Slashdot Mirror
File-sharing, Digital Rights Management, Etc.
Politech has a couple of good articles on political developments in the post-Napster world. (That's almost a Katz phrase there, isn't it?) The folks behind Kazaa, when they're not busy spying on their userbase, took the time to write to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after a bashing they took a few weeks ago. Kazaa's new owners suggest a general royalty fee, perhaps similar to the recent webcasting fees, be put in place to compensate intellectual property holders for file-sharing. Meanwhile, the European Commission takes a look at digital rights management. Looks like Europe will get its own version of the SSSCA.
Not with a bang, but with a whimper.
With so many links on this website, I think those guys who wants to provide a google cache will have some trouble. :P
geek page at KY speaks
That 1992 statute mandates a small royalty on digital audio recorders and recording media, with the proceeds of that levy redistributed to content creators
What is the equivalent in the internet world? Is the new tax on computers? Modems? File sharing software?
The latter obviously won't work for decentralised P2P systems like kazaa, so I bet they'll put the 'P2P tax' directly on the original CD itself.
You are going to get pretty much unitary legal structures on intellectual property and music copying. That's what's been planned by groups like the World Economic Forum and the World Trade Organization for years.
What's more, there won't be too much debate on perspectives other than those put forward by U.S. law and the major music corporations. That's because these firms and the U.S. government are able to dominate the meetings of business decisionmakers.
The protesters outside global gatherings are, in part, fighting for freedoms in music copying and things like this. What they are doing is trying to get more than a few voices into the meetings where these decisions are made. You should consider lobbying these global groups like the WTO - it doesnt make you a "bomb throwing anarchist," and it may be more effective than lobbying your congressperson, 'cause that's where the decisions are getting made.
Goat sex free since 2001
Soak
Wash
Repeat
I'm getting fed up of this bullshit. We all know that in 20 years the technology for online music exhange will still be here and it'll be legal. The music industry is doing the exact same thing the petroleum cies did, boycott the product until they own it. Then market it and prepare the market (ie. electrical cars), and finally say you played along the whole time, while unveiling your product.
The birth of a new monopoly, the same as before, just different packaging.
Imperium et libertas
Autocracy and freedom
There are so many people out there sharing music and other files, that it would be difficult to actually stop them. The RIAA thought that people would give up on downloading mp3s after the death of Napster, but instead the music exchange continued (and may have even grown). Schemes like gnutella have been largely invulnerable to attack from the {RI,MP}AA, although they could still be improved to further protect their users.
My point is this: no matter what they do, people will find a way around it. There may be some martyrs at every turn, such as Emannuel Goldstein and Derek Fawcus with DeCSS, but now CSS is all but broken, and virtually anyone can find DeCSS if they look. A DRM OS, while evil, can still be broken, and tracking down the subversives who use Linux/BSD and other "unAmerican" OSes would prove difficult. And if the governement started coming after the people, they just might have a revolution on their hands.
This isn't something to get overly depressed about. We should be fighting it, but even if they win the battle of legislation, we are still able to continue the war.
Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen
We have also seen how perfect encryption is fundamentally impossible, although being good enough for government work may get by.
Somehow, the connection between this and the SSSCA could mean that Microsoft could be the only legal OS in the US. Purely coincidental of course.
I think this should be investigated, just in case my paranoia has a legitimate case to make. Microsoft has a habit of too many convenient coincidences.
Maybe they'll all go to jail because they will not be able to obey the law and provide an impossible result. I'm not holding my breath.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
A clearing-house of sorts (like the radio-royalty structure already in place) would solve 98% of the "file sharing problem."
I think the current limits on bandwidth really are going to make widespread DVD sharing a little unlikely, even with broadband. The files are just too big. If it takes 412 hours to download a movie (at lower quality with fewer features, etc.), people aren't going to care. They'd probably rather just go to Blockbuster and rent it for $4 or whatever.
Perhaps it could even be tied to bandwidth and charged at the ISP level. Say $.10 for every gig of downstream bandwidth used. Money goes to a clearing house and member copyright holders are paid based on the amount of material they have licensed to the clearing house. The more stuff they license, the more they get paid. There should also be a limit on the cost of the licenses written into the agreement so once everyone signs up it doesn't become $1000/gig.
I think in radio now, anything with a particular label (or stamp or something) can be played royalty free without limits, incorporated into other forms (like commercials, etc.) and so on. Music industry doesn't complain about that at all, because it is free publicity for their product. Same thing here.
This really would help solve almost all of the problems with file-sharing and it is a win-win of sorts. Pay-per-play it isn't, but pay-per-play isn't going to work anyway.
Google hasn't cached politechbot's articles, and a full text post sets of the lameness filter, so I've provided mirrors on my own server.
. html
http://www.kaosrain.com/biden.kazaa.letter.030202
http://www.kaosrain.com/p-03210.html
Goddammit! If Europe gets the SSSCA, my plans to become an irresistably chic Espresso-sipping Parisian nouveau hacker are dashed.
Looks like I'm moving to Sealand. They better have a whole lotta instant, that's all I can say.....
- undoware.ca
Someone needs to patent a vital, foolproof system for digital rights management that nobody would even attempt to implement a system without and then not license it to anybody.
