Slashdot Mirror
Surefire Way To Stifle Innovation
denissmith writes "C|NET has a very funny piece by Patrick Ross, where he pooh-pooh's Congressman Rick Boucher's (D-VA) efforts to protect Fair Use by claiming that it will stifle innovation." From the article: "If HR-1201 becomes law, every consumer could legally hack any TPM by claiming fair use, and as fair use isn't codified, there would be as many definitions of it as there are consumers. Consumers would be legally sanctioned to break their contracts with the content provider. No sane business operator enters a contract in which one party has the right to disregard its terms at will, but that's what HR-1201 permits. That hated TPM would disappear from the market, as there's no reason to employ a lock if everyone has a legal right to the key. But as TPM leaves, so do the digital offerings that come with it."
Use acronyms nobody knows.
Biography
Patrick Ross works for The Progress & Freedom Foundation, a think tank based in Washington, D.C., and its Center for the Study of Digital Property. Earlier this week, the Progress & Freedom Foundation filed a brief with the Supreme Court supporting the RIAA and MPAA in their legal fight against file-swapping software companies Grokster and StreamCast Networks.
'nuff said.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Wait. Based on the summary, I don't understand which way the GroupThink(TM) is supposed to go here. Is it good? Is it bad? Help me! I'm so confused!
Honestly, I think this is the first time I've seen a summary that doesn't try to put a spin on the article one way or another. (Not that such things are always the fault of the posters. So called "objective journalists" are just as bad, if not worse.) The summary, and the article, come across clearly that this is a double-edged sword. By taking the opposite extreme in an attempt to balance out the DMCA, this bill may cause extrodinary harm to the businesses who produce the content that consumers want to have fair use rights over. Causing harm to them would cause a reduction in quality and quantity of content production, just as the DMCA has caused a change in consumer purchasing habits.
The golden middle is to not muck with laws that work in the first place. Sadly, we're far beyond that. None the less, the DMCA has not had as chilling of an effect as was once expected. As the Lexmark vs. SCC case has shown, courts are beginning to find in favor of fair use, slowly erroding the power of the DMCA by way of precident.
Will this new bill help or hurt? I think that remains to be seen.
As an aside, I have to say that I'm getting pretty tired of the "defend the innovation!" cry. Microsoft used the same line of B.S. in their court cases, and it didn't sway public opinion then any more than shouting it from the rooftops will sway public opinion now. Let's see these companies who are using this line actually do something innovative for a change, then we'll think about accepting it. In the meantime, it's a tainted as the buzzword "Synergy".
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
"there would be as many definitions of it as there are consumers"
And how many customers would actually have the desire to hack theirs? It took me 3 hours to teach my dad to use a DVR. For some reason I don't see him or the majority of people out there taking advantage of this.
We seldom regret saying too little but often regret saying too much.
The guy seems dead serious. Maybe you find it funny, but it appears he is indeed supporting TPM and declaring that Fair Use is bad.
Daniel
Carpe Diem
And surely bills from either side encompass strictly a single regulation and would never be used for pork.
It really peeves me when we add laws on top of laws rather than repealing bad ones and drafting new ones to cover changes. Innovation has occurred for thousands of years without copyright or patent protection. Free use wasn't even a phrase until we started to see tyrannical laws that abuse basic rights, inherent to all humans regardless of what their governments say or do.
Whatever movement is made in the law books, nothing will matter. The Internet combines the wishes of billions, disregarding every law. Funny thing is, the Internet really lets the free market shine without trampling on the basic human rights.
The Net won't murder, won't rape, won't rob from your home or incur taxes you don't want to pay. It won't restrict your right to speak freely, it won't take your guns away, it won't harbor troops in your home.
As more people embrace the Net, more will use the rights they were born with. More will commit legal crimes that are morally acceptable.
In the long run, maybe we'll see laws that protect life, liberal and property rights rather than laws controlling thought or non-violent actions.
Do bloggers worry about copyright? Do musicians on purevolume worry? Do researchers posting their theses care?
Everything I dream of in my free market world is coming true online, and no law is stopping it. Boucher's bill won't do jack. Repeal copyright and you'll see more innovation than ever.
Why release good music freely? Fans may pay you for more, or a production company might hire you to write something for them, or you might gain customers for your live shows, or you might get people to your site to gain AdSense revenue. Copyright won't protect your income-via-monopoly much longer.
this Rick Boucher guys is ok!
the following is a post I got from 'talk back' comments.
I am notnthis person, and as far as I know, the original poster owns all copyright. I claim nothing. It is a good rebuttal.
Who let this hack post on CNet?
Posted by: Billy Herman
Posted on: October 6, 2005, 8:33 AM PDT
Story: Here's a surefire way to stifle innovation
While the PFF is generally an awful source for awful, pro-
industry rhetoric, this article slips to a new low.
First and foremost, Ross simply doesn't understand the legal
issues that are at stake. "Fair use isn't codified?" Try 17 USC 107.
It may not be cut-and-dried, but it's in the book.
Second, all of his rhetoric that TPMs are being developed in a
way that will stop harming consumers doesn't answer Boucher's
deeper issues with fair use. Even if we enter TPM utopia, where I
can buy locked-down media in my choice of TPM-laden format,
I'm still denied important rights of free speech. It's still illegal for
me to hack a DVD in order to make a 15 second clip of it for a
media criticism documentary. As a Ph.D. candidate in
communication, I can assure you that this is stifling innovative
forms of doing media studies, and that's just my corner of the
very large TPM-handicapped world.
Third, HR 1201 would neither uniquely lead to nor permit wide
scale, wholesale infringement. The last section insists that fair
use would stand as a defense to the section and that the Sony
standard, "substantial noninfringing uses," should guide which
tools can be marketed. This means it's still illegal for me to hack
rented DVDs to create my own library, to distribute software
serial numbers online, or to sell "black box" devices that are
designed primarily to help me commit infringements.
Additionally, Ross provides no response to the obvious fact that
all of these things are already happening despite the DMCA;
clearly, the law under the status quo isn't slowing down the
willful infringers.
What does the bill permit? The same things we were allowed to
do in the analog era: home recording of music for personal use
(e.g., mix CDs), fair use quotations of encrypted media, and
reverse engineering out of mere curiosity (subject to EULA).
As a fourth bit of shoddy quasi-journalism, Ross is totally
unresponsive to concerns about fair labeling. In ANARCHIST IN
THE LIBRARY, Siva V tells a terrifying story about a customer who
unknowingly bought a TPM-laden CD. When he found out it
wouldn't play on his home player, he wrote the record company.
Not only did they not fix his problem, they wrote a letter
assuring him that they were hell bent on releasing all CDs in
protected formats and that there's nothing he can do about it.
Does this sound like a fair business practice? HR 1201 requires
full disclosure of TPM restrictions so that customers can make
informed choices.
Fifth, Ross confidently cites the Register of Copyrights, Marybeth
Peters, in her conclusion that there's generally no problem here.
Ross commits a radical misquotation. Peters insists that the
statute is riddled with problems that handicap her ability to
preserve fair use through the exemption proceedings. She
explicitly states that important uses such as library archiving are
left out in the cold. She expresses deep reservations about the
statute's inability to effect the intended dichotomy between
access-controlling and use-controlling TPMs The former is
intended to make sure that people pay for their stuff, and it is
illegal to hack them. The latter is an inconvenience to the paying
customer, but users may hack them without breaking the law.
Unfortunately, a lot of TPMs control access but function
primarily as use controls; the DVD encryption scheme (CSS) is
the paradigm example, but there are many. In the final rulings,
Peters expressed her inability to solve this "dual-purpose"
problem. On these and other issues, Peters explicitly encourages
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Hey, I've got a modest proposal to clear up the whole issue. Let's eat Mr. Congressman since he's not doing the public any good. That way, he can at least serve a useful purpose since his brain has long since died to reason.
I wish we could return to an era of personal responsibility.
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
Why isn't CNET disclosing that this was a paid opinion piece funded by (among others):
Business Software Alliance
Disney
MGM
Microsoft
NBC Universal
Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
Time Warner
Vivendi
I guess I just don't see how limiting people's rights to their purchased property is progress and it's certainly not freedom.
Something that increases freedom of use will stifle innovation? Someone help me out here.
Not only "land of the free" but "land of the lawyers" who love a good old 1st amendment smackdown. Shihar 153932
I read TFA and felt like the androids in the episode of Star Trek where Kirk makes them all shut down by feeding them illogical statements. Is this guy a really lousy humorist or a serious loony?
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
What? Rarely does someone enter into a "contract" with their content provider. I might be wrong but signing your rights away through a contract requires signature. Shrink-wrap EULAs or terms of use don't carry nearly the same legal weight as a contract.
Netbooks, they come with Linux or a $3 copy of Windows. Either way, Microsoft loses.
so if we take away their protection, then the content operators will just quietly shut down and lay themselves off? Without this wonderous protection, they'll simply decide it's not worthwhile?
