Slashdot Mirror
Who Owns Your Digital Media?
Ren Bucholz writes "In what was designed to be a "safety valve," the Copyright Office is holding its tri-annual search for
exemptions to the DMCA's prohibitions on circumventing access controls. The
Electronic Frontier Foundation submitted comments
last December that outlined four "classes of works" that should be exempt,
including copy-protected CDs, region-coded DVDs, DVDs with unskippable
promotional material, and public domain works that are only available on DVD.
They are asking people to write in
support of the four exemptions that they have proposed. The Copyright
Office is only accepting comments until February 19th, so get on it!"
who owns the analog media?
-You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If all this already exists, what is the copyright office going to do about it to prevent the big companies to just keep chugging along?
SecondPageMedia - Wha
that is why listen to public domain music ( mozart) public domain films (charlie chaplin) and read public domain text (projct gutenberg).....
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
Haven't you read the DMCA?
DVDs which cannot be played on alternative systems? (For the purposes of compatibility)
Or maybe not. Oh yes. And this comment is ROT26 encrypted so if you read it you're violating said law. kthxbye
--NonToxic
Of course, who did you think owned it, yourself?
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Who Owns Your Digital Media?
Obviously the artists who make it.
But more copy protection isn't the solution to all this pirating going on. Music, movies, TV shows, and other forms of digital media should be made downloadable on the website of whoever owns it. The owner could still profit quite handsomely from advertisements on the website, seeing as how more people will visit it to grab all the free media they would offer. Video media such as TV shows and movies would have built-in ads within them too.
Hey, what better way to "pollute" or "stop" the P2P networks than making your product perfect quality and free! Who would want to download a movie off Kazaa when you can get it off the corporate website where you know your download won't get cut off? If you rip your own product into a file, you can throw as many ads into it as you wish. Granted, there would still be P2P around, but it'd be harder to find video and audio media without ads. Most people would be subject to ads, still, and the profit would still be there, just not at the expense of the user. This system discourages pirating.
Perhaps if these companies would grow a set of balls and try something new (actually old.. TV has been doing it for decades) then they could stop worrying about copy protection. If a user downloaded your movie off your website laced with Ads you get paid for, then mass distributes it via P2P, their bandwidth is actually making you money. Why haven't these companies thought of this yet?
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
From the Reply Comment Submission Form
Commenters should familiarize themselves with the Register's recommendation in the first rulemaking, since many of these issues which were unsettled at the start of that rulemaking have been addressed in the final decision.
Like that's going to happen...
Just my $0.02
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
2) The content that makes its way for distribution on p2p networks, will, most likely have the advertising stripped out of it. Have you ever seen an episode of The Simpsons on a p2p network with the commercials intact?
I've got a blank CDR here. I'll keep it blank forever! It will be my only CD that no one but me has any rights to what-so-ever! Bwahahahah!
As for the others, anyone want any War3z copies AOL 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0?
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Bliss
I still strongly adhere to the concept that I have purchased a copy of the work, and strongly defend what I consider as my right to transfer that work amongst other media I may have. I do not consider replication of that work for distribution to others so that they do not need to purchase that work themselves to be my prerogative, although I would bend as far as running off a sample.. kinda like I would share a swig of my Stolichnaya, but would be quite miffed if once they got a sample, they expected me to be their free source of it.
Personally, I think the content industry has went way too far though. I must know what it is that I am intending to buy because there is a lot of stuff out there that I have no interest in whatsoever. Walking into a record store and buying a CD, without knowing about it first, makes just about as much sense to me as walking in an auto parts store and buying a water pump, without knowing if the pump I am purchasing will fit the car under repair.
Why is 137? Why exactly 137?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Everyone knows that the people using Kazaa only host uncopyrighted material ;-)
Most of you people who use it ought to be serving life sentences in prison for using it too since three felonies (3 counts of DMCA violation) is three strikes. You people are criminals and support such monsters as Sklyarov, Felten, Corely, etc. so don't except any support on this one. The DMCA is here to stay and much more restrictive legislation is on it's way so get used to it. There is nothing you can do about it. This is a socialist country which means that anything which increases the scope of the government is the norm. Quit being a criminal and learn to obey the law and report criminal monsters like copyright violators, illegal gun owners, drug users, libertarians, people who quote the constitution etc to the authorities. People who do the above are terrorists. If you don't believe that the government doesn't consider them to be terrorists then why did THIS happen if they don't consider it terrorism?
that's swell and all, but some good stuff has been produced in the last 75 years.
Do you mean you comsume public domain media exclusively, or is it part of a balanced diet?
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
I'm tired of being reactive. All the letter writing in the world isn't going to make the DMCA any less of a bad law, so why try? Be proactive - vote for a congressman who doesn't support big business and its want to walk over the wants of the citizenry in the name of control. Write your congressman. Inform your neighbors that the officials they elected are rapidly signing away their rights.
If we keep be reactive, the opposition will always be a step ahead of us, because they will continue to control congress and write the laws.
I was trying to find out myself what could "Digital Media' mean: Here are some of the meanings of the term "Media" (Re: Dictionary.com)
:)
a. An ancient country of southwest Asia in present-day northwest Iran. b. A plural of medium. c. A means of mass communication, such as newpapers, magazines, radio, or television. d. The group of journalists and others who constitute the communications industry and profession. e. (Computer Science) An object or device, such as a disk, on which data is stored. f. A culture medium. g. A specific kind of artistic technique or means of expression as determined by the materials used or the creative methods involved: the medium of lithography.
These and many more meanings of the term bring the following thoughts to my mind:
Considering 'a' Digital Media could mean that the ancient country has been restored in a digital form. In that case, the 'owner' the digital media should be the person(s) who created it OR others.
Conclusion (on ownership:)Depends.
Considering 'b' plural of medium: I think the grammar of the language ownes it.
Conclusion: MPAA/RIAA can go to hell.
Considering 'c' means of mass communication,now here's where the picture begins to blur. Going purely by the dictionary meaning; media = means of mass communication; if I own a TV set, I should also own the media, right? In that case, the form of the media does not matter (digital or otherwise)
Concluion: More research needed
'd' is most interesting media= group of journalists. I wonder how the term 'digital media' could be interpreted in this case. A cyber-clone of Larry King???
***At this point, I have lost my ability to conclude. The very idea of a digital journalist has shocked me. Imagine being interviewed by a robot...
