4 until a new law is made.
In other words rip your disk and shut the f' up!
I wonder.
...
I'm sure you don't, but when enough people start to wonder,
Well if you extrapolate the recent trend you'll have a tough time getting your "Computer type CD-R's for about $.50 each"
So if Howie Day uses his PC to record his acoustic guitar performances, the resulting recording is "techno"?
No shit?
Would that work for Zamphier too? Techno fucking pan flute!
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Make his site look Better. http://www.house.gov/boucher/
However, if somebody is able to dig up solid figures for sales, metrics for the purchasing ability of consumers, number of downloads done, and possibly other relevant metrics, preferably with a time resolution of a month, it should be a very easy analysis to do. But right now I haven't got the time to dig up the data.
Rather than analysis of variance, somebody should do real time series analysis on it, but that's not a field I've been studying, but perhaps there are some real statisticians here.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
I know exactly what you mean there, I just wont blind-buy records and I'll be blowed if I'm gonna stand at the listening post in a record shop all day long.
/SE area and can also be listened to over the web. Internationally there is a German TV channel on several sats covering wider europe called VIVA. - I first saw the video for Prodigy's "Smack my Bitch up" here.
:).
:)
Being a DJ at the weekends, I tend to get any tune I may be interested in on MP3 (from some somewhere like here) and then go out and buy it on 12" vinyl (try copyprotecting one of these!).
There are other good places to find out about good new tunes but you have to fight your way past all the kiddie-pop/rock/whinging/defeatist/suicidalist rubbish. KISS TV in the UK is excellent cos the guys that call in and select the tunes mostly live around London and already know there stuff & there is Radio KISS which transmits on 100Mhz in the London
As for the states - I dont know but there are ways and means
Oh, one other thing; most of the pre-release and early copies of tunes on MP3 come from 12" vinyl promos - which dont even provide revenue for the RIAA! And if anyone think that vinyl is dying: its sales are up by 21% in the last year in the UK
Long live 12" - The British - a nation of dance DJs
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Here's his e-mail address:
Ninthnet@mail.house.gov
hawk
I'm not looking to rip off the record labels. Just to have things priced fairly and balanced. They need to make money, but they also need to respect the consumers rights. If the record company decides they want to use copy protection, then they shouldn't get to collect royalties. Once that happens, they'll realize how big of an impact fair use plays in increasing sales of music. Then again they probably already know that fact, but don't care.
It's probably Macrovision protected. Macrovision screws with the sync signals in the analog video stream. TVs generally ignore this, but VCRs don't, and attempting to record a Macrovision-protected signal on a VCR will result in garbled video (I don't think it does anything to the audio).
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
In some places, two disks of a classic movie in the highest quality is $11.99. However, a good song on a crappy album that you will constantly hear on the radio anyway is never on sale, is maybe forty-five minutes, and costs at least $15.99.
The music industry complains about their sales, but honestly, what are their sales? If these artists have more money than they can possibly spend in a lifetime, and they get two bucks an album at best, then they need to really shut the hell up.
Its like they are bitching that the record business is not profitable anymore. Bullshit.
Its amazing to see a group of bastards out there like them.
Someone please link to Courtney Love on this one, I think it is the most succinct explanation.
"The labels are worried that the rise of home CD-burners has eaten into album sales, particularly after the worst year in a decade for the music industry." Album sales are down 'cause the labels won't release anything that folks want to purchase. I guess they don't realize that not everyone is into boy bands or girls that look good but can't sing worth a damn.
Why can't you just buy studio time yourself? Theoretically you can
But practically, it's hard to come up with the initial capital, and most VCs won't fund upstart self-publishing recording artists.
and if you can market your music successfully, cool.
Good luck. The major labels already effectively control the so-called "independent promotion agencies" that control what the radio monopoly plays.
[heh heh... riaa.org is slashdotted]
Will I retire or break 10K?
Since the poor bastard is dead, I don't care that you're violating the Sneetches copyright.
Copyright lasts longer than life; it currently lasts life plus 70 years, and Congress has an unwritten contract with Disney to extend it by 20 more years every 20 years. The only way to stop is to send everybody this link to a story explaining why perpetual copyright is a bad idea: http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___ 1.htm
Will I retire or break 10K?
"Hell, create a Slashdot poll to determine who gets the money for the next month."
Uh, well, we'd make CowboyNeal a rich man now, wouldn't we?