I'd no idea it was this serious, I'm also trying to work out how these operators managed to get themselves into the position they're currently in. Surely it can't have been supplying unprotected feeds to people willing to pay for them? (because this simply doesn't work seemingly).
> That hated TPM would disappear from the market, as there's no reason to employ a lock if everyone has
> a legal right to the key. But as TPM leaves, so do the digital offerings that come with it.
We always hear this crap, that all these just over the horizon but so wonderous digital offerings will go away. But they are all as bad or worse as Divx (the Circuit City crap that was rejected by 'Consumers', not the popular codec) so good riddance. I really don't see how my life will be worse if these wonders never come and can all too quickly see how they will be worse with everything DRMed. So if DRM that actually works is the price for Hi-Def or online content I am more than content to keep buying CDs and DVDs.
Democrat delenda est
What about television? You recall that contract we all entered into that prohibits us from going to get a snack during commercials, don't you?
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
Since it allow any consumer to "hack" DRM...
So what this means it that it would be legal to say watch an DVD on my linux box but it would still be illegal for me to rip it and publish it using p2p.
So I could rip my CDs and put them on my MP3 player but it would be illegal for me to P2P them.
So any protection will have to stand on it's own and breaking it is perfectly legal.
Hey works for me.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
This is a great piece of legislation. It provides the consumer with a warning that the CD is copy-protected and it fixes the current catch-22 dilemma in current law by allowing the fair-use copying of copyprotected music for non-infriging purposes without violating the DCMA. Too bad this will never become law...I guess I am too cynical:
H. R. 1201
To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that the advertising or sale of a mislabeled copy-protected music disc is an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 9, 2005
Mr. BOUCHER (for himself, Mr. DOOLITTLE, and Mr. BARTON of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that the advertising or sale of a mislabeled copy-protected music disc is an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The limited introduction into commerce of `copy-protected compact discs' has caused consumer confusion and placed increased, unwarranted burdens on retailers, consumer electronics manufacturers, and personal computer manufacturers responding to consumer complaints, conditions which will worsen as larger numbers of such discs are introduced into commerce.
(2) Recording companies introducing new forms of copy protection should have the freedom to innovate, but should also be responsible for providing adequate notice to consumers about restrictions on the playability and recordability of `copy-protected compact discs'.
(3) The Federal Trade Commission should be empowered and directed to ensure the adequate labeling of prerecorded digital music disc products.
SEC. 3. INADEQUATELY LABELED COPY-PROTECTED COMPACT DISCS.
The Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 24 the following new section:
SEC. 24A. INADEQUATELY LABELED COPY-PROTECTED COMPACT DISCS.
(a) Definitions- In this section:
(1) The term `Commission' means the Federal Trade Commission.
(2) The term `audio compact disc' means a substrate packaged as a commercial prerecorded audio product, containing a sound recording or recordings, that conforms to all specifications and requirements for Red Book Audio and bears a duly licensed and authorized `Compact disc Digital Audio' logo.
(3) The term `prerecorded digital music disc product' means a commercial audio product comprised of a substrate in the form of a disc in which is recorded a sound recording or sound recordings generally in accordance with Red Book Audio specifications but that does not conform to all licensed requirements for Red Book Audio: Provided, That a substrate containing a prerecorded sound recording that conforms to the licensing requirements applicable to a DVD-Audio disc or a Super Audio Compact Disc is not a prerecorded digital music disc product.
(4) The term `Red Book Audio' means audio data digitized at 44,100 samples per second (44.1 kHz) with a range of 65,536 possible values as defined in the `Compact Disc-Digital Audio System Description' (first published in 1980 by Philips N.V. and Sony Corporation, as updated from time to time).
(b) Prohibited Acts-
(1) The introduction into commerce, sale, offering for sale, or advertising for sale of a prerecorded digital music disc product which is mislabeled or falsely or d
What's happening? Uh... we have sort of a problem here. Yeah. You apparently didn't put one of the new cover sheets on your TPM reports.
Mmmm... yeah. You see, we're putting the coversheets on all TPM reports now before they go out. Did you see the memo about this?
Yeah. If you could just go ahead and make sure you do that from now on, that will be great. And uh, I'll go ahead and make sure you get another copy of that memo mmm'k?
I enjoy a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but post some proof.
Otherwise, you'll be modded troll/flamebait and ignored.
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
If HR-1201 becomes law, every consumer could legally hack any TPM by claiming fair use, and as fair use isn't codified, there would be as many definitions of it as there are consumers. Consumers would be legally sanctioned to break their contracts with the content provider.
No sane business operator enters a contract in which one party has the right to disregard its terms at will
That's funny, because every single one of them does it. If you've ever signed a contract for any kind of service, such as cable/satellite TV, DSL, cellular phones, etc, the contract includes the clause: "$COMPANY maintains the right to change the terms of this agreement without notice" or something to that effect. So basically, what he really means is that no sane business enters a contract in which the terms are fair, or that they don't have complete control over their ability to screw the customer in the future. Cute claim, though, since most people don't read that far into the contract (and there's nothing you can do about it, since you need to get your internet and telephone service from them, and you can't get it without agreeing to let them change the terms on you).
I ran into this problem myself with SBC DSL recently, wherein they changed the terms of the contract after I signed it, stating that after one year, the price goes up three-fold. They didn't even inform me of the change, and acted as if it had always been that way, even though I read the contract and that was not there, and the person on the phone when I ordered the service assured me that there was no such price hike after one year (I specifically asked).
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
I'm tired of the industry bitching and moaning that only by locking down devices will they provide content. There's a long history of products that didn't quite manage to understand that the customer is king, and letting the customer decide how to use the device and the content only encourages new and exciting ways (read: innovative) to use the content. If the movie industry in the VCR era had its way, there would be no video market. If the recording industry in the piano roll era had it's way, there would be no records and compact discs today. If the software industry of the pre-personal computing era had it's way, we wouldn't have had the personal computing revolution. Innovation only comes by allowing people the freedom to innovate. DRM and the DMCA restrict how that content is used. Imagine if a digital device restricted your ability to record your wedding reception because it detected a watermark from the music from the DJ that restricts replication? We're already watching devices like the TiVo being marginalized because of unrealistic DRM. The industry might want to stop putting up fences if theu want customer to keep coming around. It only takes a few shots out of the windows of the industrys house before people stop coming.
on the how to install Quake 3 for linux. I just upgraded to Suse 10 and reinstalled quake. Now unless some comsic ray fliped a bit on the non-ecc ram inside my head its a simple download the quake3.sh file from fileplanet.com "or whatever gameing site you frequent" and run "sh quake3.sh" in a terminal as root. Its always been that way in the many years I've installed quake 3 on my linux box.
As for makeing sure the gl drivers are installed, well more and more distros are makeing that easier. Being a Suse user I can point out YaSt makes that very simple and its no more difficult then doing it the windows way.
If you would of just said linux still has some areas that are a tad alien to normal users then I would of agreed with you. But you talked about installing a game which we all know is not that hard and the whole gl driver thing is pretty much solved on the more user friendly distros unless you use a kernel you compiled yourself which then makes your argument mute.
Fair use is codified in that it prohibits any unauthorized reproduction of an entire copyrighted work. It only allows excerpts to be reproduced. You won't fare well in court either, if you try to game the system with things like leaving out one sentence of a reproduced novel or one frame of a movie.
The Federal Home Recording Act is more empowering since it allows complete copies for purposes of making backups and porting to different media. The only gray area there is the simultaneous use of your copies such as listening to an album legally copied to your MP3 player while a family member listens to the same CD at home.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
We're all biased.
I'm a professional software guy and I bet you are too.
Slashdot itself has a groupthink just like any other community. Amish folk dislike electricity. Daily Kos dislikes Republicans. And we the Slashdotters generally dislike Microsoft and the RIAA.
So yeah, you're right to an extent, but Patrick Ross has the right to give his RIAA-biased opinions just as much as you have the right to give your software/Linux/techie-biased opinion.
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
IP Law is such a quagmire. My company even has lectures on it now and then just to ensure employees have a clue on just how messy it really is, and how important it is to the company.
This isn't the point though, the point is the the annoyance of it. It's nice to see something on Fair Use's side, but the question is should the DMCA simply be repealed, or should laws on Fair Use's side be put in place, or should the courts just erode it piece by piece?
Personally... I opt for whatever reduces court use for stupid things. Repealing the DMCA seems like it would simplify things most. Ah well. Here's some useful links with more information on the matter. More information from the public knowledge website and A direct link to the bill (PDF format).
Hmm, also, seems that the Consumer's Union is backing it...
I dunno. I'll go with "undecided" for now, though I'm leaning toward just supporting it. It's highly unlikely that the DMCA will be appealed, so at least its a step somewhat in the right direction. Albeit diagonally.
Code. Writing. Writing Code. Writing in general. What? They aren't -that- differnet.
But I need TPM for my bunghole!
That made me smile!
