Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the how-many-antis-in-a-rolo-pop dept.
RedCard writes "Wired has an article up about congressman Rick Boucher wanting to introduce legislation to prevent or regulate anti-copying/ripping technology being introduced on CDs."
Its already there silly
by
tomstdenis
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
In the US at least there is the fair use clause of the copyright laws.
So in reality this senator should just be acting to ensure that your laws are being upheld.
There is no need for special new laws to uphold laws that already exist.
Geez...
-- Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Re:Its already there silly
by
Nurlman
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
How many times does it need to be said?
Fair use is a defense to a charge of copyright infringement. You do not have an entitlement to access copyrighted information in any manner you want to.
Maybe it's the "fair" that throws everybody off. "Fair use" just means that there are some situations in which it is acceptable for you to reproduce copyrighted information, even though such reproduction would otherwise be infringing.
Re:Its already there silly
by
Phanatic1a
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Wrong. Wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong.
As it stands under current law, fair use is a defense, not a right. Saying "Fair use!" might get you off the hook when someone accuses you of violating a copyright, but a copyright holder isn't required to provide you with the tools you need to exercise fair use. That's an important distinction.
Re:Its already there silly
by
psamuels
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Fair use is a defense to a charge of copyright infringement. You do not have an entitlement to access
copyrighted information in any manner you want to.
No, but to me, saying on the one hand "xxx use is not copyright infringement" and on the other hand "you may not buy or sell a device which allows you to do xxx use" are logically incompatible statements. If it's not illegal to perform the action, how can it be illegal to buy the equipment necessary to do it?
Yet that is exactly what the DMCA, and to a much greater extent the SSSCA, do say.
The DMCA is a big complex law (aren't they all) and only small bits of it are actually offensive to civil rights. If they would just remove the bit that says you aren't allowed to circumvent access control measures, maybe change it to say you aren't allowed to circumvent access control measures in order to violate copyright law, which is of course redundant since violating copyright law is already illegal, I think the law is salvageable. Last I heard, it sounded like Rep. Boucher wanted to do exactly this. Here's hoping he does, and Congress gets a sudden attack of sanity.
As to this latest proposal - sorry, I can't get into it. Noble intentions, bad concept. It shouldn't be illegal to produce a Cactus CD... WTF? BMG and Geffen should be allowed to market whatever silver colored shiny crap they want to. We just shouldn't be prohibited from circumventing it as necessary. Let the copy protection arms race occur in userspace, as it always has. Oh, and Phillips can worry about making sure the CD Digital Audio trademark isn't abused - there's our warning labels.
(Looking back over this post, it's approximately -4 Redundant, as it echoes years of slashdot party line....)
-- "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
Re:Its already there silly
by
Rogerborg
·
· Score: 3, Informative
In the US at least there is the fair use clause of the copyright laws.
Largely irrelevant. The Audio Home recording act 1992 and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act 1998 between them tie fair use rights up in a Gordian knot, where you are technically allowed fair usage, but you are technologically prevented from doing it, if you see what I mean.
Case law - not confused and contraditory copyright law and fair use defence - has held that burning MP3's is explicitely fair use, see RIAA versus Rio 1999
However, fair use (as another poster asserts) is a post facto defence. If you can make a copy, then fair use allows you to do so in many cases. It does not give leverage to demand copyable media. In fact, the 1992 Audio Home Recording act actually mandates copy prevention technology, it's just that RIAA vs Rio rules that computers and the Rio aren't "digital audio recorders"; the computer is a general purpose device, the Rio doesn't actually make the copy from the original source, it receives the pre-copied data from the computer. That was a contraversial technical ruling though, and it could be ignored in future.
But really, your opinion can be countered with one word: Macrovision.
-- If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Its already there silly
by
jedidiah
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
No. Actually, the whole original intent of copyright was to enrich the public domain. Therefore, any copyrighted work needs to be copyable. At least the library of congress should have such a copy.
In the absence of special non-protected versions pressed specifically for the library of congress, all copyrighted works should be copyable.
Of course Disney & cabal have obscured and circumvented this original intent.
