Anti-anti-cd-copying Legislation?

Its already there silly by tomstdenis · 2002-03-07 03:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

In the US at least there is the fair use clause of the copyright laws.

So in reality this senator should just be acting to ensure that your laws are being upheld.

There is no need for special new laws to uphold laws that already exist.

Geez...

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.

Re:Its already there silly by pinkUZI · 2002-03-07 03:33 · Score: 1

Sure, but the problem Rick Boucher has is that it's not yet there with Rick Boucher's name on it!

--
You are receiving this message because your browser supports Slashdot Sigs and you have Slashdot Sigs enabled.
Re:Its already there silly by OpenDirectX · 2002-03-07 03:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

We live in an age where anyone with enough money could buy a new law to suit their needs (Disney). Maybe the only real way to protect our current laws is to hide them under other laws.

It seems like a silly and stupid idea, but when you think about maybe its the only way? Instead of fighting to change 1 law, now they have to change 2.
Re:Its already there silly by Nurlman · 2002-03-07 03:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

How many times does it need to be said?

Fair use is a defense to a charge of copyright infringement. You do not have an entitlement to access copyrighted information in any manner you want to.

Maybe it's the "fair" that throws everybody off. "Fair use" just means that there are some situations in which it is acceptable for you to reproduce copyrighted information, even though such reproduction would otherwise be infringing.
Re:Its already there silly by Phanatic1a · 2002-03-07 03:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wrong. Wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong.

As it stands under current law, fair use is a defense, not a right. Saying "Fair use!" might get you off the hook when someone accuses you of violating a copyright, but a copyright holder isn't required to provide you with the tools you need to exercise fair use. That's an important distinction.
Re:Its already there silly by lunenburg · 2002-03-07 03:39 · Score: 1

I think you meant to say there SHOULD BE no need for special new laws to uphold laws that already exist. As proven day after day, Congress will happily contradict and violate their own laws depending on who's paying for what.
Re:Its already there silly by MrFredBloggs · 2002-03-07 03:39 · Score: 1

You have an entitlement to rip your own cds, and if this entitlement is infringed, then you have a case.
Re:Its already there silly by tomstdenis · 2002-03-07 03:39 · Score: 1

Two wrongs make a right?

Tom

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Re:Its already there silly by leviramsey · 2002-03-07 03:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

You do not have an entitlement to rip CDs (in the sense that anyone who tries to stop you is violating the law). However, if someone tries to stop you through the courts, by accusing you of infringement, you can use the Fair Use defense (and will probably win, under current law). Fair Use doesn't obligate the owner of a copyright not to do anything that might reduce your ability to exercise Fair Use.
Re:Its already there silly by kilfarsnar · 2002-03-07 03:46 · Score: 1

Of course two wrongs make a right! We have the death penalty don't we? :P

--
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Re:Its already there silly by tomstdenis · 2002-03-07 04:01 · Score: 1

Arrg.

Ok I know when to throw in the towel :-)

Tom

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Re:Its already there silly by dtfarmer · 2002-03-07 04:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

from the article (for those that haven't read it)

"We know of no authority for the proposition that fair use, as protected by the Copyright Act, much less the Constitution, guarantees copying by the optimum method or in the identical format of the original." - unanimous 3 judge court of appeals decision

Fair use does not give use rights - it protects against overzealous copyright holders suing you.

As long as the CDs are required to be identified by labels, the RIAA will be cutting their own throat, as they will experience more lost sales from a warning label than they will from warez kiddies. Beside - said warez kiddies will just end up using analog outputs to capture audio, that will be turned back into digital audio (with slightly reduced quality), then ripping said files into mp3 or whatever format prevails.

But, I know that when I stop buying CDs because of copy protection - it will hurt them so much, they will cry uncle - not because of me in particular, but because many people will be doing the same as me, a great many people. We will hit them in their pocketbooks - and reward the companies who do not copy protect their CD's.

So all I want is legislation that requires the label to cover at least 25% of the front, so as it cannot be overlooked.

'nuff said
Re:Its already there silly by tomstdenis · 2002-03-07 04:06 · Score: 1

Sorry. Well naturally I am not a lawyer [or a citizen of the US].

So I suppose this new law is designed to make copying a bit easier then? Or to prevent people from making copying harder?

So you could say this new law is designed to uphold the spirit of "free use" provided "free use" is not a right nor a law.

Anyways, the solution is to move to Canada. Its too cold up here to give a damn about stupid money grubbers like the RIAA or MPAA.

Peace love and espresso,
Tom

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Re:Its already there silly by psamuels · 2002-03-07 04:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

Fair use is a defense to a charge of copyright infringement. You do not have an entitlement to access copyrighted information in any manner you want to.

No, but to me, saying on the one hand "xxx use is not copyright infringement" and on the other hand "you may not buy or sell a device which allows you to do xxx use" are logically incompatible statements. If it's not illegal to perform the action, how can it be illegal to buy the equipment necessary to do it?

Yet that is exactly what the DMCA, and to a much greater extent the SSSCA, do say.

The DMCA is a big complex law (aren't they all) and only small bits of it are actually offensive to civil rights. If they would just remove the bit that says you aren't allowed to circumvent access control measures, maybe change it to say you aren't allowed to circumvent access control measures in order to violate copyright law, which is of course redundant since violating copyright law is already illegal, I think the law is salvageable. Last I heard, it sounded like Rep. Boucher wanted to do exactly this. Here's hoping he does, and Congress gets a sudden attack of sanity.

As to this latest proposal - sorry, I can't get into it. Noble intentions, bad concept. It shouldn't be illegal to produce a Cactus CD ... WTF? BMG and Geffen should be allowed to market whatever silver colored shiny crap they want to. We just shouldn't be prohibited from circumventing it as necessary. Let the copy protection arms race occur in userspace, as it always has. Oh, and Phillips can worry about making sure the CD Digital Audio trademark isn't abused - there's our warning labels.

(Looking back over this post, it's approximately -4 Redundant, as it echoes years of slashdot party line....)

--
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
Re:Its already there silly by Rogerborg · 2002-03-07 04:33 · Score: 3, Informative
- In the US at least there is the fair use clause of the copyright laws.
Largely irrelevant. The Audio Home recording act 1992 and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act 1998 between them tie fair use rights up in a Gordian knot, where you are technically allowed fair usage, but you are technologically prevented from doing it, if you see what I mean.

Case law - not confused and contraditory copyright law and fair use defence - has held that burning MP3's is explicitely fair use, see RIAA versus Rio 1999

However, fair use (as another poster asserts) is a post facto defence. If you can make a copy, then fair use allows you to do so in many cases. It does not give leverage to demand copyable media. In fact, the 1992 Audio Home Recording act actually mandates copy prevention technology, it's just that RIAA vs Rio rules that computers and the Rio aren't "digital audio recorders"; the computer is a general purpose device, the Rio doesn't actually make the copy from the original source, it receives the pre-copied data from the computer. That was a contraversial technical ruling though, and it could be ignored in future.

But really, your opinion can be countered with one word: Macrovision.
--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Its already there silly by psamuels · 2002-03-07 04:44 · Score: 1

But, I know that when I stop buying CDs because of copy protection - it will hurt them so much, they will cry uncle - not because of me in particular, but because many people will be doing the same as me, a great many people.

Just like so many people only buy unencrypted DVDs? The DVD standard does not require CSS encryption ... and yet ... how many unencrypted DVDs do you know about? Any movies you would want to buy?

Yeah, I know, some people do boycott buying DVDs because of the decss flap. I don't buy DVDs, but mostly because I don't have a player, so I haven't had to make that moral decision yet. All I'm saying is that most people won't care, as long as there is some way to play their CDs, or whatever you want to call them, in the players they own. I honestly don't think the consumer backlash will be nearly as big as you and I are both hoping for.

--
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
Re:Its already there silly by markmoss · 2002-03-07 05:01 · Score: 2

Passing contradictory laws is hardly the answer. Unless, of course, your real goal is to create a system where everyone is in violation of some law, and those who decide whom to prosecute have absolute power....
Re:Its already there silly by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 05:24 · Score: 0

Aren't we already paying a levy, on Recordable media, which basically, gives us every right to copy or 'backup' our cd's?
So if the cd's can't be copied, than i'm paying for a levy, that is totaly illegal.
Why has no one mentioned this?
Re:Its already there silly by dtfarmer · 2002-03-07 05:40 · Score: 1

Just like so many people only buy unencrypted DVDs? The DVD standard does not require CSS encryption ... and yet ... how many unencrypted DVDs do you know about? Any movies you would want to buy?

The difference being that people did not get to buy unencrypted DVDs for 20 years before having the encryption foisted upon them - and the only prevalent alternative (VHS) is much lower quality. Whereas with CD's - the new copy protected CD's will have no dicernable advantage over a standard CD aside from content. In fact they will be inferior, as they will not be playable on many devices - this is their achilies heel.

I do believe there are enough people who would vote with their pocketbooks when faced with losing features and compatibility that have come to be expected. But no one ever expected that of DVD - it was sold from the beginning as an encrypted format.

And in the end, if copy-protected CDs become prevalent - it will just mean the mp3's I put on my iPod will have to be the result of a Digital -> Analog -> Digital process with the resulting loss of quality. End result - I can still take my music with me - and that's all I want. But I will be much more picky about encrypted CD's - they will be harder to use than my existing 500 CD's, and will not sound as good. And that will cost the RIAA in the end.
Re:Its already there silly by jedidiah · 2002-03-07 05:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

No. Actually, the whole original intent of copyright was to enrich the public domain. Therefore, any copyrighted work needs to be copyable. At least the library of congress should have such a copy.

In the absence of special non-protected versions pressed specifically for the library of congress, all copyrighted works should be copyable.

Of course Disney & cabal have obscured and circumvented this original intent.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Its already there silly by JCCyC · 2002-03-07 05:52 · Score: 2

However, fair use (as another poster asserts) is a post facto defence. If you can make a copy, then fair use allows you to do so in many cases. It does not give leverage to demand copyable media.

No need to. The developers of DeCSS and other CSS breakers didn't "demand" anything from anybody, they just went through a little more hoops to perform exactly what Fair Use defends: the right to copy. The publishers are the ones "demanding" things, not us.

And before I forget, IMHO and IANAL, but Fair Use rulings do seem to create an implicit right to copy. The DMCA clashes with Fair Use because it makes you punishable for copying, something Fair Use explicitly says is a no-no.

I see no difference between "you can't be prosecuted for X" and "doing X is legal".
Re:Its already there silly by MisterBlister · 2002-03-07 06:30 · Score: 1

As it stands under current law, fair use is a defense, not a right. Saying "Fair use!" might get you off the hook when someone accuses you of violating a copyright, but a copyright holder isn't required to provide you with the tools you need to exercise fair use. That's an important distinction.
This is true -- but neither should they be able to make it illegal to exercise fair use, which is what the DMCA and various other laws are all about.
I personally think that so-called copy-proof CDs should be perfectly legal, so long as they are clearly labelled so the consumer knows what he/she is getting at the point of purchase. However, finding ways to rip such CDs to use in non-copyright-infringing manners such as time-shifting and moving it to alternate media should not be illegal..Which it would currently be considering the DMCA.
Re:Its already there silly by Mr_Matt · 2002-03-07 06:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

Fair use is a defense to a charge of copyright infringement. You do not have an entitlement to access copyrighted information in any manner you want to.

No, actually fair use is defined as an exemption to copyright law. Fair Use is delineated in Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 of the U.S. Code and I heartily recommend you check it out. You say it yourself, actually, when you say:

"Fair use" just means that there are some situations in which it is acceptable for you to reproduce copyrighted information, even though such reproduction would otherwise be infringing.

...which means that in the excepted case of "fair use" you are entitled to access copyrighted information in any manner available to you, provided you're within the bounds of U.S. Code.

--

But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
Re:Its already there silly by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 07:01 · Score: 0

I notice there is always a huge outcry over music copy protection but not software (games). I guess because the audience for games is smaller. Its much worse, of course, because it is more expensive, more fragile, and harder to find a replacement when old. Just try to replace your "Super Puzzle Fighter" game that won't run at all because of a single tiny scratch. Too bad you couldn't make a backup copy. Too bad nobody rereleases most old games.
Re:Its already there silly by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 07:04 · Score: 0

One thing I don't get is why people assume that 'fair use' means that publishers have to make it easy for them to copy a work.

Fair use rights can be excercized by having a microphone near the speaker. Nobody is entitled to the ability to make digitally perfect copies of a work.
Re:Its already there silly by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 07:19 · Score: 0

May be it is time to guarantee that by law... Otherwise the provision is meanless.
Re:Its already there silly by ryanwright · 2002-03-07 07:30 · Score: 2

However, if someone tries to stop you through the courts, by accusing you of infringement, you can use the Fair Use defense (and will probably win, under current law).

Probably not, as you won't be prosecuted for infringement, you'll be prosecuted for violations of the DMCA and labeled a terrorist. Then they can do whatever they damn well please with you. "Fair use" is not a valid defense for terrorists...

--
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Re:Its already there silly by SpaceLifeForm · 2002-03-07 07:39 · Score: 1

s/X/monopoly abuse/g
s/you/Microsoft/
Hmmm, I see your point.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Re:Its already there silly by leviramsey · 2002-03-07 07:49 · Score: 1

No. Actually, the whole original intent of copyright was to enrich the public domain. Therefore, any copyrighted work needs to be copyable. At least the library of congress should have such a copy.

You are correct, especially when the effects of a likely CTEA overturning are considered.

However, the matter at hand in my post was that Fair Use does not forbid a copyright holder from taking steps during distribution to prevent you from exercising rights that would be considered to be held under Fair Use. Fair Use is the "Get out of Jail" card in Monopoly; it does not mean that no one can put you in jail. (yes, I know that, like most analogies, that has some issues, but, in the broad stroke, it's true).
Re:Its already there silly by billanderson71 · 2002-03-07 11:11 · Score: 1

Just like so many people only buy unencrypted DVDs? The DVD standard does not require CSS encryption ... and yet ... how many unencrypted DVDs do you know about? Any movies you would want to buy?

On the other hand, when I buy a DVD, I know that it will work in essentially any DVD player. The copy-protected CD's won't work in computer CDs, and some other CDs, such as car players.

When all CDs are copy protected, I can't buy any CDs at all - I don't have anything that would play them.
Re:Its already there silly by psamuels · 2002-03-07 11:21 · Score: 1

On the other hand, when I buy a DVD, I know that it will work in essentially any DVD player. The copy-protected CD's won't work in computer CDs, and some other CDs, such as car players.

There is that, and I hope it's sufficient to convince Joe Consumer that enough is enough. I hope it generates sufficient backlash to actually make the labels sit up and take note. I guess I'm just more pessimistic than you - I figure most people still are listening to CDs on real CD decks (including I'm guessing all but the really high-end car stereos).

Who knows - maybe there is hope in the proles.

--
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
Re:Its already there silly by Kharny · 2002-03-07 23:23 · Score: 1

I don't know about the exact wording in the USA, But in the Netherlands it is legal to make a copy for backup purposes etc. I had the "honour" to be in court over this with several software companies, because their cd's where not copyable.

--
Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life

I agree with Rosen by Shadowkiller · 2002-03-07 03:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Rosen said in a statement: ... "Legislation to prevent self-help technologies would be unwise and unfair."

Why doesn't she tell that to the people who passed the DMCA?

Re:I agree with Rosen by vbrtrmn · 2002-03-07 03:36 · Score: 1

ex-Mayor Maryion Barry said in a statement: ... "Bitch set me up!" He went down then he came back up. Trusting what a politician says is like .. well .. trusting what a politician says.

--
it's a sig, wtf?
Re:I agree with Rosen by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 04:03 · Score: 0

I also would like to know why govt people insist talking like freaks? No wonder nothing gets done... double negatives and backwards speak only confuse people and release gasses...

Is is that every politician is so self engrossed that they think talking like that is a good idea?
Re:I agree with Rosen by trezor · 2002-03-07 04:45 · Score: 1

It's call safeguarding. If people can't be entirely certain of what you just said, they can't feel offended.

It's a strategic approach.
Pissed people -> Bad
Content -> Ok
Happy -> Ok

My guess is that they want more people to be content, than a few getting pissed.

Did I really need to post this... I gotta be bored.

--
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Re:I agree with Rosen by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 07:26 · Score: 0

You do realize that "self-help technologies" sounds a lot like the UCITA code words for back doors in your software that vendors can use to remotely disable it at any time?

Don't mod this up unless wired gets /.'ed by segfaultdot · 2002-03-07 03:34 · Score: 1, Informative

Jonathan Zittrain , an assistant professor at Harvard University's law school, said that it is currently legal to sell copy-protected discs. Zittrain said, however, that manufacturers could be liable under existing law if they do not clearly disclose that the CDs are crippled.

"I actually relish the government's finally turning its attention to the copyright arms race," Zittrain said. "With full public attention focused on the issue, there's an opportunity for Congress to help generate a moderate path on the issue, rather than one tilted too far to locking everything up."

Ira Rothken, an attorney who sued (PDF) over the Charley Pride -- A Tribute to Jim Reeves disc, thinks it's possible that protected CDs violate even existing U.S. laws.

"It could be considered a copyright misuse to not allow people access to works and to space-shift them," Rothken said. "If you told me that someone would not be allowed to listen to the music anonymously, that would cross the line. You cannot have digital-rights management technology if somebody has to give up their anonymity. People should be allowed to reasonably space-shift."

But in a decision last fall, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals saw things exactly the opposite way. The three-judge panel unanimously ruled: "We know of no authority for the proposition that fair use, as protected by the Copyright Act, much less the Constitution, guarantees copying by the optimum method or in the identical format of the original."

This dispute over music comes as Hollywood studios, fretting that online piracy of digital content will imperil sales, have asked Congress to require that all PCs and consumer electronics sport technology to prohibit illicit copying. Last Thursday, the Senate Commerce committee convened a hearing where the studios complained that Silicon Valley firms had not moved quickly enough in setting anti-copying standards.

Senate Commerce chairman Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina) has drafted, but has not introduced, legislation called the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act. A version of the SSSCA obtained by Wired News would prohibit creating, selling or distributing "any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies."

Robert Zarate contributed to this report.

Re:Don't mod this up unless wired gets /.'ed by segfaultdot · 2002-03-07 03:39 · Score: 3

Crap, i didn't get the first page, because it wouldn't display on mozilla. here's the full article. Again, don't mod this up unless it is needed.

---

WASHINGTON -- Music CDs equipped with copy protection will, if Rick Boucher gets his wish, soon be as obsolete as eight-track cassettes.

The feisty Democratic congressman from Virginia says he plans to introduce legislation banning, or at least regulating, compact discs outfitted with anti-copying technology.

Few discs sold in America currently feature the controversial scheme -- but the recording industry expects that as worries over digital piracy grow, the technique will become widespread.

"Suffice to say, there probably will be a legislative response to ensure that consumer rights will be protected," Boucher said in an interview.

Boucher's complaints are twofold: Americans may not know they're buying crippled discs, and that the new discs don't work on all players. "The big problem initially is that consumers have no information that is complete and reliable about the disabilities which attend copy-protected CDs," Boucher said. "These CDs will not play in DVD players, not play on personal computers (and) not even play on all CD players."

His remarks come as a Washington-style war of words between Boucher and the head of the Recording Industry Association of America is escalating. In January, Boucher wrote to RIAA's Hilary Rosen complaining about copy-protected discs; Rosen fired back last week by calling them "a measured response to a very serious problem facing the music industry today."

In response to Boucher's prediction of legislation, Rosen promised that the recording industry steadfastly would oppose it.

Rosen said in a statement: "The notion of copy protection is certainly not new to the entertainment industry. Even computer software already employ various technology protections as appropriate for their marketplace and their consumers. The music industry deserves to do the same. Legislation to prevent self-help technologies would be unwise and unfair."

