Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Piracy Labeling Bill in Works
Rinisari writes "Just posted on news.com.com is an article with more on the bill that could make all digital consumer products be required to be labeled with information regarding any anti-piracy technology within the device. Senator Ron Wyden, D-OR, will be the primary sponser of the bill (he's also got a text-only site)."
it says he is "close" to releasing a bill that "might" require labeling.
On the face of things, this sounds like a good step. Companies are certainly free to incorporate DRM or other anti-piracy features, but consumers should be equiped with all the information they need to make a sound choice. That will make it easier for people to vote with their wallets.
Unfortunately, it probably won't stop most of the unwashed masses from buying the latest [fill in the name of the flavor du 'jour] CD.
It's about time somebody stepped up to the plate. This kind of legislation is necessary if we are to even maintain the concept of consumer rights. How can a consumer make a decision on what to buy if it isn't labelled sufficiently?
Good luck on this bill!
At first I thought this was a terrific idea. But you know that the majority of buyers are people who don't understand what the consequences are.
And further, as the technology becomes more and more popular, eventually, won't EVERY product have one of these labels on it?
Although this act seems like it could be a step in the right direction, I think it should be cut down before it wastes (American) tax-payers dollars.
No longer will I waste money on games that I can't blindread into Daemon's tools so I can toss the CD...
I hate ever so much switching CDs.
It will also help sell "forward thinking artists" and labels who don't have the label.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
See, this kind of thing I think is a lot more benificial then some of the rabit anti-anti-copy thought that has been growing recently. Manufacturers should be allowed to so whatever they want with their product, and on the other side consumers should know what they are getting. No need to start spewing that DRM is evil, just allow everyone the information they need to make a good decision.
Yes, I am aware of the irony of using that case for DRM, for the information people may need to use for good judgement can be hidden using DRM. I believe it is a weak arguement though.
Wait, aren't they on our side?
Opponents of Hollywood's drive to strengthen copyright law are mounting a new strategy: Require anything that has antipiracy technology built in to be clearly labeled and let consumers decide at the cash register.
So, they aren't trying to pass a law to require digital copyright protection on devices, they are trying to legislate disclosure of "anti-piracy" technology that might otherwise silently sit on that new CD player you are ready to buy from Circuit City.
Why are we bitching at the Democrats? Oh, because it was on slashdot and the genius editor posted it "from the compromising-freedom dept", so we don't have to actually read the the article before shouting profanities at the "Fucking Democrats".
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Now, when I buy a CD, I expect to be able to use it in my PC and copy the music to my Sony walkman using the program that came with it. If I am in the store and I can't see if I am able to do that, I won't buy it in fear of wasting my money.
my sig
Opponents of Hollywood's drive to strengthen copyright law are mounting a new strategy: Require anything that has antipiracy technology built in to be clearly labeled and let consumers decide at the cash register.
So, they aren't trying to pass a law to require digital copyright protection on devices, they are trying to legislate disclosure of "anti-piracy" technology that might otherwise silently sit on that new CD player you are ready to buy from Circuit City.
Why are we bitching at the Democrats? Oh, because it was on slashdot and the genius editor posted it "from the compromising-freedom dept", so we don't have to actually read the the article before kicking into full knee-jerk mode.
"I want people to walk into every store in America and see that the product they're about to buy has restrictions," Wyden said. "Let's take this to the marketplace."
Uh, that's what we want, isn't it? (well, short of making the whole copyright BS go away, I mean).
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Even though Sony explains clearly in little print on the back of the Memory Stick packaging that Magic Gate is a DRM technology, it doesn't stop people from thinking that it's something new and cool. They look at the label and figure it must be better than normal non-Magic Gate Memory Sticks.
Labels like these are not the solution and only restrict manufacturer's rights and put a crimp on their profits for no reason whatsoever. Of course, Wyden is from Oregon and may have a small stake in the paper manufacturing increase that will necessarily occur if such a bill is passed.
I have been pwned because my
But you know that the majority of buyers are people who don't understand what the consequences are.
And part of that is because nobody TOLD them there are consequences.
But as soon as warning labels start showing up, some of 'em will start to wonder what they're being warned about
So some will ask, or look around on the net, and maybe find out. Then they'll be able to make an informed decision about whether it matters to them enough to affect their purchase decision.
