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."

Comments

Fair Use

[Angram]

"...the Business Software Alliance and the Computer Systems Policy Project said they would not support legislation that seeks to bolster the rights of users of digital copyrighted material, which the recording industry has said is unnecessary..."
I don't like this at all. I doubt we'll be getting fair use back anytime soon. In fact, I bet this compromise was just a way for the RIAA to get rid of its opposition in removing it.

Re:Fair Use

[LostCluster]

This basically says that the RIAA and electronic companies would rather copyright not come up in congress right now, because both would rather keep the situation as-is than allow there to be any meaningful changes in either direction.

Re:Fair Use

[zurab]

This reads even more discouraging in the Yahoo article:

Lobbyists for some of the nation's largest technology companies will use the new agreement to oppose efforts in Congress to broaden the rights of consumers, such as explicitly permitting viewers to make backup copies of DVDs for personal use or to copy songs onto handheld listening devices.

This again makes congress look like a bunch of puppets with a lot of make-up. What gets them elected is a big shiny megaphone that they receive as a gift from BSA, RIAA, or other "special interest" groups. I guess all they have to do for the next election is scream "terrorists... terrorists... terrorists..." through it and they'll get the pass from the crowd. Democracy my @$$! That word, along with Freedom and Rights have lost their respective meanings. Welcome to the era of Security (DMCA), Privacy (DRM), and Patriotism (USPA).

Difference in opinion may land you in jail for federal crime(s).

Re: Fair Use

[twofidyKidd]

More accurate might be the fact that they are running out of money to fight this war.

Their industry as they know it is slated to collapse in the next 5 years, and given the numbers they are putting up, it's very possible.

Here's another indicator. The highest selling album of the year is Eminem's latest. It sold 6.5 million copies in the 6 months or so after its release. Spiderman on DVD sold 11 mill in one week...

Yeah because they have Everyones Computers!

[xanie]

Wow... funny in the same day.

this

And now this!

If indeed they do have access to a lot of P2P networks, this would go along with MANY peoples comments about them not needing DRM anymore.

Fishy?

I hope not.

It's a mixed bag

[n1ywb]

That part is great, so is the part about the technology companies (See Dell, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, etc) lobbying congress to NOT mandate DRM technology.

The downside is that the tech companies have also agreed to a self-imposed DRM mandate, and will ALSO drop lobbying for greater consumer rights. From http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/news/4946117.ht m
"In exchange, the tech companies agreed that government shouldn't alter laws to allow consumers to bypass copyright protection measures to make personal copies of DVDs and other digital works."

Two steps forward, two steps back IMHO.

No benevolent motive here

[poot_rootbeer]

What the RIAA is trying to do by keeping DRM mandates out of the hands of legislators is avoid a situation where they are forced to give consumers MORE rights. Fritz Hollings doesn't have as much influence as he used to now that Republicans have control of the Senate again. Someone who 'gets it', like Rick Boucher, could make them very unhappy. They'd rather not fight a battle in Congress if there's a good chance that they wouldn't win.

Re:honour amoungst thieves?

[BitterOak]

I wasn't aware the music industry was supposed to be competing with the technology industry.

In any event, although I'm glad to see that one thing they agree on is that government intervention is bad. I wish the movie industry had signed on, as they are a potentially more powerful lobby group.

Doesn't surprise me

[squiggleslash]

Despite the constant protestations of many Slashdotters, I've never considered the RIAA to be the great evil monolith it's regularly protrayed as. The RIAA exists to protect its members' interests, but the music industry has always come from a more down-to-Earth, more open environment than, say, the MPAA and the movie industry, which has traditionally been dominated by large media groups.

When the Home Recordings Act was passed, it specifically made sure fair use rights were protected. The RIAA certainly didn't go to the same extremes as the MPAA did when the latter got the DMCA passed into law primarily to support its DVD system.

The RIAA has also always been on the right side of the free speech debate. Hilary Rosen has made numerous representations which, so far, have staved off any credible censorship of music. Beyond a token, meaningless, sop to critics of the "Parental Advisory" label, which has no meaning in law or practice - record shops can and do freely sell such content without checking ages - there's not even a rating system. That there isn't is a testiment to Rosen's abilities to keep music free and open.