Boucher wouldn't give details on what approach he's considering -- obvious possibilities include ordering the music industry to stick labels on protected CDs, or an outright ban of that technology. "I'm considering a proper legislative response to these concerns," he said. "I'm discussing it with a large number of individuals."

Those discussions may take a while. Boucher said in an interview last July that he would introduce a bill to rewrite the Digital Millennium Copyright Act -- but nine months later, he has yet to do so. This week, Boucher pledged to introduce "the bill in the not-so-distant future."

Copy protection works by encoding deliberate errors onto a compact disc. The errors make it harder to burn copies but can render the discs unplayable on many computers -- and a few stereos -- by violating the "Red Book" standard for CD-Audio that Philips and Sony created in 1980.

Only two protected CDs appear to have been distributed so far in the United States: Charley Pride -- A Tribute to Jim Reeves, released by Music City Records and protected by SunnComm's MediaCloQ, and More Fast and Furious, a Universal Music Group soundtrack protected by Midbar's Cactus 200. Both discs ship with warning labels and an advisory that they are copy-protected.

Prue Adler, the assistant executive director of the Association of Research Libraries, said her group endorses Boucher's approach.

Adler said that "as consumers, their expectations are certainly that they have these rights and privileges."

Jonathan Zittrain, an assistant professor at Harvard University's law school, said that it is currently legal to sell copy-protected discs. Zittrain said, however, that manufacturers could be liable under existing law if they do not clearly disclose that the CDs are crippled.

"I actually relish the government's finally turning its attention to the copyright arms race," Zittrain said. "With full public attention focused on the issue, there's an opportunity for Congress to help generate a moderate path on the issue, rather than one tilted too far to locking everything up."

Ira Rothken, an attorney who sued (PDF) over the Charley Pride -- A Tribute to Jim Reeves disc, thinks it's possible that protected CDs violate even existing U.S. laws.

"It could be considered a copyright misuse to not allow people access to works and to space-shift them," Rothken said. "If you told me that someone would not be allowed to listen to the music anonymously, that would cross the line. You cannot have digital-rights management technology if somebody has to give up their anonymity. People should be allowed to reasonably space-shift."

But in a decision last fall, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals saw things exactly the opposite way. The three-judge panel unanimously ruled: "We know of no authority for the proposition that fair use, as protected by the Copyright Act, much less the Constitution, guarantees copying by the optimum method or in the identical format of the original."

This dispute over music comes as Hollywood studios, fretting that online piracy of digital content will imperil sales, have asked Congress to require that all PCs and consumer electronics sport technology to prohibit illicit copying. Last Thursday, the Senate Commerce committee convened a hearing where the studios complained that Silicon Valley firms had not moved quickly enough in setting anti-copying standards.

Senate Commerce chairman Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina) has drafted, but has not introduced, legislation called the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act. A version of the SSSCA obtained by Wired News would prohibit creating, selling or distributing "any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies."

Robert Zarate contributed to this report.
Re:Don't mod this up unless wired gets /.'ed by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 15:59 · Score: 0

It occurred to me we should ban photocopiers at law schools, and make em pay for every online case they look at . These noble lawyers then would then wake up. A conviction for photocopying a case book, would end their aspirations in the 2nd week.

Support Boucher by rlp · 2002-03-07 03:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

I just mailed Boucher a letter of support, and a campaign contribution. And no, I'm not a VA resident. He and Leahy are about the only members of congress that seem to understand technology related issues.

--
[Insert pithy quote here]

Re:Support Boucher by theCURE · 2002-03-07 03:41 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually writing officials is one of the BEST ways to support issues you believe in. I encourage people to write to Boucher if you believe in things like this. Sending email is too easy to delete, and issues like these are ones where any support is desired and most likely needed.

Kudos to you for writing.

--
"i can never say no to anyone but you"
Re:Support Boucher by weston · 2002-03-07 03:49 · Score: 2

The campaign contribution probably isn't needed to get his attention if he's actually savvy enough to get the issue -- and stand up for individual rights. But hey, it might help him get re-elected. And I'll bet "Thank You" is a letter congressment barely get. : )

--
Tweet, tweet.
Re:Support Boucher by Telastyn · 2002-03-07 03:55 · Score: 3, Funny

I wonder if the congressman has a Paypal/Amazon donation system.... *goes to look* not yet!
Re:Support Boucher by fishebulb · 2002-03-07 04:05 · Score: 2

Feingold is pretty cool. He voted against the patriot act. (among other things) glad he is my rep.
Re:Support Boucher by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 04:10 · Score: 0

Did you just mail in a check, for that contribution?? I can't seem to find any info on how to contribute. Please someone, point me in the right direction!
Re:Support Boucher by psamuels · 2002-03-07 04:12 · Score: 1

And no, I'm not a VA resident.

Just a VA customer, or at least a user of their web log.

Oh, you meant Virginia. (:

--
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
Re:Support Boucher by leviramsey · 2002-03-07 04:40 · Score: 1

The amount of paperwork that the FEC requires for campaign contributions means that I doubt that politicians could raise money through PayPal. That said, maybe the /.PAC could be founded which took contributions through PayPal/Amazon and would fight for the beliefs of Slashdotters (allow strong encryption, abolish the DMCA, etc).
Re:Support Boucher by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 05:15 · Score: 0

Feingold seems to be one of the only senators with his head on straight. And he's not afraid of standing out. He was the ONLY one to vote against the patriot act. I got a letter from him (as did all of WI?) explaining his stance. I like him a lot.
Re:Support Boucher by ffoiii · 2002-03-07 05:27 · Score: 1

I thought that the EFF was the slashdot pac.
Re:Support Boucher by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 07:08 · Score: 0

No, the EFF is where that evil Spammer Gilmore hangs out. We've gotta have a new place now to gather.
Re:Support Boucher by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 11:55 · Score: 0

We are talking about the same Boucher that just voted to let the Bells destroy all ISP competition, right?

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year= 20 02&rollnumber=45

Poly-negative soup by indole · 2002-03-07 03:34 · Score: 1

What we really need is an Anti Digital Millenium Copyright Act (ADMCA) to legislate a negation of the legislated negation of our consumer rights.

This is gunna get hairy.

--
(2,3-Benzopyrrole)

Re:Poly-negative soup by vbrtrmn · 2002-03-07 03:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Consumers don't have any rights. A consumer will rarely win against a large company in court, unless the company settles, because it is too much of a hassle for them to deal with. Look at the current situation in the US, all the laws are being made to help out .. Big Business. Within 10 - 20 years will will no longer be the United States of America, we will be the United Corporations of America.

--
it's a sig, wtf?
Re:Poly-negative soup by krulgar · 2002-03-07 03:39 · Score: 1

Not wanting to get caught with our pants down, I propose legislatign an anti-anti-anti-DMCA act. Alphabetically, we'd be listed before the ADMCA too.
Re:Poly-negative soup by Amarok.Org · 2002-03-07 03:54 · Score: 2

And then the AADMCA, then the AAADMCA, then the AAAADMCA, etc...

Why not work on REPEALING the law, instead of just slapping another layer of complexity on top?

--
-- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
Re:Poly-negative soup by Prior+Restraint · 2002-03-07 04:20 · Score: 2

Because technically speaking, there's little real difference between the two. Whenever laws are repealed, the language of the bill Congress debates would look something like, "Amend Title 17 to remove 1201". This is because (for example) courts need to be able to see what the laws used to be when evaluating precedent. If a Supreme Court ruling is based on a law that has been repealed, lower courts need to know about it to determine if that ruling is still worth following (in case maybe Congress later passed another law similar to the repealed one). (IANAL, but this seems like the most logical explanation.)
Re:Poly-negative soup by trezor · 2002-03-07 04:52 · Score: 1

What we don't need now is not what a ADMCA wouldn't do. (Don't whine if you don't get it. I'm pretty confident i don't)

What we need to do is to hack the WinXP to automaticly remove all occurences of the phrase DMCA.

Ok. So much for free speech, but it WOULD be nice still :)

--
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Re:Poly-negative soup by SubtleNuance · 2002-03-07 05:00 · Score: 2

Consumers don't have any rights. A consumer will rarely win against a large company in court, unless the company settles, because it is too much of a hassle for them to deal with. Look at the current situation in the US, all the laws are being made to help out .. Big Business. Within 10 - 20 years will will no longer be the United States of America, we will be the United Corporations of America.

Ah, but you mis-understand -- this isnt an issue of 'consumer' rights, it is CITIZENS' Rights. "Voting with your dollars" and all this other mumbo-jumbo is an effort to make citizens movements impotent and ineffective. Its like accepting a butter-knife from your opponent in a sword-fight. What you have in your pocket is a baseball bat (Democractic Governance) but you Americans keep accepting a position at the bottom of the shit-hill when issues of this nature arise.

You will NEVER dig yourself out of your present Plutocratic mess as long as you continue to buy the BS that absolute-free-market capitalism works, and is unassailable. It does not, and it will surely lead to the next American Revolution... or World War.
Re:Poly-negative soup by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 06:36 · Score: 0

If you brought the DMCA & the ADMCA together, then they would inihalate each other, with a massive release of energy.

Hopefully levelling a city full of politicians and lawyers. So its not all bad.
Re:Poly-negative soup by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 07:10 · Score: 0

Yeah, right.

The next world war is going to be sparked by the lack of a right to make perfect digital copies of some commercial band's music.

Uh-huh.

bah by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 03:35 · Score: 0

Anti-Copying technology would be bad, any restriction in information flow is bad. Information is the key to life. I applaud the politician and the people who are paying him off to make sure their needs are met, because their needs are my needs. Red Hat Hurd!

Just not possible... by Ixe · 2002-03-07 03:35 · Score: 1, Redundant

...if you can read the data (i.e. listen to music or install programs) there's a way to copy it....

There's always a way...

--
Sigs pose an operational security risk and help the baddies aggregate data. I guess commenting does too, oops.

Re:Just not possible... by buggered · 2002-03-07 04:35 · Score: 2, Informative

I bought the More Fast and Furious CD to see how hard it would be. My test results are at http://www.qrwsoftware.com/rants/copycd.html. In summary, I found that the KDE Player on Linux would play the CD just fine. Mac OSX would play all tracks except track 1. BeOS would play the CD straight through from beginning to end, but I couldn't select tracks at random or skip forward or back. I ripped tracks 1 - 11 without too much trouble (with an old version of cdparanoia, but newer versions wouldn't?). I ripped 1 - 12 ok on BeOS by mounting the CD. I have not yet been able to rip track 13 or 14 directly. I recorded the tracks using a player with SPDIF output into a sound card with SPDIF input. I am still working on comparing the resultant files. The recorded files have differences from the ripped files. And there are some differences between the files I ripped with cdparanoia and copied on beos. I'm still studying the differences.
Re:Just not possible... by armb · 2002-03-07 04:54 · Score: 2

> there's a way to copy it....
> There's always a way...

But is there a _legal_ way to copy it (for legitimate purposes)? If, for example, region free DVD players are made illegal, it will still be _technically_ possible to play out of region DVDs.
But for the generally law-abiding consumer who at the moment can legally buy a region free player off the shelf, that won't matter.

--
rant
Re:Just not possible... by ryanwright · 2002-03-07 07:46 · Score: 2

But is there a _legal_ way to copy it (for legitimate purposes)?

Who gives a fsck. Practice civil disobedience. I for one refuse to follow laws I deem stupid. For instance, the DMCA. Copy the CD anyway whether it's legal or not; it's not like there is a damn thing they can do about it, unless they plan to hire someone to live in your house just in case you get the urge to copy a CD.

--
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig

Typical example by Kickstart70 · 2002-03-07 03:35 · Score: 1

...of the rights of the corporation vs. the rights of the citizens. I suspect all of us who don't use CDs for anything other than backing up our software or our machines will be penalized with the use of levy, taxes and fines on the sales of CDs (to fund this stupidity).

Wouldn't it be far better to leave this in the hands of the corporation, who if they care about copying will put copy-protection measures into place? And if the copy protection measures go too far and the citizens don't buy - well, that's the way a free, open market works!

Kickstart

Re:Typical example by richardbowers · 2002-03-07 03:46 · Score: 2

We already are...there's already a "tax" on the sale of blank media, AFAIK, which goes to the RIAA. Its paid for by the blank media producers, so it inflates your cost, but you don't see it as a line item when you purchase the products.
Part of the reason for having a law like this is that the tax is there to compensate content producers for people copying their stuff. If that's the purpose of the fees, copying shouldn't be counted as being wrong, and they shouldn't prevent you from making copies.

--
Law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained. -- Aaron Burr
Re:Typical example by ncc74656 · 2002-03-07 04:35 · Score: 2

We already are...there's already a "tax" on the sale of blank media, AFAIK, which goes to the RIAA. Its paid for by the blank media producers, so it inflates your cost, but you don't see it as a line item when you purchase the products.

That's only on "audio" CD-Rs, not "data" CD-Rs. It's why you get bent over if you're buying blanks for an audio-CD burner...it's a wonder those things sell at all, when you can get a burner for your computer that's faster, cheaper, and uses cheaper media.
(I suppose the "RIAA tax" might also apply to audiocassettes, but I haven't bought those in ages. It's been even longer since I last used them for data storage.)

--
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Re:Typical example by adamjaskie · 2002-03-07 04:40 · Score: 0

AFAIK, the tax is only on the sale of the blank "Music" cds. These have a special code stamped on them that says you have paid the tax, and the stand alone cd recorders (the ones that go into your stereo system) look for this code. If the cd doesnt have the code, (i.e. it is a "Data" cd) it refuses to record on it. Other than that, the two cds are the same. So, if you are using a cd recorder in your computer, you might as well just get "Data" cds, because they are the same as the "Audio" cds.

--
/usr/games/fortune
Re:Typical example by nerdlyone · 2002-03-07 04:55 · Score: 1

Wouldn't it be far better to leave this in the hands of the corporation, who if they care about copying will put copy-protection measures into place? And if the copy protection measures go too far and the citizens don't buy - well, that's the way a free, open market works!
That would be great if the market worked perfectly. It really doesn't though. You assume that consumers can act in concert the same way that a corporation (or the oligopoly that is the RIAA) does.
Once copy protected CDs are standard, how will consumers "vote" against it by purchasing non-protected CDs? There will be none to purchase. And consumers will still want CDs. So we will eat whatever they give us--copy protected CDs.
Meanwhile, many legal, non-infringing uses of copyrighted material will become impossible. In order to stop criminal acts, they will restrict many legal activities.
There is some hope, though only a little. The Supreme Court protected Sony (I think it was Sony) when they were sued for contributory infringement for making VCRs. They industry argued that VCRs were copyright violation machines that would be used for illegal copying by consumers. Which is true. However, the Supremes, in their infinite wisdom, pointed out that there are substantial non-infringing uses for a VCR, like taping a show and watching it once later. For this kind of reason, Sony won the suit under the Fair Use defense. And we therefore have VCRs now.
One problem: If they make it impossible to copy with Hollingsworth's hardware modification law (which will REQUIRE that ALL digital devices have and use certified copy protection hardware), then the record industry won't have to sue anyone like they did in the Sony case. Instead, a consumer would have to complain to the court and try to sue the RIAA. This is a VERY different situation. Instead of the industry trying to claim infringement, a consumer will have to try to claim that the copy protection is illegal. However, it is not illegal under current law. Even if it limits non-infringing activities, we don't have a RIGHT to those activities--those activities are just protected under Fair Use doctrine, which only means that we have a DEFENSE AGAINST INFRINGEMENT. It does NOT give us a right to those fair uses.
What is needed is a great political backlash against the record industry (and the companies like Intel who are also planning to implement the hardware copy protection). Technology has made some of these industries obsolete (like the middlemen between artists and the consumer--since we can get music via the net, and since CDs are now cheap and easy to burn, why do we need them at all? They have been made parasites by technological advances). But money is hard to dislodge, and these companies won't die without a fight. They would rather restrict access to free material than die and let free material be free. I guess we can't blame them for doing all they can within the law to save themselves and profit. We need to change the laws, I guess, so they can no longer do it. The incentive provided by copyright law is really no longer needed, because mass producing copies for the public to enjoy is no longer an expensive endeavor. We don't need the record industry. Artists will still sing. Music will still be produced. The public will still get copies. Bands make all their money off touring nowadays anyway, not off record proceeds. Record proceeds benefit the record industry. Which, as I have argued, is more a parasite nowadays than a benefit to anyone (other than people making money off this parasitism--people who unfortunately are at the bargaining table in all this, while the public, whom the law was written to benefit, is not).
Not that I am advocating abolition of copyright law, just an overhaul in this area (and in software, don't get me started on that...)
Just one man's opinion.

Thank Peter Fox by tiltowait · 2002-03-07 03:36 · Score: 2

For bringing this to the limelight.

More.

It is as they say....... by Semi_War · 2002-03-07 03:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Make it hack-proof and we will make a better hacker! He does have some interesting points but I fear it is just all politics doing the talking here. A nice way to come in the publicity and gather a few voters.

Good Guy or Publicity stunt? by TechnoLust · 2002-03-07 03:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

Well, I'm glad to see that at least one of our congressmen doesn't have his head completely up his ass. I hope he is doing this because he really cares about or rights and wants to see fair use upheld. I'm not that naive however, so it would think it is probably some sort of publicity stunt. Either way, I don't think it can hurt.

The thing that kills me it, COPY PREVENTION DOESN'T WORK! I've said before and I'll say it again, If I can listen to it, I can copy it. It's as simple as that. They only way they can stop people from copying CDs it to fix them to where they will not play in any device. Don't laugh, some of these new "Copy protected" CDs are halfway there.

--
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"

Re:Good Guy or Publicity stunt? by hyphz · 2002-03-07 04:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

No. You're right, copy prevention doesn't work. The objective is not so much copy prevention as making the copies useless.

So (for example) you can plug your audio cable from your CD player into your PC and sample the CD. However, your PC then refuses to play the audio, because it contains a watermark identifying it as needing a keyed source to play from and it doesn't have one.

Now, of course, this leads to a weird suggestion I heard. Suppose you get a load of copy-protected disks, make copies of them, and distribute them. Of course, they are useless unless somebody comes up with a way of getting around the protection. However, people might still buy them in anticipation of that.

Are you breaking copyright law? Well, if you are, then that means that the copy protection failed to prevent you doing so, even though you visibly did NOT bypass it. And that, in turn, means that the copy protection is NOT effectively enforcing the rights of the copyright holder, and has no DMCA protection.

But do you think any company would have the guts to *not* prosecute somebody who was handing out copies of protection failures?
Re:Good Guy or Publicity stunt? by weinerdog · 2002-03-07 06:16 · Score: 1

The thing that kills me it, COPY PREVENTION DOESN'T WORK! I've said before and I'll say it again, If I can listen to it, I can copy it. It's as simple as that.

Copy prevention, like any sort of security or control, is about limiting the scope of an activity, not eliminating the activity altogether. It misses the point to argue that anything can be copied; the idea is to put enough control in place so that only sufficiently determined or skilled people will be able to do so. It's the same reason I lock my front door even though anyone with a hammer can break a window.

The real question is whether the kind of copy prevention mechanisms they are considering will have any beneficial effect from a business standpoint. That is, will the technology generate enough new sales to make up for the cost of implementing and defending it in the first place? I have serious doubts about this. The software industry was big on copy control in the 1980s, but dropped it, presumably because of a combination of ineffectiveness and angry users. Ultimately, I think the software, music, and movie industries will realize that there is a finite amount of money that they can squeeze from consumers, and that higher profits will come from lowering production costs by producing fewer, but better, products rather than trying to sell as many cookie-cutter productions as they can.