There's a large number of opennap servers & networks operated worldwide. Some have tens of thousands of users connected, others are more specific on music type or nationality (or at least that appears to be the intent).
I've often thought that one should use whatever means are commensurate with the threat at hand to defend one's constitutional rights, including killing those who would take them away, collateral damage be damned, if it comes to that. Otherwise, such rights are meaningless.
The only issue then, after (for example) killing the dozen cops trying to arrest you for daring to run Linux, is whether you have a constitutional right to do so.
If so, you go scott free.
If not, you fry.
I'd think that, with the stakes so high, we would not see very much murder in the name of defending bogus rights that do not exist.
You could've hired me.
I don't believe the SSSCA will ever come to pass, but it doesn't hurt to hope for the best and expect the worst.
Assuming a worst-case scenario where SSSCA-style laws pass in both Europe and North America, and non-compliant hardware is seized at the borders, what should we as techies do to help the 95% of the public who can't hack? Whatever it is, remember to KISS, KISS, KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid.
A simple hotsheet of all the SSSCA-OK hardware and *what* it will prevent you from doing in simple terms might be a start. A web site that lists all the hardware and makes it easy for people to share information?
I sound like a broken record (aye!, but not a corrupt CD), but the ultimate, most powerful hack sits in people's wallets - cash or credit card. Whatever's done will need to leverage that power for the benefit of the public.
Your mileage may vary...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If theres slashdotters in the UK / Europe who haven't already seen this, and want to do something about the EU Copyright Directive (our DMCA) and now this, have a look at The Campaign For Digital Rights (in the UK) and The Eurorights Movement There may be something we can do about this one, but we have to get reasonably organised to do it. Sign up to the mailing lists, and join in - before they take all our rights
If the SSSCA passes in the US, we will see the following effects: 1. Cost of new hardware/software goes up to compensate for the inclusion of the DRM: thes things cost money to create, and you know that the copyright-crazy MPAA/RIAA cartel will demand that you licence the DRM rather than having an open standard. 2. Open Source dies a slow death: as the government eventually realizes that they can't force open source operating systems and other software to include DRM effectively, without criminally punishing the developers. 3. The electronics industry will be at the beck-and-call of the entertainment industry: since the "copyright holders" have the sole right to choose what DRM they want to use, the tech industry will need to design their products to confrom to the entertainment industry's marketing decisions. 4. As the former three effects take place, the pace of progress will slow, and the intended result (after all, well-regulated copyright exists to promote the progress of science and the useful arts ( U.S. Constitution, Sec.8, P.8)) will be frustrated. 5. Those who really want to get at the DRM-protected content, and have the ability to do so, still will. The SSSCA is a tremendously short-sighted, economically harmful, stupid thing to legislate. For the US or for Europe. Oh, and don't forget, the SSSCA was brought to you by the progenators of the "Mickey Mouse Argument" :)
"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos
cat server.op | court > jail
You are the weakest link. Goodbye.
With all this talk about digital rights, etc., I feel the need to rant. OK...
:: GNUs For Nerds. Flawless Grammar.
I can't wait until the record companies are out of the picture. It's possible these days to create music from your own home and record it onto CDs with the same quality as you'll find on the latest Britney Spears album at Wal-Mart.
I foresee a time when instead of music artists getting paid somewhere between five and seven cents for every CD sold, they distribute them for five dollars and actually get about 90% of that money.
Music sharing will be as legal as email and will be entirely peer to peer, with the reliance of one central server a thing of the past.
Artists will release 30 songs onto their website every year, and their fans will choose the 10-15 that make it onto their official album.
Concerts will continue to be popular, and once Ticketmaster is out of the picture, ticket prices will drop to between $10 and $30.
Creative, groundbreaking music will be appropriately lauded and redundant bubblegum pop will be laughed at.
*bump* Oops, looks like I fell asleep. Wow, that was some dream...
EricKrout.com Is Back In Action
CDs cost less than cassettes, but are priced higher, "because of apparent value". Tell that to computer makers, who pack more and sell for less, every year. IMHO, the price of real products is a compromise between cost of manufacture and what the competition will allow. Look at the price of DRAM, for an example. And of course we all know that next to nothing of that $18 CD that cost $0.10 to make went to royalties for the artists.
Also IMHO, the only business where "apparent value" can be a true factor in pricing is where competition is absent, that is a CARTEL or MONOPOLY. In the case of CDs, we have the joy of both at the same time.
There's the old lesson from videotapes: $80 tapes get pirated bigtime, $20 tapes don't. Plus tapes aren't $20, any more.
I feel ripped off every time I buy a CD, and thus I buy very seldom, principally as gifts. At half the price, I'd buy more than twice as many. At a third the price, more than thrice. At some point, storage would become the limiting factor, not money and purchase price.
Movies are headed the same way, and what's unfortunate about all this is that we're about to take a hurting tech sector and send it down in flames with SSSCA-type legislation. We're about to say that Jobs and Woz, or Hewlett and Packard will NEVER happen again, at least not in computing, because SSSCA turns the entire computing field into sealed boxes, and locks the innovator out.