-- A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Its already there silly
by
Mr_Matt
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Fair use is a defense to a charge of copyright infringement. You do not have an entitlement to access copyrighted information in any manner you want to.
No, actually fair use is defined as an exemption to copyright law. Fair Use is delineated in Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 of the U.S. Code and I heartily recommend you check it out. You say it yourself, actually, when you say:
"Fair use" just means that there are some situations in which it is acceptable for you to reproduce copyrighted information, even though such reproduction would otherwise be infringing.
...which means that in the excepted case of "fair use" you are entitled to access copyrighted information in any manner available to you, provided you're within the bounds of U.S. Code.
--
But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
I agree with Rosen
by
Shadowkiller
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Rosen said in a statement:... "Legislation to prevent self-help technologies would be unwise and unfair."
Why doesn't she tell that to the people who passed the DMCA?
I just mailed Boucher a letter of support, and a campaign contribution. And no, I'm not a VA resident. He and Leahy are about the only members of congress that seem to understand technology related issues.
-- [Insert pithy quote here]
Re:Support Boucher
by
theCURE
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Actually writing officials is one of the BEST ways to support issues you believe in. I encourage people to write to Boucher if you believe in things like this. Sending email is too easy to delete, and issues like these are ones where any support is desired and most likely needed.
Kudos to you for writing.
-- "i can never say no to anyone but you"
Re:Support Boucher
by
Telastyn
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I wonder if the congressman has a Paypal/Amazon donation system.... *goes to look* not yet!
Good Guy or Publicity stunt?
by
TechnoLust
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Well, I'm glad to see that at least one of our congressmen doesn't have his head completely up his ass. I hope he is doing this because he really cares about or rights and wants to see fair use upheld. I'm not that naive however, so it would think it is probably some sort of publicity stunt. Either way, I don't think it can hurt.
The thing that kills me it, COPY PREVENTION DOESN'T WORK! I've said before and I'll say it again, If I can listen to it, I can copy it. It's as simple as that. They only way they can stop people from copying CDs it to fix them to where they will not play in any device. Don't laugh, some of these new "Copy protected" CDs are halfway there.
-- "Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
Re:Don't mod this up unless wired gets /.'ed
by
segfaultdot
·
· Score: 3
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!
by
Bollie
·
· Score: 5, Funny
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...
Not sure that's true
by
somethingwicked
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Fair use does not really cover all of what is occuring here, I believe
This also comes under licensing. Phillips licenses the technology and dictates that any use of the technology menas that it is universal. You should be able to place ANY CD Disk in ANY CD player and have it work.
Is there a law covering what happens to a company when they bend the license agreement so that their product only plays in certain players because they have ATTEMPTED to prevent copying?
--
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
I believe that whatever is to be done, it needs to start with hard and fast rules regarding the nature of music purchases. Are you buying a product(disc w/music on it) or buying a license(permission to listen to album 'X').
If the former, then what I've purchased is mine and I'll use it how I please. They can do whatever they want, as long as its still CD compliant, but they shouldn't whine when I make a back-up copy.
If the latter, then someone is replacing my scratched disks, providing CD media versions of my old cassette tapes etc. I've PAID the license, I've the right to different media, the same as software companies would provide floppy disk versions of software on request, replace damaged media, or allow you to generate back-up copies if you so desired.
Currently the recording industry wants it both ways, but only the parts that benefit them.
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.
-- --
MartinG
To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz.@adgimnoprstu
Don't get too excited....
by
mblase
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Boucher's complaints are twofold: Americans may not know they're buying crippled discs, and that the new discs don't work on all players.... Boucher wouldn't give details on what approach he's considering -- obvious possibilities include ordering the music industry to stick labels on protected CDs, or an outright ban of that technology.
In other words, he not necessarily advocating blocking all copy-protection on CDs. He just wants to stop the music industry from passing off copy-protected CDs as regular copyable CDs. If the music industry agrees to label all copy-protected CDs as such, he'll still be happy.
Huzzah for common sense.
by
Latent+IT
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I'm sure you've heard all the arguements before.
