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."
"So stop hacking us, damnit!"
(Score:-1, Wrong)
"...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.
GL
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.
Fundamentalism stops a thinking mind.
I recieved an iPod for Christmas and I'd kinda like to keep it....
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
Does anyone else find the statment "details an agreement between the RIAA and various hardware and software companies in which the RIAA has agreed to avoid seeking legislation a little uncomfortable?
the idea, that, two multi-national business organizations (comp. ind. / riaa) have basically made an agreement to A) not "buy" some legislation from their corrupt governmnet and B) further collude in some way to determine the future of the industry.. i thought these people were supposed to be COMPETING???
how f'ing obvious can this be...
There is no way they'd be able to pass legislation requiring computers to have DRM. They'd have to prove computers have no other use besides playing media. Not even the RIAA can bribe enough politicians for that.
They're just trying to spin the fact that they can't force that kind of legislation to make it sound like they're being the good guys.
What difference does it make to them if there's that kind of legislation anyway? They're doing everything they can to restrict their CDs to DRM players as it is.
Jason
ProfQuotes
... what sparked this change of heart. Is the RIAA afraid of Intel and other big companies entering the legal battle? Do they finally realize that they could make money by making internet specific products with these people as allies? Have they figured out that by getting the laws passed, the consumers out there would be made aware of the RIAA's attempts to mess with their rights?
I can't help but think there's a juicy story behind this decision.
Seems like the RIAA and MPAA are thinking clearly and the tech industry isn't. Since the MPAA isn't party to this agreement, they can still campaign for enforced DRM. The tech industry promised the RIAA they wouldn't try to expand rights for consumers (translation: enforce current rights), so they probably won't campaign against the MPAA. The RIAA loses nothing since the MPAA will still do their lobbying, which the tech industry won't oppose them.
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.
t m
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.h
"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.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
Their idiotic hurrahs, I'd like to point out how sinister this actually is.
The only literal thing that has happened, is that they promise not to push for laws that insist on hardware DRM. The manufacturers are of course free to implement it on their own.
Which is the only possible explanation as to why the RIAA would cave like they have.
This isn't a good thing, by far.
Keep your skirt on. The other half of this story is that the hardware manufacturers have agreed to make DRM hardware. Get ready to stock up on the last remaining DRM-free hardware in the near future.
If they had, it would have read like this... from the glass-is-half-empty dept.: Your Rights Online: Electronics makers to lobby against user rights That's the other half of the quid-pro-quo here. The RIAA is willing let go the idea of government mandated DRM, so long as the electronics companies promise to lobby against any pro-user expansions of the definiton of "fair use" or a guarenteed right to backups. Basically, the RIAA would rather have things stay the way they are, then to play the game in Congress. If the RIAA tried to argue for more than they have now, there's a risk that the debate might turn around and result in pro-consumer copyright law changes, and they'd rather talk people out of trying than taking that risk.
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.
Does anyone else feel that this is just a non aggression treaty, like the one between Germany and Russia, and both sides are holding off the government until they come up with the killer technology to screw the other side, and us as well?
Maybe it's just me.
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
"As more people steal music (or in their opinions stop paying outrageous prices for music without any money going to the artists), their power will diminish."
If people are using P2P to steal music as you put it, then how come there aren't very many games there? It's not the file size, DVD's get traded way more than games do. So what's the deal?
I'll tell you what the deal is, people aren't opposed to spending money. With games, they can download the demo and try it out legitimately. There's no way to do that with music or videos. Once you open that CD or DVD, it's yours. Satisfaction is not guaranteed.
Call it 'thievery' if you like, I call it ensuring customer satisfaction. Don't believe me? Then explain to me why the RIAA was at their peak while Napster was?
I've done quite a bit of searching for MP3s in my time, and what I have found (Note: this is not a scientific analysis, just an observation) that few people had complete albums. Just about everybody had one or two songs from a given album. That pattern is suggestive of people hunting around for new music to try, not somebody out to save a few bucks.
The funny thing is that all this happened at absolutely 0 cost to the RIAA. Free advertising. They should have looked the other way. Go fig.
Actually, they're doing what Congress told them to do. As you may remember, a couple of years ago during the height of the Napster craze, Congress looked at forcing the music industry to provide music over the Internet. Some of the guidance from Congress, was "industry fix this problem or we'll fix it for you." Anyone who has experienced Congress' help, would rather avoid it in the future. So it is not surprising that these two groups got together. In fact, it is a good thing. Do YOU really want Congress deciding this issue.
Here is a story that explains a little more behind the MPAA's decision:
MPAA Info
"I've done quite a bit of searching for MP3s in my time, and what I have found (Note: this is not a scientific analysis, just an observation) that few people had complete albums. Just about everybody had one or two songs from a given album. That pattern is suggestive of people hunting around for new music to try, not somebody out to save a few bucks."
Lots of people are probably downloading songs because they have a huge collection of CDs and would rather d/l what's already ripped than try to go through each CD and encode it all.
The more reasons I think about why somebody would download an MP3, the less I think the reason is to save money. It takes quite a few albums to make up the cost of an iPod.
"Derp de derp."
But like, c'mon, speeding on public highways is rampant. Surely, those of you that *aren't* scofflaws have to understand that some sort of management is necessary? People speed because the believe
a) they are entitled to
b) they believe the speed limits are too low.
Argument (a) is stupid, nobody is entitled ot break the law. Argument (b) is also stupid. There are plenty of freeways available that have reasonably high speed limits. If you're truly upset about speed limits, then use private roads. The fact that you speed (in addition to being morally repugnant) is that it just tells the legislators that you are a criminal, and the fact that you won't pay attention to the limit forces them to clamp down on it.
Furthermore, why won't any of the scofflaws that are reading this (and I know some of you are) go out in your car and run some red lights and hit some pedestrians?
It seems the RIAA and/or BSA have learned to troll Slashdot, since the headline is grievously misleading.
This, "landmark agreement," simply states that BSA and RIAA will lobby against all new legislation on digital policy. Under this "balanced" approach, not only would Senator "Fritz" Hollings' (D-S.C.) bill for mandatory Digital Restrictions Mechanisms get the kibosh, so also would Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) initiative to make exercising Fair Use rights an affirmative defense against DMCA prosecution.
The most telling quote was from BSA head Robert Holleyman, who described the DMCA as, "generally working as it was intended."
This "compromise" measure is nothing of the sort, as it merely seeks to affirm the status quo, doing nothing to redress the harm done and still being done by the DMCA and the lesser-known NET Act.
I also note -- with piqued curiosity -- how the Associated Press report on this story has had significant changes made in the last few hours. The first version I read contained Holleyman's telling DMCA quote and mentioned the effects on Lofgren's and Boucher's bills. The latest version has a considerably different slant, soft-pedaling the announcement and eliding Holleyman's quote.
So the newswires aren't our friends, either.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
I forget, which side represented the consumer? Was it the RIAA or Microsoft?
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