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.
Wow, to think Tipper Gore has something in common with most /.ers.
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
For a second, I thought they meant "pro-piracy". I was wondering if this would require Adaptec to start shipping copies of EZ CD Creator Pro letting consumers know that "WARNING, THIS APPLICATION CAN LET YOU COPY YOUR ELITE H4CKED COPY OF MSWORD ONTO CD-R'S! PURCHASE AT YOUR OWN RISK!"
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
This is, IMHO, a pretty nice little bone to throw us geeks. Now we can know even more certainly what we have to circumvent in order to continue on in our fair-use of things we buy. However, it also seems to me that this is a rather toothless movement and is almost a 'bone' thrown to people on both sides of the debate regarding piracy.
Posting as directed.
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
Let's hope that the Hollings bill doesn't also pass, because then you might as well slap the same generic label on every single digital device out there, just like danger tags on everything -- "Misuse of this kleenex could cause personal injury." You know what I mean.
But, simply by putting a label on the product that says "Restricts blah blah" people who wouldn't have had a clue will now at least have heard of copyright protection and digital restrictions. The more it's talked about, the more people will be judicious with their purchases, and hopefully we can see a happy medium balance itself out.
Sure, Mom and Pop won't know what the hell that tag means, but when us college students figure realize "hey, I can't download my music anymore?! WTF!!" sales of young-person-targeted devices (PDAs, MP3 players, sleek laptops, etc.) will drop if the restrictions are too high.
Now, if only we can get this through, fix the DMCA, and repeal the PATRIOT act...
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
My Vaio beer mug is leaky. And I can't surf the Interweb anymore.
I have been pwned because my
If something is clearly labeled as having DRM, and we can expect that most if not all major device manufacturers will be putting some sort of DRM in their machines, then any circumvention of that DRM limitation is a flagrant violation of the DMCA.
To quote Ackbar, "It's a trap!"
I have been pwned because my
A review of Sen. Wyden's site does not reveal any draft of the bill in question. However, based on comments in the article, it sounds like a good idea.
This is the same Sen. Wyden who has sponsored a Senate resolution on consumer's rights to use digital content. A link to the PDF here.
The advantage of mandatory labelling for consumer devices that have anti-copy technology installed is that the consumer can know, at a glance, whether the device in question will allow him or her to make fair use of digital content he or she has purchased.
Obviously, the Hollywood crowd would prefer such a bill never see the light of day, since it would make devices with anti-copying technology potentially very unpopular. I can imagine that Sony wouldn't be thrilled.
At the same time, I can foresee that this is the kind of domestic issue that could easily get buried under the current foreign policy and economic crises.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking Cigarettes Can Be Hazardous To Your Health.
lot of good that one does. what if this one isn't different?
Just raise the taxes on crack.
During my unemployment tour "02-03", I've watched Wyden fight for some good causes on CSPAN. He is the guy who pushed for more oversight in the Office of Total Information Awareness program. He also has exposed the anti-consumer tactics of the oil industry. Why aren't there more like him around?
no alarms and no surprises, please.
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/
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
Damnit i didn't know their new album was copy-pretected too. Just the other day i ripped my Mezzanine cd to mp3 so i can play it on my rio volt cd player and it was awsome... how am i suposed to use my mp3 player for cd's i pay for when they do this crap. This just means i might have to download the mp3 to a cd i own or perhaps get around the copy-protection *gasp* which is a big no-no in the eyes of the same company.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
It certainly is in Australia and I think Canada too. There's quite a bit of discussion about it on the Massive Attack forums. Quite a few unhappy people. Me included.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
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.
[snip]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.[/snip]
[spit take]
say what? am I still reading Slashdot? what kind of comment is this? not a flamer, not a troll... some sort of new entity never before seen.
I think I need to lie down.
sweatyb
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
The translation of his message is:
There's nothing inherent in the Senate email system that's going to keep him from responding if you're not from his state. He just doesn't want to hear from anyone who isn't in a position to vote for him.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.
great idea, I'm sure the RIAA will try to stop it. After all, isn't it more fun to villify and anger your customers than it is to educate them?
They pay licensing fees to the original copyright holders to do that. Redistribution of copyrighted material is only permitted by the expressed consent of the copyright holder. If something is in public domain then there is no issue at all.
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.