It's been a long time since I've read "A Modest Proposal" (http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch/Courses/95c/ Texts/modest.html/), but I quite enjoyed it. I'm glad to find someone else who liked it, too.
hehe :-D
But one day Tom, he went and caught the River-daughter, in green gown, flowing hair, sitting in the rushes
If HR-1201 becomes law, every consumer could legally hack any TPM by claiming fair use, and as fair use isn't codified, there would be as many definitions of it as there are consumers.
Freedom is tricky like that, isn't it?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Thank you Mr. Boucher.
Makes me feel good to be from SW Virginia!
------
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Traditional media does an awful lot of reselling and repurposing of content.
I've seen it all.
I say leave things as they are and let some of the brighter bulbs, who grok digital, rise to the top and make some money.
That's what this is really all about anyway.
Blogging because I can...
It seems the thrust of this article is that the digital revolution is going to allow all sorts of different licensing schemes: You can rent the movie for a day, the book for a few months, etc (all by downloading to your computer at the press of a button and a charge to your credit card). If we force fair use rules to apply here, he believes you can get around the terms of the license.
It's a complicated issue, and I'm not sure where I stand. On the one hand, if you rent something, then I don't believe fair use rules apply. You shouldn't be entitled to make a back-up copy of a movie you are renting. On the other hand, I can envision a future where everything is locked down, and you'll never really own anything. (The content providers might find it for more profitable to force us to rent everything).
We also can hardly trust that the DRM mechanisms on things you rent and things you own won't be intertwined. If you try to access the things you own (say to back something up), you'll be necessarily breaking the mechanism used to protect things that are rented. (This is sort of the point of the article, but it's not our fault they the content providers find this need to lock down purchased, not rented, content more than is justifiable).
That describes every DRMed product out there, every shrinkwrap license agreement, and most agreements that are imposed on consumers every day. Businesses can, and do, change the terms of "contracts" every day. With DRM they can change what you can and cannot do with a device or data at a whim or an update. Phone companies and cable companies change terms of service whenever it suits them.
When businesses do this to consumers, it is just "doing business". When the consumer can change the rules, it is "theft".
Of course some Libertarian twit is going to jump in and defend the rights of the poor trodden-on capitalists. I have found that no matter how blatent or evil the behaviour of someone in authority, there will be some toady leaping to their defense. If one side can change the terms at will, it is not a contract. In this case, the contract has already been invalidated by the actions of the producers. This is just a little payback.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
I've never seen a more obvious bluff in my entire life. It's like a child threatening to hold his breath until you give in to what he wants. It has no more substance than the "blockbusters" they produce.
They will not stop making movies or television or music because of piracy or anything else. Why? Because then they'd be making no money. They're threatening to stop making money. The TPM argument (I guess "TPM" sounds better than "DRM") is no different. Without (DR/TP)M, businesses and their advocates muse, no one will make digital content.
Good. I hope the MPAA and the RIAA and everyone else bows out because the business is just "too risky" from their point of view. The second they do so, they give away their market. Television, movies and music are a very, very competitive business, and there are thousands of people trying to work their way into it every day. There are thousands of people who want their shot at the billions these companies make and there are thousands more who would pleased with the chance to give their stuff away just for a little recognition. Someone else would step in immediately, hopefully or even probably with a better attitude for the market, and seize what can only be deemed a mythical opportunity.
To suddenly give up a huge position of power and influence... a position that might never been attainable again, is ludicrous. It's a bluff. The MPAA and RIAA have everything to lose by stepping out of the market and we, the consumers, and have everything to gain.
I just don't understand their argument at all.
Troll.
.cmg file is where the software is installed. Examples:
.cmg file. No mess, no install process, no libraries scattered throughout your system.
It hasn't been near as hard as you described it above for years. Modern GUI installers require none of that work.
Nevermind the next generation systems, like klik:// (avaliable on the SuPER SuSE 1 cd install). With klik:// , when you want to install software, you download it, and double-click to run. There is no 'install' per say; where ever you put the
Firefox.cmg , or OpenOffice.cmg , or Gimp.cmg
When you want to 'uninstall', you delete the
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
No sane business operator enters a contract in which one party has the right to disregard its terms at will,
Contracts frequently contain terms that are unenforceable because some law makes them unenforceable. For example, many employment contracts contain unenforceable non-compete agreements. Unenforceable terms of a contract can, of course, be disregarded at will. Businesses that don't want their customers to disregard contractual terms should simply avoid putting unenforceable terms into their contracts.
If HR-1201 becomes law, every consumer could legally hack any TPM by claiming fair use, and as fair use isn't codified, there would be as many definitions of it as there are consumers
Quite right: that's the way copyright is supposed to work. Works that attempt to restrict fair use provisions, contractually or by technical means, shouldn't even receive copyright protection at all; it's an accident of recent history that they do, and it is about time that we correct that.
Copyright is a social contract, and companies attempting to restrict fair use provisions are not holding up their part of the bargain.
(Typical) Audio CD's have no "TPM", but I could swear I've seen one or two "digital offerings" in that format.
CSS is so easily and commonly circumvented that by any practical assesment, DVD's have no (effective) "TPM", but I still see new releases in that format.
Congressman Rick Boucher's (D-VA) has obviously not labored months or years crafting desireable content. If he had he would appreciate the creator/artist/software engineer wants and needs to be compensated in amounts the market offers- and not in the miniscule amount some non-creative, we-want-all-content-free hippie type espouses.
Just because technology makes replicating and uploading someone else's hard work to a Bit Torrent server easy doesn't make it responsible to do so.
Put more clearly, if people keep hacking music, video, and software soon it will be fiscally irresponsible for companies like SONY to sign ( insert your favorite garage band here ) to any kind of record deal at all.
Cogito Ergo Sum
as TPM leaves, so does the digital content that goes with it.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
However I still hold that contract law is more important than Fair Use, and that if you enter into a contract limiting your Fair Use, that is your decision. Once you've entered the contract, don't bitch about your Fair Use, which you bargained away.
If someone wants to distribute TPM without a contract, they are indeed fools, because then Fair Use would certainly come into play.
MORTAR COMBAT!
From TFA:
::gasp::! Wow! Gosh! I can pay $85 for a book and get to keep it for a year?! Golly gee, where do I sign!
What is a publisher to do when it finds out that it can't get students to buy e-textbooks when they expire after a mere four months? By changing one line of code, those four months can be expanded to a full year
"That hated TPM would disappear from the market, as there's no reason to employ a lock if everyone has a legal right to the key. But as TPM leaves, so do the digital offerings that come with it."
What alternative to providing digital offerings is there? The cartels would have to provide content that complies to the new law one way or another or go out of business.
That sounds too simple to be plausible though.
--- Commission free trading & free stock up to $500 - use http://share.robinhood.com/kelvinp6
1. a) An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law. See Synonyms at bargain.
b) The writing or document containing such an agreement.
2. The branch of law dealing with formal agreements between parties.
Since when have I been entering into a contract when I purchase a movie or music? I see the copy right on the packaging, as well as the Federal Warning that plays at the beginning of the movie.
The warning says it is illegal to sell/distribute copies, not illegal to make them. I just don't understand where this contract is that says I cannot make copies for personal use. DRM is designed to make sure I cannot make copies. I want to see this contract I entered into, and see where it says they have the right to make ammendments to the contract without my approval.
I am of course not totally serious, I know about copyright law, DMCA and all that good stuff. I just don't like this use of the word contract. I know when I buy a cd I am expected to play by the rules, but my purchase does not qualify as an agreement to the record industries terms of use. If I want to make a backup, I will. If I want to make MP3s, I will. There is no contract.
My inner self is ineffable, so don't eff with me.
OK. The idea is that companies won't create content when it can be easily replicated at will with little or no barrier to duplication. They won't be able to make money, or so the story goes.
I say horsecrap because 1) we hear this EVERY TIME any new technology comes out ("The VCR is to the movie indutry what the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone,") and 2) It's not like companies will just stop making content even if piracy is rampant (what, like it's not now?). Are all the record companies just going to say "It was fun, but we quit, we'll jsut close up shop?" No. They'll just have to find a new economic model, which is looooooong overdue. But people demand music and movies, so the companies won't go away, they just need to find a method that gives customers more than Grokster can.
Although I actually hope they succeed in curbing piracy so they discover that's not why their sales suck.
No sane business operator enters a contract in which one party has the right to disregard its terms at will
Really? Then there must be a lot of insane business operators out there. Just about every one of them in fact.
Software EULAs are often completely one-sided, reserving all kinds of rights for the publisher, revoking most rights for the licensee (aka user), and often include provisions that allow them to be changed at nearly any time. Generally they don't change except in the case of a patch -- but if you need that patch to run the software as advertised, or to prevent a potential security breach, then it's not much of a choice.
Heck, have you ever read through the mice type of your credit card agreement? They can change any of the provisions, including fees and rates, at any time with minimal notice. And implict acceptance is presumed.
