Slashdot Mirror
Playing CDs a Privilege Not A Right
Brett writes "Tommi Kyyrä, of IFPI Finland has said that being able to play music on a Linux or Apple computer is a privilege not a right, and that those that can't because of DRM'd CDs should just go out and buy a CD player. Is switching the debate to rights and privileges really where they want to go when we're talking about something we pay for?" From the article: "If the public and 'their' politicians believe that the entertainment industry is on the verge of collapse, they'll be much more likely to accept restrictions on use of content that they've paid for. For this reason, most industry talking heads keep their comments in check when talking about DRM schemes, but from time to time we've seen people truly speak their mind."
Re: the "go out and buy another CD player", I wonder what Philips' stance will be on all of this. Haven't they denied the right of DRM and copy-protected "CD" distributors to actually call them CDs? Call the new "machines" what they are, DRM/copy-protection capable CD-like players.
All I can say is I am sorry for the next generation of people who are introduced to the entertainment marketplace. We who have so long been able to enjoy CDs as they were originally defined, CDs that would play in our cars, would play in our home entertainment centers, and on our computers. It seems that era may be ending. Sigh.
I suggest a meme, (hate that word)... start calling "DRM'ed CDs" something else. Say, maybe non-standard-and-playable-only-on-certain-player-t hingies resembling CDs.
From http://www.musexfinland.fi/index.php?page=members& id=7
"IFPI Finland's goal is to ensure a favourable operational environment for the recording industry in Finland. This is achieved by improving recording industry's cultural political status, securing effective legislation to protect the recording industry's interests and improving the competitive environment."
I hope that's a joke. Flamebait rantings like this one can't possibly be helping them "improve the recording industry's cultural political status."
From the redbook standard information from wikipedia:
Recently, some major recording publishers have begun to sell CDs that violate the Red Book standard for the purposes of copy prevention, using systems like Copy control, or extra features such as DualDisc, which features a CD-layer and a DVD-layer. The CD-layer is much thinner, 0.9mm, than required by the Red Book, which stipulates 1.2mm. Philips and many other companies have warned them that including the Compact Disc Digital Audio logo on such non-conforming discs may constitute trademark infringement; either in anticipation or in response, the long-familiar logo is no longer to be seen on many recent CDs.
Any company can make any product and sell it for how much they like, but if they are going to make a "CD" then it must be a CD, which in turn will play on a Mac or Linux or any CD player with the CD logo on it. If a company wants to create something else, say SACD, DVD-A, it must be labeled and sold as such, and not as a CD.
End of story.
Well, golly, one of the RIAA members just happens to produce CD players as well -- Sony.
Something about a monopoly is ringing in the back of my head...not sure what that's all about....
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
DRM is a pipe-dream. As long as I can get music out of my speakers I can record the sound and distribute it online. Most CD drives you install in your computer come with an analogue-out port which you can connect to your sound card, and all you have to do to rip past the copy hinderace is record from that source. IIRC newer SoundBlaster cards come with a native function that lets you record exactly what you hear from your speakers.
All rites reversed 2010
The Compact Disc license means that the disc must be compatible with any licensed CD-rom player. That includes computer CD-roms. This legal position has slapped down DRM in the past and is likely to slow adoption of DRM for years, until a new format has broad appeal.
Long live backward compatibility!
I know that EA, for instance, will sell you a replacement CD of the Battlefield 2 game for the PC if you can prove you bought it, but I've never heard of similar service from any music publisher/distributor.
It's worth noting, however, that they do this as a service to their customers, not because they are in any way required. It stems quite a bit from the fact that many computer programs are sold with no media at all. I know of at least one company (Hi H&R Block, we like TaxCut!) that has a scheme whereby you pay extra to be able to redownload your purchased software past the initial download. This is allowed because copyright law creates artificial scarcity. One copy is all you're entitled to with the exception of a single backup copy and loading from disk to memory. Note that this is complicated by situations that are considered "shifting" of the data rather than copying.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Ah, if only that would happen. The problem is some high percentage of people really do only use cd players. They buy their DRM'd boy band CD, pop it in, listen to it, and wonder what the big deal is. A good portion of the rest who might use it in a computer also use Windows and WMP and also wonder what the big deal is.
I'm sure there are examples where consumer pressure from a relatively small percentage of the market made changes, but I bet they're few and far between. At some point though I still have faith that the general public will rise up against it. It'll probably be around the time they start trying to lock "CDs" to individual brand players or similar. Brand lock in has historically killed far more than it's made profitable, Windows itself not-withstanding.
Sorry, you should read the whole statement, which specifically states that you CAN listen to it on M$, but if you have anything else, you should buy a CD player.
wb
Case I: You buy a movie theater ticket. But because you can't make it to the theater that night, you instead set up a video camera on your seat
You must note that you own nothing in this case. The movie theater sold you a service, not a product. Thus this case is not covered under copyright law. (Until you try to "steal" the movie, that is.)
Case II: You buy some ephedrine, some lithuim batteries, some drano and some Acetone. You decide to whip up a batch of Crack. Are you allowed to do this? NO.
Actually, I'm a little fuzzy on this one. I'm not certain that whipping up crack is so much the problem as to what your intent is with it. If you were using the resulting chemical for non-biological scientific experiments (not sure what you'd do with crack, but hey) you probably would not be liable for criminal actions. Of course, it always helps to get a hazmat license to prove the fact before you begin your experiments.
Case III: You own your car. You decide it would be cool to remove the windshield wipers and seatbelts. Can you do that?
YES!
only if you don't put it on the road or try to sell it for such a use.