At the very least, opt-in would be workable. Strong enough crypto to require hardware chips, maybe even crypto all the way into a sealed monitor. Better than SSSCA, anyway.
Of course copyright reform would be better yet. Isn't it interesting that patent durations have remained steady? Says something about the media industries, and what we've allowed them to turn into.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The RIAA doesn't want people to have digital copies that they can burn.
File sharing companies at least want to deliver something that we can hear, watch, and experience.
The fast track[tm] technology that is used by products such as Kazaa[tm] and Music City's Morpheus[also tm] is pretty strong and can combine clients/servers to provide media almost on demand for people who have dsl/cable and above. Gnutella also is becoming the strongest in terms of a network that may never be truly killed. And let's not forge Napster, the demon of P2P IMHO; they may actually sell some media to people.
No one wants to bother with DRM. Computer users will most likely reject any such system. So, the simple solution is to take a somewhat common sense approach.
Advertising and competition must come into play so that the P2P business isn't stomped on by media owners [of course, if the money comes in no one gets stomped]. Maybe one network will offer digital copies, fast browsing and strong searching. Another might offer a way to put your media on a personal server and a winamp/xmms/FreeAmp/Netscape/IE et.al. plug-in will be the search and viewing client. Finally an open and free network which will probaly be supported by an array of advertising stunts.
The point is, we can have a system where no one is abused. DRM isn't needed if people use common sense and let these systems evolve into a decent business model. Not everything will work. But media/content owners can be payed. One thing I think we will need to get over is the fact that P2P systems may collect data on what is downloaded, viewed, and listened to.
If we don't think of P2P as a way to get free stuff and show our friends how cool we are because we watched LOTR 2 days before release we may save it. Let's think of it as Cable, Network TV and the like. But like some cable channels if you don't want commercials you are going to have to pay up.
Look at XM radio, in my town it's becoming quite popular. We can take advantage of technology in a good way.
Get your Unix fortune now!
I don't know what the lobbyists or legistrators are thinking while pushing this, but seems there are two drm scenarios:
- One that would essentially make linux and other free operating systems illegal (or make them into something fundamentally different) and go on to revoke the root-access from the user or deny any "media-output" in hardware. This could be a working system, though maybe a little bit draconian.
- Another which does neither (outlawing linux is not good publicity so this is how it will become) and does not work because it's darn easy to circumvent it. Its effectiveness could be compared to "stealing is wrong"-stickers.
I don't know how the content industry is going to solve this problem or if that's even what they are up to but i'm quite certain that anyone 'just supporting' it cannot possibly have thought it through (people who are definitely not going to push everything that would be needed to make it working into reality). Maybe they are confused and think that they could pick some parts of one scenario and some of another.
The internet, which once held the promise to liberate 'the masses', allow point to point communication on a scale never before seen, is now being co-opted by the mass media by force of law. That's just wonderfull.
Btw, I'm being sarcastic.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Yeah, i wouldn't risk my life to test if i had the right to kill a dozen cops.. but maybe it's just because i have a bad misgiving about that particular constitutional right..
There's absolutely no reason for anyone to read slashdot now that www.goatse.cx is back online. If you visit www.linux.com with a goatse window open, it's about equivalent to browsing slashdot at -1. If you minimize the goatse window, and bring up another linux propaganda site, it is just like browsing at +1 or higher.
The only reason I read slashdot anymore is because of the trolls. Despite this, I still believe trolling is the moral equivalent of sneaking out at 4:00 A.M. to shit on someone's lawn-- smelly, but incredibly funny when the victim uses linux.
-mode0x13
just curious
Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
I can hardly wait for the day when we are forced to pay to look at a painting we already own. Oh wait that will only apply to the digital copies of that painting/picture.
at the current (insane) price of new CD's, I think it's safe to say they already have included a P2P tax, infact, you could say that is why P2P is so popular, people are already paying that tax, so why not do it?
Realy, if they priced CD's a little more reasonably this would be much less of an issue, there is a reason you can get all those older CDs for $5 each, and that is that it is STILL profitable to sell them at this price!
Unfortunately (well, fortunately
I've only read negative comments so far. Actually, I *read* that pdf the last hour and I didn't find it really shocking. It is good to see the European Commision do a study on this topic. The European Commission seems to recognize that DRMs easily cause trouble because they can take away our rights. The PDF says that lawful use of protected media must remain possible. What's wrong with that? I haven't found any phrase which proposes to forbid hardware that does *not* implement DRM. That is what the SSSCA is about, what nobody here will want and what I hope many politicians in Europe will oppose too. There is some DMCA-alike speech, however: 'legal safeguards are essential to support technological measures and protect them against unlawful circumvention and these are already in place' - but that is already much more subtle than the general definition of a 'circumvention device' that the USA have defined.
I live in The Netherlands and I might be naive, but I just haven't seen the proof yet, that a European SSSCA would come to exist. Good to keep an eye on this matter, but where is that proof? This seems Slashdot-hype again..
I would have to say that the technology that allows the transformation from one media to another is where the tax should be placed. Place it on CD-Rippers, or MP3 Encoders. Of course since MP3's and CD (so far) are basically open there's precious little way to enforce the tax.