'e' makes the most sense. Means of storage....However, if I go to say Best Buy and buy a pack of 50 CDs, then I own the 'digital media', right? Now the contents of MY digital media is a different story. I think nobody has the right to impose upon me what I should keep in my house/ car, etc. The same applies for digital media. (However that does not mean I have a right to steal others' stuff and keep it in my house/car, correct??)
Considering 'f' culture medium: I wish I were a Biology major to comment on it. Any takers????
Finally, 'media' means artistic expression.....so if the artist expresses something be it acting/ vocal/painting, etc...) then the artist is the owner of the 'media'...right? Then why should we even bother about the Music Labels/ Movie Studios? Arent they middlemen who are trying to milk both tte artist and their 'patrons/ audience?' Just a (more than a) few thoughts....
Why didn't they suggest ALL DVDS, seeing as we have the legal right already to space-shift media we have already purchased?
This space available.
I own the media, but someone else owns the format. I cannot say I own both. Also I cannot be told what I can and cannot do with my *legally* owned media, -- regardless of the format.
outlined four "classes of works" that should be exempt, including copy-protected CDs, region-coded DVDs, DVDs with unskippable promotional material, and public domain works that are only available on DVD.
and materials adopting silly encryption that insults the intelligence of citizens.
Otherwise, next time Adobe would publish ebook with ROL-26 encryption and sue those who merely look at it and don't pay up. (am I going to an extreme? that's just an example to inspire thoughts)
At least as far as I've gotten which is the CD section (1/4 exemptions). The issue here is this: If I buy a CD with copy protection and it does not work in my cd player (for the purpose of playback) should I be allowed to modify that CD in a way to make it work without risking going to of breaking the law. We all know this can be as simple as using a black marker. In this CD case EFF's argument is that:
:) SO SHOW YOU CARE. Spam the copyright office with support for the EFF and make things happen.
* The labels don't tell people which cd's include copy protection.
* A large number of stores won't take the CDs back (accept for an exchange of the exact same cd).
* Many works are only available on CD as vinyl cassette and 8track have died (ok i added the 8track part).
* CD copy protections measures will not ever be 100% fool proof (in providing copy protection AND in ensuring playback on devices that should be able to playback the material)
* The problem is only going to get worse. As this problem occours on any device that is capable of reading multisessions disks. Your DVD Player, Game Console, MP3/CDPlayer, and PC are all affected.
Remember this is specifically under fair use! That is the exemption would only be for modifications that allow playback of the material on a device that was not previously able to.
I think this is common sense. Its certainly not far reaching. Consumers should have the right to buy products and use them for their intended purposes (and maybe not their intended purpose, but that out of the scope of this argument!). Most people 90% or more of america would be really pissed if they found out that cd companies were selling cd's that might not work in their equiptment - and that making a simple modifications to their equiptment or cd to make audio playback work could put them in serious trouble.
If 90+% of the people in the US would support the EFF here, that means an open minded group like slashdot should be around 112% right?
I own my digital media.
If I bought it, I should have the right and ability to use it as i see fit. If I want to load my new audio CD into my MP3 player and take it with me without having to lug around a player and CDs, I should be able to do that easily.
The P2P problem is another issue alltogether. People have been sharing music and videos for decades, but now that we can do it online in such great numbers it's starting to hurt(so they say). This battle should not be fought by changing the media. Besides, I can still make an MP3 or Mpeg from a CD/DVD with copy protection --- Analog Inputs. This method just makes it a much longer and difficult process to manipulate MY media.
Question - Why have we not heard so much as a buzz from software companies? Software is shared via kazaa(and others) in the same way music and video is.
Here's the comment I made to the EFF:
I find the fact that the FBI warning isn't skippable on my DVDs disturbing. A message pops up on my television from my DVD player that my DVD is disallowing me from jumping to the main menu. My DVD player is *disallowing* me to fast forward. No where else do we suffer being controlled by our own devices. Imagine if CD players imposed such bizarre rules such as forcing you to listen to something as obnoxious as the this before you could play the disc, "The following music you are about to listen to is copyrighted material. Any unauthorized copying of this material is a felony offense."
Adobe would publish ebook with ROL-26 encryption
Surely you meant ROFL-26?
Re: your sig. I personally don't see it as an improvement either, but I do note that one can't now see the numbers of moderations, and sometimes that tells a story in itself...*cough* post of doom *cough*
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
...who is your representative in Washington? How do you contact them? Do you know what their position is on the issue? Have you (intelligently) made them aware of your position on the issue? Do you still buy Digital Media? Are you just bitching because you want to be one of the people who steals it?
I think a lot of people need to stop talking and start doing something. This issue pops up on /. what... every 20 or 30 minutes? What good is it going to do you to keep voicing your opinion here? You're just preaching to a choir of people who are preaching to the choir.
If you're so absolutely lazy that you can't be bothered to write up a logical, intelligent e-mail, join EFF and at least use their default e-mails to mail your reps and let them know that corporate ownership of your life is NOT acceptable and you WILL help "throw the bums out" if they don't do something about it.
I'm sure a lot of people here do take action against the crooks in Hollywood, but I also guarantee it's not enough....
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Looks like it's not a flame son. I'll ignore the fact that you called me a "dick-head." My intention was not to say not to write a letter but question the effectiveness of such a policy. The Copyright Office is a political body and just like any other, responds most to public opinion delivered through news sources. I hate to break the news to you since you are obviously so naive, but letters written to Congressmen and your President and pretty much any national government official have very little impact. I was not using the term "flock of nerds" as an insult. I was merely suggesting that the majority of people who aren't technical and don't read Slashdot have no understanding of this issue and it should be more of a priority to get them up to speed than worry about getting the Copyright Office on board because...(and here's where you need to follow closely)...the Copyright Office isn't going to respond until there's significant public pressure and letters don't show public pressure; news stories on national outlets provide pressure. You really did read most of what I said incorrectly and that's why I am a little annoyed that you decided to flame me. It's rather childish of you but, I'll forget it. Thanks for the flame!
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Well, perhaps this is over simplifying, but since I bought this DVD & this CD; are they not mine?
I doubt any copywritten work of literature can be as good as 1984.
The problem with the DMCA isn't that copyrights are evil and that we should boycott them. The problem is that it protects works on too many fronts. Traditionally you either protect it technologically (touch my book and die, bitch!) or legally (through copyright). If you use the former, anyone who breaks the lock can copy the book and the latter it must become public domain in given time.
What's happening is that companies have enough influence to get both technological and legal protection that will never go away. Better than that, their technological protection has legal protection of its own.