Sorry, but there's plenty of contracts that people and businesses enter into everyday that are completely one sided -- and there is no realistic alternative to them in many cases because it's an industry wide practice. I'd love to see a real business try to go without a bank account of any kind.
In this case, it's we, the people of these united states, who are getting tired of the presumed guilt and revokation of rights by the media conglomerates. HR1201 simply tries to push the bias back toward the center.
Oh, and you're going to claim that this will make media companies stop distributing? Really? Honestly? You're claiming that they'll simply close their doors? What complete bullshit. It's a completely toothless scare tactic.
I get the feeling that the Slashdot-groupthink here is "screw those evil corporations, we'll get the government to pass a law saying they HAVE to give us the ability to copy ANYTHING they publish."
In the days when copies were analog, and making copies was time-consuming and had a cost per copy, fair use copies with no TPMs is a viable compromise for both sides. The content providers are not really all that concerned with Joe Sixpack sitting at his VCR for two hours dubbing a copy of a movie for his buddy. This is not a scalable rip-off.
Today, when you can digitally copy things fast and losslessly, and you can distribute them over the Internet to thousands of people as easily as you can give that dubbed VCR tape to your one neighbor, this no longer works.
TPMs are here to stay. Deal with it.
My challenge to you:
Come up with a TPM that stops people from copying and distributing a work more than "fair use", but that allows "fair use". You get to decide exactly what "fair use" means technically, but it must fit today's working definition -- personal backups, personal use on other devices, research/library use.
Can you do it? Or do you just want to sit there flaming about nasty corporations?
What the heck is a TPM?
- Clear Channel
- MGM
- Sony Music Entertainment
- Time Warner
- VIACOM
- Vivendi
Patrick Ross is nothing but a whore turning tricks for his pimps.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
And... that would be why he's a troll. I suspect someone's set up a nice automated program to generate these messages because that's definitely not the first one I've seen in that format. *sigh* Almost makes me nostalgic for the guy who posted a comment about Chinese soldiers sodomizing Tibetan nuns with cattle-prods... at least he tried to find some way to relate it to the subject matter, although his attempts were somewhat hilarious.
The bill definitely needs to distinguish between a sale and a loan. If I buy a CD, or buy a music file online, I don't want someone else dictating what I can and can't do with it. If I download a music file for a short term, I am quite happy with the concept that my right to use it will be revoked. If it's a rental, not only did I agree to it, but it's the entire point.
The Architect: Hello, Neo.
Neo: Who are you?
The Architect: I am the Architect. I created the matrix. I've been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although the process has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also irrelevant.
Neo: Why am I here?
The Architect: Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden to sedulously avoid it, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here.
Neo: You haven't answered my question.
The Architect: Quite right. Interesting. That was quicker than the others.
*The responses of other Neos appear on the monitors: "Others? What others? How many? Answer me!"*
The Architect: The matrix is older than you know. I prefer counting from the emergence of one integral anomaly to the emergence of the next, in which case this is the sixth version.
*Again, the responses of the other Ones appear on the monitors: "Five versions? Three? I've been lied too. This is bullshit."*
Neo: There are only two possible explanations: either no one told me, or no one knows.
The Architect: Precisely. As you are undoubtedly gathering, the anomaly's systemic, creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations.
*Once again, the responses of other Neos appear on the monitors: "You can't control me! F*ck you! I'm going to kill you! You can't make me do anything!*
Neo: Choice. The problem is choice.
*The scene cuts to Trinity fighting an agent, and then back to the Architect's room*
The Architect: The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is as apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being, thus I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. However, I was again frustrated by failure. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind, or perhaps a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus, the answer was stumbled upon by another, an intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche. If I am the father of the matrix, she would undoubtedly be its mother.
Neo: The Oracle.
The Architect: Please. As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99.9% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those that refused the program, while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster.
Neo: This is about Zion.
The Architect: You are here because Zion is about to be destroyed. Its every living inhabitant terminated, its entire existence eradicated.
Neo: Bullshit.
*The responses of other Neos appear on the monitors: "Bullshit!"*
The Architect: Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.
*Scene cuts to Trinity fighting an agent, and then back to the Architects room.*
The Architect: The function of the One is now to return to the source, allowing a temporary dissemination of the code
What this article fails to recognize, is that innovation occurs at every level of commerce. Producers are not the sole innovators. In fact the very existence of the commercial digital content offerings available today is proof that producers ultimately take their cues from their customers. Legal music download offerings are a response to the file sharing made possible by individuals exercising their fair use rights to move content from one storage medium to another.
It is the consumer driven innovation that is being threatened. Rep. Boucher is right to try defend consumer rights.
He did define it before using the acronym, but quite honestly, I missed it the first time reading through too.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
I find it amusing that Ross is so afraid of going back to the dangerous IP hinterlands of...1998! Cue the spooky theremin sounds!
I find it amusing that his line is, "Hollywood was going to find a way to bring you online movies, but not now that you're attacking our precious DMCA!" I saw folks downloading movies in 1998 (remember, the dark ages!). I think we'll do just fine without them. After all, the p2p community was willing to figure this out back when the reward was an MPEG-2 of Titanic.
I'm not saying that this guy shouldn't have a platform from which to express his views - I'm sure the BSA/MPAA paid good money to see it happen. It's just a shame that to hear this shill, we're boosting the value of CNet by giving them our pageviews.
To quote tweety bird, "He don't know me wery well, do he?" ;-)
Only reply if you have a lower UID. I know you are lurking.
burn the computers. go back to the abacus.
Sometimes smart people do things they wouldn't normally do so that other people give them their money. People like Ross are creating a chasm between the consumer and the industry that will eventually cause the consumer to seek other forms of entertainment.
This guy is hilarious!
At no time in history has maintream consumable entertainment products ever suffered from people being able to use the works they paid for. I have yet to see anything that actually indicates the damages that have been claimed for decades. Does anyone have any examples? They just keep making more and more money... somehow they never think it's enough.
That hated TPM would disappear from the market, as there's no reason to employ a lock if everyone has a legal right to the key. But as TPM leaves, so do the digital offerings that come with it.
See, he's saying crap that just isn't true. The only people who are being "locked out" are people who buy the media -- not "EVERYONE" as he has stated. The people who are downloading or any other such thing are already accessing unlocked or unrestricted material. (And isn't it odd that people continue to by the official stuff in spite of the fact that it's available in other unfettered forms? I guess it just proves people WANT to buy the stuff regardless of complications... why punish the people who want your stuff?) Again, I have yet to see an example of someone refusing to publish because digital protections being present or not present. I have seen cases where other reasons were given for not wanting to publish on particular media, but not because the protection isn't good enough.
Patrick Ross is a vice president of The Progress & Freedom Foundation in Washington, D.C.
I think I've heared of these guys before, AKA the 'Ministry of Truth'.
If the community keeps breaking DRM, DRM is only going to get better. I'd rather come to some sort of sane compromise solution than keep on the present course. What that compromise is, I don't know - I hate compulsory licensing, yet it appears to work reasonably well for radio.
I've seen people claim that there's no such thing as unbreakable DRM. This would seem to be flatly untrue - DRM is really just a use of cryptography, and, fascinatingly enough, the code-makers have so far kept pretty far ahead of the code-breakers. With proper cryptography, your data is safe from the DVD-Jons of the Internet, and probably gives even NSA a good bit of work to go through. The "hacks" on quite a few protections are generally exploiting the analogue loophole, which is steadily being closed by stuff like HDCP and digital watermarking. Once these are closed (and they will be!), the game is over, and everyone's suffered as a result.
I cringe when I see people advocating the death of copyright. Don't they understand that, without any legal protection, the content producers will simply start funding DRM that actually works? Now, they at least have some sort of legal means to try to protect their content - remove that, and they'll start really turning the screws. Your fair use rights? There's no such thing without copyright. I won't even get into what a reduction it will cause in content creation - many of the great works of art of the past few hundred years were created for pay, and at the very least, copyright helps protect the opportunity cost of creating works.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Yes, that's what he means. He's also full of shit. The short lived 1996 Telcom act proved that there are lots of companies ready willing and able to profit by offering fair service. People want telco and someone will make money providing it. People have been singing and dancing forever, they are not going to stop because of some stupid copyright laws. Getting rid of the RIAA, MPAA is about the best thing that could happen to the industry but even those turds will still be around in a free digital world.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
No chilling effects? How much money did that Lexmark case cost Static Control? Could you personally afford to fight Lexmark in court? No, I didn't think so. So you think DMCA precedent was set in the Lexmark v. SCC case? Then why is SCC now suing ISV for doing the exact same thing? Here's a clue, the law is a sham. It forces out smaller players who can stand up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs. THAT is a chilling effect on innovation and Rick Boucher is on of the few people on the hill I don't consider to be an absolute slime ball.