I really wouldn't mind paying an extra $2 for iTunes or a disk burner. I WOULD mind paying $.02 for every CD I ripped, or every disk I burned.
What if it is just turtles all the way down?
I posted this comment a few days ago in a different thread, but it bears repeating.
The SSSCA isn't that bad, and something like it needs to happen.
So... copyright cartels get control over their stuff. So what. So people have to pay for it. Big deal.
In fact, as long as there isn't any mandate that ALL content has to go through some kind of corporate or government review in order to be distributed, we're fine. As long as distribution costs are cheap for those who want to distribute cheaply -- as long as I can give away MY music for free, or charge a quarter a song without having to give some portion of the fee to someone else -- then we're in good shape.
Because once the copyright cartels proceed to ream everyone over, then non-mainstream distribution is going to look better and better.
I don't know how to get around problems for open source running on various hardware. That does need to be addressed. But getting a death grip on their own content will cause copyright cartels to lose their grip on the market. Which is what we all want.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
i should start by saying that i'm from the punk/hardcore scene, so i'm by no means an advocate of major labels or anything. but it seems like any discussion of file sharing, DRM or the like always devolves into "CDs are too expensive, so it's ok for me to download MP3s." i'm not here to pass judgement on the ethics of that decision, but i thought i'd add my $.02, since i've not seen this information mentioned frequently on slashdot.
let's take the newest britney spears record. it wouldn't surprise me if they paid over $1 million to record it. tack on another $50K for artwork and photography, $50K for a new website, another $500K for national print advertising campaign, and probably at least $100K for legal. there's probably a lot more expenses i'm not thinking of, but you get the idea. before the CD even goes to the pressing plant, the tab is already close to $2 million. sure, manufacturing is comparitively cheap when pressing that much, but i'm sure they're paying at least $1 each when all's said and done. so let's say that if they pressed an initial run of 4M copies, their cost is almost $6 million. and when you see a CD for sale at $16 or whatever they cost these days (i stopped buying CDs when i discovered napster years ago), it's not like that $16 goes into the label's pocket. they're probably selling to the distributor (probably a subsidiary of the label in Jive/RCA's case) for maybe $8 each, who then marks the price up to $12 or $13 and sells it to the retailer, who marks it up again. so when they sell 4 million copies, their gross profit is perhaps $6.50 per CD (still a lot of money). but the money's not in the bank yet- out of the money they make off of releases like britney they pay their extremely well-compensated executives and other staff members, and the profits from successful releases subsidize the money they lose off of their releases that bomb (which far outnumber the successful ones).
to be sure, the labels are still making a very healthy profit, but what's wrong with that? and if an artist is getting shitty royalty payments, well, they are as much to blame as anyone else-- after all, they signed the contract! back when pop punk was the thing in 95 or so, many bands (like rancid) decided not to sign to major labels because they did their homework and it turned out that they would make more money selling less records on a smaller label (like epitaph) that paid them higher royalties per unit. so i don't really feel too bad for artists who don't read the fine print, or choose to ignore it, then compain later.
also, let's not forget that without the substantial investments in promotion and what not that only a bigger label can provide, you may not have heard of your favorite artist in the first place. and if you never hear about the artist, it really makes the issue of their royalties moot, since you'd never purchase their record. finally, let's not forget the powerful legal muscle that labels can provide. if a business or individual were to use some unknown garage band's material in an unathorized fashion, it's entirely likely that the band would never hear about it, and even if they did, they would have a tough time getting any royalty monies out of it. but, since it's in a major label's best interest to do so (let's not kid ourselves and pretend the labels are in it for the music or the artists' best interests), they could have a team of scary lawyers on it in a heartbeat (see disney). so i guess what i'm trying to say is that the music business, like any other issue, is not black and white. of course major labels (and most indies) and totally shady, shiftless fuckers, but they also provide capital and invaluable services to artists, who are frequently too stupid to know what's good for them anyway. so, demonizing labels and industry organizations is really a short-sighted point of view.
--
Twinbee is lovely character. Perhaps you will enjoy with him?
Actually, the case could be made that since the resellers can sell the CD's used for $5, that must represent the 'media and store-space' cost for producing the CD. That means the rest of the price difference is the value of the Intellectual Property of the content.
Oops, but that blows the arguement so many people here make.
Never Mind.
hmm, perhaps you should think before posting next time,
they happily sell !NEW! CD's for $5 a hit (and less!), therefore I guess the value of the TOTAL PACKAGE (including the intellectual property) is $5.
the rest of the value must be, let me see, the value of the media hype used to push the new product so that it can hold a 300% and more premium over one 6 months old. hmmm.
If the SSSCA passes and I am no longer able to put my Linux box on the internet, perhaps I will dig out a couple of old modems I have and setup a good old fashioned BBS. I remember a time when the US was dotted with somewhere around 30,000 of these BBS's and many of them were connected through FIDO net or similar. I know no one would want to download MP3's off such a thing and after having been on a cable modem for over a year, I would hate to fall back to dialup. It worked for us in the past, perhaps it will be our future and maybe the only future for Free (as in both beer and speech) content.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
If I'm not mistaken, CD-R and RW manufacturers already pay the "rip" tax as mentioned in the AHRA.
