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."
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]
Good Guy or Publicity stunt?
by
TechnoLust
·
· 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
·
· 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?
Copyright law,,,,
by
maroberts
·
· 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
Huzzah for common sense.
by
Latent+IT
·
· 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
room101
·
· 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)
Finally People are Standin Up
by
goofy183
·
· 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!
Copyprotected discs are not CDs
by
Crazy+Viking
·
· 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!
No need for an industry, we need music.
by
rzbx
·
· 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:Necessary?
by
BeBoxer
·
· 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:Its already there silly
by
psamuels
·
· 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
Copy protected "CDs"
by
AlbanySux
·
· 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
·
· 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:Wow! Legislation that may be good.
by
duvel2
·
· 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
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:Its already there silly
by
jedidiah
·
· 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.
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"
Re:Its already there silly
by
Mr_Matt
·
· 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.
Macrovision CD protection breaks MathCad software
by
Animats
·
· 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.
What about CD-ROMs?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· 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.
Music DVD standard
by
stickfigure
·
· 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).
Slashdot Mirror
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]
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!"
..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
I'm sure you've heard all the arguements before.
;p)
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...
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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...
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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).