Those of us that don't want to pay $15-$25 for a crappy CD won't habe $15,000-$25,000 to bribe congress.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Frankly, you're just an AC that can't actually read for understanding.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
This format of class/summary/facts and/or legal argument should be repeated for each reply to a particular class of work proposed.
You'll notice that only 50 comments made it in on the first round. Now you're supposed to comment on the accepted comments. Format is everthing. When they say number the class, they mean it. Start the paragraph with a 1. class, 2. class, etc.(although I notice they are not asking for a number this time?)
--Provide a fact, a legal argument, or something from the news, or incident that happened.
--A summary means your paragraph must start with "In summary" or identify the paragraph as a summary paragraph.
--Don't forget to include your name on the attachment.
This time they are also adding "whether in opposition, support, amplification or correction", so state it.
Missing just one of these steps will get your comment rejected.
(Mine was rejected, but after correction (I added the words 'In summary') they were accepted. We still don't know how many were actually submitted the first round.
Public domain music must be played and recorded by not so public domain artists and recording companies. It the same for the films. Maybe the Gutenberg stuff u can have freely.
In the days of VHS, there was a difference between tapes that you rented and tapes that you bought, as I recall. If you went out to the video shop and rented some movies, then you would likely sit through three to five "upcoming features" trailers (as time went on, they were advertising things other than films as well) before the "Feature Presentation" was to begin.
And, that to me is fine. After all, it's a rental and they do have the "right" to attempt to get my attention about upcoming films, right? Sure, that's no biggie. But, those ads were never present on VHS tapes that were purchased (naturally, we're not talking "Previously viewed" purchases from that same video store).
And that's also the way it should be. After all, this isn't a tape/DVD that you'll be watching once or twice this weekend and taking back. You'll be watching this thing maybe once a month for the next ten years, and losing lots of time watching the crummy previews (likely for movies that you also bought later on). That's just unacceptable.
Skippable or not, ads at the *front* of a DVD are an affront to the purchasing public. Sure, put those ads in, but do it in the same manner you might put in the bonus features, in a menu option. Why is this so hard for the movie moguls to do?
But, more importantly, why is this sort of bad behavior on the part of Hollywood less vilified by the public?
I'll stop here, before I digress....
sig not found
The buyer owns the analog media. When I buy a book, I own the book itself. What I don't own is the content: I am prohibited from reprinting what's in the book.
-kgj
Do you think 1 ad impression for 50-700MB's of data is going to offset the money they make from selling it and implementing copy protection?
..
1 Free Stuff!
2
3 PROFIT!!!
I can see it now:
"Please follow the uniformed police officer to the designated 'Free Speech Zone' behind the building marked 'Garbage Dumpster.' All protesters are advised to leave before Tuesday morning so that waste management may complete their assigned duties. God Bless America!"
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
mod it up simply for that fact. i think people need to see that.
As another proposal submitter from the first round, I would like to point out that there are a variety of proposals put forth by commenters on the table. If you find that you are more comfortable supporting a proposal other than the EFF's, more than one proposal, or a combination of several people's proposals, you may freely comment about as few or as many proposals as you choose. If you disagree with a proposal, and wish to have it modified to make it acceptable to you, you may comment about what changes you feel need to be made as well.
To state the obvious: DO NOT COMMENT BLINDLY WITHOUT READING THE RULES. Before I wrote my proposal of possible exclusions, I spent several days simply doing research on what was accepted/not accepted during the previous cycle. I also read the details of what was wanted during the current comment request, and the results of the prior comment period. Doing so greatly helped me tailor my arguments to better address what was being looked for.
Another issue you should note: THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE WANTS TO SEE REAL EVIDENCE THAT NEAR-TERM HARM WILL OCCUR UNLESS AN EXCLUSION IS GRANTED. Contrary to what many slashdotters' think, the copyright office is being very good as to telling us what they want. If you comment during this reply period, *please* provide real-world examples as to why an exclusion should be granted/not granted/granted in modified form/etc. Simply stating "if this is not granted, I will not be able to enjoy my l33t p0rn" likely will not sway anyone to your cause.
Finally, BE SURE TO CITE ALL SOURCES YOU USE SO EVERYONE CAN CONFIRM THE HARM YOU DESCRIBE IS REAL. By doing so, you prove you did your homework, that you read previous commenters' work, and your comment *will* stand out as being from an intelligent person. Try to get reliable sources that have not been used before; simply repeating previously used evidence will not get you very far.
With all the copying going on, in this day of digital information wanting to be free, who is to say what's right or wrong? Digital information wants to be anthropomorphized, indeed.
Karma: Bad (mostly affected by being such an asshole)
Federal Agents Raid Leesburg Home
"Some neighbors reported being told by agents that the investigation involved a copyright issue."
But if the agents really are jack-booted thugs, do we take them at their word? (Assuming the neighbors got it right in the first place.)
-kgj
g0aTSE.cX is k0oL!!!
D00d I don't pay any damn attention to spam, why would they??? wtf.
If you want a copy of a song or movie, go buy the damn media and quit bitching.
Is anyone else bored to death of troll after troll on slashdot about how horribly painful it is to steal copyrighted music, how horribly evil pirates are, and how p2p serves no other purpose but theft, ad nauseum et infinitum?
If you want to hear about something else, go listen to a song or watch a movie and quit bitching.
Exemptions are good. However by supporting the four exemptions, are we also supporting the fact that other items are not exempt? I admit the proposed four exemptions are very broad in scope so to have them all pass would be good.
The situation sort of has the feeling of being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Remotely. But it's still there.
In the mid 80's I worked in a video duplication agency .. a place studios came to to get 20,000 copies of 'Kansas City' or Alien, 300 copis of the tape showing an interesting dental surgery to send out to subscribing dentists, etc.
.... Who would want to watch any movie more than two or three times at most, more often, ,once is enough.
.... Hmm, is this picture looking strange? Do studios figure out how to supply a craving for music, or do studios go out of business?
I those days, many people put garbage in the 'vertical sync' signal, which wouldn't affect the display of the movie, but would produce garbage if you tried to dub the movie on your boring home VCR.
I have no idea who won that war, since I could never figure out why people would want to use up a $5 cassette on a movie they could rent for that price
So the studios put garbage in the table of contents section of the disk, users come up with ways to decode it anyway. Studios demonstrate their total deddication to profits, fans display their insatiable need to listen to music
TomDLux
Most software companies aren't part of media conglomerates, so they can't whine so loud and far in the real world.
