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."
Its already there silly
by
tomstdenis
·
· 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
Nurlman
·
· 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
·
· 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.
I agree with Rosen
by
Shadowkiller
·
· 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?
Not sure that's true
by
somethingwicked
·
· 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?'"---
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.
Don't get too excited....
by
mblase
·
· 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.
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.
Hubris -- The Illiad (Homer, not userfriendly.org)
by
segfaultdot
·
· 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.
Copy Protection Not The Problem
by
cybermage
·
· 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.
$cat bullet foot
by
Darth+RadaR
·
· 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*/
Require labels for functionally impaired CDs
by
Ride-My-Rocket
·
· 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).
I Like to copy CDs, but I buy them all
by
totallygeek
·
· 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.
This is good, but is it necessary?
by
nate.sammons
·
· 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
Distinctive Differences
by
virg_mattes
·
· 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.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
Why doesn't she tell that to the people who passed the DMCA?
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?'"---
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.
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.
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.
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.
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*/
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).
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.
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
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