Slashdot Mirror
Protecting Your DRM Rights
A reader wrote to say:"There's an article on SiliconValley.com that talks about a new bill in Congress that will, if passed, mean that consumers can copy CDs, DVDs and other digital works for personal use, just as they now do with TV shows and audio tapes."
Someone, somewhere in congress finally gets it!
btw, FP?
In tribute to this perhaps happening, I'll copy this article!! =)
A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
New bills aim to protect consumers' use of digital media By Heather Fleming Phillips Mercury News Washington Bureau WASHINGTON - The battle being waged in Washington over copyright in the digital age ratchets up a notch this week as new legislation is introduced aimed at clarifying consumer rights. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, plans today to introduce the ``Digital Choice and Freedom Act,'' Silicon Valley's response to a host of Hollywood-backed bills tilted in favor of copyright holders. Lofgren's bill would ensure consumers can copy CDs, DVDs and other digital works for personal use, just as they now do with TV shows and audio tapes. ``This would not authorize someone taking their digital content and sharing it with a million of their best friends,'' Lofgren said in an interview Tuesday. Instead of creating new rights for consumers, she said, her bill would ensure that ``the rights they have in the analog world, they have in digital.'' Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., plans to introduce similar legislation Thursday. Lawmakers are wrapping up their business for the year within weeks, and neither measure has any chance of making it through Congress by then. Rather, the bills are aimed at staking out the technology industry's position in a festering dispute that could result in congressional action next year. The bills also would amend a 1998 law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that makes it a crime to circumvent technological protections built in to copyrighted works. Instead, consumers would be allowed to bypass the technology if the intent is to make a copy for personal use. The legislation will vie with Hollywood-backed proposals, filed by Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., and Rep. Howard L. Berman, D-Los Angeles, that would embed copy protection into PCs and an array of consumer devices, and allow the music and film industry to use aggressive anti-piracy technologies to thwart unauthorized downloading over the Internet. ``The laws that have passed in recent years have imbalanced the historical balance between owners of copyrighted works and users of copyrighted works,'' Boucher said in an interview Tuesday. ``The balance has been tilted dramatically in favor of owners at the expense of users.'' The film and music industries cast the debate in terms of piracy, arguing that copy protections are needed to ensure people don't download movies and music without compensation to the copyright holders. The tech industry counters that free-flowing downloads of movies, music and other digital works could drive demand for broadband Internet connections, which it hopes would in turn spur innovation and increase sales of new technologies. ``If this bill were to pass, it would render ineffective, worthless and useless any protection measure we would have in place to protect a $100 million movie,'' Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said of the Lofgren bill. ``You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it.'' Caught in the middle of the debate are consumers, whose ``fair use'' rights are in limbo. The courts have long upheld consumers' rights to make personal copies of songs, TV shows and other copyrighted works. But the move to digital raises the question of where to draw the line, when near-perfect copies can be easily shared over the Internet with large numbers of other users. ``Lofgren's bill aims to restore what Congress thought it was doing -- preserving fair use for people who have lawful rights to use stuff,'' said Paula Samuelson, a law professor at University of California-Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law. ``The Lofgren bill offers meaningful protections for a number of ordinary activities by consumers that should be lawful under copyright law but about which the law is presently ambiguous.'' Contact Heather Phillips at hphillips@krwashington.com or (202) 383-6020.
Who is going to protect my right(I'm a recording artist) to make a living off of my work? I depend on sales of my cd's, not on the number of copies of my work in existence!
Don't read this!
He must have a hell of a broadband connection.....
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
I think there's some danger here in enumerating the right to copy CD's, etc. It's the same issue that John Adams had with the Bill of Rights. If you enumerate some rights, it implies that other rights don't exist until they're enumerated. Take for example the right to privacy. The Bill of Rights doesn't list it, and therefor much debate ensues about whether or not such a right exists.
While having a law explicitly naming the right to copy CD's is seductive, we risk having to always enumerate new rights in the future. Instead, I'd prefer to have the default be "of course we have this right, because it's not explicitly listed as a right that's not allowed".
I realize I'm dreaming here. Given where we are as a society, I'd be willing to see this bill passed. But a guy can dream.
Finally, a politician with the sense to speak the simple, obvious truth. Hallelujah
Anything that is introduced in Congress now isn't going to go anywhere. They're going to go home and campaign for the november elections soon.
If you really want to support this bill, write them and let them know you support it. Then, next January, assuming that Lofgren and Boucher get re-elected, write them and remind them that you'd like the bill introduced again.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem
I posted the article above, but for some reason..the formatting didn't cut and paste along with the article...I'm an HTML moron, and I apologize.
Rather than fix the horrible state of copyright law, let's simply add a few more, enveloping and codifying in a limited manner the rights we already have. Makes sense to me.
Is it just me, or did I just read this earlier?
there is no spoon
There used to be a time when the only purpose of domestic law was to make something illegal/regulated.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Not quite a duplicate but this article was already mentioned on SlashDot in the entry Slashdot | Apple Shuns DRM Efforts So Far. which is in the Apple section but also on the front page.
``If this bill were to pass, it would render ineffective, worthless and useless any protection measure we would have in place to protect a $100 million movie,'' Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said of the Lofgren bill.
And we all know no one will go to the cinema to see the next LOTR movie, right?
It is our duty as citizens to disobey unjust laws and to push them through the judicial system to the Supreme Court. It is counterproductive to that duty to prop up the unjust laws with exceptions and clarifications. Further, between the DMCA and the proposed DFCA, all that has been accomplished is a wordy reiteration of the existing copyright laws. I'm no legal eagle, but I firmly believe in having a few concise and necessary laws rather than redundant spaghetti legal code.
It would be nice to know if this bill also protects medium transfer for personal use (i.e. CD to MP3, VHS to DVD, etc).
And I like this... "The bills also would amend a 1998 law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that makes it a crime to circumvent technological protections built in to copyrighted works. Instead, consumers would be allowed to bypass the technology if the intent is to make a copy for personal use."
Now I can TIVO-ize my XBox!
thank you for taking the time and effort to explain to us that you posted the article above, and the formatting got screwed up in the cut-and-paste process. also thank you for admitting your HTML ineptitude. we didn't know any of these things before you told us.
i hope you lose enough karma to get a 72-hour ban, you stupid crapchewer.
I'm not worried at all about having the right to copy one of my CDs for transit inside my car, nor am I worried about my rights to copy expensive software or DVDs so that I can save the original and use the copy. The issue is whether or not the technology will exist in 5 or 6 years that will allow me to do this. I don't see the purpose of a law restating the fair use rights I already had, so of course, I'd really like to see all the points this thing outlines.
``If this bill were to pass, it would render ineffective, worthless and useless any protection measure we would have in place to protect a $100 million movie,'' Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said of the Lofgren bill. ``You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it.''
*Wipes tears of laughter form eyes*
Hehe, that was worth it. Jack getting bashed with the clue stick right across the forehead.
THAT was entertainment at it's finest, and is definately worth paying for. Do I make my cheque out to Rep. Boucher now? (I hope he doesn't mind $CDN...)
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
What about CDs with copy-protection?
Are you allowed to use anti-copy-protection software to create copies? Won't this conflict with the DCMA?