The Library of Congress is soliciting feedback on the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions again. Without doubt, they have heard it all before, but with this particular piece of legislation, the complaints bear repeating. Since that time, the DMCA anti-circumvention clauses have been used against manufacturers of garage door openers, against owners of robot dogs, and to stifle competition in the mobile phone service market just to name a few. You have until December 1, 2005 to submit your written comments.
And surely bills from either side encompass strictly a single regulation and would never be used for pork.
It really peeves me when we add laws on top of laws rather than repealing bad ones and drafting new ones to cover changes. Innovation has occurred for thousands of years without copyright or patent protection. Free use wasn't even a phrase until we started to see tyrannical laws that abuse basic rights, inherent to all humans regardless of what their governments say or do.
Whatever movement is made in the law books, nothing will matter. The Internet combines the wishes of billions, disregarding every law. Funny thing is, the Internet really lets the free market shine without trampling on the basic human rights.
The Net won't murder, won't rape, won't rob from your home or incur taxes you don't want to pay. It won't restrict your right to speak freely, it won't take your guns away, it won't harbor troops in your home.
As more people embrace the Net, more will use the rights they were born with. More will commit legal crimes that are morally acceptable.
In the long run, maybe we'll see laws that protect life, liberal and property rights rather than laws controlling thought or non-violent actions.
Do bloggers worry about copyright? Do musicians on purevolume worry? Do researchers posting their theses care?
Everything I dream of in my free market world is coming true online, and no law is stopping it. Boucher's bill won't do jack. Repeal copyright and you'll see more innovation than ever.
Why release good music freely? Fans may pay you for more, or a production company might hire you to write something for them, or you might gain customers for your live shows, or you might get people to your site to gain AdSense revenue. Copyright won't protect your income-via-monopoly much longer.
The right way to translate the names of these groups is always to reverse the apparent meaning.
So Progress and Freedom is the last thing they want.
Wasn't it Software Choice, the Microsoft group saying you all need to buy only Microsoft?
This is such a common, and such a thoughtless, belief.
"If I buy a CD, or buy a music file online, I don't want someone else dictating what I can and can't do with it."
Well, no. That's not how the world works.
The whole business model of selling content to consumers is EXACTLY predicated on "dictating what you can and can't do with it."
Forget digital media and DRM/TPM. Go back to publishing an actual book, with physical pages.
If you bought a book, you do NOT have the right to do "anything you want with it". In particular, you can't republish that book and sell it, or even give it away, thousands of times. That violates the copyright law, and you'll be sued and/or thrown in jail.
More importantly (for this discussion), if the copyright law were revoked, why would anyone try to make money by publishing a book? If it's unsuccessful, you lose money. If it's successful, it'll be ripped off, and you lose money. Either way, you lose.
This is just so basic I can't believe that people don't get it.
"No sane business operator enters a contract in which one party has the right to disregard its terms at will..."
Sounds like my cell phone contract.
Media won't go away, but some of the big companies that shovel it towards us right now might. Whether the new market realities bankrupt them, or if they just decide to take their ball and go home, those companies completely functioning within the traditional ways of media distribution won't be around forever. I can believe that.
What I can't believe, however, is that no one will come in to fill the void. It'll be a different kind of person/company/artist/whatever, but someone will show up. There will still be a market, it'll just be a slightly different one. It might not be one where you can make billions of dollars off of, but there will still be people who want to consume this media, and there will still be people who create and perform it.
Music is a no-brainer. The recording companies did not give birth to the industry, they just organized and took control of a large portion of it. Music was around before recording, and it will most likely exist for as long as the human brain is capable of processing sounds. I can't imagine movies ceasing to be produced, but the era of huge budget films could possibly end, or at least slow down, if the big studios start hitting financial difficulties. Then again, neato CGI and the like will probably pick up a bunch of the slack and make production costs cheaper eventually.
This isn't to say that the big media corporations are entirely doomed. I think there is still a niche for them, a good sized market, with plenty of potential for healthy profits. There are plenty of people who are willing to pay for something that they see value in. A company that wishes to try and provide that value should continue to make money. They just need to accept that piracy and sharing are part of the business. Maybe instead of spending dollars trying to stop it, they'll spend that money increasing the value of their product.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
News flash -- we don't want Sony to sign our favorite garage band. That's a death knell for interesting music.
My only response to Mr. Ross is "You say 'bitch' like it's a bad thing."
That article is crap. He simply advocates using TPM (Trusted Computing) to allow people to expire documents and media after a few weeks (and a company can sit on its backside and increase it or decrease it if there's no demand as they see fit) and he calls it innovation. Bollocks.
Wouldn't freely allowing 10 billion people to access and transform data in an infinite number of ways more than make up for the lack of innovation of a single industry who is fat and happy with a single way of dispursing content?
Their argument makes no sense.
For the love of god, it's 'moot' not 'mute'. 'Moot' is irrelevant. 'Mute' is a button on your remote control. >_
"If HR-1201 becomes law, every consumer could legally hack any TPM by claiming fair use, and as fair use isn't codified, there would be as many definitions of it as there are consumers. Consumers would be legally sanctioned to break their contracts with the content provider. No sane business operator enters a contract in which one party has the right to disregard its terms at will, but that's what HR-1201 permits. That hated TPM would disappear from the market, as there's no reason to employ a lock if everyone has a legal right to the key. But as TPM leaves, so do the digital offerings that come with it."
/then/ bitch and moan about their "fair use" rights, which they had already bargained away.
This part is actually correct, ladies and gentlemen. To pro-Linux folks, next time, think about the GPL as well. Consider the GPL a Technology Protection Device -- you cannot copy or improve a GPL-licensed technology without adhering to the GPL. If Fair Use is held above contract law, and Fair Use is not properly defined, then the GPL (and copyright in general) is useless. All that would be required is for a company (SCO perhaps) to argue that "hey we bought this code fair and square, and now its GPL license is impeding our 'fair use' of it in writing new software of our own."
Contract law must be held above Fair Use. Period. I am a broken record on this subject, but while the DMCA is a painfully stupid and bad law and it should be removed, Fair Use must not be a reason for breaking contracts. Don't enter into contracts that you do not agree to be a party of. As long as it is clearly stated on the CD, DVD, or software what the limitations are of the contract under which it is offered, then it falls to the consumer to either fully accept or refuse it. Not to buy it anyway, and
MORTAR COMBAT!
Newsflash: Your garage band doesn't want to continue living in a van.. down by the river!
They want to enjoy the good life a bit no matter much their marketing leads you to believe they are "keeping it real"
Watch MTV when they show the homes of these artists. It ain't a van down by the river. And they get this $$$ from companies like SONY.
Cogito Ergo Sum
Kickass! That means that they'll be able to distribute their stuff online without having to deal with Sony lawyers! There will always be music and art. The only thing that might disappear is the distributors. Which might actually be a good thing.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
No sane business operator enters a contract in which one party has the right to disregard its terms at will, but
Aren't most EULA's like that?
I seem to remember standard text similiar to, "We reserve the right to change any/all conditions and it is up to the end user to check our website at every moment for any such changes."
All this assumes that (1) EULA's are legal contracts, (2) such statements are not inherently illegal, (3) every business operator is already not sane.
"Do not kill". So one person is deprievd of their right to kill another. While a hundred potential killees are give their right to live.
One example of where a law will increase freedoms *in general*.
THAT's what's really stiffling innovation.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
"But as TPM leaves, so do the digital offerings that come with it."
I have no problem whatsoever renting my DVD's at a shop, I refuse to give up my rights to fair use to allow me to download Buffy The Vampire Slayer from Blockbuster.com. So they can keep their digital offerings and their bloody TPM. I will not buy, rent nor trade for anything that restricts my ability to make a copy for regular use, all it takes is people standing up for themselves and their bank balances will remove this issue from play.
I guess you feel pretty dumb right about now.
Holy cow. I would delete that account and create a new one. This account already has the stench of "loser" all around it.
...instant censorship. Wow. What an age we live in. At least in the _Fahrenheit 451_ the people torching the books had the decency to do it person.
No sane business operator enters a contract in which one party has the right to disregard its terms at will, but that's what HR-1201 permits.
This is not quite they way it works in the real world. There is almost ALWAYS one party that has the right to disregard its terms at will (hereafter, Business). Business has the right to modify these terms and conditions upon written notice to its client (hereafter, Client). Client cannot change the terms of its contract with Business. Client is completely screwed in regards to the contract with Business.
FWIW, part of my job is updating the Terms and Conditions for my employer as well as the paperwork we send on behalf of the companies we do business with (Leasing companies).
For example, you're usually considered OK if a sci-fi group meets up to watch a video of Doctor Who together. You're also usually OK if you make a "video mix", putting clips of your favourite show to music, even when both music and show are copyright, again so long as its distributed only amongst a small circle of people. You certainly wouldn't be able to get away with mass-producing a video mix and making it widely available. Although there is no formal definition of when something becomes "limited" enough to be "fair use" that I know of, neither fan clubs nor UK corporations have been too willing to venture into the greyer areas and have generally had a healthy respect for the other.