If it breaks the redbook standard, it's not a music CD. IMHO, it has no right being at my local Tower Records, since the number of cd players that can't recognize it is... well... it's a big number.
But shouldn't it bother you when one senator, who actually wants to uphold 'fair use' gets a wired article? That since the introduction of copy protected CD's, this is the first time this has come up in Congress?
From the article:
Boucher's complaints are twofold: Americans may not know they're buying crippled discs, and that the new discs don't work on all players.
Don't the discs as they are currently have a sticker that says they won't play in your PC? But thank god he got the second part right. The only problem is that the RIAA can tell him to stuff it. They can call it a new generation of audio technology - after all, my LP doesn't play in my CD player. Neither does the copy protected disc.
Not only that, but we're not thinking long term - even if copy protection gets taken off standard CD's, what about the next generation? DVD audio discs? Or something we haven't seen yet? (Hopefully resembling those little data blocks a la star trek...;p)
The point of this whole disjointed thought train is that the DMCA must be repealed, since it shuts down other laws, that previously exist, and even those that may yet be written. Fair use is out the window, since it states that you have the priviledge of using certain recordings in certain ways, but the RIAA isn't required to make it technically possible for you to do so. Therein lies the problem. And when HDTV finally rolls around, even though it'll be possible to build a TiVo with enough storage space to support it, it'll still be illegal, thanks to the DMCA, fair use won't apply.
So, this Congressman Rick is going about things all wrong - he needs to start by repealing the DMCA. Feel free to write him. =)
(Yes, I know the article states that he would like to rewrite the DMCA. But it's badly flawed in its current incarnation, and should be repealed, and a new, non-insane law should be drafted.
Re:Huzzah for common sense.
by
room101
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
He (and friends) have tried that [to repleal DMCA]. They wouldn't go for it. That is where politics come in; they need to go after what they think they can win to slowly take the rights back. Then and only then will more lawmakers understand the evils of DMCA type of legislation.
The war starts with a single shot. You can't not start a war because the first shot isn't going to win it for you. You have to start somewhere, and stating that we deserve to know what we are buying is a good step.
--
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
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?
by
BeBoxer
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
While it's nice to think they should be able to do whatever they want with a disc, the lassaiz-faire argument doesn't apply since the entire market is already regulated by the government in the form of copyright law.
In my opinion, a good fair law would be one that stipulates that if a company wants copyright protection they have to let the consumer have full access to the content for the purpose of space and time shifting. If a company wants to take away that ability from the consumer and use copy protection, they should not be allowed copyright protection. Copyrights are a balance between the public and the content creators. It's the governments job to maintain that balance, not the copyright holders. If they don't like the way the balance is set, they should get off it and rely on techincal solutions alone. It's stupid for us to pretend that copyright is a balance while allowing copyright holders to continually make their side 'heavier' using technical countermeasures against fair use and laws such as the DMCA.
Finally People are Standin Up
by
goofy183
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I encourage you all to go to Boucher's congress.org page and write him with your support for these issues. He seems to be a big advocate for consumer rights and fair use policies. I for one am also writing my state representatives with a link to the Wired story and encouragement to support Boucher on this issue. We really need to get the SlashDot community to use their numbers, opinions and large voice. When you see issues like this jump on the web or sit down with a good old pen and paper and write your state reps. The only way we are ever going to see a change that we like is to push for it!
Hubris -- The Illiad (Homer, not userfriendly.org)
by
segfaultdot
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Achilles (MPAA/RIAA) is so vexed by Hector (Piracy) that he not only kills him, but drags his body behind his chariot for days (attempts to eliminate ALL fair use) to the point that his father, Priam (the american public) is bereaved by his actions and begs Achilles for permission to bury him (congress talks about passing law to ensure fair use).
Howz that for culture? And they say history can't teach us anything.
Copyprotected discs are not CDs
by
Crazy+Viking
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Not only are these discs troublesome for the consumers but they are not even CDs according to the Phillips owned standard.
It is nice to see that politicians are looking at possiblities to ban these technologies. I am thinking that there may already exist laws that prohibit this practice, at least in some countries. I know that in Norway government agencies are looking at taking legal action against Sony for illegal marketing as they are selling a product marketed as a CD and priced as a CD while it clearly is not a CD!