--
There's no such thing as Scotchtoberfest!
Re:Good Guy or Publicity stunt? by cheezehead · 2002-03-07 07:24 · Score: 1

So (for example) you can plug your audio cable from your CD player into your PC and sample the CD. However, your PC then refuses to play the audio, because it contains a watermark identifying it as needing a keyed source to play from and it doesn't have one.

Huh? I don't get that. How can a watermark survive a D/A->A/D conversion process? Must be an analog watermark then?

Your post does bring up an interesting point: if the DCMA protects effective copy protection, isn't it self-defeating then? What I mean is that as soon as someone finds a circumvention method for a protection scheme, the protection isn't effective any more, right? So, it's not protected by the DCMA anymore, since it has just been cracked. Or is the process of making it ineffective punishable by law?

--
MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.
Re:Good Guy or Publicity stunt? by ryanwright · 2002-03-07 07:54 · Score: 2

So (for example) you can plug your audio cable from your CD player into your PC and sample the CD. However, your PC then refuses to play the audio, because it contains a watermark identifying it as needing a keyed source to play from and it doesn't have one.

Good luck. Does your PC have this? Will you buy a PC that has this? Didn't think so.

"Oh, but some day, that will be your only choice." BS. Even if future PCs refuse to boot unless Windows 2010 DRM+ is installed, someone will hack a Linux kernel to report the right info to the BIOS and you'll be set.

"Oh, but they'll make Linux illegal." Good luck. I think the fact that Linux is something like 27% of the server market pretty much counts that out. Do you think the government could ever succeed in ripping 27% of the server market out of the hands of the major corporations who use it? Hell, I work at a DOE lab and we use Linux for almost everything... Are they going to take it away from themselves, too?

"OK, then they'll make the patch illegal." That will be about as effective as making DeCSS illegal. You can still download it any time you choose; it's all over the web and it's not going away.

--
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Re:Good Guy or Publicity stunt? by Overzeetop · 2002-03-07 09:37 · Score: 1

I spoke to Rep Boucher in person a couple of weeks ago and he is genuine. I live in his district and he has fairly regular meetings in which he speaks (usually announcing something being funded by the fed gov't for your community), and then he stays afterwards for a while and talks to whomever is there and wants to bend his ear for a couple of minutes.

He really does care about this stuff. He mentioned that he would be introducing some new legislation "soon" which he expects will have the entire Hollywood establishment come down on his head (his own words). He asks that everyone write their opinions down and send them in to congress so that he can show he has public support for this stuff.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

uh... by autopr0n · 2002-03-07 03:37 · Score: 2

Actualy it wasn't a "statement" to the press or anything, it's what he said when he was aressted. and it was a setup.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Re:uh... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 04:32 · Score: 0

It was still a statement :)

For some... by Gerad · 2002-03-07 03:38 · Score: 1

While Fair Use may be enough to protect the technically inclined, the average joe consumer may have no idea how to bypass this technology, getting screwed over.

Overall, I think this attempt is admirable.

--
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!

Re:For some... by ichimunki · 2002-03-07 04:14 · Score: 1

Fair use does not seem to be protecting the technically inclined in cases that are brought using the DMCA as the primary legislative support. Else, Goldstein and Sklyarov would never have been dragged into court.

Still, this is yet another law, and it seems designed to keep Disney, WB, and company from shooting themselves in the foot. If consumers are willing to go out and buy a whole slew of new devices in order to support this copyright protection racket, then why should Congress be passing laws to prevent it?

I will agree however, with any attempts (which is part of this proposal) to enforce labeling that makes it clear that the CDs purchased with copy interference mechanisms are not traditional, standard audio CDs. Frankly, I'm disappointed in my fellow Americans that they neither know much or care much about this.

If a law like this is passed, I predict a new standard audio format will appear in no time. An audio DVD for instance, with remixes, videos, and a bunch of other stuff-- and devices ranging from simple audio players for the audio tracks to portable players that have a little video screen to whatever. As long as people buy what they are selling, the law is going to always be a step behind.

--
I do not have a signature
Re:For some... by psamuels · 2002-03-07 04:24 · Score: 1

If a law like this is passed, I predict a new standard audio format will appear in no time. An audio DVD for instance, with remixes, videos, and a bunch of other stuff-- and devices ranging from simple audio players for the audio tracks to portable players that have a little video screen to whatever. As long as people buy what they are selling, the law is going to always be a step behind.

Agreed - this is one of my problems with this bill. It is too specific. It reminds me of the city council in my former hometown. They passed an ordinance that rollerblading was not allowed on downtown sidewalks. Of course they used the trademark, "Rollerblades". Presumably you were still allowed to skate on sidewalks if you wore a different brand of in-line skates.

--
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README

Not gonna happen by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2002-03-07 03:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

In america you BUY laws, and this one isn't paid for. Good luck

Re:Not gonna happen by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-08 03:13 · Score: 0

You hoping for a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Trod on the spirit of the people enough, and you can have your way with them, right?

No wonder... by DickPhallus · 2002-03-07 03:38 · Score: 1

Only two protected CDs appear to have been distributed so far in the United States: Charley Pride -- A Tribute to Jim Reeves

No wonder I haven't run into copy protected CDs... this is a pretty slick way of doing things... introduce the copy protection on CDs that tend to sell towards non-geek crowds... then get it firmly entrenched... and with the coming SSSCA, the man will come and take all your non compliant hardware away!

--

--
Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.

Re:No wonder... by Technician · 2002-03-07 04:26 · Score: 2

the man will come and take all your non compliant hardware away!
No they won't. They won't have to. It will become an obsolete format. The new stuff will not play on it. I have a nice collection of formats that are no longer mainstream. I have 7 inch reel to reel tape recorder (not copy protected), an 8 track tape recorder (not copy protected), a 12 inch laser disk (not copy protected, not even macrovision), a Betamax (ignores Macrovision).
Nobody will come and take it away. They don't have to.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:No wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 07:14 · Score: 0

>the man will come and take all your non >compliant hardware away!

Hey, that's a nifty way to shift the burdern for the disposal costs of obsolete hardware - get the FBI to sieze it! Then the Fed's can pay for disposals - or more likley, eternal warehousing as 'evidence'.

Oh no! Another H2G2 reader! by Bollie · 2002-03-07 03:39 · Score: 5, Funny

This reminds me of the Thumb in the Hitch-Hiker books by Douglas Adams.

If only we could get half of the galaxy's lawyers working on the circumvention of copy-protection laws and the other half on circumventing the circumvention laws, they could leave us in peace to actually code some stuff that might be worth circumventing!

Sorry. I was just venting...

Copyright law,,,, by maroberts · 2002-03-07 03:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

..was created to encourage science and progress [at least as drafted in the US Constitution] and provides protection for people who publish their works.

I think a corollary to the copright law should be that if you deny access [through encryption or other technological measures] to your works you are not protected by copyright. After all patents are granted for people publishing their ideas in the open, so why should copyright not operate the same way?

--

Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon

Re:Copyright law,,,, by vicviper · 2002-03-07 04:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe because copyrights are not patents. Assuming that "copyright law was created to encourage science and progress", you could see how monetary compensation for copyrights is one method of encouragement. Copyright holders have the right to such compensation under the law. It doesn't have to be fair to the licensee, either in restrictions or the cost of the license. However, those that use licenses have the right not to use them. It ends up being an individual choice.

Because of the ease digital media lends to circumvention of copyright of items stored in that mediusm, IMO it's understandable that copyright holders may want to attempt to restrict the casual (or die hard) violator. Accesses to these items are not being denied, but more closely ristricted to the origninal copyright licensee. As long as this ristriction does not prevent your use of the product (under the license) they are fulfilling their obligations to you.

Not sure that's true by somethingwicked · 2002-03-07 03:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

Fair use does not really cover all of what is occuring here, I believe

This also comes under licensing. Phillips licenses the technology and dictates that any use of the technology menas that it is universal. You should be able to place ANY CD Disk in ANY CD player and have it work.

Is there a law covering what happens to a company when they bend the license agreement so that their product only plays in certain players because they have ATTEMPTED to prevent copying?

--

---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---

Re:Not sure that's true by st0rmshad0w · 2002-03-07 03:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Very correct.

I believe that whatever is to be done, it needs to start with hard and fast rules regarding the nature of music purchases. Are you buying a product(disc w/music on it) or buying a license(permission to listen to album 'X').

If the former, then what I've purchased is mine and I'll use it how I please. They can do whatever they want, as long as its still CD compliant, but they shouldn't whine when I make a back-up copy.

If the latter, then someone is replacing my scratched disks, providing CD media versions of my old cassette tapes etc. I've PAID the license, I've the right to different media, the same as software companies would provide floppy disk versions of software on request, replace damaged media, or allow you to generate back-up copies if you so desired.

Currently the recording industry wants it both ways, but only the parts that benefit them.
Re:Not sure that's true by prisonercx · 2002-03-07 04:08 · Score: 1

Of course, IANAL, but I don't see the distinction between a company that breaks compatibility by attempting to copy protect its wares and a company that breaks compatibility to further its own market share. I mean, could MS get away with starting its own record label, exclusively putting its music out in encrypted, hobbled WMA format on CDs (or something), then calling it a Compact Disc or an Album? If it's a small company, then it would be poor business sense, but we're talking about a near-monopoly (the labels represented by the RIAA produce the vast amount of the commercially-available music on the market).

PrisonerCX
Re:Not sure that's true by ciscoeng · 2002-03-07 04:18 · Score: 1

Don't know about a law, but Philips has already said they may not license the CD symbol and approval to anyone who doesn't follow the standard.

Sounds like the RIAA is biting the hand that feeds.
Re:Not sure that's true by psamuels · 2002-03-07 04:38 · Score: 1

If the latter, then someone is replacing my scratched disks, providing CD media versions of my old cassette tapes etc. I've PAID the license, I've the right to different media, the same as software companies would provide floppy disk versions of software on request, replace damaged media, or allow you to generate back-up copies if you so desired.

Agreed, 100% - but unfortunately you'd never actually get them to send you new media for free. IBM will ship us anything we want (within our software contract) for a $50 media charge. Believe you me, if you actually had a license rather than a product, the "media handling fee" for getting a new CD would be very very close to (or higher than) your replacement purchase price.

People (and the courts) can say what they want, but I already treat music as a license. I feel no remorse at all about borrowing a CD I used to own before it mine was stolen, and burning myself a copy. I paid for the CD; if someone is stealing from The Cure, or from the RIAA, it's the guy who took my CD, not me. (I've taken a lot of crap for doing the above and still being opposed to napster-style copyright infringement. Shrug.)

--
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
Re:Not sure that's true by Steve+B · 2002-03-07 05:05 · Score: 2

You should be able to place ANY CD Disk in ANY CD player and have it work.
Sales of products in general are subject to a doctrine of "implied suitability," meaning that the product is expected to perform the function that a reasonable consumer would expect of it. For instance, it is generally understood that a hammer is suitable for pounding nails into wood, so if you bought a hammer and it broke when you tried to use it for that purpose, you would have recourse against the merchant for selling you a defective product.
Given the huge installed base of computer CD units and software for playing music CDs inserted thereinto, it's clear that this doctrine applies here.

--
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Re:Not sure that's true by MartinG · 2002-03-07 05:07 · Score: 4, Funny

Very correct.

is "very correct" more right than just "correct" ? This one always makes me laugh. I think you need a patch:

--- english.h Thu Mar 7 17:02:19 2002
+++ english_fixed.h Thu Mar 7 17:02:28 2002
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
- unsigned int correct;
+ boolean correct;

That should fix it.

--
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
Re:Not sure that's true by Pfhreakaz0id · 2002-03-07 07:39 · Score: 2

I had a journalism professor who used to say you should substitute "damn" every time you want to write "very." It packs more punch and is a better read.

--
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE

Don't get too excited.... by mblase · 2002-03-07 03:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

Boucher's complaints are twofold: Americans may not know they're buying crippled discs, and that the new discs don't work on all players.... Boucher wouldn't give details on what approach he's considering -- obvious possibilities include ordering the music industry to stick labels on protected CDs, or an outright ban of that technology.

In other words, he not necessarily advocating blocking all copy-protection on CDs. He just wants to stop the music industry from passing off copy-protected CDs as regular copyable CDs. If the music industry agrees to label all copy-protected CDs as such, he'll still be happy.

Re:Don't get too excited.... by inerte · 2002-03-07 03:57 · Score: 1

There's a way to let him unhappy, in fact all politicians that support anti-'piracy' laws unhappy.

Just don't vote for them. And tell your friends not to either. Maybe that will teach them what most want, when they have decided about this. Uninformed people don't count, well, at least you can make this number smaller.

Spread the word! Nice if done over Gnutella, too :-)

--
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
Re:Don't get too excited.... by thesolo · 2002-03-07 03:58 · Score: 2

If the music industry agrees to label all copy-protected CDs as such, he'll still be happy.

But, that's still a Good Thing (TM)!!

If the discs are CLEARLY labeled (I mean something other than a message in a 4pt font on the rear bottom of the CD jewel case), consumers will hopefully think twice about buying them. This is where education by people in-the-know comes into play.

If we inform people to avoid these CDs, because they won't play properly, but the record companies are forced to label them, it will be easy for people to avoid buying them.

I realize that if EVERY CD had this, that wouldn't work then, but we can nip this in the proverbial bud while only a few discs have this garbage on them.
Re:Don't get too excited.... by Crazy+Viking · 2002-03-07 04:01 · Score: 1

If the music industry agrees to label all copy-protected CDs as such, he'll still be happy.

I do not think that would be enough. Sony is already labeling their CDs and the Norwegian government agency protecting consumers is still trying to sue them. Not only do you have to inform the consumer of the decreased value of the product but you also have to reduce the price accordingly.

It boils down to this: The copy protected disc is not a CD and does not have the same value to the consumer as a CD does. Therefore it should be separated from CDs both in marketing and pricing. That is the LAW, at least in Norway it is. I do not know US law that well. That said, I realize that Sony and other big industry actors will not be very sorry if a small market like Norway becomes unavailable to them, but I have a suspicion that other countries have similar laws. In that case it is just a matter of enforcing them.
Re:Don't get too excited.... by Prior+Restraint · 2002-03-07 04:28 · Score: 2

(I mean something other than a message in a 4pt font on the rear bottom of the CD jewel case)

Or worse yet, on the CD inside the jewel case.
Re:Don't get too excited.... by markmoss · 2002-03-07 05:10 · Score: 2

stop the music industry from passing off copy-protected CDs as regular copyable CDs. This is just a case of enforcing existing laws fairly (rather than warped towards corporate content providers). The copy protected disks are NOT CD's according to Philips (which holds the trademark rights). Selling them as CD's thus violates the trademark. They won't play in everything which plays CD's; hence, either they are defective, or selling them as CD's is fraud.

But what we really, really don't need is yet another law written for one special case...
Re:Don't get too excited.... by trezor · 2002-03-07 05:13 · Score: 1

So... if people who have reflected opinions conserning privacy and technology stops voting for anti-'piracy'-politicians... Who's left to vote for?

So now the retards are given more power. And you wanted to gain... what?

--
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Re:Don't get too excited.... by vicviper · 2002-03-07 05:18 · Score: 1

If it's successfully argued that the only extra value of these CDs is copyright circumvention, should these CD be sold for less?
Re:Don't get too excited.... by swillden · 2002-03-07 05:33 · Score: 2

If it's successfully argued that the only extra value of these CDs is copyright circumvention, should these CD be sold for less?
It would be hard to argue that successfully, because it's probably not true in the opinion of the judiciary. Although the question of whether or not format shifting is fair use for digital musical recordings hasn't been tested in court, there are plenty of other cases where the courts have supported similar rights, so it's quite reasonable to expect that format shifting is *not* copyright infringement, and therefore there is real value being removed from these non-CDs.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Don't get too excited.... by bkocik · 2002-03-07 09:43 · Score: 1

If the music industry agrees to label all copy-protected CDs as such, he'll still be happy.
We don't know that yet. To re-quote part of what you quoted:
Boucher wouldn't give details on what approach he's considering -- obvious possibilities include...
He hasn't said one way or another what sort of legislation it will be, whether it will be a ban or something else. The "obvious possibilities include..." line was the article author speculating on what he (Boucher) might have in mind. It doesn't claim to represent what will or will not satisfy Boucher, just guesses as to what it could be. As the article says, Boucher wouldn't give details.
Of course, "don't get too excited" is right, because although we don't yet know whether a simple label will be all he asks for, we also don't know that it won't be all he asks for. =)

--
-BK
Chemical Blog
Re:Don't get too excited.... by Just+Jim · 2002-03-07 19:10 · Score: 1

In other words, he not necessarily advocating
blocking all copy-protection on CDs. He just
wants to stop the music industry from passing
off copy-protected CDs as regular copyable CDs.
If the music industry agrees to label all
copy-protected CDs as such, he'll still be happy.

Maybe not. Early this year, Boucher proposed
that copy protected CDs not recieve 'their share'
of the Music CD tax.
Maybe if the 'CDs' were labeled as copy protected,
and gave up their 'right'
to the Music CD tax money he'd be happy.
For that matter, if the labels were conspicous
and the anti-CDs didn't get the Music CD tax, I'd be satisified.

Fair use by TrollMan+5000 · 2002-03-07 03:40 · Score: 1

The problem is that fair-use as it stands is being stripped away by the likes of the DMCA.

It's fighting fire with fire. An explicit act to protect consumers from the copyright industry.

The small print taketh away by yerricde · 2002-03-07 03:41 · Score: 1

In the US at least there is the fair use clause of the copyright laws.

But there is also the DMCA, which repeals fair use when the only method of fair use involves circumventing an access control mechanism.

There is no need for special new laws to uphold laws that already exist.

Yes there is, if the courts completely ignore a law (as has almost happened in MAI v. Peak).

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Huzzah for common sense. by Latent+IT · 2002-03-07 03:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm sure you've heard all the arguements before.

If it breaks the redbook standard, it's not a music CD. IMHO, it has no right being at my local Tower Records, since the number of cd players that can't recognize it is... well... it's a big number.

But shouldn't it bother you when one senator, who actually wants to uphold 'fair use' gets a wired article? That since the introduction of copy protected CD's, this is the first time this has come up in Congress?

From the article:

Boucher's complaints are twofold: Americans may not know they're buying crippled discs, and that the new discs don't work on all players.

Don't the discs as they are currently have a sticker that says they won't play in your PC? But thank god he got the second part right. The only problem is that the RIAA can tell him to stuff it. They can call it a new generation of audio technology - after all, my LP doesn't play in my CD player. Neither does the copy protected disc.

Not only that, but we're not thinking long term - even if copy protection gets taken off standard CD's, what about the next generation? DVD audio discs? Or something we haven't seen yet? (Hopefully resembling those little data blocks a la star trek... ;p)

The point of this whole disjointed thought train is that the DMCA must be repealed, since it shuts down other laws, that previously exist, and even those that may yet be written. Fair use is out the window, since it states that you have the priviledge of using certain recordings in certain ways, but the RIAA isn't required to make it technically possible for you to do so. Therein lies the problem. And when HDTV finally rolls around, even though it'll be possible to build a TiVo with enough storage space to support it, it'll still be illegal, thanks to the DMCA, fair use won't apply.

So, this Congressman Rick is going about things all wrong - he needs to start by repealing the DMCA. Feel free to write him. =)

(Yes, I know the article states that he would like to rewrite the DMCA. But it's badly flawed in its current incarnation, and should be repealed, and a new, non-insane law should be drafted.