Here in Europe, most Countries allow their people to create a private copy (e.g. backup) of their (audio) CDs. Some countries even allow to make a copy of software-CD, and some countries also consider copy-protection as a limitation of the users right for a private copy, ie. allow the user to circumvent the copy-protection. The situation of DVD's is still somewhat unclear, but right now most countries usings the same laws for DVDs as for CDs.
In germany e.g. your allowed to make up to 7 copies (actually it's not a really fixed number) of a (audio) CD, and give away them (for free, as a gift), as long as it is not done to promote illegal distribution (e.g. done in a large scale & professional manner) to damage the market.
Hmmm, (1 million * 4.7GB) / (24 hrs * 60 mins * 60 secs) = 54GB/sec bandwidth! Jack's cable modem must not have the download caps in place...
Come on congress!
This is the kinda thing we've been waiting for since the DCMA.
This'll get hollywood and the RIAA up in arms!
All you trolls on slashdot should pay attention and learn from Jack Valenti. He dishes out FUD with statements that are unsupported and wildly speculative (and in this case a complete lie).
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Why not just post the link and we can read they're web-page for ourselves. I have to wonder if SV.COM has some advertising here somewhere....
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
If you read the article, it says that it's not going to get through because congress is wrapping up its work for the year in the week.
I see this as something to push Zoe Loftgren's ratings higher. She is my congresswoman and was a full supporter of Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002, H.R. 3482. I wrote to her about this and not only did she get my gender wrong (I'm female), but she also wrote, "I would note that this section in no way changes the limitations under current law on the emergency use..." which was a blatant and utter lie... or she was very mis-informed.
She took over a month responding to my email and her web-page was far less than impressive (unlike the congressional leader one district away who voted against keeping "god" in the pledge of allegiance.. I can't dig up who it is right now).
She's also scared by terrorism noting it first in the following closing sentence,"As we enhance cyber security to protect our vital infrastructure against both terrorists and the type of high-tech vandals who crashed Yahoo in February 2000..." and anyone who was still bothered by "terrorism" at the end of July of this year definitely is being pushed by an agenda or is pushing her own.
I'd publish the entire email she sent to me but there was recent discussion on slashdot about publishing correspondances that has me hesitating.
"Would you rather have a playstation addicted dork wearing a star wars t-shirt?"
My local free paper publishes a "voter handbook" to take with them to the polls, describing various officials' actions on crucial issues. I'd LOVE to have a similar web-accessible to print out (or sync with AvantGo) to take into the ballot box.
so... they are passing the bill of rights again? copyright law again?
we already can do this, just because the RIAA says we can't doesn't mean new legislation is required...
ARE YOU A PHP CODER? COME WORK WITH ME AND MAKE MILLIONS!
link to job description
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
preview is your friend.
;)
So is <p>
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said of the Lofgren bill. "You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it."
I can't believe that these people actually think like this. The legislation doesn't say anything about giving the user the right to share and steal the music without punishment. There will still be punishment for stealing a movie or music (if caught). It's unbelievable how these people think that just by having the right to have "Fair Use" of a product for personal reasons equates to mass piracy being legal.
Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said of the Lofgren bill. ``You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it.''
I want that bandwidth!
If Bruce Perens runs for the Senate, I'll vote for him (assuming he can stand the humidity here).
Hey, if you're gonna karma whore, at least make it readable (and use the goddamn preview button!).
These cash hungry corporations should not be allowed to utterly control digital media, supervise it's use, and direct it's future advancement - we should.
You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it Yes, that's right Jack.. And when VCR's came out, we were in the theaters bootlegging a million movies a day. :rolleyes:
The man has no sense of reality. He reminds me of Billy Sunday.. Preaching and yelling on a streetcorner to everyone and anyone who walked by with most people wishing he would just shut up.
I'd like to say that I can't wait until the people of our generation grow up and start becoming the lawyers and politicians, but by that time I'm sure it'll be a whole new ball game.
=-Jippy
Wow, nearly-instant reruns!
To me, this seems like an extension of the Home Audio Recording Act -- to cover digital works. It does not seem (but of course, I have not read the law) to make legal the public domain-style sharing that goes on, ala Napster, Kazaa, etc. Instead, instead, it brings back the old right of, I can record a CD for my friend to listen to, as long as it is not for profit. That was the purpose of the HARA, but it was limited to Analog audio, because they said: "The quality degrades over multiple recordings."
Woot! I will be happy if I can put a mix on a CD instead of a Tape.
Useless information: CD Scratched? Paid 20 bucks for it already? Don't buy another. You didn't pay 20 bucks for a piece of plastic, you paid it for the right to play that music whenever you damn well pleased.
This information has been brought to you by the little guy.
See my comment posted before this one.
Do some research on her. She appears really clueless about what she pushes. Don't take my word for it: look up the info yourself and write to her. Check out her website.
Again, it is not likely this is going to get through: "Lawmakers are wrapping up their business for the year within weeks, and neither measure has any chance of making it through Congress by then."
"Would you rather have a playstation addicted dork wearing a star wars t-shirt?"
Sure, they may be unjust and spaghetti laws, but the 'Ministry of Love Spaghetti Sauce' that comes with is to die for.
Black and grey are both shades of white.
That's not good enough. Hopefully they really will admend it to allow for other uses, like using bits of data acquired and used (fairly) in published works, like critical articles or scientific papers. If we're going to amend the DMCA, let's go ahead and get more of it, I say.
Then again, if too many legislators are going to balk, then I'll take as much as we can get passed. Getting the law off the books this way would be even better than having to deal with the Supes striking it down.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
I've said it before, but it bears repeating.
The issue to me is that they (being the movie and record companies) want to have it both ways. They want to sell me a package that includes a piece of physical media (which I own) and a license to view/listen to what is recorded on that media.
I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the fact that 1. I legally can't back that medium up and 2. if that medium becomes damaged my license to view/listen seems to evaporate.
Case in point. I irreparably scratched a DVD from Fox (The Phantom Menace). My only recourse is to buy replacement media and a second license to view the movie. Clearly that license is the expensive part. I don't see how this is "fair."
Bottom line is that IMO when we lost the right to make copies for backup the copyright holders took on the responsibility to do at-cost media replacement, but they aren't living up to that responsibility.
Of course the bills mentioned in the article would turn the tide back, but neither seem to have any real chance of even coming to a vote.
-Peter
j00 will sux0r minen cox0en.
As said earlier something similar to this exist in Denmark, but the "right" to copy your own material comes at a cost. All media capable of copying digital music movies etc. has now been taxed, you can not obtain a quality cd-r for less then $1 and mostly it's up about $1.5, also the hardware has rissen in price due to this. Now the irony in this is those who copy music etc. for own use arent stealing anything, they already bought the cd dvd or whatever, however the extra taxes are for compensating the loss in music sales (which would happen anyhow), and this money should (at some expenses of course) be given to the artists.
(strangely enough none of this money is send to programmers, go figrue)
Just called Representative Lofgren's office to say thanks. Even if you don't vote for her directly you can say thanks too :)
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
Anyone happen to have the text of either proposed bill? Or at least the bill number, so when I write my congresscritter, he'll know what I'm talking about?
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Yah, you'll be able to use it for personal use. Just how you can legally copy cd's for personal use now (using microsofts junk which only lets you play your files off of the hard drive you riped it to...send it anywhere else, and it won't play.)