Again, this is a matter of services provided. The public as a whole is providing you with a service (public roads) which comes with terms of use. You agree to those terms in exchange for use of public roads when you get your driver's license. That's why a cop can fine you for having a vehicle that isn't up to code.
BTW, you can still sell the vehicle. You just can't claim it's road worthy. Otherwise, how do you think junk yards can take damaged cars?
case IV: you own some swapland. You want to drain it. can you do that? Not if it's considered a protected wetland.
This is probably a valid case, but it gets back to your rights ending when they begin to reasonably interfere with the rights of others. In the case of draining wetlands, the environmental impact will affect others. e.g. A bit like if you diverted a river farther up stream.
You own a peice of DRM'd music for which you contracted to play on a single computer. Can you sell that to someone else. NO. you contracted for that.
Actually, if you never signed a contract (or at least a click through agreement), you can sell it all you like. I remember a fellow attempting to sell his copy of an iTunes song just to prove he could do it. It's allowed by copyright law, so without a pre-existing agreement you are not restricted from sale.
Case VI: Your a farmer and the govenement tells you you can grow so many bushells on your land. You grow more but you plan to use them only for internal consumption on the property. Can you do that? seems like you could but infact you can't
I'll have to look up this case, but that is a rather serious issue if it's as simple as you state.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
You have to either destroy the backup or transfer it the buyer as a backup copy. Basically, no part of the data may remain in your possession after sale.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
>> Case II: You buy some ephedrine, some lithuim batteries, some drano and some Acetone. You decide to whip up a batch of Crack. Are you allowed to do this? NO.
. 440&fuseaction=section
> Actually, I'm a little fuzzy on this one. I'm not certain that whipping up crack is so much the problem as to what your intent is with it. If you were using the resulting chemical for non-biological scientific experiments (not sure what you'd do with crack, but hey) you probably would not be liable for criminal actions. Of course, it always helps to get a hazmat license to prove the fact before you begin your experiments.
In many states, posession of certain ingredients with intent to manufacture certain controlled substances is a felony:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=69.50
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
The interview from which this was quoted is about the new Finnish copyright law, which is basically a Finnish version of the DMCA, following the EU directive on national copyright laws. (The interview was originally published in the Tietokone magazine; rumor has it that Mr. Kyyrä was less than amused at being quoted verbatim, and a cleaned up version was put up a few hours later.)
The high points of the law include (these are mostly quoted from Electronic Frontier Finland's FAQ on the law at http://www.effi.org/tekijanoikeus/laki/tekijanoike us-faq.html (Finnish only)):
- prohibition on sale, distribution, possession and "organized discussion" (yes, it says this; no, "organized discussion" is not defined; yes, it's hard to see how this isn't against the Finnish constituion) of products whose purpose is the circumvention of DRM (this would include all non-sanctioned DVD players using something like libdvdcss);
- prohibition on copying of "efficiently" protected music or other copyrighted material to, for example, MP3 players; this is sort of allowed in one clause and expressly prohibited in another (this has been the major point seen in public discussion in the last few days);
- prohibition of "parallel" import of goods from outside the EFTA; individuals can still order goods from outside the EFTA, but all (including private) resale is prohibited; it doesn't actually matter whether the import is "parallel" or the only import, it must still be sanctioned by the copyright holder;
- possibility of expansion of the "cassette tax" (currently paid for recording media such as audio tapes and CD/DVD-Rs sold in Finland; money goes to the record labels based on how many records they sell, IIRC) to other media that "may be used to store copyrighted material"; this potentially includes all hard drives.
"Efficient protection" is a key concept in the law, but is not actually defined. According to the committee responsible for the law, protection is "efficient" if it was "meant to protect the copyrighted work from being copied". So it could be said that this law makes the shift key an illegal circumvention device.
The law was written pretty much behind closed doors, with only "experts" from the record label trade bodies and similar organizations heard. Also the head of the committee, Jukka Liedes, sits on the board of ESEK, a sub-organization of Gramex (a trade association which represents record labels in Finland). The Ministry of Education, which is the ministry responsible for the law, has also been forwarding press releases penned by the abovementioned organizations pretty much verbatim and quoting them in interviews.
It is a matter of discussion whether the committee responsible for the law is actually evil and corrupt, or just so incompetent that they have no actual idea what the rules proposed by the industry actually mean in practice.
The law was accepted in its current form today, with an official (but not having any power of law) note attached effectively saying that "there's some stuff in there that should be fixed". I understand that the law will be headed for the final yes/no vote in the parliament in the near future. In my opinion, it's very likely that it will be pushed through; the recording industry has put their rather powerful propaganda machine in high gear and (I assume) also their lobbying machinery after the outcry from the public began.
The minister of culture Tanja Karpela (who is the "owner" of the law) has refused to admit that there are any problems with the current version of the law, even though it has obvious internal contradictions as well as contradicting the constitution. When opposition to the law first started making headlines, she stated her suspicion that it was a result of "machinations by certain parties" (that's a pretty much literal and verbatim translation). It would appear that she is mostly repeating statements prepared by someone else regar
I know that EA, for instance, will sell you a replacement CD of the Battlefield 2 game for the PC if you can prove you bought it, but I've never heard of similar service from any music publisher/distributor.
h tml
At least 1 hollywood studio will do this. Ah here we go, quick google for 'dvd replacement' turns up everybodys favorite, Fox. Costs $7 (admin fees, the physical product and shipping is my guess).
http://www.foxhome.com/replacement/
Disney (cost, $7): http://disney.go.com/disneyvideos/dvdsupport/faq.
Haven't found much info about any others.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
When it comes to "don't need a corporation to tell me what music is good". Has everyone seen http://www.pandora.com/ ? PS. Not affiliated, only found out about them today.
Salocin.com