Who Owns Your Digital Media?
Obviously the artists who make it
That's funny, I seem to remember them, of their own free will, selling me a copy of their work and then taking my money.
You're talking about intellectual property rights, not fair use rights. Big difference
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
There's a very, very big irony here. The Bush team just got caught with their pants down by bloggers and others including Mike Magee at the Inquirer. It turns out they were sending out massive fake form emails to papers around the country, and bribing folks to sign their own names to them with "GOPoints" they could trade for prizes.
That story is now crossing over to the mainstream press with articles in Monday's New York Times. and (more intelligently) Paul Boutin's Slate article.
Another big irony: this story has been riding Blogdex for a week--a long techno-duel of marketing droids versus nerds armed mainly with Google. And the nerds won! Probably the only place you couldn't follow the action was here on Slashdot, the story was rejected three times. So the Superbowl is a better example of news that matters?
Inquirer article with screenshots of prizes you get for spamming your local paper.
Making trouble today for a better tomorrow...
When you're a kid and you wanna go, "Weee!" But you ain't got drugs yet.
You hold on to your life.
Hold on to your little gonads... and strife.
Support by making a link to eff.org on slashdot!
Show them you care by setting their webservers aflame!
Everything we write in to support will be the first thing they take more control of.
~ now you know
Loved it they might as well just said we would like this exemption because jackasses have enough power in the world.
It also begs the question. Is the DMCA supposed to protect the nature of copyright as it was used before the digital revolution, or is it meant to grant extraodinary new powers to media conglomerates.
Ahh well The more things change the more they stay the same
why you're a boring fucktard outcast...
in my opinion ... i own my digital media
i paid for it, so i have the right to do with it what i want
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
Those of us that don't want to pay $15-$25 for a crappy CD won't habe $15,000-$25,000 to bribe congress.
I got bad news for ya, pal. You ain't bribing NOBODY in congress with a piddly fifteen to twenty-five grand.
Gonna have to come up with some real money if you expect to get anything done in Washington.
Is it fascism yet?
issues of fair use vs. piracy are cloudy at this point, because copyright law has yet to catch up with technology. all sides of the issue are staking out extreme positions, we're watching a power vacuum being filled by way of feeding frenzy. what's needed is a new approach to copyright laws, to take account of our new technology. our new approach to copyrights should make media ownership less complicated, more intuitive. people shouldn't have to wonder if they're breaking the law by transferring their purchased commodity from media x to y. how about this: when you purchase a copyrighted work, you also purchase the right to make as many copies of it, and transfer it to as many systems, as you desire. the one caveat is that you're not allowed to make money off of these copies, without express permission from the copyright holder. feel free to share, but don't try to make bread from the sweat of another's brow. this approach renders questions of ownership and fair use simplistic, for example: can i rip my cd to mp3? -> yes. can i watch my dvd on linux? -> yes. backup copies? -> yes. p2p sharing? -> yes. can i copy a cd for my mom? -> yes. can i sell a copy to a stranger? -> no. charge for access to my ftp of dl's? -> no. can i sell divx versions of dvd's? -> no. this is a rule of thumb a six-year-old could understand. copyright law is ours to determine. there's nothing set in stone about it. we should update the law to reflect technological changes, instead of letting it be fought out in a million seperate law suits. "let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. the event is in the hand of God. " - GW
disponibile
Flame? Dick-head? Methinks you got a bit too upset about this. You could perhaps be a bit more polite yourself if you want the high ground. Letters and protests are both good, and I personally think the original post was far more persuasive in tone than yours.
One of my biggest complaints with it being illegal to copy my own music and movies is that it makes it hard to make these things accessable to my handicapped sister. While she enjoys these things she is unable to handle discs, tapes, etc. She can't always have somebody there to manage these items for her and even if she could it takes away from her freedom and privacy.
I've ripped hundreds of gigs of these items to the computer and have been developing an interface she can use to access these items. My understanding is that this is a criminal act because it involves breaking CSS and various other stupid technologies. This software could help others but it's probably illegal to share.
Somehow I worry more about my little sister then I do as to if rich media companies manage to squeeze an extra penny out here and there.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
are belong to us! ;)
Seriously though... I think that what we buy should belong to us. It's ours, and we should do whatever we want to do with it as long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights. ( Such as making a copy for a friend... that is infringing on the artist's rights because now we are technically stealing ). I doubt it's going to happen without the downfall or a radical change in the **AA, though.
And so we go, on with our lives
We know the truth, but prefer lies
Lies are simple, simple is bliss
A couple of years ago a campaign to complain about proposed organic standards that favored the big agribusinesses was successful in forcing the FDA to make a complete reversal and impose standards that favored the consumer. A few hundred thousand complaints were made by e-mail and snail mail. It was considered one of the largest responses to a call for public comment in US history.
So yes, a similar campaign may work in this case.
Write the letters. Send your e-mails. Getting the issue before the media would help, too!
-
excuse really.
I see UIDs' in the high 6 digits now on a regular basis. Just for arguments sake, lets say there are a percentage inactive for one reason or another.
That leaves easily 200,000 to 500,000 users bitching here that could each send in 5 bucks or so at a minimum.
Why not skip that next pack 'o smokes, fast food, or movie rental and just write a quick check?
It *will* matter more than you think.
Blogging because I can...
The DMCA letters being sent to ISPs go to far. They are not just demanding that the ISP stop the customer from sharing, but they are demanding that the ISP sever all business relationship with the customer.
This became apparent when one of the ISPs in Australia refused to comply, and went public. I believe IDG or ZDNet covered this, in their australian online edition. They showed the contents of the letter, which included the demand of immediate halt of the customer's sharing, but also the immediate cessation and severing of all business relationship with the account (identified by ip address/date/time/files/etc.)
This goes far beyond so called "copyright infringement". This is a punitive action made by a very embittered (and according to their own sales figures, very greedy) RIAA/MPAA.
As someone who's had their dsl plug pulled on three days notice, and have been waiting more than three weeks for a new dsl provider to get permission and get switched on from the local telco, I can tell you from first hand experience the problem this causes.
If one of my children downloads and installs a p2p program, and keeps the defaults as installed, I get to have my plug pulled? All of my web sites taken down? My email server cut off? My remote users cut off? My dns server that other networks rely on as a second dns server shut down?