Re:Copyprotected discs are not CDs
by
Dephex+Twin
·
· Score: 3, Funny
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
--
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
Copy Protection Not The Problem
by
cybermage
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It is not the copy protection itself that is the problem. The issue goes much deeper, and the point, I think, is being missed.
If CDs were clearly marked as copy protected or if stores were required to give an actual refund if you want to return them, these klunky, defective schemes would never have been launched in the first place.
The same can be said for software. Try buying software, and then, after rejecting the enclosed license, try to return it for a refund. Good luck.
Consumers don't need a law banning copy-protection on CDs. Manufacturers have a right to do this to their CDs. What consumers need is a right to a refund if were not satisfied with conditions of sale that were not disclosed upfront. Further, we need the right to a refund if the product is unusable. Obviously some time-frame is necessary (e.g., within 30 days,) but there's no reason why these rights aren't afforded us now.
$cat bullet foot
by
Darth+RadaR
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Companies should consider the basic fact that if a product doesn't work, is difficult to make work, or requires upgrades to exisiting equipment, Joe Consumer will simply ask for their money back and spend it elsewhere. If the RIAA thinks that CD sales suck now, wait till they try protection schemes. Even then, those in the know will be disabling the copy protection, whilst Joe Consumer will be trying to figure out how to get his Britney Spears CD to play on his computer.
If it gets to the point where a music CD is going to ask me for a password every time I want to play it, I think I'll go back to tape or vinyl.
-- /*drunk.. fix later*/
No need for an industry, we need music.
by
rzbx
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Hilary Rosen, head of RIAA, said that the copy protection is "a measured response to a very serious problem facing the music industry today."
Serious? In what way? Last thing I remember is that the music industry was making much more than expected during the days of Napster. So where exactly is the problem? I believe it to be the music industry itself. People do not need a music industry. Music is not an industry (unless your talking about the genre called industry) it is a culture, a hobby, entertainment, and most important, a way for musicians to make a living. Now how can small time musicians make a living when the big time record companies take all that money from the people to pay, well, themselves?
-- Question everything.
Require labels for functionally impaired CDs
by
Ride-My-Rocket
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I don't think the government needs to do anything beyond making sure that consumers know which CDs are hobbled and which aren't. If a CD is clearly labeled as copy-protected, I won't buy it -- plain and simple. And that way, consumers can vote with their dollars........ if they don't care about this limitation on their ability to take their music wherever they go, then they can choose to buy it.
It's as simple as educating the masses -- nobody's gonna want a conglomerate to tell them what they can or can't do with their music. If anything, legislators should start focusing more on the digital rights of consumers, instead of narrowing the scope down to addressing only CDs. If it's crystal-clear what constitutes piracy and what constitutes fair use, the RIAA won't have any excuse to start bawling about how consumers are copying their music, regardless of the reasons for doing so (piracy vs portability).
Copy protected "CDs"
by
AlbanySux
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
If any CD that is copy protected isn't really a CD by the current stanrdard, could Phillips sue for producing a confusingly similar product? Make them change something about it so everyone would instantly know its not a regular cd.
I know this isnt going to happen but could it?
Remember DIVX, anyone?
by
NetRanger
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
After reading some of the comments here it startles me that people do not seem to realize what everything is headed to. We need more people in Congress who will stand up for the rights of fair use, otherwise, you the consumer will be paying every time you want to view a copyrighted work.
Remember DIVX (the DVD bastardization), folks? You had to pay $3 every time you watched a DIVX movie. That's what the RIAA and the MPAA want: Pay-per-use, to be able to squeeze more money out of your pocket every time you want to watch a movie or just listen to a CD. Keeping music and films from being distributable is the first step towards that goal. The next step is introducing new technology which incorporates those features. (Think XM Satellite Radio -- AM and FM are free... but how will local stations compete with nationwide coverage with fewer/no commericals?)
That's where it's all headed, but first the consumer has to be conditioned to the idea that it's just fine and dandy to pay every time you use something.