It is garbage, originally derived from an ancient latin text, but now generated by clever programs to approximate the look and feel of english text for formatters and page rendering. The idea is that you can't actually read it, so your monkey-mind won't get sucked into the content when you are supposed to be meditating on the layout/rendering.
A more authoritative (seeming) answer for the bayesian filter people.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking Cigarettes Can Be Hazardous To Your Health.
lot of good that one does. what if this one isn't different?
What the warning really needs to say is:
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking Cigarettes Causes Impotence
I'm sure a lot more guys would pay attention.
They should be referred to as "anti-backup" or "anti-fair-use" labels.
"Never in our history have fewer been in a position to control more of the creative potential of our society than now," Lessig said. "We have to buy them off, so they don't break the Internet in the interim."
Because the first statement is true, the plan will fail. Every major record label, and there are only five in the world, is putting in Digital Rights Denial. If you want to sell a non-major record in your store, the majors cut you off. So, what choice do you have? You look left, DRM, you look right, DRM. Now that internet radio has been shut down, Napster is dead, and the FBI will soon visit you for running P2P, you won't hear of anything but crappy major music. Not even the mighty Google can lead you to reasonable music can it? No, these lables will only dull you to the rights you have lost, make your kids think that it's right and waste time and money in general. The lables are going to be used for propaganda purposes. I can just imagine one now, "Copy Controled to feed our starving artist's hungry babies - Sharing is Stealing!". Every artists out there is going to love it when their five cent cut per sold CD is reduced to two cents to cover the cost of applying the lables.
You can't buy these bastards off, you can only avoid them. Buy used recodings, support local acts and turn the radio off. Oh yeah, that's what people have already started doing.
The internet has been broken already too. That's why "so few" people have so much control and I can't serve out of my house over the public network that being used by the local cable company. After all, if everyone could sever, word of mouth and Google would work for everyone including the artists who mostly would earn more money than they do now.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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...)
towards a world of independent consultant musicians, and businesses that cater to them. I wonder how many A&R guys have already made the jump?
Well, it's one thing to be against a law or a practice, and it's another to pass legislation concerning it. America already has WAY too much legislation for it's own good. About everything.
Most laws, like this one, restrict freedom by requiring an entity either to do something (like file taxes or put labels on products), or not do something (murder, rape, pillage, etc). Many of these laws are good and neccessary, specifically the ones that are against one person directly harming another, or limiting their freedom. I'm glad murder is illegal.
But forcing people to put labels on things for this reason is going too far. It doesn't matter whether it's for explicit lyrics, or a particular copy-protection scheme, or whatever. Just because I personally think that "explicit lyrics" are okay and copy-protection schemes are bad doesn't make this law better than the other. They are both reducing freedoms further than neccessary, and the WRONG way to go about solving problems. Sure, it's the record companies' freedoms, not the consumers', but you can't have a double standard about these things, otherwise you look like a hypocrite.
This isn't nutritional information, it's not like people have allergies and could die if they don't have this information. This is like the helmet and seat-belt laws... Yes, it's a good idea to wear helmets and seat belts and not to smoke pot, but No the government shouldn't try to make everyone comply with their idea of good, especially since there's no clear way it hurts other people. You generally can return something if it's defective, or it offends you.
If you want to legislate something that will help, make a law that creates a allocates resources to increase awareness of these issues. Create a "COPY PROTECTION FREE" sticker that they can voluntairly put on their CDs, and an ad campaign that informs people about the crappiness of copy protection. These things are non-invasive, they don't force people to do or not to do anything, and they educate people, which is the RIGHT way to go about doing things. And this doesn't even require legislation, anyone could form an organization to do this.
-If
Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!
Looks like a Senate version of the "Digital Millenium Consumer Rights Act", a bill being worked on in the house. The EFF was/is seeking support for the DMCRA, check EFF.org for an Action Alert on the topic.
I don't think the issue is anti-piracy technology. I think the issue is technology that indiscriminately prevents *use*. Such measures promote unauthorised copying, because the best way to get corrupt cds to function is to make a(n analog, if necessary) copy of them and use that on your computer or portable mp3/ogg player.
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.
This is the war in a nutshell - (i.e. a civil-war) at Sony - and could be a signpost as to the outcome of the larger global war...
t ml
However, things may not look too good atm, but it seems things could get better...
Afterall, the electronics division of Sony makes far more money than the Music side...;-)
Read this...
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.02/sony.h
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.