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?
Are you signed?
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
Do you make most of your living from CD sales, or from live performances, or merchandise sales?
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
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.
I'm not signed to a label, so I don't have anyone to front me money, I'm totally dependent on actual sales. But on the bright side, I don't *owe* a label zillions of $$$ : )
Don't read this!
"sales of my cd's" and "number of copies of my work in existence"
I'm a musician too, but I'm also good at math, which means I recognize that those numbers are not mutually exclusive. Number of copies in existence, unless they are all coming from a centralized source, actually means you've sold more. So if you have a crudload of copies in existance, chances are you've sold a few; in which case, nobody needs to protect your right to make a living off of your music, cause you already are.
"Old man yells at systemd"
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
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.
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.
``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
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...
First of all, this bill is not an attempt to make so-called mp3 "sharing" legal. It merely seeks to ensure that the fair use rights consumers had for analog formats are held up for digital formats as well. i.e., it is perfectly legal for me to buy your CD, then burn a backup copy, burn another copy for my car, rip it to my hard drive, etc. However, if the DMCA or CBDTPA makes these activities impossible, then I effectively don't have those fair-use rights.
Anyway, the line we always hear is that artists don't make a significant amount of money from CD sales anyway, compared to income from live shows. Is that not the case for you?
Maybe you could strive to sell CDs directly at your shows, instead of making pennies per disc through your label.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
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.
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?"
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!
And keep in mind that nothing in this new legislation makes it legal to share copies in a way that destroys the market for "originals."
If in the future you find yourself losing CD sales, it will be because people are breaking this law, not following it.
Hey, if you're gonna karma whore, at least make it readable (and use the goddamn preview button!).
I'm sorry, but you don't have a *right* to make a living. Don't you see that is exactly what some of us are railing against: the use of laws to protect outmoded business models.
Without the full text of the bills we can't know for certain, but it sounds as if these bills are simply meant to ensure that we retain our fair use rights with respect to digital media. Copyright law already protects you if someone makes a copy of your CD and gives it to someone else. These bills appear to be about ensuring that I can make a copy of your CD (which I legally purchased) for my own personal use, even if I have to break some sort of copy protection method to make these personal copies.
Rep. Lofgren even spells this out rather specifically: "This would not authorize someone taking their digital content and sharing it with a million of their best friends."
Kevin
I've had to think long and hard about this issue for just that reason. Most of my favorite artists are 'locals', folks who don't get played on the radio, who don't get the mega-contracts, who often take a day job to support their 'real' job. I've often worked at a semi-monthly Coffee House that gives these artists both a venue to perform and a place to sell their recordings. I buy their recordings.
I don't swap in MP3s any more, but even when I did, I wouldn't ever share these recordings. On the one hand, it wouldn't be fair to the artist, whom I sometimes even know personally. I had an experience listening to the artist in person that can't be shared, that can only be remembered.
Sometimes, I'll lend a CD to a friend, and say, 'Hey, you've got to listen to this'. And, I might make MP3s as backups. Why? Well, I just remember being seriously bummed when my car's tape player ate the only copy I had of one guy's album, and it was a long, long time before he performed at the Coffee House again. (I bought a CD the second time around, because I was tired of fighting with tape players.) Is this unfair?
I'd say, in this world, messed up as it is, it's always up to you to protect your own rights. That means your rights as a citizen, as a producer, as a consumer, as an individual. You can't count on the government to do it for you, whether you're an artist or a consumer. You can't count on the Big Guys to look out for the Little Guys, the Little Guys have to look out for themselves. Whenever there's a transaction, both the seller and the buyer must have some level of expectation that the other will 'play fair'. And, if you don't trust your customers to be fair, then you have the right to not sell the products of your talent to those who do not give it proper respect.
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
we already can do this, just because the RIAA says we can't doesn't mean new legislation is required...
correction: we can do this [exercise fair use rights] today, but the day is coming when it will be impossible if the **AA have their way.
The RIAA isn't the only four-letter acronym that says we can't copy digital content which we own; there's also the DMCA, which has a bit more teeth to it.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
That's like giving away 2 apples for every one you sell! Kind of a sad business model...
Apples for $24.99 each. Buy one, get two free!
I see what you mean. Noone's gonna survive giving away so many apples...
"You're never ready, just less unprepared."
I think you're grossly overestimating his status as a musician. I'm pretty sure his income from this career stems from the selling of 5 dollar home made cd's after his show at your friend Jimmy's Barmitzfah(sp?).
"What's your band called? Memorex?"
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
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
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)
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!
You.
The law is there to protect you, use it. Dont try to offload your responsibility on me.