Ironically, the worst law the RIAA has proposed to protect its members copyrights is also the most libertarian - a proposal that the RIAA be able to hack into computers it believes are being used by those who violate copyright laws. Clearly, it's a dumb law, but it's symptomatic of an industry that really doesn't want people imprisoned for illegally redistributing its stuff. It's a world away from certain software companies and the movie industry who feel that imprisoning someone who merely makes it easier to copy something is just and proper.

Give the group a break, people. It's made some mistakes. It's made presumptions about Napster, etc, users that it shouldn't have and proposed some pretty whacko solutions, but it isn't evil. The RIAA, on this subject, is seriously misguided. It deserves better than the treatment it gets.

Re:Doesn't surprise me

[Dasein]

Give the group a break, people. It's made some mistakes. It's made presumptions about Napster, etc...

Let's see, they've:

• Sued Napster into oblivion
• Deprived Napster(and its shareholders) a chance to compete in the marketplace
• Accused me (and probably you) of being a criminal
• Settle lawsuits that accused them of price fixing
• Given so little back to their artists that it's almost impossible to survive in the business
• Paid radio station to play only what they want me to hear

Damn! I'm glad they're not really evil. As my mamma used to say, "Evil is as evil does."

Check out some good independent music:

Henry Rollins
Ani Difranco

Re:Doesn't surprise me

[squiggleslash]

Well, now hang on.

I addressed your first three points. As I said, I think the RIAA has made mistakes here in its presumptions about Napster users (though it's presumptions were not always incorrect, there was an awfully large amount of unauthorized mass-copying going on, indeed this was widely defended by a sizable group of Napster users who argued that any form of free distribution, even when it's thousands of copies to complete strangers, constitutes "fair use". That argument didn't entirely help convince the public, the legislators, the judges, or the RIAA, that Napster was comprised of struggling artists trying to find new ways of distributing their work, and other legitimate uses. I can feel the flames already as I write this from people who think just like that.)

The fourth point - well, I'm not sure I agree it's awful for them to settle, but certainly having to settle was certainly a minus in the RIAA's court. However, I'd not necessarily agree that the music industry did any wrong here. I say this because this is NOT a profitable industry. The RIAA's members make a respectable income, a little above what they need to stay afloat, but it's not like they're Microsoft and rolling in cash. Price "fixing" has always been a dubious part of anti-trust law, and in situations where the prices being fixed are from non-competitors (does Sony really compete with Universal? Put it another way, does Britney really compete with The Spice Girls, even though they're aimed at the same audience?) or retailers when the manufacturer wants to be able to set the prices, it gets dubious, to me, even as a cynic when it comes to libertarianism, that antitrust law should be involved here at all.

The fifth point exclusively refers to many RIAA members, not the RIAA itself. I seriously doubt that the RIAA has a policy that artists should be paid as little as possible. Indeed, I seriously doubt the RIAA has a policy on what model to use to pay artists (salaries? loans and paybacks? etc) And clearly, there are a lot of artists who do survive in the business.

The sixth point is again a reference to some, probably not even most, RIAA members. I doubt the RIAA has ever defended the practice and would be interested to see evidence to the contrary. I recall an NPR report on payola scams, or the modern equivalent, and an RIAA rep. condemning the practice unequivally. There certainly were no calls for it to be legal.

Indeed, the sixth point does, again, raise the issue of how the industry sees conducting business. This is not an industry that wants the law used in any criminal sense. It sees itself as in a Wild West environment, goodies and baddies and people trying to survive using whatever wits they have. Truth being, of course, that none of us actually would like living in the Wild West whatever the music industry thinks.

No censorship. No criminal copyright laws. But hackers and payola and nudges and winks on CD prices. Truly a libertarian wet dream ;) I didn't say the RIAA are saints, I said they're misguided and have made some mistakes. The MPAA is evil, the RIAA is just dumb.

Re:Is this a Fair Trade???

[pavera]

Furthermore,
an article on MSNBC earlier today about the same issue stated that the technology industry as part of this agreement stated that they would do everything in their power to impliment DRM anyway, to appease the RIAA and their "need" for legislation. Basically the tech industry said "we'll do what you want without legislation, and we'll stop lobbying for legislation that would hurt you". We got royally screwed in this one boys and girls.

Re:Gotta wonder...

[MattCohn.com]

I think it's just because they found out that no one will support them, and they will eventualy fail. They spend millions on these things, and then people with REAL knowledge of computers defeat them (Black marker, anyone?). Since this stuff has started they havn't been able to keep their website online for more then a month, showing their lack of computer knowledge, and the knowledge of the people they are pissing off.