Also, this will be the end of dvd rentals. Yes i know they still rent vhs tapes at blockbuster. I have over 500 copied movies. But dvd's are different, when you copy them you won't lose quality. It won't belong before they sell non-computer dvd-copying equipment as they sell those stupid cd-copy things now. And after those come out, and you want to buy a movie, you have two choices, fork over the 30 bux for a dvd that you've never seen, fork over the 30 bux for a movie that you paid 10 bux in the theaters to watch. Missing is the option to rent the movie, see that it sucks, and not buy it.
If your work is good, people will buy it. If it sucks, don't expect the public to subsidize you through the reduction of their rights.
Well... as can be expected Jack Valenti has completely missed the scope of the intended legislation. His is an issue of enforcement, whereas this piece of legislation is focused solely upon consumer rights. They are separate issues [almost] entirely, although his industry has generally ignored the latter...
-tid242
With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science. --Carl Sagan
"Lawmakers are wrapping up their business for the year within weeks, and neither measure has any chance of making it through Congress by then. Rather, the bills are aimed at staking out the technology industry's position in a festering dispute that could result in congressional action next year."
The music industry is surely aware of these proposals as we are, meaning they are going to be spending the time between now next year's session working on ways to thwart proposals like these. I'm sure they have been contemplating ways to control the issue and ally senators to their cause. There is frequent mention on Slashdot about writing to our congressmen to get them to support or reject bills for the consumer good. How many of us really do that? I admit that I haven't taken the time to write out any letters (on paper) anyway. There are so many issues that are brought up every day that aim to threaten our rights as computer users (copyright, patents, etc). Many of the issues are technical and aren't understood by the general public.
I propose that we as a community start our own campaign to educate the public on issues like these. The more people we can help to understand what's at stake with misguided proposals in congress, the more influence we can have overall. If people really understand what the DMCA is and how it limits their freedom and goes against the things meant to protect the consumer (ie: Fair use, archiving, etc.) They will help us maintain our rights as consumers. If we were to take a poll of people who really understand what the DMCA is and the implications of it, how many people would be in favor of it? I would guess that it is not a majority. How then do bills like these pass? I believe many weren't educated enough to understand the issue to make a reasonable choice about it. This is the point we as a community need to unite on. Letters to congressman may be very helpful as well. Think of all the people we come in contact with everyday, at work, school, etc. We can help them understand these issues. We can write articles and make web pages. We can talk to local media and write letters to the editors. We can make our presence known. Any of these people that we could educate could become allies in our cause. If our voice is heard, congress will respond accordingly.
"It is our duty as citizens to disobey unjust laws and to push them through the judicial system to the Supreme Court. It is counterproductive to that duty to prop up the unjust laws with exceptions and clarifications."
I agree with most of your post the above quote is WAY WRONG!
It is never our duty to disobey laws. Period. End of story. It is our duty to work to change unjust laws.
The problem with telling people to disobey laws that they feel are unjust is that often this is a subjective call. What I consider unjust you may not. It is truly irresponsible to suggest that people disobey laws that they don't like.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
So Clinton was a republican? He signed [the Digital Millennium Copyright Act] into law
The DMCA and the Bono Act were both enacted by a voice vote of both houses of Congress; the bills had so much bipartisan support that nobody opposed either measure enough to bring it to a full recorded vote. Had then-President Clinton vetoed them, Congress would havejust passed the bills over Clinton's veto with a 2/3 majority of both houses.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Here's a question that I've been pondering for a little while:
Since we are so forcefully asserting our right to space-shift music from CDs to mp3s, DVDs to mpeg files, etc, what about books? If you own a physical copy of a book, then why can't you also have an electronic copy to read on breaks while at work, etc?
On the "copyright page" of all new books, they are stating that you can't make any copy of the book, even for archival purposes.
If I can convert music tracks on a CD to mp3, then why can't I scan in a book and have an electronic copy (space shifting) to keep on my laptop's hard drive?
Just a question.
Don't steal. The government hates competition.
"This would not authorize someone taking their digital content and sharing it with a million of their best friends," Lofgren said in an interview Tuesday. Instead of creating new rights for consumers, she said, her bill would ensure that "the rights they have in the analog world, they have in digital."
That's funny, I thought I had the right (under the audio home recording act) to take my audio casette and share it with a milion of my best friends.
The bills also would amend a 1998 law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that makes it a crime to circumvent technological protections built in to copyrighted works. Instead, consumers would be allowed to bypass the technology if the intent is to make a copy for personal use.
Does this mean I can finally take my camcorder into the cinema to make a copy for personal use?
Karma: Not Particularly Funny.
Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1)
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2)
the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3)
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4)
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors
Jack Valenti sees this as:
``If this bill were to pass, it would render ineffective, worthless and useless any protection measure we would have in place to protect a $100 million movie,'' Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said of the Lofgren bill. ``You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it.''
I think it is still illegal to distribute copyrighted works. The difference is, the DMCA makes fair-use illegal. This bill is to make fair-use legal (which should be legal anyway, but the DMCA is so vague it disallows it). The purpose of this bill is not to address the illegal uses of digital media, but to ensure the legal uses remain legal. The problem with Jack Valenti is that he has sold his soul and cannot see these things clearly. He does not want the public to have any fair-use, he and the big companies want to abolish fair-use.
Nobody is really saying "people should be able to illegally distribute media" they are saying "don't deny us our legal rights just to enforce these laws". If there was some magic technology that would allow me fair-use to my digital media yet not allow me to illegally distribute it, I would be all for it. I don't have a problem paying for things, I have a problem with companies making me pay for things when I shouldn't have to, or preventing me from using things I have already paid for.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
11. We just want to get to know you better.
10. Less network traffic means faster Internet.
9. From the people who brought you Xenix, Multiplan and Bob.
8. Exposing you to the world in a bold, new way.
7. Security: No longer just for big iron.
6. Now endorsed by Bill Gates.
5. Not just for chemists anymore.
4. Secure data collection and distribution.
3. We already have your info, just give us the password to make things official.
2. Where do we want you to go today?
1. This time you can trust us. No, seriously. C'mon, stop laughing
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
[Protecting fair use is] what Hollings thought he was doing?
Yes. His CBDTPA bill would impose stiff penalties of up to $2,500 per copy on publishers who encoded copies of copyrighted works so as to prohibit fair use as defined in 17 USC 107.
Will I retire or break 10K?
First of all, it's been said before and I'll say it again: Boucher and Lofgren really have their heads screwed on right. Second, I feel very insignificant with a circle of friends ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE fewer than the "millions" of friends movie swappers are purported to have.
"I may be quite wrong." - Socrates
The article talks about how companies are trying to extend patents.
This is a link to an NPR transcript where they talk about how the company that makes Prilosec is even using the patent on "...the proprietary coating of the purple pill" to stop generics of the pill from entering the market even after it's own patents have expired.
Supposedly consumers will be allowed to circumvent copy protection for fair use. Great! But what about the programmers? Does each consumer have to write their own software cracker? Will creating a decoder or unlocker designed for fair use still get you thrown in jail?
Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said of the Lofgren bill. ``You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it.''
after reading this article i feel a bit better about Jack Valenti. from the article, Rep. Zoe Lofgren is quoted:
... You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it.
... then again, i could be wrong.