What right to make a living off your work? There never has been such a thing, and there shouldn't be. There are rights that are helpful in making a living (like copyright) but they don't give you a right to make a living. Nobody should make a law to preserve an old way of doing things just because some people might be hurt by the world changing. If you can't make money selling your CDs, you'll just have to get another job.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
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
When you say that because of some people who bootleg we should all have our rights stripped away (and that is what your saying) I dismiss any problems you might have because if you dont give a damn about my rights why should I give a damn about you career?
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?"
No, you don't. "Fair Use" allows me to copy my CD into MP3s and store them on mu computer so I can listen to them at my desk without toting my CD collection all over the house. It also allows me to put a copy in my portable MP3 player and listen to it while at the gym or on the bus.
It does not allow me to make copies and give them away.
The money from my purchase of your CD is still in your pocket. I'm not going to buy multiple copies of your CD just so I can listen to it at my desk, or at the gym or in my living room.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
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
You *don't* understand the concept of fair use. Fair use is that I don't want to have to cary it from my house to my car and then to the office everyday I make two copies leave on in the car, one at work, and the original at home. It is already illegal for me to make a copy and give it to a friend. The point being we do not need new laws we simply need to enforce the already existing laws. And people have been copying music for a *very* long time and yet people manage to make a lot of money at it. I think if you are depending on selling cds you don't understand the business model. Selling copies of the music has always been bad for the people making the music. They make most of their money off of live shows. Selling music is just a way to get people to shows.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
"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!
True; but if someone buys a cd, hands some MP3s to some friends and they like your CD, then go and buy it, then you'd have multiple sales where with "sooper-dooper DRM" you'd probably only have the initial one.
Remember to look at all the costs and benefits. You don't have radio (most likely, since you said you didn't have a lable) to promote you. No MTV either. So word of mouth is it.
I would suggest that you try the following:
* Make your CDs a have very high quality "value added" cd booklets and such. You know, like vinyl records used to do. I find music much more enjoyable when you know the why and wherefores.
* Put up crappy (but reasonable) 64k mp3/oggs on your web site, or on a data track on your CD. Say it's free for sharing. Make sure the ID3 info is correct and have a URL for buying the CD. Include descriptions and photos of the CD (all those extras, you know).
You watch, you'll get people who:
* Like one song, they keep the crappy mp3 and are happy. Maybe someone else will hear it and be interested. These correspond to radio listeners and radio recorder people.
* Like a lot, and buy the CD
* Wanna have the CD, 'cause it's cool.
Remember, you aren't selling CDs, your selling *yourself*.
I realize, of course, that you may live off of this money, but I **really** want to see what happens when you try the above.
BTW: You forgot a link to where we could hear some of your music and learn more about you.
Ciao!
The Doctor What (KF6VNC)
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.
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.
Didn't Copyright Law, as it existed from the 1700s through 1997, already address that?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
[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
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?
What "right" are you referring to? The constitution certainly gives you no such right. Congress may, at its discretion, provide temporary copying monopolies when it judges that this will have the effect of promoting science or "useful arts". But there is absolutely no basis for claiming that you have some kind of "right" to this consideration.
For that matter, what "my work" are you referring to? If its the creative effort you are talking about, I can certianly respect that. But if its the result, then it was never "yours" to begin with. In this country, no one owns an idea, and that includes a song and/or its lyrics. You may be granted the exclusive copying concession ("copyright") temporarily, but that's it.
As for your inability to support yourself without the monopoly copying concession, loads of musicians are doing that today. Additionally, tremendous amounts of music (and many would say the best ever) was created before copyright was ever even thought of. Back then there were entire >100 piece orchestras to be paid too, and yet, they managed to eat and create. So I really fail to see how your lack of business acumen is my problem.
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?
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
I have all the skills mentioned in the link, but can I telecomute from Oregon?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Copyright isn't a right - it's a set of laws that restrict the right to freedom of speech (right or wrong).
XML causes global warming.
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!
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?"
You don't have that right.
Copyright is clearly set up to favor the public, not artists. The Constitution says so. The courts have consistantly said so. Until fairly recently, even Congress was willing to go on-record as saying so.
It's only whiney artists like you, and corporate monstrosities that think otherwise. And you're giving public-minded artists like me a bad rep.
Incidentally, you said: "I would hate to sell like one cd and have 2 more unpaid for copies floating around. That's like giving away 2 apples for every one you sell! Kind of a sad business model..." But you are too late. Under the AHRA it is already ENTIRELY legal for people to noncommercially copy music via analog formats and share it thuswise.
I.e. I can buy a CD of yours and make as many tapes for as many people as I want and you can't do anything about it.
This isn't fair use, actually, it's a statutory exception. Fair use would NEVER support something like that. But nevertheless, it is the law.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Of course they are. Al Gore (D) invented the Internet afterall!
In reality I couldn't say which party is more with it, but as a general rule it seems that the dems at least understand the technology a little better.