Unfortunately, in this day and age, the idea of mutual respect may be fading for good. And that really is going to stifle innovation. Respect can produce money, but money can never produce respect.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Just to make the article more appealing wikipedia list tpm as "the phantom menace" sound appropriate
What on earth are these contracts he speaks of? The vast majority of content providers do not require a contract. I know I have never been asked for one.
Nice attempt to twist the logic, Mr. RIAA person, but we're not your average Joe Reader.
Everybody could hack a TPM by claiming "fair use", _BUT_ if they're caught giving copies to their friends, or selling them, they're still committing a copyright infringement, since Fair Use no longer applies, (and therefore DMCA does).
So, YES, there is a reason for TPM's to exist even if everybody can "hack them".
Unless of course, the *REAL* reason for TPM's to exist is to make consumers pay unnecessary fees for a product, or so that they can't back up and have to buy it again if the original breaks (happens often with DVD's, have you ever seen those cracks in the middle of the DVD?)
Furthermore, with the "fair use" clause, The record labels couldn't sue artists for providing ways to crack DRM in CD's with their music.
So, really, what's stiffling innovation but maintaining a monopoly instead of a decentralized music distribution scheme where companies can compete with each other?
TFA is an very interesting piece of opinion. I would say "self-delusion", but let's give the guy the benefit of doubt.
I am sure mass-entertainment companies would love to go back to where they were before MP3, broadband and the Internet, but, sadly for them, the world was forever changed by these technologies. Just like it was by electricity or airplanes. Neither better nor worse, but different.
Musicians will always make music just like sculptors will always make sculptures and painters will always paint. What some musicians saw was the result of mass marketing and mass reproduction of their works. Most of all, recording companies enjoyed the huge profits made from being the middle man between musicians and consumers.
I believe not a single talented musician will stop making music because it is what they love to do and what they live for.
As for the makers of new DRM tools, they can well stop innovating.
Please.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Put more clearly, if people keep hacking music, video, and software soon it will be fiscally irresponsible for companies like SONY to sign ( insert your favorite garage band here ) to any kind of record deal at all.
Bullshit, Sony will keep pumping out records even if they only make 5 million instead of 10 million per album. Want to know why? Because 5 million is a lot better than NOTHING.
From TFA:
as fair use isn't codified, there would be as many definitions of it as there are consumers
Actually, fair use *is* established in law. Specifically, it's established in case law, the salient points of which strike me as somewhat less arcane than acts of Congress.
There seems to be a growing trend of pretending that the judiciary is *not* one of three equal branches of government that check and balance each other's powers. The term "strict construction" is ironically accurate, as they construct a strictness over the judiciary that was never written in the Constitution.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Even with the new Linux systems, there are more complications than just running an install program. For techs like us, that is not a problem at all.
How will the average casual user do all that? Many non-tech types have enough trouble inserting the CD and not panicking when the auto-install happens. Ask them to do anything special to install an app based on their OS flavor? Not likely.
Ever since the AHRA (the DMCA's bastard grandfather), Hollywood has always threatened that if they didn't get their way that they would, basically, take their ball and go home.
I say it's about time that someone called their bluff. The studio's "boycott" of a market they don't utterly control would last, oh, about 5 minutes.
Call them! They're bluffing!
"But when the content is delivered purely as digital bits, there is no limit to the range of TPM that can be applied."
Once something goes digital, it is hard to keep it under wraps.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Translation: "The law is not compatible with our contract. Change the law!"
diegoT
Rick Boucher seems pretty smart about the issues and seems to be on our side until he repeats the same industry bullshit lie, namely that "the only way that I think we are going to have high-value television programming delivered over the air in digital format is if the motion picture industry has some level of confidence that it's not going to get recorded and uploaded to the internet."
That is PURE bullshit for one simple reason: Broadcasters ARE currently delivering "high-value" content in HD format "over the air"!!!! You can't say that broadcasters won't do something unless we take action, WHEN THEY ARE FUCKING DOING IT RIGHT NOW!!!
That bullshit lie is just a ploy to get broadcast flags in place to make sure we have absolutely no fair use rights left.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Link to Boucher's quote: http://wired.com/news/print/0,1294,67853,00.html
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
is how this guy seems to honestly believe that artists (in general) will stop creating art (in general) without digital rights management being viable (or legally backable) on it.
You could abolish copyright and people would still create beautiful, entertaining things - because that is what artists DO - it's part of who they are, and in many cases it's as natural as breathing.
There are always ways to make money off your artistic abilities (merchandising leaps directly to mind). Selling the actual art itself is just becoming obsolete, that's all.
+++ATH0
I think what the MPAA and RIAA are realizing is that they have been middle men between the content creators, and the content consumers. Since the invention of the Internet, and its subsequent maturation over the last five years in particular, the middle men are no longer needed. This has the MPAA and RIAA scared because they are now in an industry that no longer needs to exist. I think that over the next ten to fifteen years we will see the RIAA and MPAA member organizations either retool and remake themselves, or become extinct. I hope for the latter.
No. This means that content providers will have more choice about what restrictions they can place on the content that they produce. To the degree that a competitive market exists, this may lead to content providers experimenting with a variety of more restrictive methods of distribution. However, I don't see that this will increase consumer choice. It will increase supplier willingness to continue to make the products available... but that's not the same thing. Will it increase the rate of new creation of material? Encourage new and more talented artists to try their hand? How many currently existing items not currently available in present forms will be put out in these more restricted forms?
Fact: the RIAA and MPAA are competing for my (and other consumers) entertainment dollars. Fact: basic economics dictates that I will spend my money on the goods that provide me the maximum happiness. Competitors for my entertainment time and money include: Music, as CD, iTunes, or various independent music downloads; Movies, theatrical or DVD; video games; DSL available free-for-bandwidth downloadable web entertainment such as Flash animations, calling people names on Slashdot and other forums, and the good old standby of pr0n; the occasional dinner out, or even cooking in with something a little higher quality than Kraft Mac Books, magazines, and all the other fun hiding out at the local Barnes and Noble; overpriced coffee serving as excuse to flirt with the cute barristas from the local coffee shop; Beer, Wine, and other forms of booze; Tobacco, Marajuana, and other less socially acceptable poisons.
The US economy is nigh-stagnant, especially for most individual consumers. Median individual disposable income is getting squeezed. Most big-label music of late sucks; I've bought only four albums (Joshua Tree, The White Album, Billy Joel's Greatest, and the Remains of Tom Lehrer) in the last five years, none with material newer than 1990. I've also got about a hundred CDs I picked up pre-2000, that I've ripped onto my Archos player, hooked up (most) of the time to the living room computer. (Zap2It is faster to scroll through than the TV Guide Channel.)
On the other hand, I've seen Serenity, the LOTR, Harry Potter, Underworld, and the Brothers Grimm in theatres. I've bought DVDs for all of Farscape, about fifteen classic DVDs (Harvey) and as many more from in the cheap bin — matinees are $5.50; modest DVDs are $7-10 each, and I can make better popcorn for cheaper. (Lets leave the one porno video alone, shall we?) While I have HBO as part of my rent, I don't bother taping much, but caught a few of the biggest titles like Spiderman when they went there. I've found three new favorite SF authors via the local library (whoops, filesharing), and B&N is much happier for it. I've also picked up a newer edition of Joy of Cooking than the one I inherited from mom, and my grocery bill has risen nicely. (Alas, so has my waistline...) The owner of the new Sushi shop that opened two years ago knows me by name, and sent me a Christmas card. I've picked up about twenty video games in the time, perhaps half "new" a year or two after they came out, half old classic releases second hand on Ebay; Two of the new titles are still in box, waiting for the day that I finish MOO3.
There's a LOT of high-quality excelent value competition for my entertainment time and money. If the various content industries want more money, they need to either (a) fix the economy so that more people have higher disposable incomes — which they're not in a position to do, or (b) increase the perceived relative value of what they provide.
DRM does neither.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
"Consumers would be legally sanctioned to break their contracts with the content provider."
Assuming for the moment that these "contracts" actualy exist outside of publishers' heads, the only reason they exist is because Congress is constitutionally authorized to allow protection of intellectual property to begin with. It isn't a case of Congress giving more powers to the people but less power to the copyright holders, which, as representatives of the people (if only in name), is their prerogative.
There is no entitlement, no inherent right to intellectual property. And Congress has the right to trash these contracts just as it has the right to let hired killers break their contracts.
No sane business operator enters a contract in which one party has the right to disregard its terms at will
Suuuuure. Yet, half the products I buy have a licensing agreement that not only tells me I don't actually own the product, but that the "licensing company" has the rights to revoke my rights at any time they please.
So what the original post really means to me is, that no sane Business would accept a contract like that, but hell, every consumer already has to.
Come up with a TPM that stops people from copying and distributing a work more than "fair use", but that allows "fair use". You get to decide exactly what "fair use" means technically, but it must fit today's working definition -- personal backups, personal use on other devices, research/library use.
