Slashdot Mirror
Senator Calls For Copy-Protection Tags
Anonymous Coward writes "C|net has an
article on a new bill being proposed in the Senate that requires all software, music and movies that employ copy-protection schemes must be prominently labeled with consumer warnings, which is being sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon."
I think this is a good idea because it doesn't infringe on the rights of any particular party. The customers have more information to make their decision. Companies have the right to sell whatever product they want, in the form that they choose. The extra information on the box is just a rearrangement of the ink that they would have to put on the box anyway, so it's not expensive to do.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I think this idea definatley has merit. Adam Thierer seems to think otherwise, "The better alternative to federal mandates on either side of this debate is to instead just encourage a technological free-for-all in the marketplace," Thierer said. "Let the industry do whatever it wants in an attempt to bottle up their content, but also let consumers continue to experiment with and use digital content in creative ways without fears of federal intervention at every turn... There's no reason for Congress to intervene in an attempt to solve each and every intellectual property dispute, as has seemingly becoming the case in recent years."
But I think he seems to be missing part of the beauty of this. The bill wouldn't forbid or require that copy protection be used it would simply require disclosure of them to the consumer so that the consumer can make the choice on their own. Many states have similiar "full disclosure" laws when selling real-estate. I don't see how this would be considered much defferent.
Just my 2 cents.
The warning should say something like "Due to overzealous digital media companies, the enclosed product is broken and may not function in all hardware. Attempting to fix the defect is in violation of the DMCA and may be prosecuted to the fullest extent of applicable law."
Have you been stalked by Seth today?
Fat Chuck's maintains a list of copy-protected. Be careful!!
One of the reasons why I have been reluctant to "rip" my extensive CD collection to mp3's on my harddisk as all my friends have done, is that I fear that somehow through this P2P stuff my files will be downloaded off my machine and stolen, so I can't listen to music I legally paid for. My friends claims that you can just download it back off of Kazaa are not confidence inspiring, as I like rare rap music like Eminem which is not likely to be out there (except for the people who steal it from me).
If I could be assured through a simple icon like the Undertaker's Laboratories that my CD was not copyable, I would rip to my harddrive with no fears, and get much more use out of my music because I could share it with my friends via windows file sharing.
I support this bill.
We can't let this bill pass! The title, when condensed to the first letter of each word, doesn't make an inspirational word! Think of the children!
"Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
All software (like TurboTax) must include a label clearly stating it writes to a hidden track/sector of one's hard drive (Windows) as a means of copy restriction. As such, there is a risk of overwriting other information there.
rob
If stores sold the copy protected version of a CD for oh say, $12-$15 (yeah, I know that's laughable considering how expensive CDs have become) and the non-copy protected version for $18-$20, I wonder which would sell better. Is it worth an extra $3-$5 to be able to backup the CD (and yes, I know you should able to do this without paying extra.)
Perhaps a nice little picture of, say, a broken CD-ROM drive, or the nice little warning a Mac gives when its CD drive has been killed by one of these CDs...
or just something simple, like WARNING: This product is inferior.
One thing I've learned is that it takes a VERY big offense to motivate your average citizen to actually get up off their couch and do something - ANYTHING - about something. I mean geez, polls show that at a minimum, 30% of Americans oppose the war on^H^Hin Iraq. That's what, 90,000,000 Americans? How many actually show up at the protests? A few thousand here and there? And we're talking about peoples' lives being at stake! Hell, half of the Yankee populace can't even be bothered to vote - you think they're going to sit down and write a letter to their rep over some stupid copy protection that they don't even understand anyway? Call my cynical, but I don't think so.
I believe that if the RIAA decides they want this tech out there, then it's just a matter of time before all CDs have this copy protection. You can boycott if you want, but if every single CD is using it, there won't be any alternatives for you to direct your money at (none worth listening to, anyway). :(
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
There you go , thats his contact page
http://wyden.senate.gov/contact.html
A small appreciation can go a long way.
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
Digital Consumer Right to Know Act
For all the CDs we hand out at installfests, it would be nice to have some stickers that proclaim the contents to be free software that can be copied and redistributed. It might grab some people's attention. Does anyone have suggests for a pithy slogan?
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
At least you're honest enough to admit it.
REPUBLIC != DEMOCRACY
-uso.
Can't someone do us all a favor and DoS goatse.cx? LOL
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
Exactly- putting together your own CD of what you thought were the best Beatles songs would be totally permissible under the "mix rights" concept, and the whole point... with the following restrictions (I'd be happy with either set of restrictions; more happy with A but totally willing to settle for B):
A) you could only distribute the resulting 'best of beetles' to a few people (under 5, or say, under 10), and you could not legally sell the results (a flavor or expansion of 'fair use' rights under copyright)
or
B) you would have to pay for each redistributed mix CD (so I would have to pay RIAA or some entity $17 to distribute one mix CD (or $2/song or whatever) to a friend, but still it could be a mix of *my* choosing) and you could not redistribute more than X amount of material (X CDs or tracks, before whatever you are doing becomes a commercial proposition which requires a special license with the companies involved, and not just generic 'mix rights' for sharing among friends).
It's a fantasy I admit. But no-holds-barred-P2P isn't what I want; "mix sharing" with close friends is what I want. I'm willing to pay for it. But nobody in the music industry is figuring out how to give it to me the flexibility that I (and I suspect millions of consumers) want to share music with my friends.
Does it say that random bits must not be inserted?
Yes. The red book states that the block error rate must be under a specific threshold. The books also state that the index records have to come in a specific order and fit specific consistency constraints, especially across sessions. The copy restriction schemes break these, and discs that use them do not conform to the red book specification or the CD Plus specification.
Will I retire or break 10K?