-- -- We live in a world where lemonade is artificial and soap has real lemon.
I Like to copy CDs, but I buy them all
by
totallygeek
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
My wife hates the racks in the study, but I have well over 300 CD's now. All of them are hard to replace punk CD's, and I have paid for them all. Now, I have some that over time (used in the truck, or taken out somewhere else) have become scratched. Some of these are irreplaceable (producer out of business or the like), and I have been sucessful using IRC or newsgroups to get MP3 versions of "lost" tracks. I have to date, eventhough I have a burner and am an able geek, never burned a music CD from downloaded MP3 files that I did not already have on a purchased CD. Another example of an MP3 saving the day was with a recent Fear CD I purchased had a screwed up track 3. No problem, I downloaded some songs the other day and burned approximately 20 to one CD that I have at the end of a shelf called "Mistrack/Scratched Track CD".
I for one view this new era of the music industry keeping honest folks from ripping tracks on CD's rediculous. Even when tapes were the classy way to purchase music, I always bought vinyl. Usually for the extra inserts, but mostly for the larger image and the medium would last longer. I was very anal about my records, and would never play them unless I were dumping to a blank tape. Now I have begun this with CD's I play in the vehicles. My new view is that my purchased CD's NEVER leave the house. And, no more do I have to deal with a CD that I only like one song on taking up a slot in the CD changer. If the music industry makes ripping and burning impossible, they are doing honest customers a disservice. Of course, all this is moot in my scenario because the punk industry seems to "get it" with regard to music trading, bootlegs, MP3 files, etc.
This is good, but is it necessary?
by
nate.sammons
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's good that someone in Washington is paying attention to all this CD copying garbage.
But is it really necessary? What I mean is, Philips says that "copy protected" CDs are actually "silver discs that looks like CDs, but are not CDs", and they are the people who say who can and can't use the little "compact disc digital audio" logo. Philips has said time and time again that they don't approve of the copy protection.
So, can't we just enforce what it means to be a CD (perfect duplication of audio each time, meaning no copy protection) instead of wasting a bunch of money writing new laws that don't *really* need to exist??
-nate
misinformation and omissions
by
bigbadbuccidaddy
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Even a casual slashdot reader like me knows there are many more than 2 CDs with various forms of copy protection. There is a comprehensive list at www.fatchucks.com. And they don't all have a label telling you its not really a CD. The article also omitts the most valid legal reason these crippled CDs should be made illegal -- The RIAA gets money every time a consumer buys a blank music disk. If I can't go out and buy 'A Movie I Don't Want To See Because it Sucks Soundtrack', and 'Some Country Singer's Tribute to some Guy I've never Heard of Because All I Listen to is N'Sync and Brittney Spears', a $1000 Music CD Burner, and some blank 'Music' CDRs, and then make the worlds worst mix CD from it, why did I just pay all that money to the RIAA?
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...
Distinctive Differences
by
virg_mattes
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You're quite right, but copyright holders are not allowed to prevent fair use entirely under current law. To wit, they need not make it easy, but they're not allowed specifically to make it impossible.
Virg
Macrovision CD protection breaks MathCad software
by
Animats
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
CD-based protection schemes just don't work reliably.
Even for software.
Today, I have a failed install of MathCAD 2001i. This is a professional tool for people who do math-heavy engineering calculations. It's about as far as you can get from entertainment content. MathSoft made the mistake of using Macrovision copy protection technology. That protection scheme involves creating CD-ROMs that violate the CD-ROM spec, then recognizing them during installation.
So it's similar to the "flawed CD" protection scheme for audio CDs. And, sure enough, it doesn't work reliably.
The installation required a reboot of Win2K (a violation of the Windows Logo Program requirements). Then the program complained that I had a debugger installed.
Now that's scary. Macrovision apparently thinks that anybody with development tools (in this case, Microsoft Visual C++ 6.x) is trying to pirate software.
The Macrovision program wasn't running under the debugger. The debugger wasn't even running. The debugger was merely installed on the machine.