Re:Huzzah for common sense. by PantyChewer · 2002-03-07 03:51 · Score: 1

I agree with you. If it doesn't follow the standard, then it shouldn't be labeled a CD and shouldn't be lumped in with the other CDs to decieve consumers. If they want to sell these things, then should be forced to retail them in some kind of distinct way so that consumers are aware. A little sticker saying its copy protected isn't enough. It should be clearly (not tiny print on the back) labeled "THIS PRODUCT DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF BEING A CD. EVIDENCE HAS SHOWN THAT THIS PRODUCT WILL NOT FUNCTION PROPERLY ON A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF CD PLAYERS". Then if people still want to buy the damn thing, let em, at least they will have been properly warned.
Re:Huzzah for common sense. by jweb · 2002-03-07 03:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, copy-protected CDs are not red-book compliant. And this bill is hopefully going to AT LEAST make these 'tainted CDs' labeled as such, so consumers can choose to avoid them.

The dark side of this issue, however, is that there doesn't seem to be anything to keep these copy-controls out of any future formats. If the RIAA-holes can't copy-protect their CDs, why whouldn't they just move to some new copy-protection-filled standard, and refuse to make music CDs? Yes, this would totally screw the consumer, but it's not like that's ever stopped them before.

--

Think For Yourself. Question Authority.
Re:Huzzah for common sense. by room101 · 2002-03-07 04:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

He (and friends) have tried that [to repleal DMCA]. They wouldn't go for it. That is where politics come in; they need to go after what they think they can win to slowly take the rights back. Then and only then will more lawmakers understand the evils of DMCA type of legislation.

The war starts with a single shot. You can't not start a war because the first shot isn't going to win it for you. You have to start somewhere, and stating that we deserve to know what we are buying is a good step.

--
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
Re:Huzzah for common sense. by Reality+Master+101 · 2002-03-07 04:09 · Score: 2

If it breaks the redbook standard, it's not a music CD.

The problem is that I'm not sure if it does break the standard. My understanding is that these things work by introducing intentional errors into the data stream, which are corrected by the CD player's interpolation algorithms.

This means that computer rippers will choke on them because of the errors, but will still play just fine on regular audio CD players. Note that the errors can be inaudible if you design your error such that the interpolation gives the correct data anyway.

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Re:Huzzah for common sense. by hyphz · 2002-03-07 04:14 · Score: 1

Actually, I seem to recall that in one of the DeCSS lawsuits there was a comment made that the DMCA did *not* stop you decrypting copyrighted material in order to make fair use of it. (Decryption for that purpose is not "unauthorised use of copyrighted material".)

It *does* however stop you obtaining the information on how to do so or a device that does so from another party (because that party would then be distributing a decryption device). But if you decrypted it purely by yourself AND you did so for fair use, then as far as I'm aware the DMCA has no beef with you. This is the crux of the RIAA argument about "we have to let you use it, but we don't have to make it easy".

So if a TiVo-type device was made which could decrypt uncopyable TV transmissions, then PROVIDED the same device ensured fair use (by, perhaps, automatically erasing the recordings once viewed to ensure it remainined in the province of time shifting), would that be legal under the DMCA?

(Also, if the DMCA protects "technological measures for preventing violation of rights granted by the copyright act" - well, a consumer's fair use is one of those rights, and a decryption system could be a technological measure preventing that right from being taken away, so would adding extra encryption be breaking the DMCA? ;) )
Re:Huzzah for common sense. by leviramsey · 2002-03-07 04:54 · Score: 1

The dark side of this issue, however, is that there doesn't seem to be anything to keep these copy-controls out of any future formats. If the RIAA-holes can't copy-protect their CDs, why whouldn't they just move to some new copy-protection-filled standard, and refuse to make music CDs? Yes, this would totally screw the consumer, but it's not like that's ever stopped them before.

The question is, which member of the RIAA wants to stick their neck out? Since the mid-80's, how many formats have challenged the Audio CD? Now, how many succeeded (in the US)? 0 for a lot.

Sony might be able to do something (being the only label that also makes hardware and has technical leadership). But they may still be nursing wounds from the failure of mini-disc in the US (I think they sort of succeeded in Japan). Also, the first bands that have new albums come out only on this copy-protected medium are going to sue the labels for dilution of earnings potential and tie that up in court for years.

Essentially, unless they can add other goodies to the format, they can't win. Maybe encoding the audio in 5.1 surround will do it. But it costs a shitload to master and record 5.1, which makes the break-even point much higher (maybe 1 million units instead of 500,000). In short, there's so much short term risk associated with a new format, that the RIAA isn't apt to take the risk.
Re:Huzzah for common sense. by Geekboy(Wizard) · 2002-03-07 05:05 · Score: 1

The problem is that I'm not sure if it does break the standard.

It DOES break the standard. My computer can read the redbook standard, and since it can't read those CD's, then the CD's aren't redbook.
Re:Huzzah for common sense. by Genom · 2002-03-07 05:14 · Score: 2

So if a TiVo-type device was made which could decrypt uncopyable TV transmissions, then PROVIDED the same device ensured fair use (by, perhaps, automatically erasing the recordings once viewed to ensure it remainined in the province of time shifting), would that be legal under the DMCA?

Nope - because the producer of the TiVo-type device is providing you with a means of circumventing the copy protection. *You* aren't doing the decrypting - it is - and therefore it's illegal. This is the part that sucks.

If you built the device yourself, without receiving plans from anyone, cooked up the decryption algorythms yourself, implemented them yourself, and never distributed the device, you *might* be within the bounds of the DMCA. Most people don't have the skills or time to do this, and if the SSSCA gets passed, even if you had the skills and time, you wouldn't be able to get the materials from which to build such a device.

THis all has to stop somewhere - it's getting out of hand, and it looks like Boucher may be one of the only ones in the US gov't that cares.
Re:Huzzah for common sense. by trezor · 2002-03-07 05:17 · Score: 1

Whats the point in making the data on CDs redundant when the redundancy is used to cripple the audiocorrection algorhytms???

I am aware that CDs got probably around 70% redundacy in the information. Thats keeps them playable when they get scratched. Now how will that be with the crippled discs?

--
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Re:Huzzah for common sense. by Reality+Master+101 · 2002-03-07 05:20 · Score: 2

I could be wrong, but I don't think the redbook standard specified that CDs must be able to be read by computer. In fact, a major part of the redbook standard is interpolation of errors, so allowing errors is part of the standard.

In fact, it's your computer that's violating the standard, because it's not interpolating the data. It's simply rejecting the CD.

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Re:Huzzah for common sense. by Reality+Master+101 · 2002-03-07 05:22 · Score: 2

Thats keeps them playable when they get scratched. Now how will that be with the crippled discs?

Probably won't affect it much at all. You don't have to introduce very many errors to make it unusable for a computer, say, 1 error per second. That's only 1 error about every 44K samples.

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Re:Huzzah for common sense. by DaveHowe · 2002-03-07 06:08 · Score: 2

The obvious reply to this is - if it is protection by deliberate error, then the disk (by definition) contains errors so isn't of merchantable quality. They can hardly claim that it doesn't contain errors (or that they didn't know about them) if they deliberately put them there in the first place.

--
-=DaveHowe=-
Re:Huzzah for common sense. by cheezehead · 2002-03-07 07:09 · Score: 1

The problem is that I'm not sure if it does break the standard.

Philips thinks it does.

--
MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.
Re:Huzzah for common sense. by Eric+Damron · 2002-03-07 08:08 · Score: 1

"So, this Congressman Rick is going about things all wrong - he needs to start by repealing the DMCA."

Or if not repeal it at least it should read that a person may not circumvent copy protection unless they do so to exercise fair use. Oh, I guess that would put us right back where we started. Yeah, they should repeal it....

--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Re:Huzzah for common sense. by ryanwright · 2002-03-07 09:37 · Score: 2

Thankfully, Phillips disagrees with you and is attempting to prevent the recording industry idiots from labeling them as CDs.

--
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig

Support! by DickPhallus · 2002-03-07 03:43 · Score: 1

If you live in VA I humbly suggest writing a letter of support... hell even if you don't, go ahead!

http://www.house.gov/boucher/

Unless you don't believe in such things.

--

--
Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.

Necessary? by Phanatic1a · 2002-03-07 03:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Much as I like Boucher's agenda, I don't think this law is necessarily a good thing.

Content providers should be allowed to encode whatever they want to, however they want to. Yes, I agree that if they encode copy prevention techniques in their CDs, they shouldn't tell everybody that they're actually CDs, because they aren't. But there shouldn't be any restrictions at all on what they can put on a 5" sandwich of aluminum and polycarbonate.

The problem here isn't CD copy prevention. It's the DMCA. Just like the content provider should be able to encode his content however he sees fit, the end user should be able to take whatever steps he needs to to access the bits that are sitting on the disc he purchased that's sitting inside his computer. But the DMCA prevents this, and makes illegal that users efforts to circumvent the copy-prevention code, feeble as it may be.

But I don't think the solution to this problem is another law. The proper solution to a problem caused by passage of a bad law is repeal of that bad law, not a new law that's intended to act as a band-aid. I respect Boucher's efforts, but overturning the DMCA is way more important.

Re:Necessary? by tkrotchko · 2002-03-07 03:50 · Score: 2

I think the reasonable position is:

1) Anybody can encrypt anything they want.

2) Anybody can try to decrypt anything they want.

The government should not get involved in this technology escalation. They will always make it worse because legislation always favors one side.

--
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Re:Necessary? by BeBoxer · 2002-03-07 04:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

While it's nice to think they should be able to do whatever they want with a disc, the lassaiz-faire argument doesn't apply since the entire market is already regulated by the government in the form of copyright law.

In my opinion, a good fair law would be one that stipulates that if a company wants copyright protection they have to let the consumer have full access to the content for the purpose of space and time shifting. If a company wants to take away that ability from the consumer and use copy protection, they should not be allowed copyright protection. Copyrights are a balance between the public and the content creators. It's the governments job to maintain that balance, not the copyright holders. If they don't like the way the balance is set, they should get off it and rely on techincal solutions alone. It's stupid for us to pretend that copyright is a balance while allowing copyright holders to continually make their side 'heavier' using technical countermeasures against fair use and laws such as the DMCA.
Re:Necessary? by adamjaskie · 2002-03-07 05:07 · Score: 1

That is a great idea. What would be ideal is if when a company takes protecting their IP into their own hands, the government should no longer protect their IP from consumers. Rather, the government should protect the consumers from the companies.

Also, isnt it legal to give out information about how to break copy protection under THE FIRST AMMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES?!?! IIRC, it states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I think that this makes the DMCA unconstitutional, as it is a law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Any thing that says that people cannot distribute means to remove copy protection would be covered under this! I am going to research this further, and send letters to the Supreme Court and to the President. If they ignore me, I will know that the government really does not care about my rights, (as I have suspected all along.)

HELP! HELP! IM BEING REPRESSED!!! -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail

--
/usr/games/fortune
Re:Necessary? by markmoss · 2002-03-07 05:14 · Score: 1

if a company wants copyright protection they have to let the consumer have full access to the content for the purpose of space and time shifting.

Great suggestion!
Re:Necessary? by szquirrel · 2002-03-07 05:21 · Score: 1

It's stupid for us to pretend that copyright is a balance while allowing copyright holders to continually make their side 'heavier' using technical countermeasures against fair use and laws such as the DMCA.

Hasn't the public's side gotten 'heavier' as well? Back in the analog cassette days it wasn't possible to produce an exact copy of an album; even the best equipment could only get really close. Now not only can a person produce exact copies using cheap equipment but he or she can distribute them to everyone in the world without the constraints of physical media.

While I agree that it's unfair for the content creators to buy legislation like the DMCA, I don't think their technical countermeasures are a problem. The public seems to have no trouble keeping up in the technical race.

--
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
Re:Necessary? by keefebert · 2002-03-07 06:39 · Score: 1

If we could have made exact duplicates of cassettes, we would have. It wasn't a matter of copy protection by making poor duplicating hardware, but just not having the technology to make good hardware. I think if mp3's were of a lesser quality, the record labels would still be fighting this because of distribution issues. Cassettes were never really fought because they were analog and weren't posted across the internet, not because they were poor quality analog.
Copy protection is becoming unballanced. There shouldn't be a need to re-invent the wheel everytime a record company tries a new way to limit our fair use. That is really the issue. I should be able to make copies of my cds to protect the original, not to distribute, and record companies are taking this away, forcing me to find new software every month instead of sticking to the same "cassette duplicater" I've been using forever.
Re:Necessary? by Dr.+Awktagon · 2002-03-07 06:44 · Score: 2

Yes, exactly, the content providers can sell whatever they like. They can take dog shit off their lawn and press it into a thin wafer, then slap Britney's picture on it, and sell it for $18.99.

But it has to be clearly labeled! It has to say in large readable text: "WARNING: this box contains a wafer of dog shit and does not play in any CD player." Likewise, they can put "copy interference" schemes on their CDs, just 1) let me know it's there, and 2) DON'T throw me in jail because I made a web page about how ineffective it is.

Low transaction costs (including knowing exactly what you're buying) are the "secret sauce" for free markets, and free speech is pretty nice too.
Re:Necessary? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 07:20 · Score: 0

Hasn't the public's side gotten 'heavier' as well? Back in the analog cassette days it wasn't possible to produce an exact copy of an album; even the best equipment could only get really close. Now not only can a person produce exact copies using cheap equipment but he or she can distribute them to everyone in the world without the constraints of physical media.
Which, as RMS points out, may be a good argument for weakening copyright law.
Copyright is a tradeoff where the public temporarily restricts some of its inherent rights in order to provide incentive for authors to create more works that will benefit the public. The objective is to maximize (BENEFIT_TO_PUBLIC_OF_MONOPOLY - HARM_TO_PUBLIC_FROM_MONOPOLY).
When a particular kind of copying is hard for an average member of the public, then HARM_TO_PUBLIC from restricting it is low. It makes sense to trade something the public can't use for additional incentive to produce something that the public can use.
When that type of copying becomes easy, the equation changes. HARM_TO_PUBLIC from restricting copying is suddenly a lot higher (because the artificial monopoly is now the primary barrier to the public). BENEFIT_TO_PUBLIC of maintaining restrictions may also be lower, to the extent that publishers are no longer the only entities technically capable of keeping works in circulation. The existing restriction may thus be too strong for the new situation, even if it was perfectly balanced for the old one.
I gather that RMS would like to get rid of copyright altogether, and have every published work be always in the public commons.
You don't have to go that far to realize that if the publishers get to change the tradeoff to read "No Fair Use. No First Sale. No civil rights. No using computers or communication gear without policeware monitoring your every move.", the U. S. is screwed. Or to think that it would be much more productive and appropriate to experiment with removing restrictions on noncommercial copying, while keeping strong commercial copyright.
Re:Necessary? by BitterOak · 2002-03-07 10:10 · Score: 1

I agree. I think it's never a good idea to "fix" one bad law by passing another bad law. Do we really want the government regulating technology this way? It may look like a good idea when it benefits us, the consumer, but what happens when this consumer-friendly anti-technology law is "balanced" in the future by a corporate-friendly anti-technology law like the SSSCA.

--
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Re:Necessary? by Christopher+Chang · 2002-03-07 13:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

> When that type of copying becomes easy, the
> equation changes. HARM_TO_PUBLIC from
> restricting copying is suddenly a lot higher
> (because the artificial monopoly is now the
> primary barrier to the public).
> BENEFIT_TO_PUBLIC of maintaining restrictions
> may also be lower, to the extent that
> publishers are no longer the only entities
> technically capable of keeping works in
> circulation. The existing restriction may thus
> be too strong for the new situation, even if
> it was perfectly balanced for the old one.

You miss what is by far the most important term in the BENEFIT_TO_PUBLIC part of the equation: incentive for certain kinds of innovation.

Which, incidentally, has a tendency to perfectly offset any increases in the HARM_TO_PUBLIC part of the equation due to greater ease of copying.

There isn't really any way around the fact that copyright needs to be effectively enforced to maintain incentive in certain fields. Notice that I qualify my statements, though; "certain kinds of innovation", "certain fields". In some cases, a pervasive "open source"-style model manages to yield the best results for the public in both the short and long term. The nontrivial question is, what are those cases, and what aren't? And will the law prove to be flexible enough to accomodate both situations?

Viewed in this light, the DMCA is not that flawed for the reasons most people give. If you don't have an anti-circumvention law, those trying to protect their products from mass piracy must engage in a copy protection arms race that results in less convenience for users. (Even with the DMCA, they still need to, but not as much as they would otherwise in the long run.) The greater degree of inconvenience that must be imposed provides a competitive advantage to those who don't care if their products are copied; while this is generally viewed as a Good Thing at a place like Slashdot, this ruins any benefit that enforced copyright would provide.

So, again, the real question is, where is enforced copyright beneficial to society? I claim that if the DMCA is flawed, it is because it enforces copyright in contexts where society is better off without copyright at all. (Incidentally, this is orthogonal to the issue of constitutionality. I'm asking here whether the DMCA is a positive utility law to have around, not whether the DMCA is a "legal law".) Music might be one of these cases.

Finally People are Standin Up by goofy183 · 2002-03-07 03:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

I encourage you all to go to Boucher's congress.org page and write him with your support for these issues. He seems to be a big advocate for consumer rights and fair use policies. I for one am also writing my state representatives with a link to the Wired story and encouragement to support Boucher on this issue. We really need to get the SlashDot community to use their numbers, opinions and large voice. When you see issues like this jump on the web or sit down with a good old pen and paper and write your state reps. The only way we are ever going to see a change that we like is to push for it!

Re:Finally People are Standin Up by goofy183 · 2002-03-07 04:00 · Score: 1

Right .... actually congress.ORG is a valid and extreamly usefull site. You can monitor current congresional activity. Send letters to representitives. Watch for upcoming issues and see how people vote. I currently am subscribed to a free service there that emails me with a weekly summary of congressional activity, upcoming items and how my representitives voted. I would highly recomend congress.org to anyone who cares what our government and their representitives are up to on a daily basis.

I know I just replied to a troll but hey, it was a good oportunity for me to get my opinion of congress.org out there. :-)

Hubris -- The Illiad (Homer, not userfriendly.org) by segfaultdot · 2002-03-07 03:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Achilles (MPAA/RIAA) is so vexed by Hector (Piracy) that he not only kills him, but drags his body behind his chariot for days (attempts to eliminate ALL fair use) to the point that his father, Priam (the american public) is bereaved by his actions and begs Achilles for permission to bury him (congress talks about passing law to ensure fair use).

Howz that for culture? And they say history can't teach us anything.

Miss Hilary by futuresheep · 2002-03-07 03:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Stated using her one sided logic:

Rosen said in a statement: "The notion of copy protection is certainly not new to the entertainment industry. Even computer software already employ various technology protections as appropriate for their marketplace and their consumers. The music industry deserves to do the same. Legislation to prevent self-help technologies would be unwise and unfair."

I can still make a legitimate purchase of any piece of software and expect to be able to use it without any interference from said copy protection, unlike these CD's, which can keep you from using them in the very devices they were intended for.

Re:Miss Hilary by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 04:04 · Score: 0

while (babbling rant) {

Actually she isn't full of shit here. You, apparently, haven't purchased any Windows games in the last few years or, if you did, had a decent CDROM reader. All most ever single game out there now has copy protection on it. Safedisc 1 and 2 are the biggest for PC games, Safedisc 2 now. Very few CDROM writers can write a safedisc 2 image. Hell, very few CDROM readers can read a Safedisc 2 image off the CD. Macrovision came up with Safedisc. It basically adds "errors" on the CD. It violates the Red Book (?) standard. If you've ever played a PC game recently and noticed it sit at the game logo for bit, then its checking. The have their propety Safedisc code that makes sure the errors are there. See if you rip a protected CD, most CD drives will "correct" these errors. The problems with Safedisc are mostly in the past though. Up until about 2000, people wouldn't be able to play the games they purcahsed because their CDROM readers would goof up reading the disc. So Safedisc thought it was copied and aborted the install.