This just strikes me as odd considering so many Hollywood types seem to be linked closer with democrats then republicans.
The Internet is generally stupid
....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.
...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.
Selling and uploading bootlegged cd's are still illegal and morally wrong. I am one of the few slashdotters who do not pirate based on principal. If we demand fair use rights and upload mp3's to the internet, then we give the RIAA a good arguement to stop fair use. After all only thieves would want this right?
I also support copyright protection for free software via the gpl and would be pissed if someone did not follow it. We all need to stop pirating software and music so hollywood no longer has a good argument. This is why I use free software. If I can't afford it then I use an alternative like free software.
Anyway I consider my computer mine and not Microsoft's, not the RIAA's, or the governments. I put alot of money towards my computers over the years and I would like to do what I please. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone else I am happy. Perhaps the answer would be to use some manditory filtering of some of the internet routers under an IT consorturium and not the riaa to help protect mp3 uploading mandating by the government. I know this might sound unpopular but perhaps we could all agree on a place for legal mp3's and the RIAA could check to make sure none of the files are illegal. I think it would be very bad to have the riaa as the policman but I would not mind a bi-partison government/IT corporate consorturium to oversee this. This madness needs to stop. This is the only comprimise I see that would satisfy both parties and not be the craziness of what the RIAA hopes by banning analog speakers and mics, to the other extreme of the wild west days of napster.
In the meantime buring mp3's would still be perfectly legal under this system and drm would not be needed. You just couldn't upload them. By the way I think drm in personal computers is very bad and would kill the internet more then just banning some ports. I would prefer to see some filtering in the net after a judge finds a particular file swapping service illegal rather then to have my output jacks banned and have my mic only record in encrypted data. We all should have the right to use your pc's as a recording studio if we please.
http://saveie6.com/
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.
Copyright isn't a right - it's a set of laws that restrict the right to freedom of speech (right or wrong).
YOu confuse freedom of speech with getting my speech for free. Tell me how copyright infringes against what YOU CAN SAY. Then we can talk.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
I would hate to sell like one cd and have 2 more unpaid for copies floating around.
If by "floating around" you mean that the original consumer keeps them for themselves, then I don't see how this hurts you. Are you saying that if I want to have one of your CDs at home, but also be able to listen to it in my car I should have to pay you twice for the same music?
If by "floating around" you mean that the original consumer gives the copies to other people, who are not compensating you for your music, then this has nothing to do with "fair use" and is a copyright violation. That is something that is still illegal, and there is nothing in any of these bills that would change that.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
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!
You have no such right. You have the right to try to make a living, but no right to succeed. And you certainly do not have the right to cripple all computing devices because they could potentially be used in ways that might affect your sales.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
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?
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!"
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
It's hard to say, but you're probably right. Not that this is always a benefit, since this can lead them to decide that they have enough understanding to set policy when they don't (e.g. Clipper Chip). As they say, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
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.
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?
1. Person A copyrights a string of words
2. Person B is restricted in using that string of words in time, manner, and place.
QED. Copyright abridges freedom of speech. I'm not arguing that Copyright or intellectual property are worthless, but that people should realize what it really is: a limited time government granted partial monopoly on thoughts, ideas, words, strings of bits, music, numbers, whaterver. IOW, restrictions on what people can say, write, play, etc.
If i were going to enumerate my concept of fundamental rights from most important to least important, life, liberty, freedom of speech, self-determination, etc. would be way up at the top. Copyright wouldn't even show up on the list.
XML causes global warming.
I would hate to sell like one cd and have 2 more unpaid for copies floating around. That's like giving away 2 apples for every one you sell! Kind of a sad business model...
Allow me to point out a few situations of reality for you here, because you're obviously living off in RIAA-Land.
First and foremost, CD sales were at a peak at exactly the same time that Napster was. RIAA killed Napster, and raised (artificially, at that) CD Prices at the same time. Suddenly, CD sales went through the floor. RIAA howled and screamed and pointed at their sales figures as "proof" that Napster was harmful. Riiiight...
Second, your assumption that, if you sell an apple, and because of that apple being turned into three apples magically and the other two given away, that you have lost two sales, is utter garbage. Why? Simple.
Odds are, the folks with those two magically duplicated apples most likely wouldn't have bought your album anyhow. One of them is a 14-year-old kid who gets beaten up by the school bully every day and rarely manages to hang on to enough cash to buy lunch. The other is someone who has only a passing interest in the genre, and so "steals" a copy of the apple to check it out. You didn't lose a sale, you've made a pair of sales for future albums if those two like it and someday can afford to get something.
It is *not* a sad business model, it's a pretty damned good one. It creates word of mouth advertising. "Man, SteveBee's Apple Stand has great apples, and he'll even give you a couple for free! Go check 'em out!"