This would not authorize someone taking their digital content and sharing it with a million of their best friends
Valenti's response:
If this bill were to pass, it would render ineffective, worthless and useless any protection measure we would have in place to protect a $100 million movie
it is apparent that Mr Valenti has some sort of problem understanding exactly what the words "not authorize" mean together. so that makes me think that maybe we have misunderstood him all this time. maybe what he really wants to say is what we want to hear, but he just doesn't know what words to use...
Age 12 - My mother, never one to be really interested in music at all, acquires an 8-track tape player. She soon discovers that there is a store - yes a legitimate business here folks - where you can walk in, select the 8-track of your choice and bring it to the counter and for a meager $4 they will make you a copy in less than 2 minutes. Did I say copy, damn right! They had several high speed 8-track duplicators sitting right behind the counter. These guys were printing money and you had to shove your way to the counter on several occaisions we visited. There was nothing like getting that crappy Neil Diamond record for only $4.00 and my mom was hooked.
This lasted for several months before they were shut down - hmm...wonder how that happened. But not before the whole town was rocking and rolling with these illegal copies. So let's go skip to the next track here.
Age 16 - Mom finally breaks down and let's me get a stereo - receiver, big ass speakers and record player. A few months later I discover cassette tapes, man I gotta get one of those!! So I acquire a cassette tape recorder and some blanks. Hey guys, can I borrow your LP of Styx or that new Van Halen. I hear they're smoking! We traded LP's and cassettes back and forth for years - I think if I opened all the boxes of tapes I have laying around there must be at least 500 blanks I recorded at one time or another.
Fast forward to 1984, CD's are looking like the next big thing, great sound, compact, portable, wow. So I get a CD player! Guess what, I still have that tape deck too. Ooh that Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon CD sounds so much better on CD (wonder if they'd really have ever sold anymore of that one if it hadn't been remastered on CD) gotta borrow it and tape it off.
We really hadn't thought of duplicating a CD onto another CD at that time, PC's just couldn't deal with the amount of data and commercial duplicator's were way too expensive. But boy those record companies were really raking it in! $17 bucks for Dark Side of the Moon and guess what - they don't have to spend any more on art work, the artist, recording or any of that crap, but they can sell it to you all over again! Now who was printing the money. They were laughing all the way to the bank!
About this time, I walk into my neighborhood video store and guess what - yeah that's right I can rent the latest audio CD's from them for $1.00 a day. I did a double take and thought to myself - I want that one and that one and hey that looks good too. I taped like there was no tomorrow. Why spend $17 on a new CD when I could get 13 on tape after buying the blanks. I had more music than I could possibly listen to - still do for that matter. And now the record companies were starting to feel the pinch from home taping so they got Congress to enact the taping tax on blanks. The bastards!
About this time I started working at a radio station - reviewing records. "Hey, Sire how about sending out copies of that new Talking Heads album for us to give away and anything new you might have going so we can play it out here." I was in taping heaven - a direct fix from the record companies on an almost daily basis. I didn't have to rent it anymore because they would just send it to me and pay the postage too. I was taping things almost 12 hours a day, there was always something laying around that looked interesting. God I loved that job!
It really wasn't until about '98 that CD-burners and the internet caught up with the record companies technology. While they were too busy counting their profits to invent new technology to prevent this, THE PEOPLE got tired of paying the same $17 for a cd they now know costs about a quarter to make. Now we could make a perfect digital copy - in the privacy of our own homes. Hey dude, can I borrow that Floyd disc again - I just got a burner. It was no different with software and porn - burning night and day, while asleep, while at work. And by the way, where are the porn and game developer people in this debate, how come they aren't right up there on the front row screaming with the rest of them, "They're stealing my god damn avi's of Brittany naked!!"
Now with the advent of compression schemes like MP3, we can steal that song in seconds. Ooh there's that Dark Side of the Moon track on MP3. Yeah I know I own 3 copies (lp, cassette, CD and soon to be DVD video) of the damn record already and I'm too lazy to rip it, just download it and be done with it.
You know where I'm getting most of my CD's to burn these days? The freakin' public library!! Oh yeah and there's that cool DVD I've been wanting but didn't want to shell out $25 for, I think I'll check it out and rip that over to VCD too. I can keep it for a week, no problem, thanks. And now with shn, you can compress the tracks and not worry about quality loss like with MP3. Watch out BMG, I'm coming for your whole damn catalogue next!
I guess the point of this whole rant is that we've been stealing your music for years and you're still making plenty of money. Get over it! We will find a way to do it. It's human nature to rise to that challenge. It's the little kid in all of us that likes to do exactly what he's told not to do just to be rebelious. And besides, 90% of the stuff I taped was CRAP. I listened to it maybe once. I look through it now and it's like, "man why did you tape that shit."
The record moguls need to worry less about us copying their music and more about coming up with a replacement for the CD. And besides, me and millions of others that have been downsized/layed off and otherwise unemployed think there is currently a recession going on - that couldn't be the cause of a drop in cd sales now could it??? They got themselves into this mess with their new technology and that's the only way they are going to get out. Like Janis Ian said, they need to come up with something that is so far beyond our computer's power to duplicate, so far beyond consumer electronics and so superior to compact discs that we can't say no. That's the only way out for them.
Laws are made to be broken. And besides, I bet they find that they are going to get hacked a whole bunch more than they will ever be able to hack us consumers. What a pea-brained idea anyway! This was probably the second great idea of the guy who thought up the copy protection scheme you can defeat with a sharpie!
Sorry, the mail man just delivered those VCD's of the Rush - Vapor Trails tour show on 8/24/02 in Colorado I traded for, gotta go check it out. Oh yeah, and what are they going to start doing now, checking my mail? Give me a break and get a life you RIAA idiots!
that doesn't even mean anything!
"Protecting your digital rights management rights."
MABASPLOOM!
Who is going to protect my right(I'm a recording artist) to make a living off of my work?
You too should be pushing for shorter copyright terms because underlying musical works do not come cheap. You can't give out free samples of your songs on the Internet because the songwriter wants a dime per copy. You can't write your own music because most of the 47,000 possible melodic hooks are taken.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I see that all of these bills both for and against copying, DRM etc were put forth by Democrats. Does this mean that Democrats are more "with it" when it comes to technology than there more conservative counterparts the Republicans?
He or she didn't post as an A.C.
He or she apologized for the lack of formatting
He or she has only posted 30-odd comments, and is still learning.
Re: my use of He or she - most people don't use their real name (I'm an exception) so gender is pretty hard to tell, not that people don't lie on the net anyway....
Best regards, Tom
> I'd prefer to have the default be "of course we have this right, because it's not explicitly listed as a right that's not allowed".
That IS the default as I understand it. That doesn't mean that a law backing up and clarifying a grey area that's very much under assault from the other side is a bad idea. I'm all for it.
-- http://frobnosticate.com
My understanding was that European law granted that right already.
:-)
Not much use if you're in the U.S.A. I guess, though
Yes, that's right Jack.. And when VCR's came out, we were in the theaters bootlegging a million movies a day. :rolleyes:
Reading the hill hearings and movie exec testimony around the time of the Betamax case produce a heavy feeling of déjà vü. Most - if not all - of the arguments used now were used then also. The only difference is that they were playing on anti-jap sentiments then while they are attacking spotty teen-age swashbuckling pirate nerds today. (video tapes will magically be able to store 100 hours of video, fast-forward through commercials is theft, people won't go to the cinema no more, etc...)
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
I can see it now...
RIAA: Now that we consumers are protected by fair use, we feel that we are entitled to protect our works.
