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."
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.
Kudos to you for writing.
-- "i can never say no to anyone but you"
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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"
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.