It's impossible to come up with a technical mechanism that will stop people from distributing a work, period. Even with laws in place to prevent consumers from reverse-engineering the software and hardware, all it takes is for one person anywhere in the world to break that law and release an unlocked copy of the work, and it's "game over". And yet the computer game industry, where it's reckoned a win if you don't find a crack for your game out on the first day after release, is thriving.
You can't stop it, no matter what technical mechanisms or laws you impose you will never be able to stop it all you can do is make it harder, and even making it just a bit hard seems to be more than high enough a barrier to convince most consumers to buy rather than steal.
If all you can do is make it harder, and all you need to do is make it harder, then the challenge for you is to show that creating a new class of criminal behaviour is balanced by significant real benefits. Stuff you can support with figures that withstand scrutiny, not "we're going to hold our breath until we get our way" protests from the RIAA and MPAA.
ROFL !
"What is a publisher to do when it finds out that it can't get students to buy e-textbooks when they expire after a mere four months? By changing one line of code, those four months can be expanded to a full year."
I gave up on article after that point. That is as likely as me flying to the moon next year. I see em realizing they won't make their quarterly profit projections and 'accidently' or otherwise reducing your paid useage period. You probably agreed to such changes when you loaded it(you paid for 1 month the rest are free and subject to change kinda deal...) and said 'agree'
Offerings that we don't even have and won't miss... so who cares. Seems as if people are managing without it anyway.
Yeh, I want to know what these digital offerings are.
The media industries that have the worst problems with piracy are computer games and porn. Computer games are considered well protected if the cracks for them don't come out until after they're actually released, and pornsite operators rip each other off on a regular basis. And yet these remain tremendously profitable businesses and while I can't say much about the level of innovation in porn, the computer gaming industry is the driving force behind most of the development in personal computer hardware and has been since the '70s.
That's pretty good for an industry that had to fight in the courts to even get their content recognised as copyrightable works: in some early cases the conclusion was that compiled software wasn't human readable and so wasn't copyrightable... only source code was protected.
So, yeh, I see this hypothetical "innovative content" as a huge bluff.
"But as TPM leaves, so do the digital offerings that come with it."
Bon voyage! Dont call us, we call you, if we ever need our ability to mess with our own hardware taken away.
"Listen, are you gonna have those TPM reports for us this afternoon?"
Amish folks dislike electricity
That's not really true. In fact, visit any amish community today, and you shouldn't be too surprised if you see an old woman on a handmade rocking chair talking on a cell phone, for example. Amish use electric lights, and even computers at times.
The Amish don't outright reject electricty, and they don't outright reject technology. Unlike us ("the English", to them), however, they don't automatically accept any new technology, either. The more liberal members of the amish community start using new technologies when they come out. The effects of the technology are looked at - if the people who use the technology start spending less time bonding with their families and communities, or other "social ills" start to come of the technology, then Amish leaders reject the technology, and those who use it are discouraged from doing so. This is why home telephones are not allowed (people chat on the phone instead of with their families and neighbors), but the most modern gas grills are allowed (cookouts bring communities together). The amish also like to be more technologically independent (for example, they prefer heat-powered devices over electric powered, even if it's propane heat, and manually haul the propane; they could always switch to other heat sources), but technological independence isn't the prime driving factor.
Often, compromises (for example, allowed at work, not allowed at home) are made. Work generally tends to be higher tech, as they need to remain competitive with "the English". Cell phones seem to be moving in that direction. Unlike regular phones, however, cell phones may prove more problematic for the amish - while the whole community could see phone lines heading to the house of a family that used a regular phone, cell phones are "hidden", and thus they don't have as much social pressure on home cell phone users.
"'If one must live then one must die.' - oh, the truth must be funnier than this..." -- MammÃt
Let's run the phrase "Consumers will have more choice." through the Corporate De-Spin-O'-Graph (tm).
"Consumers will have more choice." -->DSOG--> You will have to pay more and be able to do less.
That's more or less what I thought.
they'll be able to distribute their stuff online without having to deal with Sony lawyers!
Without SONY lawyers the garage band will have to track P2P theives themselves.
Are they good at that? Will the threat of garage band pursuit stop digital theives? (no)
Cogito Ergo Sum
- Legislation telling companies how to run their business is bad. The government has no right to do this (commerce clause is sorely abused to provide the legal grounds.) It can only lead to abuse as it gives the government an easy way to favor one company over others. This inevitably happens because of corruption.
- If I sell CDs and want to put some kind of copy-protection on them, I should be able to do it. If the consumer doesn't like that, then they can simply not buy my CD. Nobody should force me to sell my CDs in some government ordained format. I should be free to sell them however I want and let consumers decide.
- Similarly, if I am selling content (music, movies, etc.) onlines, I should be able to put whatever copy protection/DRM I want on them.
- If I am selling DRM'd content, I should not have to label it as such. Again people don't have to buy it. If I sell it and they can't use it and I won't accept a return, there are existing laws about fraud that cover such situations. No new laws are needed.
Now here's where this guy starts getting things wrong:- If somebody defeats my DRM, that's my problem. I should not expect the government to protect me here. If I'm really worried about people breaking DRM, then I better come up with a really great DRM or re-consider my business model.
- The existing content industries should not be protectd against disruptive technologies. It is quite possible that they will not be able to adapt to such technologies and their businesses will eventually fail. This is neither a good or a bad thing, it's just business.
- Similarly, emerging business models should not be punished just because they hurt existing companies. You can try to make analogies like "they're stealing property, etc." but these are weak arguments. Established businesses always suffer at the hands of disruptive technologies. It may not seem fair, but it's not the government's place to protect one company over another.
- Established companies can adapt to new technologies without help from the government. Let them introduce their DRM if they think that's their only route. That doesn't mean the government must protect this DRM. Let the existing companies compete, just don't draft laws to give them the upper hand. Similarly don't draft laws to "level" the playing ground or any other kind of euphemism for government favoritism. Let the market decide.
This guy tries to use free market principles to argue for government protectionism. The Germans used to have a term for this it was called it National SocialismPart of the problem with trying to present "unbiased news" is that it usually done as "presenting both sides". It sounds great; yet, both sides are presented as if they had equal merit or have equally good spokespeople.
"98% of scientists say that evolution occurred, but did it? Up next, we'll have the arguments of almost the whole scientific community, versus a small group of people with degrees from degree mills, on the subject of what should be taught in the science classroom."
"Up next: A group of swift boat veterans, the vast majority of whom never met John Kerry, state that he deliberately got injured and the injuries were minor. Half of the people who did meet him were already on record supporting his story... but, we'll be giving them equal time and giving their claims equal credence, up next! We report, you decide!"
"Up next on Hannity and Colmes...."
There's too little time on your average sound-bite news report to get into the details of an issue - you can only look at the face value claims, on often complicated issues. Thus, people are *not* getting the information that they need to make a decision, only the most basic talking points of each side, and they're just going to go with whatever side they trust more.
There are two options that I see as being at least *somewhat* (although still far from perfect) more fair:
1) Give both sides equal time, but on a *long, in-depth report*, staged in debate-fashion (for example, who starts first ends first, with time given to rebut the other side's claims).
2) Don't give both sides equal time; take whoever would be the most nonpartisan experts in the field, and have them report as they choose. I.e., on the "evolution vs. creationism" issue, you'd (randomly or based on merit) pick prominant members of the scientific community; on the swift boat issue, you'd pick members of the military at the time who *didn't* come forward to support either side, and ask them to report on the issue based on the evidence at hand; etc.
"'If one must live then one must die.' - oh, the truth must be funnier than this..." -- MammÃt
Because 5 million is a lot better than NOTHING.
"Nothing" is what most P2Pers are willing to pay. So we are back to square 1- just because technology makes it easy to copy-and-redistribute-to-non-paying-people (steal) copyrighted material doesn't make it right. As long as this activity continues then companies owning the rights to the products will endeavor to protect their interests. And they have every right to do so.
Cogito Ergo Sum
Progress and Freedom Foundation... just exactly whose freedom and progress are they working on in this "think tank"?
I think the problem is that boucher and Patrick Ross look at "innovation" in different lights. Ross seems more interested in market innovation; people figuring out new ways to charge/lease us the same old stuff where as I believe boucher is trying to protect technological innovation. (an no I don't consider creating new fangled "improved" DRM a technological improvement)
*shrug* fair use is important. the e-book example could go the totally other way. It's hard to photocopy and e-book (I'm kidding, I assume you can print, if the DRM allows it...)
e.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
Newsflash - A talented artist has about the same chance ending up on MTV Cribs as a talented athlete has getting to play professional sports.
Most likely those artists will never find the oligopolistic music industry financially rewarding even if they are signed by a major label. The contracts are quite artist unfriendly until you get into the platinum sales level.
Now if the megadistributors' (Sony, Universal, et als) and RIAA's cartel is depreciated and the industry is democratized, it would me more likely a talented artist could make a decent upper-middle-class living using alternative distribution channels.