If this passes, doesn't anyone else think it will be followed by further attempts to leagalize P2P hacking? Kind of along the lines of "now that the RIAA has given consessions to consumers, now they expect the 'favor' returned"
It is quite simple
Haiku should not be funny
Try a Senryu
According to the article, when describing the bill, Rep. Lofgren says "This would not authorize someone taking their digital content and sharing it with a million of their best friends."
Then later in the article Jack Valenti is quoted as saying "If this bill were to pass, it would render ineffective, worthless and useless any protection measure we would have in place to protect a $100 million movie. You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it."
Is Valenti just an idiot? Why would someone in such a public position such as his make a statement like that without knowing the facts first? Good job, Jack, you have just now officially proven what we speculated all along, that you are not above LYING to sway the public to your cause.
If you think this bill is a good idea, get out there immediately to http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html and write your representative. It only takes a few minutes total.
I can't find the bill yet on the house website, but don't let that stop you, just reference Rep. Zoe Lofgren, ``Digital Choice and Freedom Act,'' or find out what Boucher's bill will be called and support that.
As usual, sending a brief, logical, and courteous message is the way to get their attention. And please, don't bother to contact Lofgren and Boucher on this, contact YOUR representatives.
From:"Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren"
. html
To: <luthien3 AT juno DOT com>
Subject:Response from Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Date:Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:52:54 -0400
July 19, 2002
Mr. L. Williams <I'm female, damnit! Guess she hasn't read LOTR and heard about the female character LUTHIEN!>
<Address removed to protect me!>
San Jose, CA
Dear Mr. Williams:
Thank you for your email expressing your concerns about Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002, H.R. 3482. I appreciate the chance to hear from you about this legislation, which passed the House on July 15 and has been sent to the Senate.
As a member of the House Judiciary Committee that marked up this bill in May, I can assure that the Committee took care to ensure that civil liberties are protected in this legislation. At our hearing on the bill, Alan Davidson, Associate Director at the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), a Washington non-profit seeking to protect civil liberties on the Internet testified that his organization, "commends this Committee for holding this hearing, and for the relatively measured approach taken in H.R. 3482. We agree that computer crime and security is a serious problem that requires serious Government response."
Regarding your concerns about Section 108, I would note that this section in no way changes the limitations under current law on the emergency use of pen registers and trap and trace devises. A Government official can only authorize emergency use of a "pen/trap" if there are grounds upon
which a court could enter such a pen/trap order, and only then for 48 hours, after which time continued surveillance is illegal. Please also note that H.R. 3482 does not expand use of full-content wiretaps, which are far more invasive that pen/traps. These more limited devices provide information about the destination and source of information, but not its content.
As we enhance cyber security to protect our vital infrastructure against both terrorists and the type of high-tech vandals who crashed Yahoo in February 2000, I agree with you that civil liberties must be protected. Please do not hesitate to contact me again with your concerns, as I can benefit from hearing your views.
Sincerely,
Zoe Lofgren
Member of Congress
ZL:ad
<I've since looked at her webpage and she has more information but seems to have "omitted" that she was responsible for being on the committee to help push this bill through. Now the congressman I *really* like is Mike Honda who had good explanations on his webpage such as this statement on why god shouldn't be in the pledge and why he voted against it:
http://www.house.gov/honda/InCongress/pledge
>
"Would you rather have a playstation addicted dork wearing a star wars t-shirt?"
....a new bill in Congress that will, if passed, mean that consumers can copy CDs, DVDs and other digital works for personal use, just as they now do with TV shows and audio tapes. ."
The bad news is that it will prosecute consumers who rip off that tag on the bottom of the matress.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
Okay, from some of the comments, I know a lot of you feel this bill isn't perfect (what bill is?), but it's better than nothing, right? I don't mean to compromise, but in world where our consumer rights are being attacked everyday, I think we should take what we can get for the present while still fighting for the future. Of course, the perfect solution is to repeal the DMCA and prevent any laws like the SSSCA/CBDTPA from being passed, but since we haven't arrived in a perfect world yet, isn't supporting this bill and others like it, the best current solution?
Now, I ask what's the best way to support it?
The article is not very detailed about the actual bill, but it sounds like it's going to be similar to the copyright laws we have in my country.
Here you are allowed to make a copy of a movie or CD for personal use, though there are some restrictions. You are not allowed to use help from other people to make the copy (i.e., you cannot get a friend to make it for you), and you are not allowed to use public accessible equipment for making the copy (i.e., you cannot use the library's computer to make a copy of the CD you just borrowed there).
The rules for software is different though, you are only allowed to make backups of your own software.
Nothing is perfekt though. We have the highest tax in the world on CD-R's and memory media. Every time you buy a CD-R or a 64MB CompactFlash, around $0.6 goes right to the music industry. Not quite fair, since many CD-R's and in particular CompactFlash are used for a lot of things other than storing music.
Apart from that, i think the laws is quite fair. The industry also sticks to complaining about the illegal piracy, not the laws, probably because no one would listen to them anyways.
Anyway, best of luck to you americans, and your new bill. Maybe even your congress will see the light one day!
...lation?
From what I understand, in 2006 when we all MUST use digital TV, Hollywood will have completely reworked what the VCR is capable of. I've heard of some strange restrictions and don't know what is true, but it sounds as if a digital VCR will be nowhere near as "versatile" for consumers as today's analog VCR.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Protecting Your Digital Restrictions Mechanisms Rights...?
How does this make any sense, do DRM systems now count as life-forms with rights? This is just a plot - when they start implementing hampsters that are glued to DVDs, trained to bite you if you try to copy the media, we wont be able to do anything because now they'll have 'rights' too. We wont be able to crack DRM systems because that will be a violation of privacy rights. First they want to stick Digital Restriction Mechanisms on us and now they want to give these things rights too??
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Does each consumer have to write their own software cracker?
Oh c'mon. I have a copy of DeCSS. It wasn't that hard to get.
Will creating a decoder or unlocker designed for fair use still get you thrown in jail?
Nah, I doubt creation for personal use is considered manufacture.
To point out that the capital D after Fritz Hollings' name means that he's a democrat. Dem's are fucking us just as bad as Rep's.
I think Hollywood has the idea that if one can copy a DVD, they're just going to give it away bla blah blah. I don't think they've considered that their own talent pool makes good use of copying technology i.e. ripping.
I'll give you an example: I know some peeps who are learning to do 3D rendering and animation. One test of their skills is to see how convincing they can recreate a scene from a movie. For example: Star Trek First Contact. That movie had some scenes shot using studio models of the Enterprise and other ships. One of these guys had a nice mesh of the Enterprise, then he wanted to perfectly recreate the lighting used on the studio model in the movie.
What he did was he bought a copy of the First Contact DVD, then he did a few screen-grabs on his PC. He had very clean pictures to use as reference. Using these images, he started figuring out where the studio lights were placed, and what effects he needed to achieve to minimize the differences. He gained some serious experience in learning how to realistically light a CG model to imitate a 3D model.
Is this an important skill in Hollywood? Oh most definitely! It is a frequent thing to cut from motion control model rigs to CG models. The better the lighting on the mesh, the less startling it is to go from model to CG. (Lost in Space comes to mind...)
