Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: Spamnation, Long-Distance, Libel

Slashback with updates and amplifications on Apple's stance on DRM, EasyInternetCafe's court battle over CD burning, a copyright law being drafted after Lessig's own heart, the lawyer vs. eBay saga, and VoIP calling with Linux. Read on below for the details.

But sir, all of these songs are under the Open Content License! atta1 writes "In an article on The Register, EasyInternetcafe has lost its court battle against British Phonographic Industry (BPI) over burning downloaded music to CD."

When last mentioned (August of last year), EasyInternetCafe was trying to avoid fines from BPI for letting Internet cafe customers burn to CD music they'd downloaded there.

After all, somebody's got to write 'em. g_adams27 writes "Several weeks ago, Larry Lessig proposed anti-spam legislation he'd like to see Congress pass -- legislation which he was willing to bet his job on. Now it looks like Washington might be taking his bet... and they want us to help out!

A congressional aide appears to be drafting legislation based on Larry's suggestions and is asking the Politech list for suggestions. The proposed law is posted here."

IP leases are nicer than telephone leases. Lots of people were interested in the story posted the other day about VoIP support in GnomeMeeting. I mentioned there that theKompany had a VoIP application for Zaurus owners; Shawn Gordon of theKompany writes with information about a forthcoming desktop version as well.

"So we released tkcPhone a few weeks ago, we found some issues with Net2Phone that we've just finished sorting out today, and we've about wrapped up the tkPhone beta, which we expect in a day or two. Having tkPhone allows us to do some things we couldn't on the Zaurus, like make use of a Speex codec which is part of the Xiph umbrella these days, we couldn't use it on the Zaurus because it requires floating point support. We also can have a system tray notifier and a roomier user interface. Because we spent so much time optimizing everything to work on the Zaurus, it means your desktop performance is going to be very good.

We decided to use SIP as opposed to H323 for a lot of reasons: smaller, faster, lighter, newer, easier hardware requirements. So with our phone a regular sound card and a headset/mic will typically suffice for what you need or want to do. Our arrangement with Net2phone means that in addition to PC-to-PC calls, you can make PC-to-phone and PC-to-mobile calls as well. The prices range from free to as little as $0.02 per minute in the U.S. and $0.03 minute internationally. You're already paying for your internet access, might as well start to piggyback this stuff.

tkPhone is not free however, it is $9.95 for the electronic version of the application. We expect to have it up for sale about February 10, 2003."

And as several readers pointed out, if you're interested in VoIP on Linux, you should also check out the sites of both the Bayonne project (mentioned several times before)and asterisk (also discussed here).

You mean they're against my inalienable right to watch movies for free? geekee writes "An article on CNET states that the Internet Streaming Media Alliance (ISMA) will include DRM support in the MPEG-4 open standard. Without DRM, the ISMA doesn't believe MPEG-4 will be able to compete against proprietary standards such as that provided by Microsoft since content owners 'want continually improved tools, with rights management.' For instance, Movielink, an online movie rental source, has opted to support Microsoft and RealNetwork formats because of their DRM capabilities. An interesting thing to note is that Apple is a member of the ISMA, and has previously declared its opposition to DRM."

Money talks, and sometimes it says nasty things. scubacuda writes "Since eBay removed the alleged libelous statements, Roger Grace has agreed to drop his libel lawsuit for $2.5 million in punitive damages from eBay and $100,000 from Tim Neeley (who wrote that the magazines he bought from Grace had arrived late and in a worse condition than advertised). Interestingly, eBay removed the feedback not because it was 'negative,' but rather because 'the contact information for the seller was not correct.' Chris Donlay, eBay spokesman, says, '[T]hat is one of the circumstances in which we will consider removing the feedback,' EBay attorneys even went to far as to claim that Grace's original lawsuit is 'completely without merit.'"

(Here's the Slashdot post from last Saturday, 'Attorney Sues eBay over Negative Feedback'.)

15 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. DRM in free video formats by Louis-Nap · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Putting DRM in MPEG-4 to increase industry acceptance should make us think...could it be a good idea to start thinking about DRM in free video formats (like Ogg whatchamacallit). I know that the slashdot crowd here can't bear the thought of DRM anywhere, but hear me out.

    What if we had an open-source codec, which was capable of operating with or without DRM? Without DRM we could all use it and be happy knowing we aren't lining any corporations pockets, and don't have to worry about the situation changing in the future. With DRM, companies who wanted to stream secure video would be able to know that the DRM mechanism is secure (because everyone has the code for it!)

    Just a thought...

    --

    ===
    You know that guy who stole your girlfriend away from you in the summer of '95? He's going to die.
    1. Re:DRM in free video formats by geekee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes. However, if someone buys a DRM movie and runs it on an open source codec, they could modify the code to give them access to the decrypted data, and then share it in an unencrypted format. So I think DRM and open source don't mix, but it's not as bad as the parent made it out to be.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    2. Re:DRM in free video formats by sweetooth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I could actually care less about thier old business models. I think that RIAA and MPAA companies tend to price things at a point higher than what the products are worth.

