Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the how-many-antis-in-a-rolo-pop dept.
RedCard writes "Wired has an article up about congressman Rick Boucher wanting to introduce legislation to prevent or regulate anti-copying/ripping technology being introduced on CDs."
Don't mod this up unless wired gets /.'ed
by
segfaultdot
·
· 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.
It is as they say.......
by
Semi_War
·
· 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.
Re:Support Boucher
by
theCURE
·
· 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.
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
·
· 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
Boucher's recent voting record
by
Blipus
·
· 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.
misinformation and omissions
by
bigbadbuccidaddy
·
· 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:Its already there silly
by
Rogerborg
·
· 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:Just not possible...
by
buggered
·
· 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.
Article on FoxNews
by
Drachemorder
·
· 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.
Re:Require labels for functionally impaired CDs
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· 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 .
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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"
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 .