A call to MathSoft tech support made it clear that this is a known problem. MathSoft suport admits to using Macrovision copy protection, and admits that they've had considerable problems with their
protection scheme. They're trying to get Macrovision to fix it, not with much success.
This rather expensive product comes with a 90-day warranty. I told MathSoft support that I want a fix by Monday, or it goes back. I'm also going to try to get Microsoft to pull MathSoft's right to use the "Designed for Windows" logo for nonconformance with the logo standards for nonintrusive, compatible installation.
Slashdot Mirror
In the US at least there is the fair use clause of the copyright laws.
So in reality this senator should just be acting to ensure that your laws are being upheld.
There is no need for special new laws to uphold laws that already exist.
Geez...
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Why doesn't she tell that to the people who passed the DMCA?
I just mailed Boucher a letter of support, and a campaign contribution. And no, I'm not a VA resident. He and Leahy are about the only members of congress that seem to understand technology related issues.
[Insert pithy quote here]
The thing that kills me it, COPY PREVENTION DOESN'T WORK! I've said before and I'll say it again, If I can listen to it, I can copy it. It's as simple as that. They only way they can stop people from copying CDs it to fix them to where they will not play in any device. Don't laugh, some of these new "Copy protected" CDs are halfway there.
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
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.
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...
This also comes under licensing. Phillips licenses the technology and dictates that any use of the technology menas that it is universal. You should be able to place ANY CD Disk in ANY CD player and have it work.
Is there a law covering what happens to a company when they bend the license agreement so that their product only plays in certain players because they have ATTEMPTED to prevent copying?
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
Boucher's complaints are twofold: Americans may not know they're buying crippled discs, and that the new discs don't work on all players.... Boucher wouldn't give details on what approach he's considering -- obvious possibilities include ordering the music industry to stick labels on protected CDs, or an outright ban of that technology.
In other words, he not necessarily advocating blocking all copy-protection on CDs. He just wants to stop the music industry from passing off copy-protected CDs as regular copyable CDs. If the music industry agrees to label all copy-protected CDs as such, he'll still be happy.
I'm sure you've heard all the arguements before.
;p)
If it breaks the redbook standard, it's not a music CD. IMHO, it has no right being at my local Tower Records, since the number of cd players that can't recognize it is... well... it's a big number.
But shouldn't it bother you when one senator, who actually wants to uphold 'fair use' gets a wired article? That since the introduction of copy protected CD's, this is the first time this has come up in Congress?
From the article:
Boucher's complaints are twofold: Americans may not know they're buying crippled discs, and that the new discs don't work on all players.
Don't the discs as they are currently have a sticker that says they won't play in your PC? But thank god he got the second part right. The only problem is that the RIAA can tell him to stuff it. They can call it a new generation of audio technology - after all, my LP doesn't play in my CD player. Neither does the copy protected disc.
Not only that, but we're not thinking long term - even if copy protection gets taken off standard CD's, what about the next generation? DVD audio discs? Or something we haven't seen yet? (Hopefully resembling those little data blocks a la star trek...
The point of this whole disjointed thought train is that the DMCA must be repealed, since it shuts down other laws, that previously exist, and even those that may yet be written. Fair use is out the window, since it states that you have the priviledge of using certain recordings in certain ways, but the RIAA isn't required to make it technically possible for you to do so. Therein lies the problem. And when HDTV finally rolls around, even though it'll be possible to build a TiVo with enough storage space to support it, it'll still be illegal, thanks to the DMCA, fair use won't apply.
So, this Congressman Rick is going about things all wrong - he needs to start by repealing the DMCA. Feel free to write him. =)
(Yes, I know the article states that he would like to rewrite the DMCA. But it's badly flawed in its current incarnation, and should be repealed, and a new, non-insane law should be drafted.
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.
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!
Achilles (MPAA/RIAA) is so vexed by Hector (Piracy) that he not only kills him, but drags his body behind his chariot for days (attempts to eliminate ALL fair use) to the point that his father, Priam (the american public) is bereaved by his actions and begs Achilles for permission to bury him (congress talks about passing law to ensure fair use).
Howz that for culture? And they say history can't teach us anything.
It is 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!