}
Re:Miss Hilary by Stonehand · 2002-03-07 04:29 · Score: 2

The AC is correct. SafeDisc and SafeDisc 2 are a) fairly common software copy-protection schemes, and b) known for incompatibilities with various CD drives (especially DVDs and CD-RWs from what I've read) and software.

And the standard "tech support" response is: buy another CD drive. Joy, for those unlucky enough to have drives that don't like SafeDisc.

--
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Re:Miss Hilary by behrman · 2002-03-07 04:44 · Score: 1

As a couple other folks have mentioned, due to things like SafeDisc, there are methods that are used to prevent you from making copies. To recap, it involves putting errors on the disc that, when the game starts, are checked for. If the errors are present, the game starts. Else, it fails or asks you to put in the (original) CD.

Here's my question, though: If you went through the code and took out the bits that made the call to the CDROM to check for the CD/errors, you're in violation of the DCMA, right? Circumventing copy protection device, or whatever?

But, what if you make a bit-for-bit copy (something that Nero Burning ROM is particularly good at, so I hear)? You're not circumventing anything... you're only duplicating the exact errors that they have put on the disc. Granted, you have a copyright violation to deal with, and it doesn't help those folks that have older CD|DVD-ROMs that can't see past the errors... But, from a DCMA vantage point, are you in the clear?
Re:Miss Hilary by Maryck · 2002-03-07 04:58 · Score: 1

There are some subtle differences here. Aside from a desire to produce back-up copies of your software, there are very few other legitimate reasons for wanting to copy a software cd.

With music CDs on the other hand, there are a number of legitimate reasons to want be able to copy songs off the cd (creating mixes, portable MP3 players, etc). None of these is in any form illegal; however because there are illegal uses of these technologies, the record companies are attempting to shut down all use of them, whether they are illegal or not.

Technically speaking, the effect is the same: you are not able to copy data off of copy-protected cds; but the overall effect is significantly diffent.

-Mike Wolf
Re:Miss Hilary by Stonehand · 2002-03-07 05:44 · Score: 1

Folks who have laptops w/o built-in CD drives sometimes argue against SafeDisc and their ilk, since it forces them to use a port replicator or other means of connecting an external drive. *shrug*

Another rationale I've read is that some would prefer to put a music CD in the drive and play off the hard drive.

--
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Re:Miss Hilary by cheezehead · 2002-03-07 06:32 · Score: 1

There are some subtle differences here. Aside from a desire to produce back-up copies of your software, there are very few other legitimate reasons for wanting to copy a software cd.

For me, this is actually a big thing. Some time ago, a game CD actually cracked when inside the drive! (Heat, I guess). Maybe the CD drive was to blame, but the point of it was that I had to buy this game again because customer service at the publisher would not believe that it had cracked inside the drive. They offered to send me a replacement CD for $10 (great, I paid $8.95 in the first place). So, I bought another copy, since this was the favorite game of my 4-year old son. Anyway, since then I have been making copies of all the software CDs I have, except the one that is SafeDisc protected. Guess what, the other day another one cracked while inside the drive. Fortunately, this was the backup copy (all the originals are locked away), so all I had to do was burn another copy. Suffice it to say that I will not be buying anything anymore that is SafeDisc protected, since I cannot make a backup.

--
MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.

Foul, non-sequitur by mblase · 2002-03-07 03:49 · Score: 2

The fair-use clause has nothing to do with copy protection. Sure, you're entitled to use samples of the music for limited purposes, and you're entitled to make backups for your own use, but that doesn't mean the CD manufacturers have to make it easy for you. In fact, they don't have to make it possible for you to practice "fair use" at all -- the copyright laws only say what's legal, they don't require the copyright owners to make it possible.

But copy protection doesn't do that anyways. Preventing you from making perfect digital copies of your CDs or ripping MP3s to trade online in no way interferes with fair use using other technologies -- audio tape, for instance, is still perfectly practical toward those ends.

But, continuing upwards through your argument, the article doesn't even talk about that. It talks about the CD industry passing off copy-protected CDs as ordinary CDs, and if you read the article, you'll see that Rep. Boucher will be perfectly happy if the industry agrees to label all copy-protected CDs as such, so that purchasers who don't want to be fooled aren't. He's not opposed to copy protection per se, just copy protection used without notice.

Good intentions... by MantridDronemaker · 2002-03-07 03:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Obviously this proposed law has very good intentions on the side of the consumer, however...

...aren't there too many laws already? Does the government need to pin down yet another nuance of society? Perhaps there are laws which need to be repealed, perhaps the DMCA or others that would simplify things and prevent companies from having too strong a hold to begin with.

Re:Good intentions... by RetroGeek · 2002-03-07 06:03 · Score: 1

...aren't there too many laws already

There can never be enough laws.

Just ask any lawyer......

--

- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.

Wait a minute... by Ixe · 2002-03-07 03:50 · Score: 1

too many anti's in this whole thing...
Are we talking about laws against copying cd's?
or laws against copying copy-protected cd's?
Or are we talking about laws to prevent the making of copy-protected cds???

I'm confused :) sorry if previous comment was offtopic

--
Sigs pose an operational security risk and help the baddies aggregate data. I guess commenting does too, oops.

Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 04:25 · Score: 0

we are talking about laws against laws against copying copy-protected cds

funny... sort of... by the_mind_ · 2002-03-07 03:50 · Score: 2, Funny

A fox trot strip on the subject...

--
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.

Copyprotected discs are not CDs by Crazy+Viking · 2002-03-07 03:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

Not only are these discs troublesome for the consumers but they are not even CDs according to the Phillips owned standard.

It is nice to see that politicians are looking at possiblities to ban these technologies. I am thinking that there may already exist laws that prohibit this practice, at least in some countries. I know that in Norway government agencies are looking at taking legal action against Sony for illegal marketing as they are selling a product marketed as a CD and priced as a CD while it clearly is not a CD!

Re:Copyprotected discs are not CDs by inerte · 2002-03-07 03:59 · Score: 1

Clearly is subjetive. Maybe is clear now, but once becomes law, it's well, a law...

Things can change. Definition of what's a CD can change.

Sadly...

--
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
Re:Copyprotected discs are not CDs by Dephex+Twin · 2002-03-07 04:16 · Score: 3, Funny

Things can change. Definition of what's a CD can change.

Music industry exec: "Yes, you see, all along it turns out that 'CD' stood for 'Copyprotected Disc'."

They are sneaky!

mark

--

If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
Re:Copyprotected discs are not CDs by dirk · 2002-03-07 04:50 · Score: 2

It is nice to see that politicians are looking at possiblities to ban these technologies. I am thinking that there may already exist laws that prohibit this practice, at least in some countries. I know that in Norway government agencies are looking at taking legal action against Sony for illegal marketing as they are selling a product marketed as a CD and priced as a CD while it clearly is not a CD!
While I completely agree that these discs should not be marketted as CDs (and I believe they aren;t anymore, they have stickers saying they won't play on PCs), banning the technology is the farthest thing from the answer I have ever heard. That is no more a solution than banning P2P sharing is for stopping piracy. They should be able to put whatever they want on the discs, as long as they don't try to pass them off as regular CDs. Banning the technology they use, or their ability to use it, will just set a dangerous precedent. If they can't use technology is ways they want to, what is to say you can use technology in the ways you want to? Technology isn't the problem.

--

"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Re:Copyprotected discs are not CDs by mpe · 2002-03-07 06:21 · Score: 2

It is nice to see that politicians are looking at possiblities to ban these technologies. I am thinking that there may already exist laws that prohibit this practice, at least in some countries. I know that in Norway government agencies are looking at taking legal action against Sony for illegal marketing as they are selling a product marketed as a CD and priced as a CD while it clearly is not a CD!

That's nothing to do with technology. It's about insisting that goods offered for sale must not be falsely described.
Re:Copyprotected discs are not CDs by wfrp01 · 2002-03-07 07:09 · Score: 2

I'm on your side, but I'd rather not see any technology banned. I don't want to see general purpose PC's and non-copy-protected CDs banned, for example. Let the assholes build an industry on an anachronistic fantasy. And perish because of it. Won't bother me one bit. The only way these jerks win is if they succeed in criminalizing alternatives.

--

--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Re:Copyprotected discs are not CDs by CtrlPhreak · 2002-03-07 07:27 · Score: 2

Copyprotected Disc = CD...

--
WikiAfterDark.com It's a sex wiki, go now!

Right back at ya! by F34RL3SS+L34D3R · 2002-03-07 03:51 · Score: 1

"....Legislation to prevent self-help technologies would be unwise and unfair."

And copy-protected cd's don't destroy fair-use. Even though efforts like this against greedy corp's like the RIAA are good, it's still fighting a cause that shouldn't be allowed in the first place. Personally, I'm curious to see what he comes up with as a revision to the DMCA.

Welcome to the United States of America Inc.

whats the use? by tempestdata · 2002-03-07 03:51 · Score: 1

Soon there will be anti-anti-anti CD copying legislation...

Somebody please think of the children!

--
- Tempestdata

Wouldn't it be better... by evilpaul13 · 2002-03-07 03:52 · Score: 2

If they just repealed the absurdity that is the DMCA, and the Government stays the fsck out of regulating technology? I'm sorry if this offends your fragile sensitivities, but the US Federal Government fscks up every last thing it touches.

Copy Protection Not The Problem by cybermage · 2002-03-07 03:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

It is not the copy protection itself that is the problem. The issue goes much deeper, and the point, I think, is being missed.

If CDs were clearly marked as copy protected or if stores were required to give an actual refund if you want to return them, these klunky, defective schemes would never have been launched in the first place.

The same can be said for software. Try buying software, and then, after rejecting the enclosed license, try to return it for a refund. Good luck.

Consumers don't need a law banning copy-protection on CDs. Manufacturers have a right to do this to their CDs. What consumers need is a right to a refund if were not satisfied with conditions of sale that were not disclosed upfront. Further, we need the right to a refund if the product is unusable. Obviously some time-frame is necessary (e.g., within 30 days,) but there's no reason why these rights aren't afforded us now.

--
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.

Re:Copy Protection Not The Problem by Stonehand · 2002-03-07 04:36 · Score: 2

Agreed. Ideally, any licensing agreements and copy-protection schemes should be disclosed -- OUTSIDE of the shrink-wrapped media so that the consumer can demonstrate that he actually did NOT use the music or software when returning. (Either that, or he shrinkwrapped it himself, but the latter abuse is probably fairly limited.) AND it should be returnable for a full refund upon prompt rejection of license.

As it is, consumers are forced to gamble -- they're taking a chance unless conditions of use are fully disclosed before purchase. (And some of those terms can be pretty odd, like *one* archival copy -- what about tape backups, where relying on *one* tape is... well, stupid? Should they really care how many archival copies are made, as long as only ONE copy is ever in use at once, and are never possessed by anybody but the license holder -- and that all archival copies are either transferred to the new licensee or destroyed if the license is transferred?).

--
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Re:Copy Protection Not The Problem by HiThere · 2002-03-07 05:23 · Score: 2

Sorry, that's not sufficient. I have frequently purchased software that just wouldn't work with my equipment, and the only way to find out was to try it. (Well, I also download free software that won't work with my system, but that doesn't cost as much, so I don't care [as much].)

Or consider Encore by Passport Designs. I bought the current version in '97. Later I bought Win98. Win98 worked as well as expected, but when it was installed, Encore stopped working. So it was unuseable, and I reformatted and replaced Win95 (Encore is still the major use for that computer!). I didn't even try to get my money back for Win98, because I knew just how hopeless it was, even though the software was totally useless. (Yes, Win98 had other problems, but they don't really affect this point.) Encore never had an upgrade because Passport Designs was acquired by another company, and the product was dropped.

It's not the fault, exactly, of MS that their Win98 OS wouldn't work with all of the software written for Win95. But it is their fault that the only way I could find out was to irrevokably spend the money. And I've never been happy with them since. (Now I use Linux whenever possible, and this may have been the first step on the way. And it wasn't a small one.)

OTOH, don't think of Linux as a way to save money unless your funds are really tight. I've spent more on different flavors of Linux that I've spent on all of the versions of Windows I ever bought ... actually, you can also include all of the version of the MacOS that I ever bought too. I spent less per each, but I've bought many more versions per year ("Gee .. I've been using Red Hat for months, I guess I'll see what Debian is up to.")

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Copy Protection Not The Problem by Stonehand · 2002-03-07 05:47 · Score: 1

Hmmmmm, true. I'm not sure that any Congressman would be happy with what the solution to THAT would be (allowing returns of tried software w/n a reasonable period), 'though. That would be a much harder sell, unless there's ubiquitous activation requirements, and THAT would be a nightmare for everyone involved.

--
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Re:Copy Protection Not The Problem by quintessent · 2002-03-07 05:56 · Score: 2

if stores were required to give an actual refund if you want to return them

Worse, I have been told by store employees that there are actually laws prohibiting them from taking a CD or DVD back, unless they are exchanging it for the same title. Doesn't matter if I hated it, was offended by it, or, apparently, it doesn't actually work.

It's amazing what soft money will buy for you these days.

--
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Re:Copy Protection Not The Problem by weinerdog · 2002-03-07 06:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Consumers don't need a law banning copy-protection on CDs. Manufacturers have a right to do this to their CDs.

That philosophy may work in the context of the free market, but the content of music CDs is typically the subject of a government-granted copyright monopoly.

If you could get the same music from someone else, one might argue that a manufacturer has the right to put copy and usage control technology on its CDs. But you can't get the same music from someone else.

Every other state-granted monopoly comes with a corresponding set of responsibilities. For example, AT&T may have been granted a monopoly over telephone service, but it was subject to rigorous controls: it was limited as to whom it could deny service, the minimum standard of service it could provide, what it was allowed to charge, and what uses of its network it was allowed to forbid.

It seems entirely reasonable that holding a copyright monopoly should be dependent on accepting certain conditions too. Perhaps not as strenuous, given the relative importance of the telephone network and Britney Spears' latest dreck, but it seems entirely reasonable that a copyright holder should be required to adhere to certain restrictions regarding price, use, and availability (i.e. you have an obligation to make sure the public has reasonable access to your work, at reasonable prices and with reasonable capabilites to use the work in a variety of ways, if you want to keep your copyright).

--
There's no such thing as Scotchtoberfest!
Re:Copy Protection Not The Problem by MrDolby · 2002-03-07 06:26 · Score: 1

"you have an obligation to make sure the public has reasonable access to your work, at reasonable prices and with reasonable capabilites to use the work in a variety of ways, if you want to keep your copyright)."

The free market system determines all of this. We do not need government to do this. The copyright holder has the right to do what he/she wants with his/her property.

If I write a song and start selling cd's for it. It is NOT the governments job to tell me that my cd is overpriced or how I should sell it. The consumer determines that for me. If its overpriced sales will drop. And I will realize that if I want to sell more copies I should reduce my price. If I don't want to reduce my price than so be it. I just won't sell as many cds.

The only problem arrising about Music companies using copy protection on the cd is that unless properly labeled some players can't read it. Now do we need a law against this. No, its much easier. If you buy a cd that can't be read properly by your player then you return it. IF the store won't take it back that you probably have a legal case against them selling you a defective product. Any case, you should then stop buying cd's from that manufacturer. Belive me, if their sales drop they will change their ways or make less money. I should repeat that part because alot of people on these forums dont get it.

FOR ALL YOU PEOPLE BITCHING ABOUT HOW ThIS COMPANY OR THAT COMPANY IS INFRINGING ON "CONSUMERS RIGHTS". JUST STOP BUYING THE PRODUCT. IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE.
Re:Copy Protection Not The Problem by ibbey · 2002-03-07 10:09 · Score: 2

That's absolutely wrong. No such law exists, and some stores have accepted returns (I believe that Wherehouse used to). Unfortunately, since record companies refuse to accept more then a certain % of sales as returns (probably 1%), the store ended up eating most of the returns.
Re:Copy Protection Not The Problem by ibbey · 2002-03-07 10:36 · Score: 2

The free market system determines all of this. We do not need government to do this. The copyright holder has the right to do what he/she wants with his/her property.

I agree with this in the case where the author and the copyright holder are the same. Unfortunately, in the case of music, they rarely are. Many artists catalogs are out-of-print, but the record company-- for reasons that may have nothing to do with merchantability-- refuses to reissue it. This ends up screwing the artist.

I personally believe that the copyright law needs to be rewritten & the author (not the publisher) actually considered this time. Copyrights should last a reasonable period, say 50 years, or the authors life + 10 years, whichever is shorter (I don't think an authors great grandchildren have an inherent right to live off their dead relative). In addition, while rights can be assigned, said rights should revert back to the author if a work remains out-of-print for more then, say, 3 years. Some measure to prevent abuse of this clause (say a publisher releasing 100 copies every 2 years & 11 months) would obviously need to be in place, as would an exception for work done for hire (and more protections to prevent abuse of this exception). Such a clause would return copyright law back to what it was originally designed for-- to encourage authorship, not make corporations richer.
Re:Copy Protection Not The Problem by quintessent · 2002-03-08 18:03 · Score: 2

Do you know any good places to read about this?

--
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.

$cat bullet foot by Darth+RadaR · 2002-03-07 03:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Companies should consider the basic fact that if a product doesn't work, is difficult to make work, or requires upgrades to exisiting equipment, Joe Consumer will simply ask for their money back and spend it elsewhere. If the RIAA thinks that CD sales suck now, wait till they try protection schemes. Even then, those in the know will be disabling the copy protection, whilst Joe Consumer will be trying to figure out how to get his Britney Spears CD to play on his computer.

If it gets to the point where a music CD is going to ask me for a password every time I want to play it, I think I'll go back to tape or vinyl.

--
/*drunk.. fix later*/

Anti-anti-anti-cd-copying legislation by Col.+Klink+(retired) · 2002-03-07 03:55 · Score: 2

I thought the new Copyright Treaty explicitly gives Copyright holders the right to use technological means. Any anti-anti-copying legislation would be in violation of the treaty, n'est pas?

Article 11
Obligations concerning Technological Measures
Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

--

-- Don't Tase me, bro!

Re:Anti-anti-anti-cd-copying legislation by Salsaman · 2002-03-07 04:22 · Score: 1

Well, that's the point. Making a backup for your own personal use *is* permitted by law.
Re:Anti-anti-anti-cd-copying legislation by FransUNC · 2002-03-07 04:44 · Score: 1

The treaties outlaw attempts to circumvent encryption and other techniques designed to prevent unauthorised copying and ensure royalties are paid. - FTC site: yesterday's story on the treaty

It's scary how this could be interpreted.
Re:Anti-anti-anti-cd-copying legislation by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 10:46 · Score: 0

I thought the new Copyright Treaty [wipo.org] explicitly gives Copyright holders the right to use technological means. Any anti-anti-copying legislation would be in violation of the treaty, n'est pas?
In the US, the Constitution takes precedence over treaties. The wording 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; would seem to preclude prohibiting copying in perpetuity, which would seem to be the practical effect of the DMCA. I wonder whether anyone has ever mounted a court challenge on those grounds?

ZDnet has it too! by psycht · 2002-03-07 03:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

I submitted this story yesterday.. you can find that atricle on ZDnet. It covers the same information, but with that "ZDnet" feel.

--
thelikesofwhich.com

Not all bad by El_Nofx · 2002-03-07 04:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Well at least there are still some elected officials in congress that are fighting the good fight. Hearing about people like the guys who are pushing the SSSCA and such makes you loose hope. Everyone who lives in this guys district should send him a letter telling him that he is doing right.