A careful review of the users of the p2p programs would show that the majority of the users are children. As defined in the US, children are under the age of 18. As defined by many of the "save the children" advocacy groups, children are under 19, under 21, under 25.
I've been working on getting a CD burner working on my computer, but have had problems because of the unusual ide/scsi multiple hard drive setup I have. So it is not working under gnu/linux, and I've been making coasters under windows. I have a large collection of music which I own. Does the fact that I can download the same music that I own so I can listen on my computer/car cd player disallow me from downloading this music? I have the originals, just need them in a different medium. This is known as fair use. Will a default/misconfiguration of a p2p application cost me my entire net connection? Is this what was envisioned by the senators and congressmen when they signed the DMCA bill? Was this the intent of the law?
An internet connection is viewed in the US as a necessity now. Schools are handing out assignments that include mandatory internet research. Those that don't have a connection are expected to go to the library or make arrangements with the teacher. But now the MPAA/RIAA are allowed to demand that the ISP pull the plug? On no or short notice? Library hours are being curtailed due to budget constraints everywhere. Libraries open on Sunday are unusual, and becomming more so. Saturday hours and night hours are being curtailed as well. So the MPAA/RIAA get to pull my plug because their automated computer thinks I'm sharing copyrighted works?
Who reimburses me when my child's school project named after a copyrighted title shows up as a dmca violation, my plug gets pulled, and I lose customers for web sites/co-location hosting/email services/voicemail services/backup services because I can't get another dsl connection running right away? Or the downtime with ip propagation through the dns servers to the root servers with the new ip addresses of the new isp account because the old isp complied with the sever all business demand by the mpaa/riaa?
As I read the DMCA act, it says that the isp must stop the sharing. I haven't read that it says that all business must be severed with the customer. Yet the mpaa/riaa are demanding this of isps. If you were a small time isp, would you comply or fight their lawyers? So you keep the connection and face mpaa/riaa lawyers, and more enforcement action/attention by them and the bsa, or you pull the plug and face a remote possibility of a lawsuit from a user. Which would you choose?
Any changes to the DMCA law must include a prohibition on allowing the mpaa/riaa to demand that all business relationship be severed. It must only include the means necessary of stopping the "infringing" use, and the customer must be given the opportunity to respond prior to the plug getting pulled.
My plug was pulled. I suspect it was a DMCA demand that caused the plug to be pulled. But a different, unrelated excuse was used to pull the plug. In the meantime, I had three days notice. What would you do, fight it out with an isp that wants to disconnect you? Or hurry up and find another isp so that you could get your revenue producing content back online?
Since my local telco doesn't allow servers on their dsl connection, and since they require that the service be disconnected before another dsl reseller can place an order for service, and since the order for service takes anywhere from one to three weeks, there is no way of avoiding a several week downtime. And my local telco is the local telco for most of the northeast, and most of the east coast of the US.
It's easy to say don't allow the p2p use. But when you have pre-teen and teen children on your connection, you'll think differently. And if I "share" a number of files, yet firewall off the files so that they can be seen as being shared, yet can't be uploaded from my server, that does not violate the dmca, yet would result in a dmca takedown letter. No files were uploaded from my server to anyone else's computer, they can't be. Yet the way that the mpaa/riaa is scanning for shared files, they "see" the files as being shared, and that results in a takedown letter. So I'm not violating any law, yet the riaa/mpaa get to pull my plug and cause me economic harm?
I have some limited technical knowledge. Try explaining this to a small business owner, or someone who relies on email, internet access, and some reason (web server, vpn, mail server, etc) for a dsl connection for work. They get their plug pulled and are disconnected for 2-3 weeks or longer while they scramble to find a new dsl provider because the mpaa/riaa is looking for revenge and twisting the dmca law to their benefit? Cable isn't an option as a backup, as they don't allow vpn, and don't allow servers. A second dsl provider involves extra cost, and a separate additional phone line, or line drop, and it still involves ip number/dns interruption.
Changes to the dmca law need to be made to prohibit this vindictive behavior by the entertainment cartel. A net connection is no longer viewed in our society as a luxury. It is a necessity. No one should have the right to completely pull the plug on someone's connection. There are steps that can be taken to prevent copyrighted file sharing. Pulling the plug is an unconscionable action on behalf of a very bitter, vindictive cartel, and exposes them for who they really are.
The Verizon court case, where the entertainment cartel are attempting to ascertain the identity of a file sharer is a case in point. They state that they want to find out the identity of the person so that they can "tell them what they are doing is illegal". Really? Wanna bet they want that plug pulled and want the isp to "sever all business relationship" with that person?
Those outside the US, take this lesson to heart. When the laws in your country are being fought out, make sure the above situation is not allowed to happen as a matter of law. The entertainment cartels will look for any advantage they can get. You need to be equally vigilant that your legislators protect your rights. And speak up. Or you will also lose in the end.
Ignorance is Strength. Duh.
Software companies don't care as much if their work is traded as most of them use piracy to expand their marketshare. Adobe, for instance, knows that some kid isn't going to pay $500 or $600+ for software, so they will let them steal it (as Adobe releases about 20 keys to warez sites) in order for the kids to become proficient in the software. When the kids grow up, they go work in graphic design, and go buy Adobe's products, becasue they are familiar with it, and they can afford it.
Many software companies (including Microsoft) use this tactic to make sure their software sells more, and this method has been shown to work.
They say they have over 8,000 dues paying members. This is not a lot folks.
Blogging because I can...
This is a very important legal distinction, and one that congress didn't address enough of when creating the law. In theory, copyright holders do not have the legal right to prevent you from bringing their content across country lines for personal use (assuming the other country has similar laws). The obvious intent of the DMCA was to support the legal rights already given by the existing copyright laws, not to create an entirely new class of de-facto (and actionable) rights defined by those who currently have the right to mass-reproduce the material. EULA not withstanding (and, let's be honest, they don't), there is no legal framework for region control of copyrighted material. If such a thing is allowed to stand, the next logistical step is to segment the captive market by state and / or metropolis. This would reduce competitive pressures from surrounding communities, and reduce online sales to a few, more highly profitable mammoth corporate entities. I'm not being paranoid here: regional access was implemented in order to increase the sale price of overseas copyrights by segmenting the market and asuaging fears of competing with offshore copyright holders. This has been a part of the video game industry since Nintendo offered the US rights of the NES to Atari. Thankfully, without a DMCA provision, importation of videogames was available to the sub-market of any hobbyist who really wanted access to the material, a market not so large that it would reduce the attractiveness of a copyright that is likely to be purchased, but large enough that a truly significant game would not be completely missed by those who might consider gaming an emerging artform (Seiken Densetsu 3? Radiant Silvergun?).
