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