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
Somewhat related, is the fact that a spokesperson for Philips, interviewed in a german trade publication says that copy protected CD's are not according to the specs laid down by Philips, and as such are not real CD's, they will be less functional and have a shorter lifespan. And Philips expect all future CD's to be specifically labled to this effect ("This disk is not a real CD, will not play in most equipment and will have a much shorter lifespand" *snicker*)
German Yahoo has the story:
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Write songs for the fun of it
How? The Western tuning systems can create only a limited number of possible melodies, and the big publishers already own hundreds of thousands of them. Even if they don't own the particular melodies that make up the song you just wrote, they're skilled at convincing a court that your song is similar enough to something in their back catalog.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I didn't think there was a royalty included on normal CD-Rs.
In both the US and Canada, there are patent royalties due to Taiyo Yuden and two other companies for all use of CD-R technology, and in Canada, there are also taxes levied on both types of drive and blank media, but Canada provides some defences to copyright infringement for non-commercial home copying of sound recordings and underlying musical works (of which there are only a limited number).
Will I retire or break 10K?
Insurance is voluntary
Not in Indiana. If an officer stops your vehicle, and you can't produce proof of automotive liability insurance, you can go to jail.
Will I retire or break 10K?
"My recording of my brother's wedding is uncopyable, because my MiniDisc decks act as if I and my brother don't own the copyright on it."
You don't. I assume you used at least one piece of proprietary music in the wedding program. I feel justified in making this assumption because most weddings I've attended have used at least one piece of proprietary music.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act was passed after the Audio Home Recording Act; therefore, wherever the AHRA contradicts the DMCA, the DMCA has the force of most recent law.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The main thrusts of the law are: ... Retailers have the right to sell copying equipment
One of the rules of statutory law is that when two laws on the books conflict, courts must follow the more recent law, and in this case, the later law is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I seem to recall that software buyers have a right to make personal backup copies of install media just as media buyers do.
There is 17 USC 117, but where two laws on the books conflict, the courts will follow the more recent law.
Will I retire or break 10K?
10 Audio cd's of music that I made.
And the songwriters' organizations haven't sued you for writing songs that are too similar to the songs they control? Remember, the finite (sub-trillion) number of melodies combined with the birthday paradox makes it extremely likely that one of the songs you wrote is "similar enough" to one of theirs.
Will I retire or break 10K?
in Virginia, you have the option of paying a $400 uninsured motorist fee and not getting any insurance on your car
Indiana also has an "uninsured motorist" program, but it costs $40,000.
Will I retire or break 10K?
PL/1 wasn't that bad. In many ways it was better than C (if you had the RAM to handle it ... the z80 version was a real looser!). It's unfair to compare it to Ada, as that was years later. JOSS? I admit I've never known anyone who ever used it, and I've never had access to it. But this doesn't automatically make it a better language. But it was designed as a successor to Fortran and Cobol, and as that it was a success. (Possibly F90 is better, but Fortran IV wasn't. I ended up trying to use Dystal to manage lists of strings is how bad that was.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I have voted for him four times now! Kneel Before Zod!!!
2000 $5,285,246.32
Wow. 5 million dollars. Ain't that a drop in the bucket. What's that? Half a million CDs at $10 per? (Guessing at the wholesale cost the record stores pay.) And how many CDs were sold last year?
I'm no fan of the RIAA, but these amounts are truely piddly.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Wow, I'm impressed that the subtlety of what I said managed to slip right past you! Especially since it wasn't so subtle!
I'm well aware that copyrights last longer than life. I know Mrs. Seuss is making a pretty penny off her husband's works. Frankly, I don't think anyone should be able to collect copyright tithes from someone else's works.
This is why I said what I said.
Cheers,
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Right. And I'm suggesting that just because you use the computer to produce a musical recording it does not have to be "computer generated beeps" or anything of the sort. There has been some nice stuff done with guitar, sax, pipe organ, etc.
My suggestion about the pan flute.....well, anything would be an improvement on that. Hmmmm....a Zamphier dance remix....you might have something there.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
I'm well aware that copyrights last longer than life
I was agreeing with what you said and providing more info and a call to action.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Hmmm, was this a troll? Apparently some moderator thought so. I have to disagree. Apparently anytime that you end with a question (even a self-evidently rhetorical one) you are "trolling".
Sorry, I don't buy it. There's more to a troll than that. And I stand by the core content - the reason the record industry can and does get away with the shenanigans it does is that it wields a huge amount of power and uses that power to protect its position to the detriment of variety, quality, the consumer and the artist.
And the only way to get them to change is for artists and consumers to act. Easier for artists because 1) they are a smaller group and 2) they have some money themselves.
If this is the standard of moderation applied, then slashdot moderation bears a lot in common with an oligarchy of the blinkered dictating standards of community wisdom as if they were the Oracle at Delphi. Go ahead and mod me into oblivion, but that doesn't particularly make you any brighter, your contribution any more valuable, or mine any less valuable. Or so says I.
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."