This is just one point of the new generation of copyrights being taken by those who hold the traditional copyright. For example, they are taking the sole right to control access to the fast-forward button... preventing the user both physically and legally from advancing through anything they might have a financial stake in you watching. They have taken playback medium rights, ensuring that their content can only be seen in a particular set of circumstances, like on a Windows(tm) computer, or a Sony (tm) DVD player. Translations of media for personal use are gone, as are backups... an often abused right that is necessary for anyone who A: has lived through a fire or B: has no idea where they put that CD that they love so much.
Some of these new rights are being taken (backups) in an understandable attempt to enforce the rights they already have. But many (regions, commercials, resale rights) are simply a way to use the legal framework to squeese out more dollars from end consumers, and should be fought against.
Nowhere in the DMCA does it state that it is an intended framework for the non-congressional creation of new rights for copyright holders. Chapter 12 is titled "Copyright Protection and Management Systems," and the first and second sub-clause 1201 and 1202 (referred to in the above article), are entitled "Circumvention of copy protection systems" and "Integrity of copy management systems," respectively. Thus, when they referred to the circumvention of ''(b) ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS.--(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that-- ''(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
Hence, as restricting region traversal is not a defined right of a copyright owner (holder), multi-region DVD players, and in fact the sale of region-free (but not copy-free) DVD players should be completely within the confines of the law. While it does, in certain points, refer to devices that circumvent access controls, it should be recognized that these two terms are being used interchangably by our elected officials, but that the overriding intent is the protection of existing rights, not creating a new class of rights. Intent is not the sole criteria of the courts, but many rulings have fallen upon the side of intent when explicit statements have failed. No court would believe that Congress intended to define the fast-forwarding of commercials as "theft."
I'm sorry, this was going to be a quick little ramble. It sort of grew a life of its own.
-C
This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future.
I thought it was Clear Channel.
The ______ Agenda
1) Big Media wants ISPs to charge users a downloading tax
2) ISPs balk - Big Media "lobbies" lawmakers, enforces ISP tax
3) Profit!! (for lawmakers and Big Media)
4) Big Media now claims ISP tax isn't enough, content sales still down dramatically
Big Media "lobbies" lawmakers for help
Gets subsidies to save industry to cover losses
on content they never sold
5) Profit!! (for lawmakers and Big Media)
6) Big Media catches on..can get income without producing any content
Big Media "lobbies" lawmakers for help enforcing monopoly
Non-authorized content made illegal
No content is authorized (except government media)
7) Profit!! (for congressmen, senators and Big Media)
8) Music is now illegal - Zappa predicts future
Superbowl fans were all busy watching the game, distracted momentarily from Slashdot.
This story appears and as of yet I don't see anyone saying: "IN SOVIET RUSSIA... Digital Media owns YOU!"
Coincidence? I think not, my friends....
Just like when you buy a car you only have the right to drive it. I really feel for those people losing their cars and going to jail for lifting up the hood and repairing them without going only to the car dealership or asking the car manufactors permission in writing. Cars are copyrighted right? Then they are not yours! We all know copyright holders have godlike and patent like powers so we should not even be debating this. Ask any lawyer from Hollywood or even experts like Senator Hollings. Anything otherwise would be bad for the economy and costs jobs and the whole American way of life.
When will you slashdotters relize that you only exist in life as a right to live granted by the government and all the corporations.
You should be on your knee's and begging Jack Valentini for forgivenss for such blasphemic thoughts.
http://saveie6.com/
Your words speak my mind, am assuming that they are most peoples mind. I feel bad for Eminem losing money for those who download copies of 8-Mile from Kazaa, but I own a 45 of Strawberry Letter 23 by Brothers Johnson and believe that I have a right to that download. Shutting down Kazaa because some people use it to illegally obtain copies is a severe abridgement of my rights. Honestly, I don't know where I stand on songs that I do not own, but can not purchase anywhere. It seems like they should be available to purchase digitally for a reasonable amount (and represents an unserved market).
If I could have a digital locker that had all the music I have purchased, it would be worth something to me (another unserved market). If my ownership was confirmed, I would be willing to give up my old media (yet another unserved market).
After removing all of the cost of manufacturing materials, and middlemen, the actual cost for the media should be so small that it is less convenient to steal. You could get a high-quality copy that is not a few seconds too short or mislabeled.
It is a dream that I have...
I did the P2P thing a while back, and mostly what I downloaded was remixes and club mixes. Anybody know a.) how those are made and b.) how'd I go about legitimately having them?
I'm not a big fan of the original songs in most of those cases. It's not clear to me that having the original song on CD either would put me in the clear. Can anybody enlighten me?
Damn - I knew that one of these days clicking through those EULAs was going to bite me in the ass!
> I see the media as only being a carrier for the
>work, much as I see a bag as a carrier for its
>contents.
Yeah, but it is the content you want/buy, otherwise you would go out and buy a blank CD, not a music CD.
>I still strongly adhere to the concept that I
>have purchased a copy of the work,
Yup, and thus you own that copy (just as you own a particular "copy" of a football if you buy it). You do NOT hold the copyright to the copy though. As such, you can do anything you want with your copy as long as it is not one of the things prevented by copyright. Rather simple really.
Yep. But the problem is that copyright has been bastardized to place greater restrictions than ever before.
Digital media needs no additional restrictions placed on it than Analogue media.
so when my little cousin asks to get the new soundtrack to some movie, should I ask his mother or the RIAA?
As well as the 4 the EFF submitted, I would like to submit:
* The Flumtreble invented in 2007
* The worselhorn invented in 2020
* The Flangtrimble invented in 2066
If we don't get these exempted then they might never be invented because they would be illegal.
Thank God the copyright office is giving us this chance to protect future ideas!
I live in Canada and their support form seems to be for the US audience only.
I know that it's the US regulators who they will be talking to, however it goes without saying that anything passed in the US migrates north almost effortlessly.
Sure would be nice if they'd take comments from other countries... Especially those right next door...
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
Actually, this is how "protests" are managed here in Hong Kong now. You're allowed to protest as long as you do it in a place where you're well out of sight of any of our unelected leaders (one thing we have in common with the US). Though it beats the Mainland way of arresting and locking up protesters within seconds of their unfurling their banners and taking them away to labour camps (even less salubrious than Guantanamo Bay).
