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.
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
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 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]
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.
Cough! Yet another stupid commment by someone who has no clue about economics. If you had been paying any attention whatsoever for the last 3 years you would have noticed that most of the websites that were 100% advertising are now out of business. Then let's consider how much advertising revenue you get from a single hit on your website. It sure ain't the $5 you currently pay to rent a movie or the $17 that a CD would cost you. Plus after someone downloads your movie, edits out the commercials, and sticks it on P2P then you're right back where you started. Get a fucking clue!!!
-a
Your point is exemplified in the wired.com article from the earlier SlashDot article.
After hearing of all the dot bombs that based their business model on internet ad revenues and failed, it interesting to see that it can be profitable if you give the people what they want.
It's also too cool to see the "pirates" show the Corporations how it should be done.
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.
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)
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.
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
No, I disagree totally. First, the artists do not own MY cd. The artist contracted with a record company. Any standard record contract gives the rights to that cd to the record company. The record company is the one screaming save the artist! while at the same time bending that selfsame artist over the table for a little woo woo.
Ok, now that we've established that the artist doesn't own the music, the record company does, let's follow that cd to a store. That cd is on a rack. I want that cd, so I buy it. Now, I have bought the recording...it's mine. I am not free to give away COPIES of that recording, however, I am free to give away that recording if I wish..it's mine. If I want to copy that cd and put the original away so it doesn't get scratched, that should be my right. It's my recording. If I want to copy that cd and put the copy in the car, that should be my right. I bought the recording. The record company holds the rights to distribute that recording. I do not. But, I do hold the rights to listen to my recording however I wish.
The problem is that the same people who say what you've said usually just turn around and bash the next course of action someone suggests:
"Challenging the DMCA in court will never work, we need Congress to repeal it!"
"Congress will never listen to us, so vote them out."
"Voting is useless because both parties suck and third parties never win."
"Boycotting the media industry is hopeless; they'll just blame the loss on piracy."
"Civil disobedience won't work, they'll just use that as an excuse to pass even more stupid laws."
It's all a bunch of defeatist crap that gets us nowhere. Forget choosing. Do all of the above! Or as many as you can. No one says you have to pick one tactic and cling to it forever. Nor does it have to take an inordinate amount of time. I wrote and submitted my comments in the time it took you to reply to my first message.
Here's one scenario:
No it won't save the world by itself, but it's something.
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.
Everything we write in to support will be the first thing they take more control of.
~ now you know
The whores are cheaper than you think.
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...
What I find even more distirbing (and I have commented about it) is how hypocritical and pointless such tactic is. It is unlikely that people who illegaly copy a movie from DVD will include the FBI warning when copying. Even if they do, the pirated version uses some mpeg player and will be able to skip anything. Yet I, a *legal* owner of the DVD, have no way of skipping the warning aimed at people who don't see that warning. What do they expect, that I will recite it to people that use P2P??
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.
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]
It's actually a very important catagory - content providers want *complete* control over the content - just like in EULA's - including things far beyond the normal limits of copyright law. There's no "right" for them to force you to watch promotions - therefore, you have every right to figure out a way to skip it. The MPAA will no doubt argue that you have an implicit contract to watch the promotion, and that skipping it is stealing, and to that I say, piss the hell off.
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.