Anti-anti-cd-copying Legislation?

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."

Comments

Its already there silly

[tomstdenis]

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...

Re:Its already there silly

[OpenDirectX]

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

[Nurlman]

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

[Phanatic1a]

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

[leviramsey]

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

[dtfarmer]

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

[psamuels]

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....)

Re:Its already there silly

[Rogerborg]

• 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.

Re:Its already there silly

[markmoss]

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

[jedidiah]

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.

Re:Its already there silly

[JCCyC]

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

[Mr_Matt]

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.

Re:Its already there silly

[ryanwright]

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...

I agree with Rosen

[Shadowkiller]

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?

Support Boucher

[rlp]

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.

Re:Support Boucher

[theCURE]

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.

Re:Support Boucher

[weston]

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. : )

Re:Support Boucher

[Telastyn]

I wonder if the congressman has a Paypal/Amazon donation system.... *goes to look* not yet!

Re:Support Boucher

[fishebulb]

Feingold is pretty cool. He voted against the patriot act. (among other things) glad he is my rep.

Thank Peter Fox

[tiltowait]

For bringing this to the limelight.

More.

It is as they say.......

[Semi_War]

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?

[TechnoLust]

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.

Re:Good Guy or Publicity stunt?

[hyphz]

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?

[ryanwright]

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.

uh...

[autopr0n]

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.

Re:Poly-negative soup

[vbrtrmn]

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.

Not gonna happen

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

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

Re:Don't mod this up unless wired gets /.'ed

[segfaultdot]

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.

Oh no! Another H2G2 reader!

[Bollie]

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,,,,

[maroberts]

..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?

Re:Copyright law,,,,

[vicviper]

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

[somethingwicked]

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?

Re:Not sure that's true

[st0rmshad0w]

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

[Steve B]

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.

Re:Not sure that's true

[MartinG]

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.

Re:Not sure that's true

[Pfhreakaz0id]

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.

Don't get too excited....

[mblase]

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....

[thesolo]

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....

[Prior Restraint]

(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....

[markmoss]

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....

[swillden]

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.

Huzzah for common sense.

[Latent IT]

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.

[jweb]

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.

Re:Huzzah for common sense.

[room101]

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.

Re:Huzzah for common sense.

[Reality Master 101]

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.

Re:Huzzah for common sense.

[Genom]

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.

[Reality Master 101]

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.

Re:Huzzah for common sense.

[Reality Master 101]

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.

Re:Huzzah for common sense.

[DaveHowe]

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.

Re:Huzzah for common sense.

[ryanwright]

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

Necessary?

[Phanatic1a]

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?

[tkrotchko]

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.

Re:Necessary?

[BeBoxer]

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?

[Dr. Awktagon]

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?

[Christopher Chang]

> 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

[goofy183]

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!

Hubris -- The Illiad (Homer, not userfriendly.org)

[segfaultdot]

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

[futuresheep]

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

[Stonehand]

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.

Re:Typical example

[richardbowers]

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.

Foul, non-sequitur

[mblase]

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...

[MantridDronemaker]

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.

funny... sort of...

[the_mind_]

A fox trot strip on the subject...

Copyprotected discs are not CDs

[Crazy Viking]

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

[Dephex Twin]

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

Re:Copyprotected discs are not CDs

[dirk]

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.

Re:Copyprotected discs are not CDs

[mpe]

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

[wfrp01]

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.

Re:Copyprotected discs are not CDs

[CtrlPhreak]

Copyprotected Disc = CD...

Wouldn't it be better...

[evilpaul13]

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

[cybermage]

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.

Re:Copy Protection Not The Problem

[Stonehand]

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?).

Re:Copy Protection Not The Problem

[HiThere]

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.")

Re:Copy Protection Not The Problem

[quintessent]

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.

Re:Copy Protection Not The Problem

[weinerdog]

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).

Re:Copy Protection Not The Problem

[ibbey]

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

[ibbey]

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

[quintessent]

Do you know any good places to read about this?

Re:Poly-negative soup

[Amarok.Org]

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?

$cat bullet foot

[Darth RadaR]

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.

Anti-anti-anti-cd-copying legislation

[Col. Klink (retired)]

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.

ZDnet has it too!

[psycht]

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

Not all bad

[El_Nofx]

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.

Re:Not all bad

[El_Nofx]

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!

No need for an industry, we need music.

[rzbx]

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?

Require labels for functionally impaired CDs

[Ride-My-Rocket]

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

[Technician]

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.

Re:Require labels for functionally impaired CDs

[Technician]

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.

Re:Require labels for functionally impaired CDs

[soldack]

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.

Boucher's recent voting record

[Blipus]

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:Hubris -- The Illiad (Homer, not userfriendly.o

[eudas]

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

eudas

Re:Wow! Legislation that may be good.

[Technician]

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.

We can beat that!

[fred911]

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

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

Copy protected "CDs"

[AlbanySux]

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?

[NetRanger]

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.

Every few years the government likes their people

[eyeball]

I love election years.

Re:Make a better hack..

[Technician]

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.

I Like to copy CDs, but I buy them all

[totallygeek]

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!

Re:Poly-negative soup

[Prior Restraint]

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.)

This is good, but is it necessary?

[nate.sammons]

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

misinformation and omissions

[bigbadbuccidaddy]

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

[man_ls]

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:No wonder...

[Technician]

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.

Re:Wow! Legislation that may be good.

[duvel2]

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.

Interesting...

[Hrothgar The Great]

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...

[gmhowell]

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?

Re:Typical example

[ncc74656]

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.)

Re:Just not possible...

[buggered]

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

[Drachemorder]

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:Just not possible...

[armb]

> 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.

Re:Poly-negative soup

[SubtleNuance]

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.

Not just an election year ploy

[Amazing Quantum Man]

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

Re:Hubris -- The Illiad (Homer, not userfriendly.o

[Hard_Code]

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

Distinctive Differences

[virg_mattes]

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

[Noel]

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.

Get Smart!

[scorcherer]

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

"Perfect digital copy"

[andaru]

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..."

Worse

[HiThere]

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.)
.

It may be there, but it's been leagled out.

[OS24Ever]

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

Treaties are NOT supposed to counter our laws...

[Svartalf]

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.

sampling the CD

[TechnoLust]

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.

not enough

[Erris]

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.

wow

[joss]

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

Re:I agree that the DMCA must go....

[mpe]

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...)

Whoosh!

[sg3000]

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?

Computers

[thetonka]

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"

Democratic Schizophrenia

[Sebastopol]

Talk about a rift in the Democratic party:

The author of the SSSCA is a democrat, and so is Boucher.

Tax on blank media

[epepke]

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.

[raygundan]

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

[Animats]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[stickfigure]

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:Just not possible...

[ryanwright]

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.

Re:Treaties are NOT supposed to counter our laws..

[kindbud]

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.

Hmm..

[DarkProphet]

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?!?!?

[TechnoLust]

'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.

Read the post.

[andaru]

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).