-9mm-
Make up your mind. Either they are 'older' CD's, which means re-releases where the producers have probably recouped the production costs, and no IP cost is factored in, or they are 'New' CD's, meaning the ones that sell for $12-18, because the cost of producing the IP hasn't yet been met.
This is all a gross simplification of the whole cost equation anyway. My clever retort obviously falls apart when real world factors are added. So does anyboy else's in the discussion, however.
Besides, as much as some in here bitch about the SSSCA and the DMCA, the true strength of their conviction is really shown when they line up to the MPAA trough every couple of weeks. Or buy hardware from Sony, Nintendo, Toshiba, IBM, or any of the other companies who have made it clear which side of the digital rights and DMCA fence they are on. Tell people that all you have to do is stop spending money on certain things, or hell, even just cut back their movie spending, and they'll respond like you just asked them to amputate a limb.
Look, we can't even convince the people who are supposedly clued about the whole problem (Slashdot) -- what possible chance is there to make the problem and solution clear to people to struggle to understand the evening news? +1 Insightful to you.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
...to everyone ever wrongfully shot by a gun. If they can legislate mathematically impossible DRM into existance, then why the HELL can't they legislate guns that won't shoot innocent people?
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
just XOR the data with 'give us all your money' and call it DRM,
LOL!!!!!
The artists should be signing up with web sites where they can sell their music directly to the public, say $3 per album with the profits split 50/50 with the distribution site, passing on the cost savings and still taking more per download than they get on each CD sold.
Vivendi Universal, one of the proponents of violating the Red Book standard, operates such a service, called MP3.com D.A.M. Artists like Gregory Chekalin who distribute their albums on D.A.M. for $10 a piece keep $5 a piece, and unlike Universal's other releases, D.A.M. discs are compatible with the Red Book, and they include cleartext 128 kbps MP3 files of all audio tracks.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Lastly, you rip an mp3 that is music you created to put up on mp3.com. I download it. If it has a copyright on it, and I didn't rip it, how do I play it?
"This europop remix of the Tetris theme has been arranged, performed, and ripped by Gregory Chekalin, who has authorized it for world distribution. This licence has been digitally signed by Gregory Chekalin." The SDMiPod verifies the signature, checks the license, and plays the MP3 file.
If it doesn't have a copyright on it
Huh? Doesn't every work have a copyright on it from creation? Nothing expires into PD anymore.
Will I retire or break 10K?
...because p2p filesharing depends on the 'p's. Better to suckle from the monkey tit that has the milk, so to speak. The more ppl on a service, the more files, so go for the biggest.
From a posting by Peter Trei on the Cypherpunks mailing list:
The Original SSSCA.
Statement of Yakval Enti, spokesman of the MPAA (Mnemonists, Praise-singers, and Anthemists Association) to His Highness Hammurabi, King of Sumeria:
Your Majesty: I wish to call you attention to a severe threat to the security of your kingdom, and the livelihoods of thousands of your subjects.
After Shamash sets and the people kick back after a long day of growing millet, they desire entertainment. Their favorite forms are stories, tales, and sagas, told by the members of the MPAA. Talented boys spend up to 12 years learning the tales by heart at the feet of the masters. Any evening MPAA members can be found in the taverns singing the old tales, praising the praiseworthy, and creating new tales from the old.
This system has worked well since the beginning of time - there were storytellers at your coronation, there were storytellers at your father's coronation, and there were storytellers in the caves of our ancestors.
This natural arrangement is now threatened from an unexpected direction - the scribes and accountants. The geeks' system of recording numbers and quantities has been perverted to freeze speech onto clay.
Understand the threat to our business model. At the moment, if someone wants to hear 'The Tale of the Ox, the Ass and the Sumerian', they find an MPAA member, pay him, and sit back to listen to the whole four hour saga. While anyone could recall and tell others the general outline, only MPAA members know every detail and can give the listener the whole story. If you want to hear it again, you pay again. Thousands of MPAA members rely on this fact for their livelihoods.
With the recent invention of "writing" the system is in danger of collapse. We've found that some scribes are actually "recording" entire sagas onto clay. Any scribe can "read" these out to people for free or for money, complete and word-for-word, without being a member of or paying the MPAA! A scribe who has obtained a set of tablets of an story can even read it an unlimited number of times, or (worst of all) make copies. This is starting to have an economic impact on our membership. Consider Rimat-Ninsun, whose masterwork "The Epic of Gilgamesh" took him three years to create, and who looked to it to put bread on his table into his old age, as he told it for money, or let others tell it under paid license after learning it from him. 'Gilgamesh' is now circulating on 12 clay tablets, and Rimat is starving. Who will bother to create new tales if they are just going to be written down?
"Writing" presents insidious dangers to your kingdom as well. It can be anonymous. Before writing, any message arrived with a person to speak it, who could be held accountable for their speech. With writing, it is impossible to tell what scribe "wrote" a message. Anonymous threats, kidnap notes, and untraceable sedition are now possible. Clearly "writing" carries with it far greater problems for our civilization than it does advantages.
However, scribes, accountants, and their skills are essential to business, contracts, laws, and the collection of taxes. We just need to make sure that they are controlled properly.