--
It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people. - clinko

Re:Not all bad by El_Nofx · 2002-03-07 04:03 · Score: 2, Informative

Here is the address

Representative Boucher's Contact Information

DISTRICT OFFICES

188 East Main Street
Abingdon, Virginia 24210
276-628-1145 112 North Washington Avenue

Pulaski, Virginia 24301
540-980-4310 1 Cloverleaf Square, Suite C-1

Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219
276-523-5450

WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE

2187 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-3861

Send him a letter of support /.ers!

--
It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people. - clinko

No need for an industry, we need music. by rzbx · 2002-03-07 04:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

Hilary Rosen, head of RIAA, said that the copy protection is "a measured response to a very serious problem facing the music industry today."

Serious? In what way? Last thing I remember is that the music industry was making much more than expected during the days of Napster. So where exactly is the problem? I believe it to be the music industry itself. People do not need a music industry. Music is not an industry (unless your talking about the genre called industry) it is a culture, a hobby, entertainment, and most important, a way for musicians to make a living. Now how can small time musicians make a living when the big time record companies take all that money from the people to pay, well, themselves?

--
Question everything.

Re:No need for an industry, we need music. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 10:16 · Score: 0

...how can small time musicians make a living when the big time record companies take all that money from the people to pay, well, themselves?

What I find curious, in light of all the argumentation that copying music only affects the "industry" and not the musician, is that when Napsterisation is so wide spread and the "industry" loses revenue on CD sales so does the artist. That the artist recieves only .2% (5 cents on a $20 CD) is certainly a rip-off, but it's more than nothing. Plus, no one is considering the needle-drop fees that radio stations pay to play the songs - no requests for an artist's song? Is it because they are not popular and no one wants to hear it or is they are so popular everybody is burning their own copies, downloading? And not a dime is sent to the artist either directly (self produced) or indirectly (thru the industry).

Yes, there is more distributuion which may or may not increase the artist's popularity and revenues from performances - but awards and recognition in the industry are measured by CD sales. So what? Well, what people who are not involved in the industry don't realise is that the artists do not make their fortune from CD sales nor concert tickets, they make it by selling their identity (like on T-shirts, lunchboxes, advertisments for other products, etc.). So if CD sales are down, record companies cannot control distribution, artists cannot control distribution and must shell out bucks to self-produce, there is no commercial recognition or branding...that's the industry that gets crippled and yes, my friends, the artist ultimatly suffers more, not less.

Require labels for functionally impaired CDs by Ride-My-Rocket · 2002-03-07 04:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't think the government needs to do anything beyond making sure that consumers know which CDs are hobbled and which aren't. If a CD is clearly labeled as copy-protected, I won't buy it -- plain and simple. And that way, consumers can vote with their dollars........ if they don't care about this limitation on their ability to take their music wherever they go, then they can choose to buy it.

It's as simple as educating the masses -- nobody's gonna want a conglomerate to tell them what they can or can't do with their music. If anything, legislators should start focusing more on the digital rights of consumers, instead of narrowing the scope down to addressing only CDs. If it's crystal-clear what constitutes piracy and what constitutes fair use, the RIAA won't have any excuse to start bawling about how consumers are copying their music, regardless of the reasons for doing so (piracy vs portability).

Re:Require labels for functionally impaired CDs by Technician · 2002-03-07 04:45 · Score: 2

If a CD is clearly labeled as copy-protected, I won't buy it -- plain and simple.
It's a big claim.. Can I see evidence of that? The problem will be when the entire industry goes to the new format together and there is no alternative. Two examples that I find in widespread use are Macrovision on videotapes and DVD's and Region coding on DVD's and videogames. Have you bought any of these? Do you only buy non Macrovision DVD's and tapes? Do you buy only region free DVD's? They do exist. The last one I saw was in Yellowstone National park about the bears. It is region free and free of Macrovision. They intended on selling it to visitors to take home. My entire DVD collection still contains one one DVD I bought used. I got it to test the DVD player in my new computer. I do back up not supporting the cripled formats with my wallet. I have bought extra 100 disk spindles of blank CD's to support the open standards industry.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:Require labels for functionally impaired CDs by iPaul · 2002-03-07 05:02 · Score: 1

The advantage will be when Sony puts out a new CD with a big (preferrably orange) sticker that says "This Disc does not conform to industry standards (Red Book). It may not play in all consumer devices, personal computers or audio-visual equipment. The purchaser assumes any risk may not return this disk for a refund." In addition, it has to go into another section (not with all the Compact Discs) because it is not a compact disc. It will be amazing to see how few of these Sony will sell.

In addition, (feel free to correct me) but I thought Macrovision was part of the DMCA and required. Also, the region coding for DVDs is part of the standard. So, if I buy a DVD in the US I should reasonably not expect it to play in my European DVD player. However, when I buy a CD I do not expect it to be unplayable on my car stereo, computer, or home theater. I think the record industry will see a drop in sales as people choose to not waste $18 on a bum CD they can't play.

--
Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
Re:Require labels for functionally impaired CDs by Technician · 2002-03-07 05:33 · Score: 2

Responding to Macrovision is in the VHS license. The fact DVD players must output Macrovision when a bit is set on the DVD disk is in the DVD license. The manufacturs must comply to build players. DMCA does not require it. Making a player that will play an encrypted DVD requries a license. The license requires it to put out Macrovision if the disk being played requests it. Taking out that feature by the end user is a violation of the DMCA. Building a player not able to output Macrovision is a violation of the DVD license and a violation of the DMCA. If you want to build a player that is not required to output Macrovision, go ahead. However it must not be able to play DVD's which use a licensed technology. Laser Disks fall into this catagory. The problem is it is very hard to find content in that unprotected format.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:Require labels for functionally impaired CDs by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 05:39 · Score: 0

You've mixed the DMCA with the VHS license requirements and the DVD license requirements. Those restrictions are in the technology license agreements. Defeating the built in protection is where the nasty DMCA comes into play. DMCA never required VHS or DVD's to use copy protection at all. However it does protect defeating any copy protection that may be present.
Re:Require labels for functionally impaired CDs by jroos · 2002-03-07 06:43 · Score: 1

I'll agree to an extent. Those who are educated will be able to make the right decision, but what does Grandma know about technology?

If the label simply says "copy protected" it really doesn't give an immediate impression of what you're buying. If we labeled the copy protected CDs "CRIPPLED" then buyers would smell something fishy right off. You don't have to be a geek to understand that a crippled CD might present a problem.

I would take one step beyond labeling and short of banning copy protected CDs. Give consumers the right of unconditional return. It doesn't matter if the CD has been opened or not. It doesn't matter if the CD was purchased three years ago. The retailer or record company must reimburse the CD holder.

That would make retailers and CD makers think twice about carrying/producing crippled CDs. If someone did buy a CD, copy it to an uncrippled format and return it, they'd be out a sale. But the people who aren't so tech savy wouldn't be screwed because they purchased an intentionally defective product.
Re:Require labels for functionally impaired CDs by soldack · 2002-03-07 10:34 · Score: 1

I agree with you although I suspect that in the end most people will not care. The vast majority of people play music on standard CDs, cassettes, and yes even records. Digital rights only matter to PC owners/users and they make a small portion of the population. Just what percentage of people who buy music regularly (say more than 2 CDs a year) activly copy their music in any fasion. Most just are happy to play their CDs. As a technology lover this drives me crazy but I know it to be true.
What really seems silly is how none of these companies realize that they are their own worst enemy with some of these issues. If CDs were priced reasonably (cost less than tapes to make but cost more than tapes for the consumer?) and online music was sold by them at a reasonable rate, they wouldn't have to worry about this. Instead they intend to blead the average person dry and block any attempt to spread the word that it doesn't have to be that way. I can't stand when companies choose to block innovation out of fear instead of embracing it.

--
-- soldack
Re:Require labels for functionally impaired CDs by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-08 04:04 · Score: 1, Informative

Digital rights only matter to PC owners/users and they make a small portion of the population.

Percent of US Households with a Computer, August 2000: 51%
Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Web: www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/index.html .
Re:Require labels for functionally impaired CDs by soldack · 2002-03-09 18:13 · Score: 2

Wow...I had no idea it had risen so high. I wonder how that number changes world wide. More importantly for this issue, what precentage of the CD buying public use a computer for music? It is these users that are going to care, not someone who buys CDs but only uses his computer for e-mail and word processing.

--
-- soldack

Boucher's recent voting record by Blipus · 2002-03-07 04:03 · Score: 2, Informative

Boucher voted yea on the Tauzin-Dingell bill (deregulates broadband and can kill off many DSL providers) and nay on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (Campaign Finance Reform). I'm not quite sure that he is as big of an advocate for consumer rights as you think.

Re:Boucher's recent voting record by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 05:30 · Score: 0

Right. He should have voted Nay on both measures.

-ChristTrekker
Re:Boucher's recent voting record by user32.ExitWindowsEx · 2002-03-07 05:49 · Score: 1

He voted "nay" on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and you say that he's not as in favor of consumer rights as one might expect. I suggest you review that act and its impact again. I think you'll find that he's actually more willing to protect the rights of the little guy.

--
"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
Re:Boucher's recent voting record by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 06:57 · Score: 0

Maybe, maybe not. It could just be that he didn't want to vote for a bill that would violate the second amendment of the constitution that he is sworn to uphold and defend...

food for though.
Re:Boucher's recent voting record by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 14:39 · Score: 0

I was going to send him a contribution, but no way am I going to give money to anyone who voted for tauzin-dingle.
Re:Boucher's recent voting record by Blipus · 2002-03-07 21:01 · Score: 1

What are you refering to? The second amendment is the right to bear arms. Was that restricted somehow by the Campaign Reform Act?

Re:Hubris -- The Illiad (Homer, not userfriendly.o by eudas · 2002-03-07 04:05 · Score: 2, Funny

he's probably just read it for his classical civ class, so it's on his mind... :P

eudas

--
Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.

Re:Wow! Legislation that may be good. by Technician · 2002-03-07 04:09 · Score: 2

Wow, this guy has taken a big step to protect the music industry. Only problem is the music industry doesn't know it yet. He may be forcing them to continue to provide a useful product that consumers may continue to buy instead of letting them produce useless junk.

--
The truth shall set you free!

We can beat that! by fred911 · 2002-03-07 04:09 · Score: 2, Funny

you've got an Anti-anti-cd-copying law?

We've got an anti-Anti-anti-cd-copying law

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2

2 arguments by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 04:13 · Score: 0

Don't the discs as they are currently have a sticker that says they won't play in your PC?

They aren't required to place the sticker on the CD case at all, and they could place that information on the inside cover, or hide it somewhere.

Copy protected "CDs" by AlbanySux · 2002-03-07 04:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

If any CD that is copy protected isn't really a CD by the current stanrdard, could Phillips sue for producing a confusingly similar product? Make them change something about it so everyone would instantly know its not a regular cd.

I know this isnt going to happen but could it?

Remember DIVX, anyone? by NetRanger · 2002-03-07 04:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

After reading some of the comments here it startles me that people do not seem to realize what everything is headed to. We need more people in Congress who will stand up for the rights of fair use, otherwise, you the consumer will be paying every time you want to view a copyrighted work.

Remember DIVX (the DVD bastardization), folks? You had to pay $3 every time you watched a DIVX movie. That's what the RIAA and the MPAA want: Pay-per-use, to be able to squeeze more money out of your pocket every time you want to watch a movie or just listen to a CD. Keeping music and films from being distributable is the first step towards that goal. The next step is introducing new technology which incorporates those features. (Think XM Satellite Radio -- AM and FM are free... but how will local stations compete with nationwide coverage with fewer/no commericals?)

That's where it's all headed, but first the consumer has to be conditioned to the idea that it's just fine and dandy to pay every time you use something.

--
-- We live in a world where lemonade is artificial and soap has real lemon.

Re:Remember DIVX, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 05:16 · Score: 0

The whole point of DIVX DVD is that it was priced $5-$7 vs. $20 for a regular DVD. You get what you paid for.
Re:Remember DIVX, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 07:39 · Score: 0

The point of DIVX involved monopolization of the rental market, and may also have included taking away the option for owning movies.

Sure, there was DIVX-Silver (how many of THOSE discs work now?), and DIVX-Gold (a "solution" in search of a problem), and "plays DVD discs". But if people had bought into DIVX players in a big way, it would have been trivial for studios to have pulled the plug on DVD without instantly obsoleting everyone's hardware.

Every few years the government likes their people by eyeball · 2002-03-07 04:16 · Score: 2

I love election years.

--

_______
2B1ASK1

Re:Make a better hack.. by Technician · 2002-03-07 04:17 · Score: 2

And the 90% of the consumers out there without the hack can't use the product, hense it remains unsold. Those who share the hack will also probably share the content also leaving it on the shelf unsold. Crippled CD are a lose lose proposition for the music industry. I wonder if they'll go bust before they get it?

Get hit with a clue stick from the Circuit City DVD experiment. It was a dismal failure.

--
The truth shall set you free!

I Like to copy CDs, but I buy them all by totallygeek · 2002-03-07 04:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

My wife hates the racks in the study, but I have well over 300 CD's now. All of them are hard to replace punk CD's, and I have paid for them all. Now, I have some that over time (used in the truck, or taken out somewhere else) have become scratched. Some of these are irreplaceable (producer out of business or the like), and I have been sucessful using IRC or newsgroups to get MP3 versions of "lost" tracks. I have to date, eventhough I have a burner and am an able geek, never burned a music CD from downloaded MP3 files that I did not already have on a purchased CD. Another example of an MP3 saving the day was with a recent Fear CD I purchased had a screwed up track 3. No problem, I downloaded some songs the other day and burned approximately 20 to one CD that I have at the end of a shelf called "Mistrack/Scratched Track CD".

I for one view this new era of the music industry keeping honest folks from ripping tracks on CD's rediculous. Even when tapes were the classy way to purchase music, I always bought vinyl. Usually for the extra inserts, but mostly for the larger image and the medium would last longer. I was very anal about my records, and would never play them unless I were dumping to a blank tape. Now I have begun this with CD's I play in the vehicles. My new view is that my purchased CD's NEVER leave the house. And, no more do I have to deal with a CD that I only like one song on taking up a slot in the CD changer. If the music industry makes ripping and burning impossible, they are doing honest customers a disservice. Of course, all this is moot in my scenario because the punk industry seems to "get it" with regard to music trading, bootlegs, MP3 files, etc.

Just my $0.02!

--
Click here or here.

I agree that the DMCA must go.... by debest · 2002-03-07 04:21 · Score: 1

..but I don't see it happening. The DMCA was based on giving the United States compliance with the WIPO treaties, and these treaties have finally been ratified by having the 30th country sign on. The EU nations are coming on board, and my own country (Canada) is not far behind. These kind of laws are becoming *increasingly* commonplace. Now that the treaty is ratified, this is now international law, and enforcable across borders of all countries that signed on.

Getting rid of this is now going to be seriously difficult. Repealing the DMCA (or changing it to get rid of the really yuchy parts) will equal the US pulling out of a ratified international agreement. Sure it can be done, but why would your government do this (there is obviously no incentive, since they went to the trouble of creating the law only recently)

However, the US does have one possiblity: the Supreme Court has it within their power to knock down the act if they see it as unconstitutional. I think this is the only hope: asking the lawmakers to change this (as Mr. Boucher says he will) is not gonna happen.

Darren Best

--
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!

Re:I agree that the DMCA must go.... by Kombat · 2002-03-07 05:12 · Score: 1

Getting rid of this is now going to be seriously difficult. Repealing the DMCA [...] will equal the US pulling out of a ratified international agreement.

Hey, it's not unheard of. They did it with the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and they snubbed their nose at Kyoto. Why not this, too?

--
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Re:I agree that the DMCA must go.... by rmstar · 2002-03-07 05:41 · Score: 1

Getting rid of this is now going to be seriously difficult. Repealing the DMCA [...] will equal the US pulling out of a ratified international agreement.

Hey, it's not unheard of. They did it with the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and they snubbed their nose at Kyoto. Why not this, too?

And don't forget they introduced a tax on steel from outside the us, clearly violating WTO agreements. This was, like, two days ago?
Re:I agree that the DMCA must go.... by mpe · 2002-03-07 06:06 · Score: 2

The DMCA was based on giving the United States compliance with the WIPO treaties, and these treaties have finally been ratified by having the 30th country sign on.

It's a wonder the rest of the world still even bothers to count the US when it comes to treaties.

Getting rid of this is now going to be seriously difficult. Repealing the DMCA (or changing it to get rid of the really yuchy parts) will equal the US pulling out of a ratified international agreement.

How would this be news? In the last few years the US has ignored the Hague convention on child abduction, pulled out of the ABM treaty, pulled out of the Kyoto treaty, probably a few more I have missed. If anything these are far more important than something to help over rich publishing companies rake in more money. All that is needed is to find a way to convince the US government that reforming copyright is in their best interests and the WIPO treaty will be no more.

Getting rid of this is now going to be seriously difficult. Repealing the DMCA (or changing it to get rid of the really yuchy parts) will equal the US pulling out of a ratified international agreement.

When was the last time US copyright law was even nominally in accordance with what's written in the US constitution? (Or even in which century 20th or 19th...)
Re:I agree that the DMCA must go.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 06:51 · Score: 0

The DMCA was based on giving the United States compliance with the WIPO treaties
That was the cover story, anyway. Two problems with this:
1. The Clinton Administration is the one that went pushing DMCA-like stuff through WIPO. I read somewhere that at first they were going to try to push the whole ball of wax (ban anti-circumvention under any circumstances) through, the better to railroad Congress afterwards, then pulled back because of resistance from other countries, or out of fear this would backfire.
2. The WIPO treaties don't require banning circumvention under all circumstances. The alternate versions of the DMCA, which would have banned circumvention only in cases of infringement, would have met WIPO requirements. But Jack ("VCR = Boston Strangler") Valenti proclaimed that any law which did not ban circumvention in ALL circumstances (i.e., that did not make it illegal to engage in LAWFUL copying and use) would be "unacceptable." By the way, Boucher was one of the sponsors of the alternate House version of the DMCA.

This is good, but is it necessary? by nate.sammons · 2002-03-07 04:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's good that someone in Washington is paying attention to all this CD copying garbage.

But is it really necessary? What I mean is, Philips says that "copy protected" CDs are actually "silver discs that looks like CDs, but are not CDs", and they are the people who say who can and can't use the little "compact disc digital audio" logo. Philips has said time and time again that they don't approve of the copy protection.

So, can't we just enforce what it means to be a CD (perfect duplication of audio each time, meaning no copy protection) instead of wasting a bunch of money writing new laws that don't *really* need to exist??

-nate

I agree. by Penguinoflight · 2002-03-07 04:24 · Score: 0

I think you're right on. If you're going to show your muscles with your own protection, don't ask the government to bail you out when it fails.

--
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14

misinformation and omissions by bigbadbuccidaddy · 2002-03-07 04:25 · Score: 3, Informative

Even a casual slashdot reader like me knows there are many more than 2 CDs with various forms of copy protection. There is a comprehensive list at www.fatchucks.com. And they don't all have a label telling you its not really a CD. The article also omitts the most valid legal reason these crippled CDs should be made illegal -- The RIAA gets money every time a consumer buys a blank music disk. If I can't go out and buy 'A Movie I Don't Want To See Because it Sucks Soundtrack', and 'Some Country Singer's Tribute to some Guy I've never Heard of Because All I Listen to is N'Sync and Brittney Spears', a $1000 Music CD Burner, and some blank 'Music' CDRs, and then make the worlds worst mix CD from it, why did I just pay all that money to the RIAA?

Re:misinformation and omissions by man_ls · 2002-03-07 16:03 · Score: 2

Good points. I would rather see a bigger tax on CD burners and blank recordable media (akin to the proposed 1-cent-a-pound Sugar tax back a few years back here in Florida...Almost nothing to the consumer, but it was BILLIONS of dollars annually for ecosystem restoration projects...too bad Big Sugar railroaded it into the ground.)