      The issue I have with DRM is that it can be highly restrictive. If I buy an Audio CD containing an artists music I expect to be able to play that cd in my car, my stereo, on my computer, or other devices capable of playing the audio. I also expect to be able to take the media off of the cd and store it on another medium if I so choose. With DRM as proposed by Sony (and some other companies) we would only be able to use the media in devices that these corporations choose. This is extremly unfair and I believe that because of this these companies should not be supported.

    3. Re:DRM in free video formats by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My original point was that a OSS DRM solution is not possible without some type of secure, external mechanism (ie: TCPA). I think you thought I was saying something else.

      Secondly, the issue is not whether or not some sort of encrypted file format is supported. If it was just an encryption layer, there wouldn't be a problem. The issue is that DRM platforms will probably support some sort of restrictions on how that file is used. For example, I may not be allowed to transfer the file to someone else over the internet. If those restrictions are enforced, then I have a technology which is acting against my interests and presumably for some other interest.

      You see, all technologies which actually do something fall into two simple categories : technologies which empower people, and technologies which control people. Certainly one person's control is another's empowerment, and sometimes vice-versa. The issue here is this : I don't want to be controlled. Certainly I understand how record executives see the situation. They see the personal computer as a technology which empowers people, at the expense of their control. They feel that they own their recordings, and have the right to dictate how others use them. I feel that I own my computer, and I have a right to dictate how it works. It's all very simple, a question of where their rights end and mine begin, and vice-versa.

      As for the rest of your post, it sounds like a rant. Nevertheless, I would like to point out one thing. An acceptable balance between empowerment and control usually provides an option to both parties. If my boss doesn't want to pay me, I can work somewhere else and possibly sue him for owed pay. If my boss thinks he pays me too much, he can try to find a replacement. RIAA and Hollywood are saying "we want to sell you content, and dictate the terms of how you use it". The legal system supports this position, it's not illegal, but do I support it ? Of all the products sold, very few have any strings attached. Up until now, it has been the lack of technology which has enforced the RIAA's and Hollywood's terms. Now that the personal computer has put the terms up for negotiation, why should we simply accept their first offer ?

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  2. Apple's involement with ISMA by batobin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's interesting that the ISMA wants to put DRM in MPEG4, and that Apple is part of the ISMA, but does anyone know how much of a part? There are plenty of alliances where the members have very little say in what gets decided.

    Also, it should be noted that Apple will find any alternatives necessary to avoid DRM. This isn't one of those huge developments that completely shifts a company's views on a certain matter. Apple will simply find another way...

  3. Question by unterderbrucke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Several weeks ago, Larry Lessig proposed anti-spam legislation he'd like to see Congress pass -- legislation which he was willing to bet his job on. Now it looks like Washington might be taking his bet... and they want us to help out!"

    When will they be willing to "help us out" and get rid of the DCMA?

  4. No. by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 3, Insightful
    NO! Putting DRM in open standards just to gain corporate acceptance is like letting a cancer grow so it is easier to see on an X-Ray. I beleive DRM should simply stay OUT of the open digital standards.

    They (RIAA, MPAA, et. al.) all need to get a grip on reality and understand that once something is digital, it is going to be zapped accross the globe in seconds. That is the power of the internet.

    Pot and Coke, unlike MP3's and movies, are tangable items that take up lots of space, and require airplanes and boats to smuggle into the USA(TM). Billions are spend on the "War on Drung(TM)" and what are the results? A 15 year old can more easily procure Pot than a beer. Slipping "Matrix 5 - Overloaded" accross the globe is a mouseclick or two, no problem at all. My point is that something that can be transported so easily can NOT be stopped. If you can't stop shipments of Pot, how the hell can you stop something that can me shipped instantly and anonomously?

    1. Re:No. by geekee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is not any more wrong to write an open source codec that supports DRM than it is to write an open source ssh program. In both cases the source is open but some content remains protected from viewing and copying without consent by some party. I wouldn't say that digital content with DRM (particularly harware supported) will be easy to crack any more than satellite tv is easy to crack. It'll eliminate casual piracy, and, therefore, enable new online markets. Of course there will be limitations, but without DRM you will be stuck with the "old business model" that slashdotters love to complain about.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
  5. I disagree completely by einhverfr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We're on the brink of getting all sorts of content available through the Internet. It is not inconcievable that many of us will actually abandon TiVO, mini-satellite systems, and cable and hook our computers directly up to our televisions to get all of our video content within the next couple of years. DRM in no way hampers our ability to make and distribute video -- it's just a necessary step towards permitting the creators of such content to share their work with us on their terms.