In one celebrated incident a year or so ago the police played Beethoven at high volume to drown out the protesters so they wouldn't offend the cadre attending some meeting.
Yeah, but it is the content you want/buy, otherwise you would go out and buy a blank CD, not a music CD.
Very true. I consider what I paying for with legal tender is a legal licence for my personal use of the work encoded onto the media. The media itself is of little value, as is the bag. Both are just containers.
I often buy a carton of eggs. Its not the carton I want, but it comes preloaded with eggs. I know I could, if I had to, get empty cartons, raise hens, and end up with the same carton loaded with eggs - but the store made it so easy to buy eggs, so why bother? Now if the farmers started playing all sorts of games with me, trying to tell me what I could do with the eggs, and under what conditions I could prepare them, I might have to resort to raising chickens.
I consider it to be my right to transfer the work amongst any media I have, because I have paid for it, and I intend to enjoy it. In my case, its backup to another CD, then rip to MP3, mix, and burn so I can play it in the car and jogging player.
If the original media gets damaged later, its no big deal. As long as the original media stays intact long enough for me to transfer its contents onto my system, with due backup systems, losing the original carrier is about as traumatic as losing the box the hard drive came in, albeit that I do place significant effort to keep my original source media in pristine condition. Thats what backup is all about... the data is the only thing thats really important. Everything else is replacable.
Back to the eggs.. just because they came a dozen to a box does not mean I am forced to eat them in sequence.. I want an egg here, a strip of bacon there, grits there, etc. Same with the music. I have my own unique tastes of what I want, and I compile my own mix. I do not feel some authority can tell me I can not mix my music anymore than some farmer can tell me I have to eat the whole dozen eggs before I can eat the toast. Or telling me I can't fry my bacon in a microwave oven.
I do not believe I have any right to dictate to the sellers what they can do with the money after the trade, nor do I consider they have any right to tell me how I am going to be allowed to enjoy my use of their work after the trade. If I made your car, do I have a right to tell you where you can go?
Yup, and thus you own that copy (just as you own a particular "copy" of a football if you buy it). You do NOT hold the copyright to the copy though. As such, you can do anything you want with your copy as long as it is not one of the things prevented by copyright. Rather simple really.
True, quite simple. I feel I can do anything with my copy as long as it is not one of the things prevented by "copyright".. only problem is coming up with what both parties agree to be the fair use definition of "copyright". I feel committed to the "like a book" doctrine. I feel when I pay the purchase price, I am entitled to personal use of the work. I feel a lot of people get confused with media. Media is only the "box" the "work" was delivered in. I feel I purchased the "work", but the media was necessary just as the carton was a necessary part of purchasing the eggs.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Being "forced" to watch promotional content does not prevent your access to the content you have a right to access. By adding an extra class of works to thier list they dilute thier arguments.
Of course, IANAL.
Go here to create your own Slashdot dis
Why is that site so incredibly biassed towards US? It's supposed to be international.
> Ever bought a foreign DVD only to discover it
> won't play on your American DVD player? Did you
> have to buy a multi-region player to get around > it?
This isn't anything to with America - it affects all region coded DVD players.
Why not just say "your country". Oh I forgot - America is the only country which matters bomb the rest.
Why does everyone hate America?
Heh, regarding the egg part, I think one (or both) of us have not understood the other one. It seems we actually agree with each other I would say.
:(
For some reason, people tend to think of copyright as ownership (which it is not) and then think that just because you don't hold the copyright, you can't own something and can't do anything and so on. When it is actually to the contrary, you can indeed own and do anything you want EXCEPT a few well defined actions in the copyright laws.
In part I think the blame might to be on the intelectual "property" which makes people tend to treat it as physical properties and handle copyright to something as ownership of property. This is of course great for media cooperations since it gives them more power and they certainly do all they can to twist copyright in that direction. To bad people fall for it believeing it is allready like that.
> only problem is coming up with what both
>parties agree to be the fair use definition of
>"copyright".
Could be. In general, I would say it should allready have been resolved. Copyright is nothing new and there are probably in most countries many court decisions to sort it out. The main problem seems to be that for some reason, people think that now with digital "media" (meaning content, not container) the existing copyright laws does not work. I don't see that, they seem to work very well and cover all the nessecary. All changes or additions to the copyright laws done to handle this new digital word seems to actually add new things to copyright that has not existed before, which is bad.
>I feel committed to the "like a book" doctrine.
>I feel when I pay the purchase price, I am
>entitled to personal use of the work.
Actually, you should be entiteled to ANY use that is not specifically disallowed by the copyright law. Media coorperations wants you to believe that you have no rights it seems and that copyright laws forbids EVERYTHING, including use which is not true. In addition they work hard to actually change the copyright laws to be that way as well.
> I feel a
>lot of people get confused with media. Media is
>only the "box" the "work" was delivered in. I
>feel I purchased the "work",
Yes but here is were many people go wrong, they believe in the media's (media coorperations, that is those holding many copyrights) propaganda claiming that you don't "own" (equallying holding copyright with owning) the actual work and thus you can't possibly have bought it since you don't own it you can't do anything with it and have no rights. Oh well.
One of the most important thing in my opinion is to actually educate people about what copyright actual is and mean. Many does not know or understand it, believeing in whatever they are told (often by big media coorperations). WHen enough people believe in it, one claim the current copyright laws does not cover it (well, doh, it was not true what was made people to believe) and that changes are needed and so on. Sad
So with better information about what copyright actually is and how it works, it would be easier to fight that behaviour as well and prevent changes in copyright laws for the worse in the future.
<SARCASM> So where is my Warez Key for Windows XP that allows me to install service packs? </SARCASM>
No, I don't have XP, and I don't really care. I just wanted to make a point that Microsoft stopped doing this with the release of Windows and Office XP.
Anybody got a clue where I can find a copy of one of these letters, or what date the ZDNET or IDG article was posted?
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
If you're going to add 5 minutes of ads, reduce the price by say, $2 per minute of ads? So that'd make those $9.99 movies free...DVD's like $10...I like it.
Reduce the price, or cut the crap.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
So your statement about me offering a "lame rationalization" was what? Completely wrong? You ignored my statement about that entirely. I suggested a much more proactive approach to the problem and you accused me of making a "lame rationalization for doing nothing." How is that the case?
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
http://www.house.gov/writerep/ lets anyone find out who the US congressional representative is for a given area. However, in densely populated areas, you'll first need the complete Zip+4 postal code.