And others will just avoid products with the warning label in favor of those without - which will create pressure on the providers to stop using technologies which require a warning label. B-)
Don't underestimate joe sixpack. Just because he isn't an expert on the things YOU'RE expert on doesn't mean he's dumb or lazy. He may be quite the genius, and just focussed on other interests.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
the urgent need to abolish DRM and copy protection . (Don't get me wrong, I would prefer lack of copyright and copyprotection, I'm trying out for Fox News with all this wild speculation)
http://www.remix.net/
The difference is that the Tipper Gore wanted things labelled based on something that is not clearly definded (i.e. what is offensive or innapropriate for children) whereas does this cd have copy-protection is a clear cut technilogical question. In addition it is generally accepted that the ultimate goal of Tipper's group was to force retailers to refuse to sell music marked objectionable to minors whereas copy-prevention labeling would be strictly for the purpose of informing potentional buyers, what they can or can't do with a cd (without cracking the protection, of course).
One product is addictive, the other isn't.
Yes, they are different.
This technology should never be called anti-piracy technology; it's very strange to see Slashdot use such a deceptive term. This is anti-copy technology. It prevents fair use as well as piracy. It prevents users from doing things with the music they buy that the Supreme Court has already declaired as totally legal. There is no technology that just prevents piracy but allows legitimate use by users, just the opposite, many of these technologies hardly slow pirates at all, but present serious problems for legitimate users.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Using the language of the enemy means we've bought into their argument. Anyone with a positive bank account is against piracy, so let's please try to use language that best expresses our reasoned opinions.
-dameron
And don't forget that labelling was really a compromise. If Tipper had had her way those CD's would have been banned altogether. She is actually the biggest reason I voted against Gore. If you thought Hillary was bad, Tipper is far worse. And don't fool yourself into thinking she has no influence.
>And the similarity is that Communists/Fascists, or >any other shade of totalitarian the Political >Science Departmet can classify, employ this labelig >tactic to force speech on others, just as this >fellow is trying to pull.
Take off the tin-foil hat!
This is more of a consumer-protection law than anything else. It's reasonable to expect the dealer/manufacturer notify you (and discount appropriately) when he tries to sell you known broken goods. Wouldn't you be a bit ticked if the CD burner you bought was used as a hammer by the store manager's kid, without any notice about it?
Copy-protection is making a product broken the moment it comes out of the factory. Note it as damage.
It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
But it should make a difference if the CD I bought is not compatible with MP3 conversion or if the CD is NOT readable by common CD Players.
Software/Games already have copy protection all over them, disabling means to copy, also without any indications of protection. If that's on music CDs, shouldn't be a problem at all. But if I have to buy new DRM drives. That's a problem.
Maybe the first time. But if the labels are consistent, maybe after someone gets burned once, they will avoid the media that has the warning. Fool me twice, shame on me. Shame there are so many fools in the world. ;-)
No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.
Now they won't be able to screw you over by selling unreturnable products that are defective in the sense that the customer doesn't know ahead of time that he won't be able to play them on his computer, car stereo, or whatnot. I'm suprised someone hasn't already sued the pants off of the recording industry for that bullshit.
Repeal the DMCA!
I wish that were true, but not a lot of Democrats support the 2nd Amendment. Many Democrats are as rabid on the War of Drugs as any Republican, and the WoD is probably the greatest threat to the Constitution in the last 100 years or so. It's completely destroyed the 4th Amendment, and it's making inroads on several other important elements of the Bill of Rights.
The sad fact is that neither the Republicans or the Democrats have any great respect for the Constitution. Both parties seem to view the Constitution as an inconvenient obstacle to whatever goofy social agenda their constituents like at the moment.
Truth-in-labelling is really a libertarian idea. In other words, buy copy-protected music if you like, but you should at least be allowed to know what you're buying. No force, no fraud, the holy duality.
(Disclaimer) I'm not a doctrinaire libertarian-- for example, I don't think we should sell the National Parks to Disney. But the major parties need to start being just a little more concerned with liberty, or pretty soon there won't be any left.
They should be referred to as "anti-backup" or "anti-fair-use" labels.
Evidence please, Fritz and company are bought and sold by disney, Daschle is a pawn to the labor unions, and Edwards is a scum-sucking trial lawyer, where did Bush buy votes?
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
The point about who controls the creative potential of society is much more sophisticated than this - the argument is outlined very well in Lessig's "The Future of Ideas".
First, art does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, it draws on previous experience and the public domain. Renaissance artists admiried Greek art; Disney borrows fairy tales. Countless classical composers wrote fantasies on folk songs. The erosion of the public domain harms all artists by eliminating the ability to borrow from the past.