It is not the copy protection itself that is the problem. The issue goes much deeper, and the point, I think, is being missed.
If CDs were clearly marked as copy protected or if stores were required to give an actual refund if you want to return them, these klunky, defective schemes would never have been launched in the first place.
The same can be said for software. Try buying software, and then, after rejecting the enclosed license, try to return it for a refund. Good luck.
Consumers don't need a law banning copy-protection on CDs. Manufacturers have a right to do this to their CDs. What consumers need is a right to a refund if were not satisfied with conditions of sale that were not disclosed upfront. Further, we need the right to a refund if the product is unusable. Obviously some time-frame is necessary (e.g., within 30 days,) but there's no reason why these rights aren't afforded us now.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
Companies should consider the basic fact that if a product doesn't work, is difficult to make work, or requires upgrades to exisiting equipment, Joe Consumer will simply ask for their money back and spend it elsewhere. If the RIAA thinks that CD sales suck now, wait till they try protection schemes. Even then, those in the know will be disabling the copy protection, whilst Joe Consumer will be trying to figure out how to get his Britney Spears CD to play on his computer.
If it gets to the point where a music CD is going to ask me for a password every time I want to play it, I think I'll go back to tape or vinyl.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
Hilary Rosen, head of RIAA, said that the copy protection is "a measured response to a very serious problem facing the music industry today."
Serious? In what way? Last thing I remember is that the music industry was making much more than expected during the days of Napster. So where exactly is the problem? I believe it to be the music industry itself. People do not need a music industry. Music is not an industry (unless your talking about the genre called industry) it is a culture, a hobby, entertainment, and most important, a way for musicians to make a living. Now how can small time musicians make a living when the big time record companies take all that money from the people to pay, well, themselves?
Question everything.
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).
If any CD that is copy protected isn't really a CD by the current stanrdard, could Phillips sue for producing a confusingly similar product? Make them change something about it so everyone would instantly know its not a regular cd.
I know this isnt going to happen but could it?
After reading some of the comments here it startles me that people do not seem to realize what everything is headed to. We need more people in Congress who will stand up for the rights of fair use, otherwise, you the consumer will be paying every time you want to view a copyrighted work.
Remember DIVX (the DVD bastardization), folks? You had to pay $3 every time you watched a DIVX movie. That's what the RIAA and the MPAA want: Pay-per-use, to be able to squeeze more money out of your pocket every time you want to watch a movie or just listen to a CD. Keeping music and films from being distributable is the first step towards that goal. The next step is introducing new technology which incorporates those features. (Think XM Satellite Radio -- AM and FM are free... but how will local stations compete with nationwide coverage with fewer/no commericals?)
That's where it's all headed, but first the consumer has to be conditioned to the idea that it's just fine and dandy to pay every time you use something.
-- We live in a world where lemonade is artificial and soap has real lemon.
I for one view this new era of the music industry keeping honest folks from ripping tracks on CD's rediculous. Even when tapes were the classy way to purchase music, I always bought vinyl. Usually for the extra inserts, but mostly for the larger image and the medium would last longer. I was very anal about my records, and would never play them unless I were dumping to a blank tape. Now I have begun this with CD's I play in the vehicles. My new view is that my purchased CD's NEVER leave the house. And, no more do I have to deal with a CD that I only like one song on taking up a slot in the CD changer. If the music industry makes ripping and burning impossible, they are doing honest customers a disservice. Of course, all this is moot in my scenario because the punk industry seems to "get it" with regard to music trading, bootlegs, MP3 files, etc.
Just my $0.02!
Click here or here.
It's good that someone in Washington is paying attention to all this CD copying garbage.
But is it really necessary? What I mean is, Philips says that "copy protected" CDs are actually "silver discs that looks like CDs, but are not CDs", and they are the people who say who can and can't use the little "compact disc digital audio" logo. Philips has said time and time again that they don't approve of the copy protection.
So, can't we just enforce what it means to be a CD (perfect duplication of audio each time, meaning no copy protection) instead of wasting a bunch of money writing new laws that don't *really* need to exist??
-nate
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?
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...
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
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.