From earlier in the comments...

Translation ... (Score:5, Funny)
"So stop hacking us, damnit!"

Sounds to me like it's not all humor, but some truth. They have found that the market WILL NOT EAT their bullshit, so they are stepping back as carefully as they can in order to not look like the bunch of spineless techno-asswipes they are.

PS. The earlier story was a fake. Obviously it was that stupid hacking groups way of showing a vunerability in MPG123, and nothing more.

DRM

[Evil Adrian]

I understand why people are upset about DRM, you should be able to mp3 your own songs, yadda yadda yadda.

But like, c'mon, piracy is rampant. Surely, those of you that *aren't* petty thieves have to understand that some sort of management is necessary? People spend time and money to create software, music, movies, etc., and people go and steal it because they believe

a) they are entitled to it
b) they believe industy X is overcharging

Argument (a) is stupid, nobody is entitled to a product. Argument (b) is also stupid. There is plenty of free music and software available on the internet that isn't illegal. If you're truly upset about overcharging, then use free software. The fact that you steal (in addition to being morally repugnant) is that it just tells the companies you are stealing from that they have a product you want, and the fact that you won't pay them for it forces them to clamp down on it.

Furthermore, why won't any of the thieves that are reading this (and I know some of you are) go to Best Buy and steal a copy of Photoshop or the new Eminem CD?

Re:DRM

[ewhac]

I know the intention was satire, but I find it interesting that you chose to contrast speeding with unsanctioned copying, two offenses which have roughly equal detriment to society -- that is to say, virtually none at all.

However, some futher contrast is also useful to consider:

Impact on Society of Speeding:

• Increased fuel usage,
• Slight increase of hazard to other drivers, depending on circumstances,
• Slight increase of hazard to driver and his/her vehicle, depending on circumstances.

Impact on Society of Unsanctioned Copying:

• Increased bandwidth usage,
• Immeasurably small impact to copyright holder's revenue stream, depending on circumstances,
• Slight decrease of available bandwidth to other network users, depending on circumstances,
• Slight increase of hazard to user's computer (viruses, etc.), depending on circumstances.

Penalties for Speeding:

• Fine ranging from $50-500, depending on jurisdiction,
• "Points" assessed against driving license,
• In especially egregious cases, suspension or revocation of driving license.

Penalties for Unsanctioned Copying:

• $500,000 fine.
• 5 years in prison.
• Loss of right to vote.
• Loss of right to use computers.
• In especially egregious cases... Well, really, what does it matter after all that?

Now someone tell me that's a balanced policy.

Schwab

Re:Full Text

[Blkdeath]

Music and Computer Companies Agree on Antipiracy Plan
By AMY HARMON

I was going to moderate this as 'Redundant' (yes, folks, watch out - I'm armed again!) but decided instead to respond.

Copyright issues aside (you didn't give credit for the source - The New York Times online edition); their servers are not likely to be Slashdotted any time soon. Granted, Joe DSL will probably be Slashdotted within his first five minutes on the front page, but the NYT have big pipes - like Adonis big pipes.

Please, people, stop aiding blatant Karma-whoring.

Re:Hah! - I'll build all my own processors...

[AntiNorm]

...entirely from 12AX7 tubes and individual capacitors, resistors, etc

Do you know how incredibly slow a processor would have to be if it was built out of discrete parts? Also, I'd like to see you wade through the ocean of wires to try and debug it. Debugging a digital circuit on a breadboard is painful enough...

Re:Hah! - I'll build all my own processors...

[tx_mgm]

such a dark outlook on the future...it would be pretty amusing in a strange way if non-drm processors become a black-market commodity, tho. imagine back alley transactions between shady individuals dealing in guns, drugs and computer chips, heh.

Re:Thank God

[Anonymous Coward]

Well thank god for that, now we just need to hope we will still be able to buy non-palladium computers in a few years time.

You know, it isn't so much that I hate the RIAA because they don't want me to copy their music, but I hate the RIAA because they want to force restrictive technology into MY computers against my will. You know what, tell me you don't want me to pirate your music and I'd be happy to. Frankly I can do without ever listening to RIAA member music ever again, but leave me fucking computers alone.

How about Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the RIAA doesn't pursue legislated DRM, we've noticed how Microsoft has pressured Intel, Amd and Transmeta into "do it or we'll withdraw Windows".