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!"
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
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.
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?
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]
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?
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.
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."
...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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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?
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
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.
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.
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]