Second, the zealous defense of copyright has the ability to unreasonably restrict what an artist may use in the course of their work. Say, for example, that you want to make a short film of a play you wrote. Hope you made the costumes yourself; the storebought dress your lead actress is wearing is probably a copyrighted design. Does she sit down in a chair in one scene? Better clear it with the furniture designer before you distribute your film.
Noone's saying, of course, that you can't make a home movie to send to grandma. But what about, say, a group of high school students who just want to put their rendition of a Shakespeare play on the web? Or a computer-programmer-by-day who's itching to share a monologue he wrote? The promise of the Internet (and cheap electronics) was that now _anyone_ could try their hand at being creative, and possibly be heard.
The main harm of this concentration of copyright is not to a "mainstream" artist with the backing of a studio and corporate lawyer. It is, rather, to the individual who wants to go out and make something new - just because. And that's just sad.
Anyway, that's my understanding of (that part of) Lessig's book. It's good, go read it. (though I'm not sure I agree with his proposal for radio spectrum...)
Apparently YOU need a nanny.
I don't think that demanding that the products I buy in the store WORK is tantamount to demanding a nanny. When I buy CDs, I want to be able to play them ON MY COMPUTER and whatever other device was designed to play CDs. These copy-protected CDs have been known not to work in some computers, DVD players, and car CD players. Translation: buying them is like playing a crapshoot since you don't know if (a) it will have the anti-copying technology implemented or (b) what devices the CD will play in if it does. Maybe nobody expects a Yugo to hit seventy when climbing a hill, but if my brand-new car randomly didn't start on Sundays and Tuesdays, and it was a manufacturer-imposed limitation, I think I would be entitled to complain.
(Besides, when you buy a car, they do tell you the horsepower of the engine. People buying Yugos do have access to that information.)
I don't demand a nanny. I demand to be warned when someone is trying to rip me off, by selling me products that don't work as advertised.
The DMCA--for corporations, the best copyright law money can buy.
It is similar. People have certain expectations for what a content-playing device should do. Among these functionalities are reliable playing and *facilitation of copying*. When the functionality is lost, wether it's by smashing the device with a large mallet, or by deliberately neutering the design to appease the RIAA, this is important and worth reporting to the consumer.
>Nobody expects a Yugo, the zenith of Communist >cosumer goods, to be able to keep up with a tricked >out CJ-7 in a hill climb
However, when you offer the Yugo as the next-generation replacement to said CJ-7 (equivalent strategy: let's replace your perfectly good CD player with our NeuteredDisc(tm) players!), and your target market wouldn't be able to tell a Yugo from a CJ-7 at the dealership without two tries (the discs and players look, are packaged and priced similarly, and advertising rarely mentions crippling), you need to make it abundantly clear that you're not selling the same set of expectations.
Finally, the louder and more obnoxious the warning label is, the stronger its impact on discouraging manufacturers to adopt an unpopular technology. Would you put a big "We Screw Our Customers" label on every box, assuming you didn't work at MSFT? The principle here is somewhat similar, I suppose, to the stigma against NC/17-rated films shaping the supply side of the market: you can make them if you want, but good luck getting the consumer to look behind the scarlet letters.
It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
Why not buy said CD, return to store saying it will not work in your CD player, requesting that the store get you one without this technology. Once the stores have enough people returning these CDs to them they will start complaining to their suppliers as it will start to cost them more cash to process all of these. I hope they do start marking the CDs up this way so we can all buy and return their dodgy CDs on mass.
Yeah, I know, it's not likely to happen.
Unfortunately, what *is* likely to happen is that non-crippled disks will increase in price while crippled disks remain the same. Now the price *appears* to be lower but nothing has really changed...the RIAA still gets the same amount of money out of you *and* the higher price on "open" CDs encourages you to suck it up and pay the fees for the crippled disk.
Pessimistic, I know...but still likely.
What if I popped in some gas in my car only to find out later that it would not start (or worse was corroding or gumming my engine)? Would I really need a special law just to prevent that and force them to put a label saying in effect, "Even though this pump is right next to all the normal gas pumps, looks the same down to color coding, and even though we call this unleaded you are supposed to know the 25 digit code found in small writing under the dirty nozel that indicates this is in fact not intended for cars except the brand new "Gas DRM" models... sorry for the confusion, pull up to the next pump"
Remember that if the companies want to play ambigous games then consumers can simply show a little sack and quit purchasing from them. Stop running to big brother and show a little backbone. Stop being fucking monkeys and be human beings! WILLPOWER, USE IT