Slashdot Mirror
RIAA: We Won't Pursue Mandated DRM Technologies
tekman writes "A New York Times article details an agreement between the RIAA and various hardware and software companies in which the RIAA has agreed to avoid seeking legislation that would mandate technologies in computers and other home electronics to restrict 'unauthorized' copying. The most interesting thing about this is the absence of the MPAA."
Your signature, it is http://www.fairvotecanada.org not .com, and thank you for the links :-)
What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
Here is a story that explains a little more behind the MPAA's decision:
MPAA Info
Hold on there: you're talking about the music industry, right? That one industry where 'payola' still officially exists? 'Pay for play' and all that? Where budding 'artists' (if you can call most of the crap out there that) are held captive when they make a million selling record (the bills actually put them into debt)? And they are now good guys?
WTF?
And what is the difference between the RIAA and the MPAA? They are so closely tied that there isn't really a distinction. Also, look at the organisations themselves...they have mucho much in common. Plus they want the same thing...the MPAA not being in the agreement is just a good tactic...it leaves the free to still lobby for DRM. And seeing as it has more money than the RIAA (as a whole), that was a very smart choice.
And as for a rating system...uhh, a rating system is a good thing, if it helps parents see what their kiddies are listening to/watching (no susbstitute to actually seeing and hearing themselves, but even so). Mandated and inflexible because it's law, that's a bad thing (some 14 year olds are older than most 40 year olds will ever be) , but a rating system 'pur sang' is not a bad thing which takes away end user rights.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
The NYT articles leaves out some important facts.
From this story: "Under the agreement, technology lobbyists will argue that record companies should be permitted to use hacker-style tactics to disrupt Internet downloads of pirated music and movies."
Great.
Agreed. "Our industries need to work together for the consumer to benefit and for our respective businesses to grow." -Hilary Rosen.
They've got you hoodwinked, don't they?
It's not theft. It's a copyright violation.
And there's a large legal difference between the two.
From dictionary.com:
theft
\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.
I use MY computer for data mining.
Not every computer is some glorified games console. Many more computers are imbedded in devices so deeply that most people aren't even aware of them.
Legislation that forces DRM will have a hard time distinguishing between glorified games consoles, microcontrollers and serious business machines. The overhead of securing the former would be an undo burden on the latter.
Such legislation would be like carpetbombing a neighborhood just to catch a single software pirate. The collateral damage would far outweigh whatever benefit the MPAA or RIAA might gain.
That either entity ever entertained the idea merely goes to show just how much contempt they have for the rest of society.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
They are competing for your money. It's your choice where it goes and both want as much of it as possible.
p2p and "free" music are generally based around "new" technology like computers, broadband, portable media players, software tools like CD to mp3 converters and so on. I'd always considered the RIAA as fighting new technology since they started to get on their high horse. They'd rather we were rebuying "The Dark Side of the Moon" on vinyl, cassette, CD then DRM than converting it to mp3s from the CD itself. No profit for them, simple ecconomics. Plus, you can easilly make a copy for the car or holiday home when you might have bought multiple copies instead.
It's worrying that they are colluding. Unless they have just realised they can't possibly win this war without having an mp3 police to break down your door and delete your files, and have full control of the software on the internet. It was always a pipe dream.
NPR reported this on my way to work this morning. The gist of the conversation is "Hey we won't demand hardware copy protection if you hardware makers help us strip or block every bit of consumer rights legislation that comes through". The goal is that RIAA stops lobbying for mandatory hardware controls and the hardware groups join to lobby against any possible consumer bill of rights. Great "trade".
I hope we can buy a few senators back some day and have groups like the RIAA permanently banned from doing that special kind of business they do. They should have just stuck to certifying gold records.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
notice that the RIAA wants to stop legislation that will guarantee your fair use rights despite the DMCA. Basically, RIAA will settle for the DMCA as it is, unabridged. That's not progress. That's no deal. That's a step backwards, no matter what the headline to this story reads.