This guy was legitimately copying from DVD to improve his talent, and Hollywood may one day hire him for it. However, if Hollywood had their way, he'd have no way to take screen grabs or download the video to his computer for further study. I don't think they have any idea how much damage they may end up doing to the next generation of their talent pool.
The united states has finally stood up for the little guy and put a trust into it's citizens just as apple does with it's users. This will promote moral values also. If you tell a teenage somthing is wrong, they are more likely todo it, if not, they are more likely todo the right thing.
Sig: I stole this sig.
Do the current laws that allow us to copy audio tapes and record TV shows expressly prohibit digital reporductions or mention optical media? When did we lose the right to copy CD's or DVD's?
One big problem with the current laws is that there is no specific requirement for companies to provide keys or hacks to unlock their DRM-protected content after the copyright expires.
What happens when the copyright runs out on some eBook that I purchase? Will it suddenly become unencrypted? I doubt it. I doubt the company that published it will even be in business.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
It doesn't deal with "Sure you have the right to make a copy of the disk you just bought, but the xxAA is not required to make it easy for you." So the xxAA can continue to waste their money and our time with one bizarre copy-preventing scheme after another.
What we need is to change the language of the DMCA in two basic ways:
First, the prohibition should not be directed at activities of the consumer but rather at the manufacturer, and
Second, the activity prohibited should not be the circumvention but rather the installation of copy prevention.
Bottom line: the DMCA should be changed to say that it is unlawful to alter any digital work to be sold to the public in such a way that the altered work may not be readily used by the consumer or reproduced by the consumer for archival purposes.
And there sould be severe penalties imposed on corporations that violate the DMCA by creating copy-protection schemes that render their products partly or completely unusable by any consumer.
No activity by a consumer should be restricted in any way by the new DMCA.
The xxAA guys should be left with the traditional tools for fighting violations of their copyright -- i.e., catch the guy who's making money by selling bootleg copies of the CD and haul him into court.
TyZone
"Disraeli was pretty close: actually, there are Lies, Damn lies, Statistics, Benchmarks, and Delivery dates"
I propose that it be amended to :
Disraeli was pretty close: actually, there are Lies, Damn lies, Statistics, Benchmarks, Delivery dates, and anything that the RIAA or MPAA says.
Any seconds?
Sigs are bad for your health.
Over half of congress probably believes him (or at least gets enough money to just nod "yes.")
Who cares about copying, I just want to watch DVDs without breaking the DMCA!
The Proposed bill would allow users to make backup copies for personal use, etc.. However, does that backup involve retaining the "native" format?
So, you would be within your rights if you backup a CD and retain it as such; but would you be outside of your rights to "backup" as an mp3 or ogg?
TSIA
This seems pretty simple, straight-forward, and succinct.
Hopefully he'll get labeled as a guy who hates fair-use rights with a passion so nobody'll take him seriously. If that happens, he shot himself in the foot with that comment.
``If this bill were to pass, it would render ineffective, worthless and useless any protection measure we would have in place to protect a $100 million movie,'' Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said of the Lofgren bill. ``You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it.''
Wow, can you imagine if that were possible, to download a million movies a day? A $100,000,000 movie at 1,000,000 downloads a day... OH MY GOD! This bill would cost the entertainment industry more than $100,000,000,000,000 A DAY! That's 100 TRILLION dollars, every single day. We must stop this at ALL COSTS!
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Way to go, 'tards!
-- The_Messenger
This is fun, let's do some more math. A typical DVD costs $20. One million DVDs costs $20 million. If you did that every day, you could steal $7.3 billion from the movie industry every year. If 50 million people did it, the nation could collectively steal $365,000 trillion from the movie industry.
Wow! The movie industry is potentially worth 3500 times the nation's gross domestic product! Bush should tap into this to solve our current economic crisis.
It should have been titled "Protecting your Fair Use Rights".
Big difference.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Who is going to protect my right(I'm a recording artist) to make a living off of my work?
That is your job.
I depend on sales of my cd's, not on the number of copies of my work in existence!
And everytime you find an illegal copy, you need to file suit in court.
If you are unwilling to do this simple thing, your statement about 'who will protect my rights' is nothing more than whining by you.
ac
Tell me how copyright infringes against what YOU CAN SAY.
Overbroad interpretation of the "derivative works" clause does that. According to this article, there are fewer than 47,000 melodies, and each one has a copyright owner, making it next to impossible for a songwriter to create an "original" musical work.
Will I retire or break 10K?
here
basically, all of our feelings, summed up in one article
my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
From the press release summary:(I've added the bold...)
SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS OF "THE DIGITAL CHOICE AND FREEDOM ACT OF 2002"
SECTION 1: Designates the title as "The Digital Choice and Freedom Act of 2002."
SECTION 2: Lists factual findings.
SECTION 3: (a) Section (a) clarifies that America's historic principles of fair use - codified in section 107 of Title 17 - apply to analog and digital transmissions...
...Section (b) seeks to restore the balance by adding section 123 to Title 17. Section 123 allows lawful consumers to make backup copies of digital works, and to use digital works on preferred digital media devices. It further protects consumers by prohibiting non-negotiable "click-wrap" licenses that limit their rights and expectations...
SECTION 4: Today, when a consumer purchases a book, they are free to lend their copy to a friend or family member, or to sell their copy to a used books store. Section 4 allows consumers to do the same thing with digital content by extending the first sale doctrine...
SECTION 5: ..."As the House Judiciary Report accompanying the DMCA stated: "[A]n individual [should] not be able to circumvent in order to gain unauthorized access to a work, but should be able to do so in order to make fair use of a work which he or she has acquired lawfully."
Section 5 reaffirms this intent, while also providing needed flexibility for the copyright owner. Under section 5, a copyright owner is free to employ technical measures to protect his or her work. However, the copyright owner must ensure that those measures allow lawful consumers to make non-infringing uses of the work... Since most consumers do not have the expertise needed to circumvent such protections, Section 5 permits tools if they are designed, produced and marketed to help consumers make non-infringing uses. Again, these tools are only permissible if the copyright owner fails to give consumers a choice by restricting legitimate uses without providing any solution for the legitimate user.
I'm a he. And thanks for sticking up for me...the newbie.
You don't like it? Don't give them your money.
How would you feel if you knew hundreds of thousands of people where ripping of your stuff?
Yeah, tied with Long John Silver's, right?
if this bill passes, pigs will fly.
Given that Jack Valenti already uses air travel, does this bill have more of a chance?
Will I retire or break 10K?
This actually motivated me to write a letter to my state senator. Go Bennett! Maybe us people in utah can acctually do something kick ass like those people in CA.
I don't see the purpose of a law restating the fair use rights I already had
U.S. citizens already have a fair use defense to infringement. However, circumvention is completely orthogonal to infringement: you can circumvent copy protection without infringing copyright. This bill would extend the fair use defense to circumvention as well.
Will I retire or break 10K?
some countries also consider copy-protection as a limitation of the users right for a private copy, ie. allow the user to circumvent the copy-protection.
The United Kingdom doesn't. See Section 296 of the copyright act.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Since when is copying someone elses material a restriction of freedom of speech? That's just rediculous. Copyright doesn't prevent you from voicing your opinion. That's the lamest angle I've seen anyone take in this "debate" yet.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I've found a copy of the AHRA on the web at http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm.
I've looked it over and I don't see what your talking about. Maybe my legal reading skills aren't up to par, but my understand was that copies could only be for personal use and that making copies for others is illegal even if I'm just giving them away. Am I wrong on that?