    You sound like you hold with the idea that people have the moral right to place any restrictions on any content they redistribute. I do not believe this, and as long as you define moral right here as being the greater good for the greater people, the legal opinions have grappled with this in a moral way, and have always upheld the idea that there are limits to the rights we grant copyright holders-- that fair use is still protected.

    In essence, we as a society lease provided content to the content providers-- if it is intellectual property, it is owned by the public as a whole. This is why, I believe that the Constitution of the United States of America specifically states that Congress may provide for exclusive rights (aside from fair use as interpreted by the courts) for a LIMITED TIME.

    If we are so interested in "Their Terms" then we should go to a model of perpetual copyright. Why not? We do seem to be moving in that direction. And I do not think that all cultural expression should be owned forever.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:I disagree completely by GuruJ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's nothing to do with being a moral right -- the whole purpose of copyright is to put incentives in place for people to create new content.

      Without copyright, the argument goes, people simply wouldn't bother creating the materials. And it's true!

      Before copyright existed, artists had 3 basic options:

      1. Get a private person to sponsor your work.
      2. Get the church to sponsor your work.
      3. Get the government to sponsor your work.

      None of these methods are used widely today. Copyright was a legal right instituted in relatively modern times to ensure that, with the collapse of the patronage system, people could still receive sufficient financial returns from their work, and would continue to produce new material.

      There are many problems with copyright, yes, but to assert that content providers should have no rights over how their work is used is simply going to drastically reduce the number and quality of creative works in the marketplace.

      --
      -- Askari: Give JavaScript the bird.
  6. Spam bill could have had more teeth... by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I still say spam should be given the same treatment as junk faxes. I'd say the only way putting "ADV:" in the subject header would cut back on the volume is if the SMTP servers were able to scan e-mail subject lines before sending the mail over the network. Otherwise, all you're doing is making it easier to delete by the end-user instead of actually freeing up expensive bandwidth.

    And then there are the exceptions, which include (surprise surprise!) political campaign solicitations.

  7. Re:DRM will happen. by dmaxwell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Windows we may well have to live with. All forms of DRM will be cracked whether Hollywood likes it or not. For that matter, they will be cracked whether Fritz likes it or not.

    Doing whatever the hell you want in your own house is the American Way too. Whether you like it or not.

  8. Re:Proposed email subject lines. by mjh · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The main problem with laws such as these is that they just will not work.

    Of course they won't work. But that's not the point. SPAM is not a technological problem. It's a social problem. Technology alone can't solve it. And, unsurprisingly, the law alone can't solve it. But combined, there's hope.

    The reason that I want a law against spam is to continue to keep spammers using fake email addresses. To keep them from going to actual email addresses. If spam is illegal, then there's a disincentive to be easily tracked by using a real working email address. Why do I want spammers from using real email addresses? Because the most effective way I've seen to block spam is TMDA. And it's spam blocking ability depends on spammers not having working email addresses.

    TMDA requires users to authenticate themselves by verifying that they can be tracked to a working email address. If they can, then they can send me email. Spammers don't do this. So they don't get into my mailbox.

    But if everyone started using TMDA, then there would be an incentive for spammers to start using real mailboxes in order to get around the fact that everyone is blocking them. But a law which disincents getting tracked makes TMDA stronger.

    The fact that a law, alone, won't fix spam doesn't mean that it won't help. And, frankly, I think the technology needs help, because this is a much harder problem than technology is accustomed to solving alone.

    $.02

    --
    Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
  9. Amateur vs. professional artists by GuruJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mate, you're right, but you're wrong at the same time.

    I think we're arguing along slightly different fronts -- we have to distinguish between amateur artists, and professional artists. Amateur artists may well create art 'because it's just cool', but they are primarily creating art for their *own* gratification.

    Not for the Pope. Not for anyone else. They probably don't even care if their art gets locked up in their basement. The only thing that matters is that they get enjoyment out of it.

    And that's fine, as far as it goes.

    A *professional* artist, on the other hand, devotes his or her time to creating art on the basis that others will compensate them for their work. And they have probably only got to that stage by getting sufficient kudos from other people for their previous, amateur works.

    *That's* where my list kicks in.

    Love art, and create art for free, by all means. But if people are to be able to devote all their time to using their talent to the best of their ability, at some point, they need to be able to get paid for that.

    --
    -- Askari: Give JavaScript the bird.
  10. Re:Unfortunate if we do... by Alpha+Prime · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You don't seem to understand... if we take the analogy of a movie as a book, then DRM is the equivalent of saying that "You can read your book in the living room, den, or study, but you cannot read it while eating, or while sitting on the john.". If that's a bad analogy, then tell me where I'm wrong. I don't want limits on the things I *buy*. If it comes into my possession, it's mine. I'll agree to not copy it and give it away, but limits on what I can do with it while in my possession are ridiculous in the extreme.