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!"

Comments

public domain audio and e-text

[stonebeat.org]

that is why listen to public domain music ( mozart) public domain films (charlie chaplin) and read public domain text (projct gutenberg).....

More copy protection isn't the answer

[Kethinov]

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?

Re:More copy protection isn't the answer

[Anonvmous Coward]

"I don't know about you, but I have cable and I pay something like $70 a month for TV (and it goes up all the time)."

I pay about $35 or so. I'm curious if you're on digital cable or not.

"Broadcast TV loses market share every year and TIVO is really going to kill it if left unregulated."

Okay, I understand your point, but I don't agree with it. The main reason I disagree is that in order for commercial skip to work, people have to have already recorded the show. There is value in watching it as it comes down. If anything, Tivo gives broadcasters more room to experiment beacuse conflicting time-slots is a real pain in the ass. For example, now they have That 70's Show on at the same time as Enterprise. This sucks for me. Fortunately, Enterprise is on again on Sundays. Not every show is so lucky.

Will the ad-skipping hurt? Actually I agree with you here, I think it could, but only if left unchanged. The main reason that people would want an ad skip feature is that advertising has been abused. I tried watching a movie on TV the other day and commercial breaks happened at critical parts, even messing up the flow of the movie. "Uh, how'd they get out of there?!"

The solution here is simple: Make the ads more interesting. You know how news stations give you little teasers that provide no info whatsoever? Why not place ads in there where they actually give brief news stories? Remember the cartoon suggestion I made earlier? Why not hire a company to do 30-second cartoon spots? The idea here is to make the commercial time more rewarding. This works. When Nemesis came out, they had commercials showing brief clips of the movie plus some hints as to how it was made. I sat in front of ALL the commercial spots to get that info. With a TiVo, I would not have skipped it.

I have one more idea, but this one is arguably weaker. Lure people to the website of the TV show and get advertisements there. I know that comment probably made you grit your teeth, but when American Idol had a marquee at the bottom saying "to see more horrible contestants, go to this url..." my ass was in front of my computer as soon as the next commercial break.

So yes you're right, assuming the industry stays the way it is. Truth be told, though, they were heading that way with or without Tivo.

"None of the viewers seem to care if the network makes money from ads..."

I agree with you. However, the fault is their own. They've done a PITIFUL job of educating their audience. And since they haven't educated their customers, then attempts to make advertising more intrusive has resulted in people making $400 purchases in technologies like TiVo. It amazes me they haven't tapped into the demand to avoid commericals by releasing more DVDs of TV series.

I owe you an apology. I made a rude assumption about what your response would be. I regret that now. I'm sorry man.

Cheers.

What exactly is Digital Media?

[civad]

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 not ALL?

[Jafafa Hots]

Why didn't they suggest ALL DVDS, seeing as we have the legal right already to space-shift media we have already purchased?

Re:Educating the Public

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheesh, we're talking about something that takes maybe ten minutes of effort here. I think people can handle this and talking with friends, organizing protests, etc. Heck, organizing their thoughts here might even make those other things easier later on. Imagine that!

In 1998, the CTEA was passed completely unnoticed by the public. Now look how much mainstream press the Eldred case got. That's progress. Keep it up and Disney won't be able to buy its next extension in 2018 at any price.

Frankly, your post is just lame rationalization for your doing nothing at all. I'm going to do my part, but in the end, people get the government they deserve.

who owns your digital media?

[MoFoYa]

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.

Even the unskippable FBI warning is atrocious

[semios]

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."

I have some better questions....

[the_mad_poster]

...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....

DVD purchase vs. rental

[mat catastrophe]

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....

'defecive' disks ... 20 ywears ago it was VHS

[TomDLux]

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.

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 .... Who would want to watch any movie more than two or three times at most, more often, ,once is enough.

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 .... Hmm, is this picture looking strange? Do studios figure out how to supply a craving for music, or do studios go out of business?

TomDLux

Re:'defecive' disks ... 20 ywears ago it was VHS

[shepd]

Yes, it was Macrovision, and was added to help ensure the movie companies could keep their monopolistic grip on the video rental companies. Back then the price of buying a movie was in the $150 - $200 range. Without macrovision, since nobody in their right mind would pay that price for a movie, they were being pirated left right and center.

So, add macrovision in, and the cost of pirating the movies goes up the price of a Time Base Corrector. No more casual piracy (not that it was all that casual as VCRs cost $500 at that point).

So, what's the result? Pirate movies become more valuable, prices go up, and once the pirates have covered the cost of the Time Base Corrector (perhaps $5,000 back then? I don't know) they're raking it in.

Eventually movie companies realised that the tighter their grip, the more piracy, and the more money pirates would make. Huh? I'm sure you're saying. Pirates don't follow the rules (obviously), so why the hell should they care how much it angers the MPAA when their stuff is pirated? It's like the Black Sunday ECM DirecTV sent down a couple of years ago somewhat earlier to this time... It only served to make sure professional pirates got another boatload of loot getting people back up and running. I know for certain it never stemmed the tide of piracy. If anything, the advertising that the DirecTV signal was infact piratable drove users _away_ from paying for it!

So, they got a clue (the MPAA, certainly NOT DirecTV), figured out what it really costs to dupe a movie, and simply lowered prices to a point where they made money, and made piracy a waste of money.

Of course, just like DMCA of today will likely hang over the head of Americans as a reminder of the bad old days, Macrovision is still with us as nothing more than an anachronism that costs about $20 to defeat. Not that it's really worth even that much to bother.

Any of that sound like a certain other group of people?

uh....

[feed_me_cereal]

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

"Write in support"--but carefully!

[EnlightenmentFan]

Be very aware that your input may be tossed on the garbage heap if they decide it's a form letter and not "original." That's what happened to hundreds of thousands of anti-snowmobile comments, according to this New York times story, by Katharine Seelye. Registration (free) is required, so let me just quote for you the relevant bit:

"... the [Clinton-era] Forest Service actually relied on public comment when it developed its "roadless rule," intended to protect 58 million acres of undeveloped national forest from most commercial logging and road building. It drew 1.6 million comments, the most ever in the history of federal rule-making. Almost all the comments -- 95 percent -- supported the protections but wanted the plan to go even further, which it eventually did.

But the Bush administration delayed putting the rule into effect and sought more comments, receiving 726,000. Of those, it said that only 52,000, or 7 percent, were "original," meaning that the administration discounted 93 percent of the comments. The rule is now being challenged in court."

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.

handicapped access

[MikeFM]

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.

Letter writting campaign changed organic standards

[Beebos]

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!
-

Hidden DMCA letters going too far in demands...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Multi-Region DVDs... New class of Copyright laws?

[Chris Canfield]

From the copyright office site. This rulemaking addresses only the prohibition on the conduct of circumventing measures that control "access" to copyrighted works, e.g., decryption or hacking of access controls such as passwords or serial numbers. The structure of section 1201 is such that there exists no comparable prohibition on the conduct of circumventing technological measures that protect the "rights of the copyright owner,"

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

Re:Who Owns Your Digital Media?

[Anonymous Coward]

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'd support the EFF, but...

[Nogami_Saeko]

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.

Re:Who Owns Your Digital Media?

[Pofy]

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.