Who said Freedom was Fair?
Yeah, but the prior article is in the Apple category, so only fagbois such as yourself read past the title. This article is for the consumption of the heterosexual contingent.
i am a teen, which seems to be the main target audience of the general music industry. normal CDs cost anywhere between $10 (if your lucky) and $20, which happens to be about 20% of the average teens weekly earnings. when one of my friends buys a CD of a band i like, i copy it, adding to my own CD collection.
how does this bring money to you, you ask? well, with that $10-$20 i saved, i still buy CDs. instead of buying a CD that will already sell millions of copies, and having the same CD as my friends, i am now more likely to buy CDs of lesser-known, more independent bands, such as yourself. had CD copying not been around, i would have never been able to afford your CD in the first place, and you would gain nothing. with CD copying, i spend the same amount of money as i always would, but i get more music. the same amount of my paycheck goes into the music industry, but more of it gets into the hands of the artists who need it, and not the ones who are already millionairs. call it supporting diversification in the industry.
on a related note, i think the whole intellectial property issue is bullshit. the real money from any artist should come from their concerts or other live preformances, not their CD sales. the fact that people are catching on that music, something with no actual physical presence, should be used as though we are pretending it does have a physical presence (i.e. you cant make a copy of a car for free, why a song?) makes me glad. of course, thats just my opinion on that specific matter, so i dont expect anyone to agree.
It would be nice if passed. Case in point as to what I do: I have an Intel P4-1.5ghz with a Radeon 8500, but for whatever reason Windows XP can't play back a DVD without dropping frames. I boot into Linux with Mplayer and it plays them back flawlessly. I guess I am breaking the DMCA by doing this. Yet in my eyes, I'm not doing anything illegal at all; I want to watch them, and since Winblows, for whatever reason can't do it on that particular machine (my PII-366 on XP can play them back just fine, interestingly enough) so I use Linux. And due to idiotic legislation, this is illegal.
" am one of the few slashdotters who do not pirate based on principal."
Blah blah blah blah blah.
With all that hot air, I could paint "goodyear" on the side of you and sail you over monday night football.
JOhn.
...but why didn't this occor to anyone sooner?
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
on this article fairly well.
I should note I just sent a signed letter to my congress critters, you should too. Be sure to mention (R) taking rights from citizens and granting them through goverment intervention to others (D) taking rights from citizens and placing them in the hands of corperations. A brief history of the purpouse of Copyright is normally helpfull also.
Mention this is a Ballot item to you (if that is true)
I live in a giant bucket.
Remember that just because the law says you have the right to copy something for fair use, doesn't mean the MPAA has to make it easy for you. Because piracy is threatening a billion dollar industry, blockbuster alone will make sure future stuff is released in an uncopyable format. It'll be the same type of war DirectTV is fighting with the smart card hackers.
Vote for Pedro
This could have positive implications for those of us who have to use technology such as DeCSS to play DVDs that we legally purchased on our DVD-ROM drive that we legally purchased attached to our computer on which we legally installed our Free operating system.
Maybe we won't be branded as filthy circumventing criminals if this bill is passed.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
here's the way I see it.
left wing | right wing
\|/
o 0 oo
peoples heads rolling
although this ascii looks like shit. it basically says that the \ / (blades) that make up the sharp part of the pendulum | swing left and right and the folks that suffer are the heads that get lopped off at the bottom of the dumb heap (dung heap)
o
_|_
/ \
see how painful it is for us. the above shitty ascii is not a headbanger it's a headless moron. which is what we all are by allowing DMCA, DRM and CBDTPA to pass
This is a repost from the Apple article I submitted which was posted 3 hours earlier. See the last link in this story. It's cool that it has its own discussion, but you'd think that the original would at least reference the original discussion...
Sapere aude!
The Senate ALWAYS votes by roll call on legislation.
Are you sure? According to the bottom of this page, the U.S. Senate can voice-vote on a bill just like the House.
And because "a voice vote does not create a public record of how each Senator voted," it means that the bill didn't even have enough opposition (20%) to demand a roll call.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I wish Rick Boucher were my representitive so I could vote for him.
``The laws that have passed in recent years have imbalanced the historical balance between owners of copyrighted works and users of copyrighted works,'' Boucher said in an interview Tuesday. ``The balance has been tilted dramatically in favor of owners at the expense of users.''
This guy actually gets it! There really need to be more representitives and senators like him. I just wish that there were even any running in my district so I could put in my vote.
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
Lots of interesting talk about whether this is ideal, etc, but what I want to hear, is what is the best way for me and others to increase the liklihood of this bill's passage?
It may not be ideal, but it sounds much better than current situation.
One man's pink plane is another man's blue plane.
Here is an excerpt of my letter of support sent to my congressman:
I have one little quibble with the bill as it stands. In section 2. FINDINGS, paragraph (2), it states "Perfect digital copies of songs and movies...". This is an exaggeration that has been used by both the RIAA and MPAA to justify draconian copyright protection measures. They purposely confuse two different concepts: "digital copies" and "digital distribution". The reality is:
(1) Digital copies are far from perfect
(2) The quality of a copy has little impact upon non-commercial copyright infringers
Take an example from ten years ago, the mandating of copy-protection on Digital-Audio-Tape recorders. The only people who cared about quality enough to be effected by the copy-protection measures were audiophiles (who, by the, way effectively killed the format because of the restrictions imposed by congress). The irony is that audiophiles were also the least likely people to make illegal copies; on the contrary, many purchase multiple versions of a single recording. The more typical non-commercial copyright infringement was young teenagers buying $50 boom-boxes with abysmal sounding cassette duplication. The quality of the duplication was of minimal importance (you can't hear the poor quality on a $50 boom-box), as it had minimal impact on their decision to make illegal copies vs. buying legal copies.
I'd recommend striking the word "perfect", and putting to rest the urban legend that digital copies are somehow different from other method of copying. This is not meant to diminish the importance of digital distribution, which obliviously has had an impact on non-commercial copyright infringement. Confusing "digital copies" with "digital distribution" is how we got lousy laws like the DMCA in the first place.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this right is, and always has been in existance. The DMCA makes it illegal to DISTRIBUTE any circumvention device, it actually states in it that it is ok to bypass protection measures to perform legal actions, but distributing the tool to do this is illegal. If this law really says "Customers can bypass protection measures to make personal copies" it will do nothing for us with regard to DeCSS or any other tool for bypassing protection schemes...it will be ok to have it and use it, but still illegal to share such a program acording to the DMCA. So what would be changed? Isn't that the state we find ourselves in currently? I can crack CSS all I want, I can make copies of DVDs, change the format to VCD or AVI or whatever, but I can't give anyone the tools to do it...
What am I missing? The article does not say what the proposed law would do in this regard. The important right that was taken away from us was not Fair Use...That "law" is still in place, what was taken from us is the right to provide tools that make Fair Use possible, this is the right we need back.
NR
Me too, vomit in terror. Will you hold me?