ANY work that claims copyright should be exempt from the DMCA.
After all, copyright is granted in exchange for the public's fair-use access to the copyrighted material.
DRM prevents that.
In fact, it ought to be illegal to put DRM on any work that claims copyright....yadda yadda.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
As we taxpayers subsidise it.
My answer to your first question is, unfortunately, that the Canadian Ambassador is my representative in Washington. Although I'm sure he would be happy to hear my opinions, his vote doesn't count for much in Washington. I guess I should hire a lobbyist.
/. should be attempting to influence their government; foreigners that are bellyaching in /. are doing what little they can.
Because of the shear size of the US economy, companies tend produce products in accordance with US laws so that they can sell into the US market. It is also a good idea for foreigners to obey US laws if they ever want to set foot on US soil, since apparently you can be prosecuted for breaking US laws even if your actions are legal in your own country.
As foreigners, our opportunities to influence US laws are pretty much restricted to convincing Americans to act on our behalf. Americans that are bellyaching in
-- Pot is safer than Beer
Lowering the price to compensate for a lower value product is what happens in a free market. Fortunately, the media companies don't have to deal with a free market; they can be shielded by new laws instead.
Copy protection on DVD's is an example of where the media companies played somewhat fair. Laser Disks were not copy protected, but they were 2-3 times more expensive than DVD's. What you lost in not being able to make copies, you made up for in better quality and lower price. This is how a market is supposed to work.
Copy protection on CD's is an example of how the media companies would like it. Copy protected CD's are worse than normal CD's in every way. Besides not being able to copy them, you can't play them on your computer, and they are probably more susceptible to damage. Yet the record companies want to sell them for the same price as real CD's!
The widespread copying of digital media is only happening because the distribution and physical production of digital media is much cheaper and easier than it was for analogue media. The only way for a media company to consistently charge much more than the cost of production is to prevent competition. The recent changes to the copyright act will create an ironclad legal monopoly that will allow the media companies to do whatever they think will increase their revenue. If the law does not restrict what companies can put on the media they produce, and the law prevents a user from modifying the players or media they "own", then unskippable ads are an inevitable consequence. We will get no more a price break in compensation for the ads on a DVD than we did when they started showing ads in movie theatres.
-- Pot is safer than Beer
Well, sorry dude, but it's exactly 42.
Moderators, please mod this up one point so it is equal with the parent and reply posts, thank you.
Here's the quote:
The letter is here:
http://whirlpool.net.au/article.cfm/1054
and here is the entire letter (and article):
Hollywood muscles Australian ISPs over piracy
| 2003-Jan-14, 12 am | Australia
UPDATE | Hello Slashdotters, from around the world. Nice to have you with us! The Slashdot article discussion forum has brought up a lot of good points. In particular, that US law -may- reach into Australian jurisdiction due to various treaties and internationally registered entertainment companies (which means an Australian branch of an entertainment like Warner Bros could easily liaise with its US parent and take legal action on Australian soil). That discussion can be read here.UPDATE | ZDNet Australia has published an excellent followup to the MediaForce letter which includes legal opinion over whether ISPs need comply with the company's demands. The article makes very interesting reading, and can be viewed here.Hollywood giant Warner Bros has started ordering Australian ISPs to disconnect users for sharing copyright material.
One ISP, which asked not to be named in this story, received a letter listing the IP address of users who had shared movies, along with infringement times and dates.
Australian ISP Managers were today hotly debating the topic of what to do in response to the demands. Some ISPs advocated warning or disconnecting users, while others were seeking legal advice to confirm their view that US companies had no jurisdiction in Australian law.
The company behind the letter is MediaForce, a New York based anti-piracy group that uses "advanced scanning techniques" to monitor piracy across the internet and report infringing users.
According to its website, the company monitors Napster/OpenNap, Aimster, Swapnut, Gnutella (Bearshare, Limewire & others), AudioGalaxy, Hotline, iMesh, KaZaA, Morpheus/MusicCity, Grokster, Xolox, FTP Sites and IRC.
But the company does not just monitor copyright violations, it encourages ISPs to block or restrict file sharing ports on their services. It also distributes 'decoy' files via file sharing networks which look like real music and video files, but are in fact garbled data.
The full letter is quoted in the article continuation.
LINKS
* Media Force Inc
* Aust ISPs hose down reported US copyright attack (ZDNet Australia, 14 Jan 02)
* ISPs wary of role in anti-piracy actions (C|Net News.com, 8 Jun 01)
* File tracker may go too far (Wired, 11 May 01)
* On Behalf of Film Studios, Company Searches for Students Downloading Movies (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1 Oct 01)
* Q&A for ISPs in USA on how to deal with Media Force (ChillingEffects.org)
* Guide to the Digital Agenda Act 2000 (Department of Communication, Information Technology and the Arts, Aust Govt)
~
Dear Abuse Department:
We are writing this letter on behalf of Warner Bros., a division of Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. ("Warner Bros.").
As you may know, Warner Bros. is the holder of rights under copyright, including exclusive distribution rights, in and to the motion picture(s) listed above.
No one is authorized to perform, exhibit, reproduce, transmit, or otherwise distribute the above-mentioned work(s) without the express written permission of Warner Bros., which permission Warner Bros. has not granted to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.
We have received information that an individual has utilized the above-referenced IP address at the noted date and time to offer downloads of the above-mentioned work through a "peer-to-peer" service.
The attached documentation specifies the location on your network where the infringement occurred, the number of repeat violations recorded at this specific location, as well as any available identifying information.
The distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted motion pictures constitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 106(3). This conduct may also violate the laws of other countries, international law, and/or treaty obligations.
Since you own this IP address, we request that you immediately do the following:
1) Disable access to the individual who has engaged in the conduct described above; and 2) Terminate any and all accounts that this individual has through you.
On behalf of Warner Bros., owner of the exclusive rights to the copyrighted material at issue in this notice, we hereby state, pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 512, that we have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by Warner Bros., its respective agents, or the law.
Also pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we hereby state that we believe the information in this notification is accurate, and, under penalty of perjury, that MediaForce is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification.
Please contact us at the above listed address or by replying to this email should you have any questions.
We appreciate your assistance and thank you for your cooperation in this matter. In your future correspondence with us, please refer to Case ID XXXXXX Your prompt response is requested.
Respectfully,
Mark Weaver,
Director of Enforcement
MediaForce, Inc. (212) 925-9997