I therefore propose the Scribal Stylus Safety Control Act. (SSSCA). This requires every scribe to have an MPAA approved, "literate" slave with him at all times, peering over his shoulder. If a scribe is seen to be "writing' something other then accounting information, for example a story (stories are the province of MPAA storytellers), or a message (which should have been given to a paid mnenomist for delivery), or anything seditious, then the slave will take away the scribe's stylus and call the authorities. I ask you to have this Act "written" into your Code of Law.
Is this difficult? Yes. Is it expensive? Yes. However, it is clear that without strict controls, widespread "writing" will not only destroy the entertainment industry, it will threaten civilisation itself!
(end satire)
----------------
The SSSCA threatens to return us to a Stone Age model of information use.
Disclaimer:
The above are strictly the personal opinions of myself, and I'd be astonished if my employer had any official position on the matter (so don't pretend otherwise).
Feel free to copy this document in its entirety, with proper attribution.
Peter Trei
Hmm, seems to me that this is an answer to this oppressive SSSCA legislation - patent the means of implementation.
Ahh, my favourite rhetorical recipe, the tautological soffle.
He argues against the "Enforcement! Regulation! New regulations! Tighter regulations! All out for the campaign against piracy! No quarter! Build more prisons! Harsher sentences!" (from linked page)
among his arguements (quoting from page) " The same thing happens when someone checks a book out of a public library ? a "transaction" which, again, dwarfs by several orders of magnitude all forms of online piracy. The author only collects royalties once, when the library purchases a copy. Thereafter. . ."
" The first is a simple truth which Jim Baen is fond of pointing out: most people would rather be honest than dishonest. "
" The only time that mass scale petty thievery becomes a problem is when the perception spreads, among broad layers of the population, that a given product is priced artificially high due to monopolistic practices and/or draconian legislation designed to protect those practices. But so long as the "gap" between the price of a legal product and a stolen one remains both small and, in the eyes of most people, a legitimate cost rather than gouging, 99% of them will prefer the legal product."
I think this cuts to the heart of the issue. I don't think many people will disagree that a paperback or hardback is really unreasonable, because it does cost some money to produce (toner/ink, paper, etc) and money gets back to the author/creator.
I and family usually spend a lot of our disposable income on books, and have an attachment to Baen's authors (particualarly David Weber, Steve White, and Eric Flint) and own almost all of Weber's, White's, Flint's books they have published. (To tell the truth, because we have lost books or given it as gifts, we have bought about 6 copies of "In Death Ground") I enjoy having some of them online where I can read them anywhere that has internet access.
don't worry, it's not going to happen.
I agree. Flames aside, before they even get lit. The reasons you cite for it being an uphill battle are valid. And I agree that the SSSCA would be incredibly stupid.
But you don't see my point. (BTW, I did say with all due respect.) I was once niave too. Then the CDA was not only passed, but signed. I was stunned. Couldn't believe it. I had carefully watched this battle for two years.
My point was that these people can pass any law they want. It doesn't have to make sense. It doesn't even have to be possible to implement. Wanna bet there is selective enforcement for corporations? Or licenses that can be obtained to have SSSCA free hardware, just as you can now get a license to handle controlled substances, marajuanna, explosives, pyrotechnics, etc.?
My point was that it is niave to think that they won't pass laws because you assume that the following obstacles would stand in their way:
That's what I meant by niave. No disrespect intended. The non-niave view is that none of the above things will stop them from passing stupid laws. We could all very well live to see the day the SSSCA passed into law and signed. I illustrated with other unthinkable examples that all came to pass. There are other examples of stupid laws such as the War On Freedom, the War On Drugs, Prohibition, 55 MPH speed limit, Proposing that PI be equal to 3, etc.
While I agree with all your reasoning that the SSSCA should not be passed, I am saying it is niave to believe that it will not be passed, simply because of your valid reasons. I gave examples, and you did not counter them, yet suggest I am clueless. I give even more examples in this post.
Go to any modern bookstore. (You know, those chains run by big corporations.) Look in the humor section. You can probably find one or several books about funny laws. These books are humorous because of the incredible stupidity of those laws. Did you know that it is illegal in Boston to bathe without the authorization of a physician? Are you so niave to think that a law like this would never get passed? (Again, no disrespect meant.) But it did get passed a long time ago.
Clueless? Maybe I don't have as much of a clue as the heterosexuals do. But just look at history. Haven't you ever heard the famous quote? Something about: No man, nor his property are safe while Congress is in session. Or something like that. I'm sure someone can correct me, or mod me down. Don't you think that the person who wrote this famous quote had some insight?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Besides, as much as some in here bitch about the SSSCA and the DMCA, the true strength of their conviction is really shown when they line up to the MPAA trough every couple of weeks. Or buy hardware from Sony, Nintendo, Toshiba, IBM, or any of the other companies who have made it clear which side of the digital rights and DMCA fence they are on.
Not buying hardware from Sony or Nintendo? So you're saying that we should buy our consoles from Microsoft?
I'm a repairman in an imperfect world.
I read somewhere once that publishers of quilting books are getting upset at grandmas who are sharing quilt patterns online. Many of the patterns are copyrighted.