I am glad that there's a bill to make it legal to copy movies and stuff. However, I think Congress should go and make all the encryption and region coding on the DVDs illegal, force the DVD player manufacturers to modify (at no charge to the consumer) any DVD player that has these features to remove them, and forcing DVD manufacturers to replace all discs (again, at no cost, not even postage) to ones that have none of the above disabilities. Oh well. It'll probably never happen. Oh well.
meaning, there will always be a percentage of the population that will want disagree with the current norms (laws, if you will) and go their own way. in this specific case, we're talking about getting non-free content (movies, music, etc) for free.
the technology doesn't matter. yesterday it was copying physical changes in vinyl to magnetic changes in analog tape. today, its just moving bits around. who knows what 'copying content' might mean tomorrow. and my point is that none of this is relevant.
what is relevant is that we now have an opportunity to revisit the current business models of the entertainment (specifically recording) industry. video or audio - it doesn't matter. if you record things and want to sell the right to listen/view/experience 'past performances' (ie, the tapes), this whole 'what exactly are you selling' notion must be better defined. are you selling the professionally done laying of bits on some carrier? are you selling the distribution of that to remote physical locations? are you selling the content of what's on those carriers?
clearly with digital distribution (public and private high speed internets) being so commonplace, the current state of the art is challenging the old business models to restructure. no longer is it necessary to pay the trucks, shelf stackers, cashiers, store managers (etc) in order for us to receive music. we can bypass all of that overhead all too easily today. my view is that all that is now rendered redundant and the sooner we all recognize this, the less fighting and loss of rights we'll have to endure.
the bigwigs are now slowly learning that their days are numbered. things have to shift. they don't have to shift all at once - it can be done gracefully. but it has to be done and it will be done, with or without their cooperation. right now, most kids simply 'vote with their feet' and choose to pirate rather than pay for their music. the industry can choose to see the writing on the wall and adapt to the new times, or fight the growing current of opposition. the consumers know its time for a restructuring - I wonder how long it will take before the message is received and understood way up top...
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
The part of the article I hated the most was Valenti being quoted as saying "...you could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it." Why? Because that isn't fair use and this bill wouldn't allow that! It's mostly a problem of extremes, where each side fails to see the gigantic gray spot they mistake for a thin line between each side. Of course, I feel the industries fail to see that grayness alot more than intelligent consumers, or is that an oxy-moron?
Question
http://www.ironfroggy.com/
I wonder how this bill, if it passes, will affect DeCSS. I could imagine that, if it passes, "official" DVD players will start to have fine and legal "recording" functionality. Obviously, those won't be available on Linux.
So if the movie companies do provide a solution for the legitimate user - namely fully-featured (that of course includes recording) DVD player software - but only for the "average" one, namely the Windows user - would the platform-independent DeCSS be suddenly legal on Linux systems, where they don't provide a solution, but illegal on Windows, where they do?
>This is apparent because your music sucks sweaty man-balls.
As opposed to what other kinds of balls?
I?d recommend striking the word ?perfect?, and putting to rest the urban legend that digital copies are somehow different from other method of copying.>
Or indeed the idea that something being "digital" somehow makes it special, thus needing special laws.
and anyone who was still bothered by "terrorism" at the end of July of this year definitely is being pushed by an agenda or is pushing her own.
Well, all politicians have agendas. Wouldn't be much point if they didn't.
But are you saying terrorism is OK, after a 10 month waiting period? You distrust anyone with an attention span that long?
...is to allow unlimited fair use copying, and perhaps additional copying for others, but then tax the media (and players) and use this revenue to remunerate the copyright holders. Robert Cringely wrote an article on this awhile ago, where he demonstrated that the revenues raised this way, with quite reasonable taxes on media and equipment, would equal or surpass the existing recording industry revenues. Distribution of revenues could be based on statistics gleaned from P2P sharing services, or a similar model as is used for radio or switchboard/elevator music. It's worth noting that media and equipment (including laser printers) are already taxed for this purpose in Germany and some other European states (the inevitable interesting question: if one is paying a tax on blank media for copyright holders, then surely one MUST have the right to copy ?)
but restricting yourself to just 3 durations will mean you miss quite a lot. Just by adding whole and sixteenth notes
The three durations can be interpreted as whole, half, and quarter or as quarter, eighth, and sixteenth by a trivial change of time signature. The judge is looking for "substantial similarity". For thirty-second notes, the judge will look for the more musically important ones, which fall in phase with the sixteenth-note carrier. Triplets are probably trivial, unless they're a major feature, and then they'd probably cause a shift to something like 6/8 or 12/8.
(since you seem to like to refer to that article)
I tweak the article a bit every time I link to it on Slashdot. Every time I read feedback about my model, I go back to the article and address the complaints. This results in an article that continues to improve.
adding a little something saying the 47000 possible melodies is only correct with some (dubious) assumptions made, not cold hard fact.
I already did. From the article:
Will I retire or break 10K?
Planned obsolescence.There was a story some time ago about some HP printer cartridges with an expiration date, because supposedly, the ink goes bad at some point or another. The printer will REFUSE to print once the expiration date has passed, making a 30 dollar cartridge into a waste of money. If HP wanted to protect the printer mechanisms or something, they could offer to exchange expired but unopened printer cartridges for new for the price of shipping and handling. But no, they go being all unethical. (Talk about timing; I just dealt with that about 50 minutes ago) We just had one do that, I think it's an HP III, the cartridge was putting a black streak on the printed paper, and the expiration date is Oct. something 2001. So, the expiration date is there for a GOOD reason, not just to make someone buy new cartridges.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Maybe we need to pass the law at the state level first, get it in several of them. Then, we say, "see, such and such a state has the law, and it works good for them." Or else have someone sneak it into another law *much the way the big guys do it* Which is why many Senators/Congressmen(women) are shown on TV ads as "not having voted for bill ####" It's because of various small clauses slipped in that are in no way related, but it's still used. Hmm...lets find something like the Patriot Act and hide it in there, one that no one would dare vote no to, just by it's name or something. That'd work. They didn't even read the Patriot Act, they just passed it.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I agree that digital copies should not be treated any differently. But there is a good reason we don't want to stir up that pot!
Right now digital content and copies are treated differently. There are a lot of additional restrictions on digital copies, thanks to laws like the DMCA. We don't want to even mention analog material, because it would be a step backwards if analog material came under the same rules (even relaxed by Lofgren's bill) as digital material.
Meanwhile, the publishing industry is trying to add restrictions to analog material as well. That is part of the whole "analog hole" that they keep harping about. Ironically, the fact that they complain about the analog hole reveals their first arguments about digital being diferent were lies! What really happened was they used digital issues as a "wedge" to get special privileges, and are now trying to expand those privileges to cover everything.
Not sweaty Man-Balls?
I didn't realize you wrote the article
Forgivable. A common nick such as "beowulfcluster" might appear on several systems with vastly different personalities behind that nick. On the other hand, a distinctive nick such as "yerricde" (my old nick) or "tepples" (my new nick) is more likely to correspond to a unique person.
shouldn't you at least use 4 durations
A duration is the time offset from the onset of one note to the onset, divided by the time offset called "whole note" by the tempo track. The final note has no next note.
since each note can have a different duration than the other 3
The last note does not have a duration because "Hallelujah": long, short, short, final. "Yes, we have no": long, short, short, final. Taking four notes in isolation, it is impossible to assign a duration to the last note without taking staccati into the model as well, something a judge is not likely to do because judges 1. aren't musicologists and 2. are looking for "substantial similarity".
Your dismissal of triplets as 'trivial'
Those are multiple births, not a slight increase in tempo to fit more notes into the same space.
Will I retire or break 10K?