I'd rather not pay anything extra. But that not being an option, I'd rather pay a few 0.0$ or $.00 to the music industry for freely copyable CDs and media. They'd make a decent amount even off burned CDs cuz of the media tax.

IRRC there are some european countries that do have these type of taxes.

Re:Wow! Legislation that may be good. by duvel2 · 2002-03-07 04:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think this senator deserves the full support of the Slashdot-community and any other groups that are tech-savy enough to know what cripled CD's actually entail.

Of course his proposal is not enough to stop all horrible effects of the DMCA, but at least it's a step in the right direction. I hope that this proposal will also make sure that more people in legislation start noticing that there's a problem. If a bill can't be passed (today) to outlaw copy-protected CD's, then at least bright yellow tags on those CD's will make everyone more aware of the fact that there's a problem.

And as soon as legislators start thinking there's a problem, they will come running in heaps to (at least give the impression of) providing a solution. Perhaps DMCA will someday stand for Dumb Musicbusiness Controlfreak Act.

--

<Sig>The good thing about having a good memory is ... euh

Boucher is a Representative, not a Senator by jonatha · 2002-03-07 04:34 · Score: 1

Representatives, particularly those that are not members of the Congressional leadership (which is most of them, including Boucher), have very little clout.

A single Senator can block a bill (unless 60 other Senators force a vote).

A single Representative can't do very much...

--
The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company were in Utah. We need a new building.

Interesting... by Hrothgar+The+Great · 2002-03-07 04:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

Effective copy protection, including that threatened by the SSSCA, can never succeed in the current marketplace; simply because the likelihood of findind a media format that is noticeably better than the CD/DVD is unlikely. The only way to improve upon the already existing sound format, at least to the average listener, would be to increase the storage capacity, and I think it's a pretty safe bet that the RIAA isn't going to suddenly wise up and give you more for your money.

What it comes down to is that asking average joe american to run out and buy all new electronics, while the economy is down, and without gaining an advantage in sound quality in return, is just going to piss a lot of people off. And there is NO way that copy protected CD's can be changed to work with existing hardware in an effective manner; if you can play them on current, unprotected hardware (of any kind), they are obviously not secure.

The industry, as it is, only pisses off educated people in general. And there aren't enough of us to make a difference to them. They might want to be careful where they walk with this crap, though. When they piss off every U.S. resident who owns a stereo, they might not enjoy the results. At least, I hope that's the way it would turn out...

Re:Interesting... by gmhowell · 2002-03-07 05:53 · Score: 2

They're already stretched trying to fill a regular CD with Britney's pap. How the heck are they going to fill some longer format?

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Interesting... by Hrothgar+The+Great · 2002-03-07 06:03 · Score: 1

Yeah I know, it's like torture to listen to this s**t for five minutes, let alone 75, but hey, some people will buy anything, and you can bet they'll love it if they can get 150 minutes of the same mass produced crap fest for the same price!

lets vote for this guy by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 04:37 · Score: 0

enough said... he needs votes for support, and obviously this guy has the public interest in mind. Bravo!

So it's only a matter of time... by Shade,+The · 2002-03-07 04:39 · Score: 1

... Before someone brings out anti-anti-anti-cd-copying legislation.

Article on FoxNews by Drachemorder · 2002-03-07 04:46 · Score: 2, Informative

There's a good article on Fox News about this whole copyright flap. It's a pretty decent summary of the political ramifications of the CD copy-protection debate. It can only help our cause to see these things debated more in the mainstream press. The average customer cares about himself and is likely to oppose measures he perceives as putting him at a disadvantage. Certainly, if people were more aware of what the MPAA/RIAA/etc are up to, they'd be more inclined to make a major issue of it, and I really doubt public opinion would favor the RIAA.

We Don't Need Yet Another Law by John+Hasler · 2002-03-07 04:52 · Score: 1

This is wrong. I should have as much right to sell uncopyable CD's as to break the copy-prevention on CD's I buy.

(Except that I don't buy any music CD's at all.)

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.

Perspective by catwh0re · 2002-03-07 05:01 · Score: 1

I wonder if companies will begin to copywrite protect their copywrite protection systems, and then, copywrite protect those.... All these thieves in the world, just waiting for people to lower their copywrite guard. I think it's just an insane circle. "It's sad when the record companies look at each of their customers as potential thieves, instead of potential fans."

Not just an election year ploy by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2002-03-07 05:06 · Score: 2

Boucher's been on the right side of this issue from day one.

--
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.

LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 05:10 · Score: 0

You're not going to take a troll from someone named "Sexual Asspussy" as anything but a compliment, right?

Question... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 05:11 · Score: 0

How come they want us to be able to make copies of audio cds, but not video cds? (More specifically, DVDs) What about DVD Audio cds? AFAIK, they are all encypted, and cannot be duplicated in the store bought form. WIll this new law make all video/audio media copyable? If not, why not? Why do movie manufacturers get to encrypt their cds, and not the audio manufacturers.

Im mostly curious because its nothing new to see copy protected movies, video games, etc.. But when they finally decide to copy protect audio CDs people go nuts. Will this push to make all media copyable? Cross fingers.

Okey then do it like this by rmstar · 2002-03-07 05:14 · Score: 1

If this turns out to be so, then the DMCA can be hacked like this:

1. Build your circumvention method for fair use (maybe as in your example by erasing the decryppled copy)

2. Include some fairly braindead way of ensuring that the copy gets deleted. I don't know, use your fantasy. For example, make your main executable a script which ends with

rm -f $temp # DONT YOU DARE REMOVE THIS LINE!!!

or whatever.

3. Distribute (no problem 'cos of point 1)

Now anybody with half a clue can rip legally.

Use their own weapons!

rmstar

Re:Okey then do it like this by trezor · 2002-03-07 06:30 · Score: 1

Okay. Anything can be done, if someone bothers to figure out how. Big news.

Let me do an analogy... Would you pay for polluted water, if you were told that "you couldn't tell" the difference? Would you pay full price, for something you knew were intensionally polluted. With the intension to take something away from you? Guess not.

--
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Re:Okey then do it like this by rmstar · 2002-03-07 22:55 · Score: 1

Thats right. But rendering the DMCA useless would be a first step in winning against it, and it would help you limit the damage too.

Re:Hubris -- The Illiad (Homer, not userfriendly.o by Hard_Code · 2002-03-07 05:17 · Score: 2

Now, if we could just find achilles heel...

--

It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?

Distinctive Differences by virg_mattes · 2002-03-07 05:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

You're quite right, but copyright holders are not allowed to prevent fair use entirely under current law. To wit, they need not make it easy, but they're not allowed specifically to make it impossible.

Virg

Re:Distinctive Differences by Noel · 2002-03-07 06:09 · Score: 2

I think your definition of impossible is quite different from mine.

Since DMCA makes it illegal to distribute information or devices for circumvention, each person would have to develop their own circumvention device. I am certain that I do not have the ability to do that, since I am not a crypto guru. I strongly suspect that almost all of the US population is in the same boat.

That means that fair use is truly impossible for almost everyone.

Also, like the parent said, "fair use" is only a defense to a copyright infringement suit. It requires a court decision -- how many of us have the money or time to successfully defend against a corporate suit? For most, it wouldn't matter whether they might be able to win eventually, since they can't afford it.

In reality, the threat of a lawsuit by the corporation is often enough to ensure conformity to their desires, whether or not the law supports them.
Re:Distinctive Differences by BitterOak · 2002-03-07 10:06 · Score: 1

but they're not allowed specifically to make it impossible.
I was not aware of that. Can you cite a precedent or a section of the United States Code? I was unaware that publishers were under any obligation not to use perfect copy-protection (if such a thing exists).

--
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Re:Distinctive Differences by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-10 02:07 · Score: 0

Under the DMCA it isn't even legal for you to circumvent access controls. The DMCA doesn't just prevent distributing "cracks" it also makes cracking illegal.

Get Smart! by scorcherer · 2002-03-07 05:22 · Score: 2

RIAA to Boucher: "You've got an anti-anti-cd-copying technology? Well, we've got an anti-anti-anti-cd-copying technology!"

--

--
The Cap is nigh. Time to get a fresh new account.

Re:Hubris -- The Illiad (Homer, not userfriendly.o by room101 · 2002-03-07 05:25 · Score: 1

Howz that for culture? And they say history can't teach us anything.

Um, history or literature?

(by the way, King Aurthur was fictional too.)

--
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)

"Perfect digital copy" by andaru · 2002-03-07 05:26 · Score: 2

Funny how the recording industry is always complaining that digital technologies allow people to make "perfect digital copies" of "their" works.

But the vast majority of people making copies are ripping mp3s, which are audibly imperfect at the rates normally used on file sharing networks.

It takes more time, being realtime, but you can get a higher quality copy by connecting the analog output on your CD player to the analog input on decent PC audio hardware, and going through a whole D/A A/D conversion, than you can ripping a CD track to mp3 at 128Kbits.

Once one person has made a copy through an analog loop, they have removed any copy protection which is not encoded into the audio itself. At that point, they are free to make as many digital copies of that as they like.

As for encoding analog signatures in audio which can survive compression/decompression cycles, it would be an issue if people were trading high quality representations of the audio, but given the low quality of your average mp3, I doubt that any inaudible signature would survive (but people put up with those stupid floating logos on cable TV, which they are already paying for... maybe they would just as happily put up with a background screeching noise in all of their audio, representing the serial number of the track...)

It is truly sad that the result of all of this great technology and economic freedom is lower quality media with disadvantages like floating ads. Why should we progress if it means that in order to watch "All in the Family" reruns, we will have to peer through fifteen layers of floating advertisements? Or if to listen to a Led Zeppelin CD, we will first have to listen to targeted ads? Good old low quality analog tape beats that any day.

In order to truly protect their audio, they would need to release CDs which only play in a registered system which would consist of a full digital path from computer/player to speakers. Then, in order to get a decent reproducible analog signal, you would have to rip apart your speakers, which would be a violation of the DMCA.

P.S. If everyone were to distribute copies of copy protected CDs widely enough, it might send a message to the recording industry like, "you failed, losers... Try again..."

--

Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

Re:"Perfect digital copy" by Joel+Ironstone · 2002-03-07 05:48 · Score: 1

"It takes more time, being realtime, but you can get a higher quality copy by connecting the analog output on your CD player to the analog input on decent PC audio hardware, and going through a whole D/A A/D conversion"

I think you are mistaken, the D/A, A/D conversion cycle will distort the signal. Software exists to convert a CD image to a .wav file which is a perfect reporduction. any a/d,d/a will ALWAYS result in quality worse than the original
Re:"Perfect digital copy" by netik · 2002-03-07 08:49 · Score: 1

One of the most interesting aspects of Red Book audio CDs is that they are -not- 'perfect digital copies' in any sense, even when done by computer.

When you copy a CD, some amount of linear interpolation occurs to read the data off of the CD, changing the data slightly. So my copy and my rip is not a bit-for-bit copy, but it is extremely close to your copy of the same CD. The minor bit errors introduce subtle harmonic distortion throughout the ripped copy that you can see on an oscilliscope, and by doing bit-for-bit comparisons.

Most mastering houses want people to send in raw files or DATs for mastering, and not CD-Rs because of this very fact.

Worse by HiThere · 2002-03-07 05:27 · Score: 2

It's worse than just they don't have to provide you with tools. Under recent laws it can be a crime to use the tools needed to gain access to the material that you have a right to use. I believe this is called the DMCA.

DMCA: The most corrupt laws money can buy.

SSSSC: That's what you think.

(Sorry. I probably got the initials wrong on the second law, but that's ok. They'll change it's name the next go round anyway, so that some people won't notice it.)
.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Re:Worse by Skevin · 2002-03-07 12:14 · Score: 1

Sorry. I probably got the initials wrong on the second law, but that's ok. They'll change it's name the next go round anyway, so that some people won't notice it.

Here's how I remember the initials: take the heavy-handed tactics of Nazi SS Stormtroopers, and combine that with the outmoded lifestyles of the Sword Carrying *ssholes.
SS + SCA = SSSCA

Skevin

Office 2K/XP is the only MS product with accurate warnings during Setup: most of the packages tell me to "Run from My Computer".

--
"Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang

Here is my letter by Mr.Intel · 2002-03-07 05:32 · Score: 1

Dear Congressman Boucher,

I would like to thank you for publicly announcing your intentions to "re-write the DMCA" and introduce legislation that would protect consumers right to make fair use copies of Digital Audio CDs.

I understand you have opponents as well in Ms. Hilary Rosen of the RIAA and Senate Commerce chairman Fritz Hollings, who has drafted legislation that would prohibit creating, selling or distributing "any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies." Please work with your fellow legislators and bring sanity back to our corporate-centric country. As a citizen who has seen too many of my rights squashed in the name of business interests, please make every effort to introduce these bills as soon as possible. Even if they are not accepted in the full House, the consequences will be on the heads of the Commerce committee, instead of you.

Regards,

--
ASCII tastes bad dude.
Binary it is then.

Actually True for MS by cnelzie · 2002-03-07 05:40 · Score: 1

MS will indeed ship you, on their ticket, a replacement CD. Of course, it is no easy matter to get a CD from them, you have to be pretty darn cranky. You also must have registered the software in your name to them.

However, once you do that, they actually follow normal terms for the license of a product.

--
.sig seperator
--

--
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?

Re:Actually True for MS by SpaceLifeForm · 2002-03-07 07:20 · Score: 1

Why go through the hassle with m$? I've been there. Had a nasty scratch. Now, any CD I buy is immediately copied, and the original goes in a safe place. If my copy gets badly scratched/stolen, I make another from the original, always storing the original in a safe place.
That is 'fair use'.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

Not True!! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 05:40 · Score: 0

There are many many CD's with copy prevention schemes built in. See for example Fat Chuck's for a full list.

My experience is with the recent "No Doubt" CD. Put it in a computer and it launches a very annoying Quicktime video (that does not play properly to boot). Impossible to access the audio track. Hence I can't discreetly listen to this item while at work.

Won't we keep consuming? by inkypi · 2002-03-07 05:48 · Score: 1

If the music publishers move to a system where all CDs they release are copy-protected, won't they just call them Enhanced CDs, or Compact Media Disks (CMDs) or something else? And won't these new disks be marketed as the next generation of music media, what we've all been waiting for? And won't the hardware manufacturers scramble to make the trivial change to support this "new" media format in their next generation CD players? And won't most consumers simply buy the new players if their new 'CDs' won't work?

Sometimes I think we need to remind ourselves that we, the geeks, are the minority - and even we are not immune. When I look at the piles of outdated computer equipment I have in my closet, I have to admit that I happily run on the consumption treadmill. "AGP? A new type of graphics card? I'll need a new motherboard? And the motherboard uses new RAM? Heck, I might as well get a new harddrive too!"

Re:Won't we keep consuming? by Xannor · 2002-03-07 06:59 · Score: 1

Ahh, but you forgot that we geeks have a secret weapon... (albeit tenitivly)

Phillips, the owner of most CD and CD audio patents, is on our side. They feel that there is no way to truly copyprotect a CD w/o breaking thier patents and licenses. Because of this they want any media that does break them to be marked as such and not be sold anywhere near true CDs.

Remeber they own the rights so they can leagally tell the RIAA to go screw themselves. (and they actaully have the money to do it.)

You gotta love it when corperations fight the good fight because they are afraid of loosing face.

--
I sig therefore I am...

It may be there, but it's been leagled out. by OS24Ever · 2002-03-07 05:48 · Score: 2

It may have been there one point in time, and it may still be in the original law.

But the RIAA, MPAA and every other copyright nazi has gone out and sued it to death, winning quietly in most cases.

So, fair use has been nickeled and dimed to death so that ripping a CD because it's scratched and several tracks don't play well is illegal. The RIAA and MPAA expect you to buy another one.

I have a scratched Live: Throwing Copper and Adiemus: Songs of Sanctuary that have multiple tracks that odn't work thanks to a stupid CD holder I had in my car. GRIP and cdparanoia managed to get the tracks off the CDs after 12 hours on one track and I mp3'd them. Only way I can listen to the whole CD. I've not bothered to burn them back on a second CD as of yet

--

As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

Treaties are NOT supposed to counter our laws... by Svartalf · 2002-03-07 05:54 · Score: 2

Treaties are agreements that our country will do a given thing, along with other countries. We can enact laws that mirror what we said we would- but only if it doesn't run counter to what the Constitution says can/can't be done. If a law is in violation of the Constitution, the people that signed that treaty on behalf of our country had no authority to do so in the first place.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas

sampling the CD by TechnoLust · 2002-03-07 05:56 · Score: 2

You make some very good points. However, this:

So (for example) you can plug your audio cable from your CD player into your PC and sample the CD. However, your PC then refuses to play the audio, because it contains a watermark identifying it as needing a keyed source to play from and it doesn't have one.

Even with this method of CP, at SOME POINT, the sound must go to the speakers. As far as I know, no speakers that exist today will refuse to play whatever analog signal is sent to them. The sound can always at this point be recorded. Even if the come up with speakers that have to have some sort of watermark to play them. I have a lot of very good speakers that don't have this technology, why would I by ones that do? OK, the new stereo equipment won't work with the old speakers? OK, even the new "copy protecting" speakers must output a sound wave. THIS can then be recorded. When the record company starts asking me to have surgery to "copy protect" my ears is when I tell them to sod off.

--
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"

not enough by Erris · 2002-03-07 06:00 · Score: 2

Hasn't the public's side gotten 'heavier' as well? Back in the analog cassette days it wasn't possible to produce an exact copy of an album; even the best equipment could only get really close. Now not only can a person produce exact copies using cheap equipment but he or she can distribute them to everyone in the world without the constraints of physical media.

Wow, you know that's true. So how come there are only five music publishers in the world? How is it that they are the only online music publishers as well? Why is it that only thier shit ever gets played on traditional broadcasts? It's because they are a cartel that uses fiere and illegal anti-competitive measures to stifle any and all competition.

The future can become worse and laws may be needed to assure free publication. Microsoft has showed the world how to use broken standards to keep competition out. If legislative means are not taken to prevent further abuse, the music industry will make up it's own standards for players. Oh yeah, you won't be able to write to those players. Only "authorized" publishers will have the keys to publish music and other digital media for distribution. All that will be available to others is second rate means that may or may not work.

Think it's silly? Combine DCMA, SSSCA, Microsoft's patented Digital Rights Denial OS, Enertainment and telco industry ownership of the internet, and what you have is nothing at all. PC becomes a TV, VCRs go away at last. Then publishers quit printing on paper as it becomes too expensive. Poof, there you are in RMS's nightmare future. Sure, demand would fall but it would not be the first golden egg laying goose publishers have killed.

--
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.

CD laws will work about as good as Gun Control by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 06:02 · Score: 0

For those of you who don't live in and/or near Washington D.C., we hear about shootings happen all the time. How can this happen you ask ? Aren't guns illegal in D.C. ?

Some blame nearby states, but the adjoining counties, such as Montgomery in MD have VERy strict rules for purchase & ownership. The real issue is that criminals will do what it takes to get an illegal weapon, especially when laws are set-up so that they're the ONLY people armed in their area.

Now take CD ripping/burning. Let's say Congress passes a law that says it's a Bozo-no-no.

You, me and a thousand other honest people will suffer through it, while criminals will do what it takes to burn and blackmarket warez. Only, after the law is passed, they'll be able to charge a premium for the service.

Prohibitions of this nature only hurt the honest guy.

Oh yeah, because I mentioned gun control in a negative light, I posted this anonymously ... call me a Karma Whore, but those that would mod this message down for that opinion aren't going to understand the problem with restricting media copying.

wow by joss · 2002-03-07 06:05 · Score: 2

That is the geekiest joke I've ever seen.
It should probably have been a signed int originally.