There is nothing on this planet better for advertising than having folks get told by those they trust how good your product is. Eric Flint and virtually every other Baen Books author understands that. Check out The Baen Free Library and read the Prime Palavers some time. Their sales have increased from free books online, why wouldn't your sales increase from free music online?
You thought that this sig was what you think that I thought you wanted me to think. I think.
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?
There are (very many) strings of words that I am prohibitied by law from saying in certain manners or places or contexts. Furthermore, there are tunes, melodies, trivial sequences of guitar chords, images, algorithms, etc that are similarly restricted. Is that restriction justified? That's a separate question. I would sometimes say yes, but it's irrelevant to the assertion I made and which you called "rediculous" (sic).
XML causes global warming.
I would hate to sell like one cd and have 2 more unpaid for copies floating around. That's like giving away 2 apples for every one you sell! Kind of a sad business model..
I take it you've never heard of a loss leader? Moreover, that the best type of advertising you can get is word of mouth. Sure, people are going to pirate your CD, thats a risk of doing business. But, if you can generate enough interest in your band you are likely to sell more copies of your next CD, and also to get more people to come to live shows, and more places looking to book you for a live show.
While I will not advocate piracy as a good thing, it is wrong, sometimes you have to learn to let it go and use it to turn a profit later. Look at Microsoft, while they would never openly admit it, they allowed 95 and 98 to be pirated for years, just to innundate the market. Your pirated CDs may work in that way for you, if they help generate interest in your music, that otherwise would not have existed, it can drive future profits. Keep in mind, that someone listening to a pirate copy of your CD might not have ever heard of you, if they had not pirated the CD. Again, this does not justify piracy, but it does go to show that whining about it only makes you look short-sighted and greedy.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
You just gave yourself an example - you seem to think that "freedom of speech" == "freedom of original speech".
Do you realize that "original" is not part of the 1st ammendment? IMHO, the strictest interpretation of what "freedom of speech" means: the government can't restrict what you say or how or where you say it, and furthermore "say" can be replace with write, show, play, etc for all expressive mediums.
The government does restrict this concept, of course, in many cases, some of them justified. One of the largest restrictions is copyright. If you copyright something today, I will never in my lifetime have complete unrestricted use of those words (or whatever is copyrighted), unless I live to well over 130.
Your example: singing in the rain. Is it impossible to sing it in some contexts? yes. Freedome of speech restricted.
Again, I'm not trying to completly damn copyright with this argument, but people should realize what it is: copyright is a restriction on speech justified by another section of the US constitution. Only from that common knowledge can you reasonable discuss proper terms/lengths/etc for copyright and other IP
XML causes global warming.
HAND
XML causes global warming.
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.
"Obscurity is a much worse problem (for an artist or author) than piracy."
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
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!
In fairness, though, those pre-copyright days were also pre-recording, so the large orchestras didn't have to compete with CD sales for an audience. Perhaps more relevant is that there are large orchestras today that can support themselves by performing music that is out of copyright, like Bach, Mozart, Bethoven, Wagner, etc. They don't necessarily make as much money as orchestras that sell copyrighted recordings, but it is possible to make money as a musician without copyright.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
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."
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.
What if the government said, "you can't disagree with our policies in public unless you wear a t-shirt with the words 'hippie communist' on it". By your logic, since the government is letting the message out, this restiction doesn't violate the principle of "freedom of speech". However, the courts have constantly found that restrictions like these do go against the first ammendment, but they may or may not be justified in light of other considerations (safety, other pieces of the constitution, privacy, etc).
Suppose there was a peace rally and someone yelled "no war in iraq". Could the government then restrict other people saying that since the message is already out?
I'm just trying to illustrate that any restriction (justified or not) can be a real and possibly significant restriction. Don't be fooled that just because we've had 200 years of ever increasing copyright protection that it makes the concept of copyright or other IP some how a fundamental right of existence.
Don't think that I am overlooking the fact that the concept of free speech can be tempered by other concerns. HAND
XML causes global warming.
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."
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?
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?
The point was to offer enough for buying the CD that people want to. Extras in the CD, the fact the mp3s would be lower quality, etc.
If the low quality mp3s are good enough, then yeah, you won't buy the CD, but in the past, you probably would have been the same guy who taped the song off the radio and never buys the album anyway.
Ciao!
The Doctor What (KF6VNC)
The point would be to deliver the song, make it nice enough that it would be "okay", but anyone who liked it a long would, while listening, think "gee, I should buy the album because it sounds better".
Other alternatives could be to run it through a process to pull out the highs and lows, so it sounds more like a "radio" recording, or something similar.
128k VBR mp3s are pretty nice sounding. Maybe 96k. Ogg presents another problem, in that 64k oggs actually sound pretty nice.
Ciao!
The Doctor What (KF6VNC)
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.
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?