Is this extreme enough? Let's arrest grandma!
...richie - It is a good day to code.
I didn't include Microsoft in my list of companies because I didn't want people to get the idea that I was just talking about console manufacturers, which they might think after seeing three in a row, and because the "Microsoft Is Evil" mantra is stuck in everybody's head already; no need for me to bring them up, especially when even people who don't like Microsoft are getting worn out on the Microsoft-bashing.
But no, you shouldn't buy your consoles from Microsoft either if DRM or UCITA isn't your thing (BTW: did they club anybody using the DMCA yet?) A good deal of entertainment is still to be had on the Dreamcast, which is cheap as hell nowadays, and if you really need a recent console fix buy everything you can used -- games in particular -- and buy peripherals from anyone but the manufacturer of the console. I'd be bored as hell if I quit buying anything that made profit for an entity backing digital rights management, the DMCA, the SSSCA, or the UCITA, so I just cut back my purchases of those goods some and sought alternative sources of entertainment such as reading and game development. Hasn't killed me yet.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
It's rather cartoony and comical but does anyone else see the future state of the world being a lot like that new Rockstar game State of Emergency? Not the greatest game in the world (I wish I could still return my copy), but it seems to be hitting home in all too many areas.
Happiness is shopping at the corporation. Don't you want to be happy too?
So provide some hard numbers for the actual cost of production of the average music cd.
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Imagine if this law was passed in the U.S. and in Europe, but not, say, in Canada. Many programmers would protest, ineffectively, and decide to live with it no matter how distasteful; but a not insignificant minority might say "Canada's looking pretty good right about now".
If even this minority decided to move to Canada the country would suddenly inherit a wealth of technical expertise - unfettered technical expertise - which would result in a boom in its technological industries. Along with a resultant expansion in the economy and the creation of thousands of new jobs.
All you need is one savvy, future-oriented nation to say "no thanks" to these kinds of laws while it sits back and reaps the rewards of dissent in other nations. Not to mention the sales (roundabout or direct) of non-crippled devices to countries which have outlawed their own industries from producing these goodies.
(I'm using Canada as the example because, so far, they don't appear to be caught up in the same sort of digital hysteria that seems to be sweeping the U.S. and Europe. I could be wrong - any resident Canadians, feel free to correct me.)
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Well, I was one of those blokes who got sent to the principal's office more than just about everyone else in my class combined. A born button-pusher, especially when I thought that what I was being told was a crock of shit. Which was pretty darned often, in the public school system.
I'm also a movie fan and have rented hundreds, probably thousands of movies. My wife and I go to the movies at least once a month. And we buy cds as well, because although I feel like I'm getting reamed every time I pay the outrage prices the ripped shit on the internet *just isn't good enough*. Good enough to sample, but not good enough to listen to on a regular basis.
This doesn't contradict my convictions that CD prices are way too high, that the RIAA and MPAA are robber barons, and that legislation like the SSSCA is something only Satan himself, through his minions - the U.S. Congress - could come up with.
So if it's passed I won't buy DRM hardware and I won't stop running Linux. The government can wrap it's oily, pus-filled lips around my nether regions before I give up my equipment or my OS. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
That will be my protest, along with the loud bitching and yelling I'll continue to do at my reps. It may not meet your standards, but it certainly meets mine.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
I thought americans had a constitutional right to remove their government by revolution ? presumably as long as you declare a revolution you are immune you legal prosecution for anything done in the name of the revolution.
...
Of course when when an armoured dicision and a bomber squadron come to quash revolution
"There are so many people out there sharing music and other files, that it would be difficult to actually stop them. "
,to a certain extent, and there growth and content,(and quality of content), can be curtailed and hence there usefullness limited.
/time warner and sony are the only two players that come to mind who have the ability to do this at the moment.It would not be very difficult to get people to think of the internet along the same lines as tv,where you chose your provider by what content it offers.This would up the ante in the isp business , people would start demanding exclusive content bundeled with there internet connection and the majority of small isps would not be able to afford this and in turn this would probably lead to a drop of in there customer base.Aol/time warner and say for example other big content providers would then be in a position to sell access to there drm networks to the small isps with plenty of strings attached,(i.e put lots of restrictions on your users), and if they did not play by the rules the isps acces to the content would be revoked .
.Hell you could even trow in a free drm media player to people who sighn up for the 30 buck a month content + net plan, that would be a quick way toget people to use the format.
,as if there is no big all ecompassing drm format which is widely used ,(mp3 for example),then people will not buy the drm players and people will continue buying mp3 players.
,'free lunch'.However for drm to work the content making industrys would have to play there cards right and cooperate alot more as well as be perfect in there timing .I do not think they will do this and therefore I do not think drm will be successfull ,my point is that it does have the potential to be successfull and be adopted by the masses andthat is something which worries me.
,(The guy was attending a workshop of the European Commision on Digital Rights Management Systems ).
,"get overly depressed about".
.I think the whole issue of content control could swing either way at this point in time and that now more than ever is the time for people to stand up for what they belive in and not to allow big companys to piss all over there rights ,How long do we have left? How long will it be before the majority accept drm in some form or another.I could see drm hardware ,(not nessecarily pc's on a hardware level any way ),being the norm in 2 years time,(probably less).