--
http://rareformnewmedia.com/

Re:wow by SpaceLifeForm · 2002-03-07 07:24 · Score: 1

Not signed int either.
#define CORRECT TRUE
#define INCORRECT FALSE
#define VERY_CORRECT CORRECT

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

Tacos are for pussies by SteamedGeek · 2002-03-07 06:10 · Score: 1

That is all...

--
Life Sucks... Have a Beer and a Smoke then Smile Damnit!!!

Whoosh! by sg3000 · 2002-03-07 06:13 · Score: 2

That sound you just heard was the RIAA and the rest of the music industry sending tons of soft money to democrat Rick Boucher's opponent, whoever that person is.

Somebody get us 10 milliliters of campaign finance reform before we kill democracy in the US! Nurse? Are you there?

--
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.

Not at all given by trezor · 2002-03-07 06:19 · Score: 1

I may copy Cds too damaged for my regular cd-player too play. So with a reasonable try-n-fail ratio I may make copies that are way better than the original.

That can't mean anything else than that these crippled discs have a serious amount of dis-information, when try-n-fail, well, fails. Who's to know if these discs got the same durability and reliabilty as ordinary Cd's? Who's to know if it's even close?

And the only way to figure that out is probably by taking a look at the scrambling algorhytm used. Hands up anyone who believes that it will be given out to the public. Which means we have to take the industrys word that these are just as good. And I don't trust a word coming from anyone up high.

--
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.

Computers by thetonka · 2002-03-07 06:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

If legislation is past that will force computer makers to include anti-piracy stuff the shift away from the OEM may increase. This would be just one more argument for open source and roll-your-own computers. Of course the vast majority of the consumer don't know or understand these issues and will just adapt. Complacancy is really allowing a lot of bad laws to be past.
Mike
www.drunkbunch.com"

This is bang on by royalblue_tom · 2002-03-07 06:26 · Score: 1

Due to DMCA you no longer *have* a fair use defence, unless you wrote the circumvention device yourself, as part of a "pre-approved" research project, and then took the device home and used it (but did not give it away or sell it to anyone). Because they will no longer sue you for copyright infringement, but instead for breaking DMCA. And no "fair use" defence has been established for that law.

[OT] Re:Hubris -- The Illiad (Homer, not userfrien by segfaultdot · 2002-03-07 06:31 · Score: 1

Very perceptive. Actually i am taking classical civ, but i've read Homer before. :)

The only problem with my analogy is that if big business is Athens and the people of the US are Troy, then we're screwed. ;;THORN;

Re:Hubris -- The Illiad (Homer, not userfriendly.o by LiENUS · 2002-03-07 06:33 · Score: 1

i know where his heel is!
we simply need to run away from the us and make our own country... err wait that might now work (i dont think sealand is big enough for all the slashdotters)

Democratic Schizophrenia by Sebastopol · 2002-03-07 06:40 · Score: 2

Talk about a rift in the Democratic party:

The author of the SSSCA is a democrat, and so is Boucher.

--
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested

I would be happy too.... by zensmile · 2002-03-07 06:40 · Score: 1

I would be very happy if the RIAA labeled music "copy protected". I would be able to skip over them in the record store! ;-)

Tax on blank media by epepke · 2002-03-07 06:51 · Score: 2

One problem is that recording companies already receive monies from a government-collected tax on blank media, which is supposed to compensate them for the fact that people will used blank media to copy songs, etc. This was bulldozed through Congres with some rather nasty politics--the wives of several senators involved in the tax got together and formed the PMRC, who had a campaign on "porn rock." The implicit deal (never directly linked, you know--it's politics) was, you give us "voluntary" record ratings and labels which a little thing called the Constitution prevents us from imposing, and you can have your precious tax. The record companies wanted it enough.

I don't think that one can simultaneously declare that it is their right to do whatever they want and also recieve these monies.

Add escrow to this. by raygundan · 2002-03-07 07:21 · Score: 2

If you want a copyright, you have to hand a highest-quality unencrypted (preferably digital) copy over to the library of congress. That way, at least, it's there for the public domain when the copyright is up instead of being eaten by the corporation to prevent public domain from competing with their other works.

You have to turn in details for a patent-- why not for a copyright?

Macrovision CD protection breaks MathCad software by Animats · 2002-03-07 07:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

CD-based protection schemes just don't work reliably. Even for software.

Today, I have a failed install of MathCAD 2001i. This is a professional tool for people who do math-heavy engineering calculations. It's about as far as you can get from entertainment content. MathSoft made the mistake of using Macrovision copy protection technology. That protection scheme involves creating CD-ROMs that violate the CD-ROM spec, then recognizing them during installation. So it's similar to the "flawed CD" protection scheme for audio CDs. And, sure enough, it doesn't work reliably.

The installation required a reboot of Win2K (a violation of the Windows Logo Program requirements). Then the program complained that I had a debugger installed.

Now that's scary. Macrovision apparently thinks that anybody with development tools (in this case, Microsoft Visual C++ 6.x) is trying to pirate software. The Macrovision program wasn't running under the debugger. The debugger wasn't even running. The debugger was merely installed on the machine.

A call to MathSoft tech support made it clear that this is a known problem. MathSoft suport admits to using Macrovision copy protection, and admits that they've had considerable problems with their protection scheme. They're trying to get Macrovision to fix it, not with much success.

This rather expensive product comes with a 90-day warranty. I told MathSoft support that I want a fix by Monday, or it goes back. I'm also going to try to get Microsoft to pull MathSoft's right to use the "Designed for Windows" logo for nonconformance with the logo standards for nonintrusive, compatible installation.

Re: Boucher, yes. Leahy, no. by PurpleHigh · 2002-03-07 07:28 · Score: 1

I'm not sure Leahy gets technology very well. After all, he did help to write the DMCA.

"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a good bill on which so many of us have worked so hard and cooperated so closely across the aisle..." Senator Leahy's remarks concerning the House delay of voting on the DMCA October 20, 1998 - Sen. Patrick Leahy

What about CD-ROMs? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 07:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Removing this crap from audio CDs is all well and good but what about my data?

When I was a kid, we had three copies of every program. The original disks were used twice and twice only. They were used to make an archive backup and a working backup. Then they went on a shelf. The arhive backup went on another shelf. The working backup is the one that was used. If the working backup failed, a new copy was made from the archive backup.

This level of redundancy was absolutely necessary because that working copy had to be used every single time the program was launched. Very few people had hard drives in those days and the few that did rarely had room to store their games on them. Business software only.

Now we're in a similar situation with some of the new games on the market. Sure, I can install hundreds of megs worth of Civ3 files to my hard drive to make it run faster but I still need to have that CD in the drive every time I want to play the game. Logically, I should revive the archive/working backup system to protect my investment. Not possible thanks to SafeDisc2 copy protection. If my disc gets trahed, I have to throw myself on the mercy of the publisher and beg for a replacement disc. Who knows if I'll get it. Probably have to pay a media fee. And shipping and handling. And send them my damaged CD. And wait several weeks.

And for what? Absolutely nothing. There are cracks out there for every revision of Civ3 that let you play it from a copy (or no disc at all). Piracy wasn't stopped but legitimate consumers have been inconvenienced.

but functionally impaired CDs will sell! by scrawny · 2002-03-07 07:35 · Score: 1

i don't listen to CD's on my computer; neither does my daughter/brother/sister/dad/neighbor/uncle. they will not be deterred by some fine print on the back of a cd case at the store. the great majority of people still use their home and car stereos anyway. the same majority doesn't 'backup' their music to cassette, let alone computer.

this legislation is necessary, but they need our voices. our paltry minority doesn't compromise enough $ to make our dollar vote count.

how do you suppose we educate the masses? honest question. show a public service commercial to try to get millions of people to stop buying Creed/Spears/whatever? that won't help.

it's YA hopeless case unless we write (read: flood) our local governments. sad.

--
neopets.com

Music DVD standard by stickfigure · 2002-03-07 07:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

There has been a music DVD standard for years, it's never really been implemented because they didn't think the average person would buy a music DVD player. If CDs (or CD like disks) don't play in your CD player/DVD player/computer, then suddenly shelling out $150 for that low end music DVD player sounds like a reasonable idea. Especially since most new computers are coming with DVD players so those disks will work there too. Also you don't need to buy one if your current DVD player is connected to your stereo. The extra storage allows for better quality (24 vs. 16 bit I think, and much larger sample rates) as well as surround sound. Any law preventing the record companies from copy protecting CDs, would have a hard time in court for music DVDs since the DVD standard has always involved encryption. Making CD copy protection illegal just gives the RIAA that much more reason to make the jump. I think the reason there was no big outcry when DVDs came out is that people like to have music playing while they work but they don't watch movies there (most of us anyway).

Re:Music DVD standard by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 09:43 · Score: 0

of course once they start putting out erroneous music dvds......

Re:Treaties are NOT supposed to counter our laws.. by kindbud · 2002-03-07 08:41 · Score: 2

I'm afraid it is not that clear-cut.

Article VI says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

--
Edith Keeler Must Die

Does anyone know by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 08:50 · Score: 0

what percentage of the equipment out there these broken CDs won't work on? If the percentage of people (general public, not just technogeeks) using cd-rom technology (like in car cd players and such) is high enough, then consumer backlash will stop this nonsense

Copy Protected CDs will spawn widespread piracy by Grapes4Buddha · 2002-03-07 08:57 · Score: 1

If it becomes commonplace for CDs to be shipped with such "copy protection" kruft on them, we will certainly have a black market of people exchanging decoded copies of the CDs.

Anything, yes, anything that can be played through your stereo can be copied. The only difference will be that there will be a conversion to analog and back in the conversion process.

So people will just start remastering their own, non-protected versions of the protected disks. Some people will start exchanging these disks and even start filesharing them on the Internet. I guarantee that this will happen if people cannot read the protected versions on their PC's, DVD players, etc.

Eventually the recording industry will learn the same thing that the software industry learned years ago -- that copy protection is counterproductive.

Re:Copy Protected CDs will spawn widespread piracy by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 15:08 · Score: 0

"Eventually the recording industry will learn the same thing that the software industry learned years ago -- that copy protection is counterproductive."

Just like Microsoft learned it?

How AM/FM Compete with XM by JayAndSilentBob · 2002-03-07 09:47 · Score: 1

They compete by being free and "bundled" with your car. That's how Microsoft kicked Netscape's ass. This is like Netscape trying to squeze its way in after Internet Explorer had been the standard forever...

--

Love,
Jay and Silent Bob

Re:Its already there silly - NOT! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 10:27 · Score: 0

Read the article. There are already adverse court rulings to the effect that your fair use rights do not compell the vendors to facilitate your exercise of them.

My measured response, Hilary - Annandale Pledge by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 10:52 · Score: 0

Hilary Rosen, head of RIAA, said that the copy protection is "a measured response to a very serious problem facing the music industry today."

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, private citizen, said that the Annandale Pledge is a measured response to a very serious problem facing the consumer sector today.

Annandale Pledge:

Under no circumstances will I ever purchase audio, computer or video products recorded on copy protected media.

RICk BOUCHER IS GOD! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 11:53 · Score: 0

...You heard me.

He has my vote. by BenTheDewpendent · 2002-03-07 12:54 · Score: 1

I think what its going on with RIAA and MPAA is getting wat outa hand. Its about time someone actualy acted for the people other than companies with all the money. Maybe not all of congress isnt owned.

copyrighted even when I'm 92 by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 12:59 · Score: 0

If I by a CD does that give me the right to beable to listen to it on a CD player? Should new technologies come about and I still want to listen to my Soul Coughing CD's can I be guaranteed that what I buy will be of any value to me in the future if CD players go the way of an 8-track?

A lot of games in particular come with "system requirements" stating that you need this, and this, and this in order to play this game. Say I have a game and it says I need a 100% Sound Blaster compatible card... well I have a Sound Blaster 512, would it be reasonable to assume that the game will work on my computer.. the answer is maybe.. if the game was written for a Sound Blaster 16 ISA card there is a chance that it might not work with a PCI based Sound Blaster. Now is that fare?

My point is that it might not be so bad to have certain copyright measure if we as consumers were guaranteed that we would be able to have the storage medium updated as well (based on what ever the current industry standard is.) If they want to protect their perceived rights as copyright holders, that's fine by me, but make it fare, let me exchange my copy of (insert artist here) when I'm 92 and the only way I can get it is on tri-dee-holographic disk, for the $0.02 it cost them to crank it out.

"Fuck-off," he hinted. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 14:22 · Score: 0

I like using "fuck-off" better. It's fuck-off funny, even if it's not fuck-off unique or fuck-off correct grammar.

"Wicked" is good too, and it's wicked fuck-off funny if you combine the two.

Hmm.. by DarkProphet · 2002-03-07 14:50 · Score: 2

First off, kudos to Congressman Boucher for doing the right thing. Thanx.

Second, I wonder how many people realize that our global civilization is at a turning point. Twenty years ago, the RIAA didn't worry as much about Fair Use (or otherwise). It was just too localized and distribution was nominal, compared to today's state. Now, we have a wired world. We live in a world where information is literally at your fingertips. We are a civilization that craves information, and sometimes even knowledge. Now, our natural human instict to learn and expand our minds has been severely limited by corporate interests, which concern themselves with monetary matters instead of academic ones. Perhaps we should have seen this coming. Some might argue we did. Our culture seems to be moving into a 1984-esque one. And now, we actually have to fight to do something that is human instinct. Its about as ridiculous as trying to legistlate sex. People will do it because they have an inherent desire to do so, regardless of the possible consequences. It would seem, then, that creating consequences to prevent this behavior is unproductive. If people are legally denied what they feel is necessary, they will rebel. Will the Information Age be followed by the Information Wars? No corporation would dare contribute to the onset of a very real political upheaval, but they will press thier luck and gouge for money as much as they can. Eventually, they could become less careful and more greedy (also inherent human trait), and inadvertantly spark such a rebellion.

That is why I support what Congressman Boucher is doing. The legislation bought by these corporations needs to be struck down before it spirals out of control. Remember, the price of Liberty is eternal vigilence.

--
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its

DMCA by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 15:01 · Score: 1

So audio CD players with digital output are illegal under the DMCA?

FTC law violation? by rearden · 2002-03-07 15:31 · Score: 1

I have not personally come across one of these "marvles of inovation" but have seen images of many on the net. All of the CD's that I saw had packaging that bore the the "CD Audio" logo in some way or place.

Marketing these CD's with the CD logo and thus representing them as Red Book standard- would that not be false advertising? Thus could you not file a class action suit and even get the FTC involved?

If nothing else would this not give us a way to at least know which ones are "good" and "bad"? I mean in the absence of a lable that warns would the lack of a "CD" lable would be good.

IANAL but this sounds like a plausable action to take to at least force the hand of the evil empire of the music monoliths.

--
Huh?

Why spyware could be your friend by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 15:46 · Score: 0

I just got an email from MP3.com

BigBrother is your friend... Or something 1985 said.

Labels and education might not cut it by ragmana · 2002-03-07 15:58 · Score: 1

It's as simple as educating the masses

Yeah, because "the masses" have been so receptive to education about fossil fuels, drug use, etc.

If eductaion was sufficient for solving problems, we wouldn't need laws, or a government for that matter. But, because most people choose to be ignorant of at least a few important topics, those in the know need to wield the law to protect everyone else.

Finally, a sensible Congressman by gokulpod · 2002-03-07 16:17 · Score: 1

After hearing honey flow from some Democrats about SSSCA, heres finally someone who seems to be making some sense and a democrat at that. As a more recent article points out, the democrats have become friend of the RIAA and MPAA and are quashing the little guys. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47296,00.html

--
My mom never taught me to sign.

hmmmmmmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 18:13 · Score: 0

if only you can copy the contents of a CD to something like a tape...can you record with tapes yet???

This is a rumor by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-07 18:27 · Score: 0

As it stands under current law, fair use is a defense, not a right.

This is a Slashdot rumor. You are propogating that rumor without a shred of support. Let's see a link to whatever statue you think turns fair-use into a defense.

Wrong: analog watermark and block CAN (maybe) work by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-08 03:07 · Score: 0

You're missing the point.

If the industry is successful in making sure that ALL DEVICES that can RECORD/PLAY analog audio refuse to function via the analog watermark block, you will NOT be able to generate an analog signal to drive those SPEAKERS you keep mentioning.

Get it? 'Course to enforce that, those assholes will have to force a law through congress requiring the DESTRUCTION of old recording devices.

Insane, but I'm currently spending some time reviewing history, and I'm seeing a LOT of insanity.

I IMPLORE you to ask "Who Benefits?". ?>_WHO_? is saddling us with this yoke?

DO THE RESEARCH! THINK FOR YOURSELF!

I can NOT give you the answer!

Re:The only thing required by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-08 03:31 · Score: 0

The only thing required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

Find out who is behind this. Connect the goddamn dots.

Re:Miss Hilary - Creating CD errors by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-08 03:43 · Score: 0

I'm no expert, but AFAIK, cd-writers can only write ones and zeroes to a CDR.

They can not write bits set to "indeterminate" state, which is what this software looks for.

Another approach by encebollado · 2002-03-08 04:57 · Score: 1

The music industry has decided to fight dirty, through legislation instead of competition, and I'm glad that someone is fighting fire with fire. I really think that if their business leaders would take another approach and just sell cd's for less (=$10) then the whole music piracy issue would go away. If cd's were that accessible then no one would even bother to "steal" the music.

WHAT?!?!? by TechnoLust · 2002-03-09 09:16 · Score: 2

'Course to enforce that, those assholes will have to force a law through congress requiring the DESTRUCTION of old recording devices.

The US Government is not going to pass a law that prohibits anyone from using raw analog for several reasons.
1) There is no way to enforce it. (see Prohibition)
2) Any elected official who helped pass it would be voted out of office and the law repealed. (see Prohibition)
3) There are enough of us out here that are smart enough to build our own electronics, and would cannibalize what we could get our hands on and build whatever we needed. If people can't buy what they want, they will make it them selves. (see Moonshiners)
4) The technology required to accomplish this would be expensive, and no one would buy it. If no one has the equipment, no one buys music. If no one buys music, the RIAA has no money. If the RIAA has no money, they have no power and the government won't even listen to them.

Yes, there has been a lot of insanity in history. Any when it was brought about by the government, it was usually unsuccessful. If the populace brought it about, it usually continued until it ran its course, despite the government?s interference. Despite what most people think, the people of the US still have power, the power of the mighty dollar.

--
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"

The default license is 17 USC 107 by yerricde · 2002-03-10 06:33 · Score: 1

Accesses to these items are not being denied, but more closely ristricted to the origninal copyright licensee. As long as this ristriction does not prevent your use of the product (under the license) they are fulfilling their obligations to you.

Unless I signed something to the contrary, I as a U.S. citizen am subject to the default license (you may not copy, make derivative works, etc., except subject to 17 USC 107 (fair use), 109 (sell genuine copies), and 117 (computer software backup)). Publishers should not be able to take away my rights under that license (especially 107), but lately, I've found Congre$$ too bought to legislate rationally.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

File sharing with giFT by Anonymous Coward · 2002-03-10 12:44 · Score: 0

One Two Three

Re:[OT] Re:Hubris -- The Illiad (Homer, not userfr by eudas · 2002-03-13 04:47 · Score: 1

yeah but if big business is athens then so are they... ie, the peloponnesian war...

eudas

--
Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.

Read the post. by andaru · 2002-03-14 15:04 · Score: 2

I was comparing using an analog loop to ripping to mp3 at 128KBits (which a lot of people do). I was not comparing the quality of the analog loop copy with ripping to .wav at 176Kbytes/sec.

Big difference (a factor of more than 8).

--

Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

Slashdot Mirror

Anti-anti-cd-copying Legislation?

324 comments