Difficult but not impossible or completly improbable for that matter.The question is can the content industrises make it more trouble than it is worth for the majority,(and remeber in there minds that is the market which counts),to download music from a non content industry controled source.I believe that they may be able to do this.
The majority of people are not that computer savy,if some thing is to difficult to use they will not use it.If some thing is difficult to find they will probably not try to find it.Through legal harrassment p2p network programs can be kept under control
How I could see drm really working is in a senario where the internet was treated like tv.For this to happen what you would need to see is the close intergaration of content providers and isp's,where internet usage and special content are sold as one packet, i.e pay 30 bucks a month and get access to our drm film / tv / music network as well as firewalled internet access.
Aol
Independent Isp's who refused to play along could be harrassed by legal means and eventualy the majority of them would close shop or intergrate with one of the few big players. What this sort of senario would lead to is a very centeralised internet which would be alot easier to control.
The next step in this plan would be to start brining out drm media players at a cheap price and to keep the cost of the net/drm content bundel low until the majority of people had accepted it then when that has occured you can rachet up the price as much as you like
obviously people could convert the drm files to mp3/whatever and obviously there would be ways around the fire wall, but this does not matter if the majority of people can not do these things.All the isp/content providers would have to do is maintain a unified firewall position of blocking anything which made 'piracy' simple and potentialy easy to use and even if alot of sites mirroring special p2p networks which would work behind the fire wall could get through via special sites/programs that would not matter much as the majority of people could be prevented from finding them and using them.
Now this is the strategy, which i think will be attempted and here is why I think it will ultimately fail.First off , there is no major drm which has been universaly accepted by all the big player,they are all trying to push there own formats and this is going to be a big problem in terms of getting people to use there drm content , music specificaly
Secondly all of the players in this drm game have different agendas and visions and alot of the time they are odds with one another.For example microsoft and aol/time warner or microsoft and sony. If all 3 of these big players sat down and agreed on a drm format , it would more likely than not be accepted, but all 3 have different formats and different agendas as regards drm and the future of there business.This conflict of interests will prevent there being a single widely used drm format coming about any time soon.
Thirdly drm is completly anti the consumer.No matter what way the big players try and phrase it the deal always comes out the same.We sell you less for more.This is not the right way to make money and to encourage customers to spend money with you and as long as there is an easy alternative to the customers using your drm technology they will use it and not your product.
Drm could work , it may not be uncrackable, but under the right conditions and in the right enviroment it could stop the majority of money spending individual from getting what the content industry see as a
"My point is this: no matter what they do, people will find a way around it"
And my point is that it is not every person that the content industries care about but the majority of people.So long as they can keep the majority of people and convince them to use there drm enabeled files and keep them under control then they will be happy.I am not defending the content industries
but what I am saying is it is naieve to think that something like this in some shape or form 'Can not happen',I think it can probably be made to work
with the majority and this and the implications it could have for the internet as a whole makes me sad. I think this quote from the story on politech says it all
"..how the workshop was compiled by the EC (95% content industry, 5% consumer rights organizations) and the fact that many people there were so naive in terms of DRMs, their implications and their implementations. Example: everyone was talking about a common standard for DRM systems to support many platforms, but no one was talking about the implications of (software)patents on it."
It is looking more and more likely that One day there will be a common drm system and that is some thing to
"even if they win the battle of legislation, we are still able to continue the war.",but the question remains , will the majority of people not just a small minority want to even fight the battle let alone the war
_________________________________________________
Well, that right is claimed, but of course, you have to win the revolution, so you better bring a decent army.
presumably as long as you declare a revolution you are immune you legal prosecution for anything done in the name of the revolution.
Obviously it isn't that simple: what is "legal" in a revolutionary climate very much depends on who's "law" you chose to accept. The U.S. Declaration of Independence lays out some sensible principles though: the biggest beef was that fact the that Colonies' grievences were ignored by King George.... not "addressed and summarily dismissed," but blatently ignored.
You could've hired me.
Did you know that it is illegal in Boston to bathe without the authorization of a physician?
I guess that explains RMS
hehe this could not happen for any number of reasons, first most non-mainstream artists are doing this already in one way or another. . ie mp3.com, the mainstream "popular" artists are legaly slaves to the label, ie its illegal for them to sell their own music and still have it distributed in major outlets, then there is the fact that it would get zero coverage. Maybe an anocment at a concert, but don't expect CNN, MTV, you name your mass media distributer to even mention that this is happening. Affter all that is the whole point. That being said I still have hope that we can arrive at a system that supports the artitist directly.
Hard numbers are, and this is for personal mass produced CD's in a small run, not the millions that the record companys make (which makes it cheeper) about a buck per CD. Look for any small run CD manufactures and you find with a 4 color insert, a jewel case and a stamped cd (in lots of 1000 or more of coarse) runs anywhere between 0.90 and 1.25 or more. Throw in a box (for software manuf) and it goes to between 3.50 to 7.00.
I will bend your mind with my spoon
I thought they only pay the tax if the disc's are labeled "For Audio" only. Didnt think they payed for regular data cd's. Realy its just a loophole.
I will bend your mind with my spoon