I'm irked that because I have an opinion contrary to most on slashdot my response is considered flamebait.
I find the idea of people P2P-ing to steal content flamebait itself.
Cogito Ergo Sum
My sig is a link to an EFF action page on this issue. If you are in the US, click my sig and enter your address and it automagically figures out who your representatives are in Washington. You can then click to send the pre-written letter to your representative, or you can edit the letter box to say anything you want on the issue.
The default letter asks your representatives to support the DMCRA. What the DMCRA would do is amend the DMCA to say that people *NOT* commiting copyright infringment are not criminals, and that such innocent noninfringing people shall no longer face prison under the DMCA.
You'd finally be able to buy DVD players that ignore region code restrictions, and even better... DVD players that allow you to fast forward over DVD commericals that are tagged to @#$%! disable the fast forward and menu controls!
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
While a hundred potential killees are give their right to live.
It is debatable whether the right to live can be given or taken away. What is more correct is that these potential killees are given the right to have their killers be in trouble if they are caught, and if the killing was viewed as not being necessary to the society.
MORTAR COMBAT!
I would probably enjoy a 6 month stay with an Amish community.
I bet they get the occasional request for such a thing however, and I doubt they ever say "yes".
It's too bad though. I find myself becoming more wary of technology and all these so called "advances" and going back to basics.
Within 5 years I hope to own a home on 5+ acre piece of land. Then I'll get to try to "Amish" thing myself.
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
What does "the industry is democratized" mean?
If the big players are made irrelevant and the industry is democratized (P2P downloads for all?) then how will bands make any money at all.
In that scenario everyone download for free (band gets nothing) or 1 guy pays and uploads to P2P server (band get nothing).
So what does democratized mean?
Cogito Ergo Sum
This is completely without basis. If the contract states that I may not distribute copies of the material, then in no circumstance am I allowed to give away distribute copies of the material. The TPM (fancy guy, coined his own acronym, huh?) exists merely to help prevent unscrupulous users from performing the act that "breaks the contract."
The proposed legislation does not allow one to "disregard [contract] terms at will"; rather, it allows one to use the material under the terms of the contract. That is what is meant when we through around Fair Use. The opposing argument suggests that fair use is antiquated and that there are a finite number of proper usages. So what if the majority cuts it steaks with a knife? I want to cut mine with a spoon. Those opposed: let's hear you...
But perhaps there is a valid point, however poorly expressed. DRM is the equivalent of a bank guard. It's not within one's rights to rob a bank. I merely have the right to retrieve what is already mine. Does that suggest that having a guard is draconian? Perhaps a similar analogy was floating in his head when he wrote that rubbish.
Thinking just slightly deeper, it seems that DRM is more akin to the following scenario: After withdrawing one's money from the bank, the guard follows the subject home. Suppose the subject wants his USD converted to pounds sterling. He goes to a currency exchanger, makes his request, and then guard then forcibly blocks the transaction.
The point I'm trying to make is that both sides have valid concerns. These dialogs can go back and forth, but I feel that the Fair Use argument is significantly stronger, at least when compared to the angle at which the entertainment industry is approaching the issue.
ascii art
This part is actually correct, ladies and gentlemen. To pro-Linux folks, next time, think about the GPL as well. Consider the GPL a Technology Protection Device -- you cannot copy or improve a GPL-licensed technology without adhering to the GPL.
The GPL is not a "technology protection device". All HR-1201 would grant would be the right for you to read and analyse the GPL and the source code of a program under the GPL. There is no conflict between HR-1201.
Contract law must be held above Fair Use. Period.
Why? How does Fair Use differ from any of the other bases on which unreasonable contracts are held unenforcable? There's all kinds of things you can not enforce through contract law, there's nothing magic about this one.
"You know, if there's one thing I've learned from being in the army, it's never ignore a pooh-pooh. I knew a major. He got pooh-poohed, made the mistake of ignoring the pooh-pooh - he pooh-poohed it. Fatal error, because it turned out all along that the soldier who pooh-poohed him had been pooh-poohing a lot of other officers, who pooh-poohed their pooh-poohs. In the end, we had to disband the regiment - morale totally destroyed - by pooh-pooh!"
I have no problem with Sony signing your favorite garage band. Their music is uninspired and uninteresting.
An attractive person that will do anything (including 'singing' until my ears bleed) for money -- that's something money just can't buy.
My personal favorite is when a record company thinks that any of their customers care about which label it is. "Our brand(tm) of music is what customers really want."
I don't recall ever deciding on whose music I would buy because of the record label attached; yet the 'brand name' is among the most important things to many of the big label's persona -- not the artists, or the music... the people who run the printing press... that's what's important in the eyes of the recording companies..
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Tell me how I am hurting anybody by downloading a song that I would NEVER pay for.
If you would never pay for it, maybe you shouldn't be entitled to download it from the server illegally serving it up?
You are hurting the artist, the employees of the company with whom the artist signed the contract, and the stockholders of that company.
Since we are doing analogies, following the same logic then the makers the very popular game World of Warcraft should labor to create this great product for years but never require the user to log in. Obviously not.
If it weren't for the illegal downloads would the RIAA be doing this? Probably not.
The combination of technology with morally flexible users facilitates the need for the RIAA.
Cogito Ergo Sum
So if you're good kiddies and don't scare away the nice lovable megacorporations they might just be kind enough to expand their offerings a little here and there. But if you're bad and demand the rights guaranteed by law then they will take their britney-ball and go home. They don't need your money to stay in business and they don't need to be in the market at all they can just sit it out so give in and let them walk all over you. I you're lucky they'll leave somethign in your pockets after they take your wallet.
Secondly, is a more serious conflict of interest point:
This guy is; "a vice president of The Progress & Freedom Foundation in Washington, D.C." The very group whose "Aspen Summit" he lauds as an example of the place from whence freedom and innovation (or progress) springs. Indeed most of his references seem to come from that summit or from affiliated groups. They specify on their site that they are a "market-oriented think-tank devoted to studying the digital revolution and its implications for public policy."
Interestingly they are open about some of their donors. While the MPAA (whose head Dan Glickman is refenced lovingly) isn't a supporter some of their members (Sony, Vivendi Universal, etc) are.
To me that makes his credibility as an outside commentator nil. It also calls into question the decisions of CNet editors who are basically giving this guy time to write a press-release for his group as "Commentary".
So, this guy is trying to convince us that if DRM (Digital Restriction Mechanism) is not implemented and backed by law, that every media company in the world is going to just close up shop? Riiiiggghhhht......
I do not think it means what you think it means.
The word? Innovation.
It's not the label- it's the product/content. In the early days the lable was humped as the in thing.
:-)
But I wonder if they hyped it more to attract the hot new talent than to impress the peasant rabble (us).
I'm definately impressed when new talent goes against the grain to find new distribution channels. But I temper that remark with the idea that they do deserve to be paid.
Cogito Ergo Sum
... how one set of bad legislation deserves another...
No, really. How about this for stifling innovation: repeal the F**KING DMCA, and make those who are claiming copyright infringement provide proof, as in proof, in court that their claims are valid. As opposed to everyone being already found guilty (DRM, and if you break it you pay! Sorry, Mr./Ms. for doing this but if, while you were sending cash our way, you didn't also rape us poor little megacorporations we wouldn't have to defend ourselves so), and having to prove our innocence.
Wow, what a novel idea! I think I'll call it a once-apon-a-time dream of the American justice system.
You are not harmed in not being able to listen to Britney Spears' new album on your Linux box,
The effects on open source software and the rights of consumers are the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the water lurks a fractal explosion of rotten ice that's just waiting to rip the heart out of dozens of important players in Western society.
The use of encryption technology to control the playback of information leads to precisely the kind of pernicious situation the framers of the constitution were trying to head off when they exempted letterforms from copyright protection. If it's illegal to reverse enginer the software protecting a document, then it becomes impossible for individuals and public interest groups to legally posess editable or excerptable copies of that document. If that document turns out to be legally, historically, or otherwise important then being unable to reverse-engineer the protection is in massive opposition to the public interest.
The fact that once the DRM is cracked it's cracked for good, so it's impossible to just reverse-engineer the encryption technology for "important documents", must not be allowed to muddy the waters by redirecting the debate to "consumer rights".
As for the way you're trying to trivialise the debate by bringing in a fluffy pop icon, what about "Britney Spears' new album"? Tell me how, precisely, Brittney Spears' hypothetical interest in ever-so-slightly reducing the unauthorized copying of her music is so important. Her music will still be copied and shared online, no matter what technical orlegal measures she takes, so any protection DRM gives her is minor and short-lived... it hardly seems sufficient reason to set aside the important role that watchdogs, whistleblowers, and public interest organizations play in our society.
"No sane business operator enters a contract in which one party has the right to disregard its terms at will, but that's what HR-1201 permits."
3 A%22drew%20Roberts%22)%20OR%20(collection%3A(ourme dia)%20AND%20%2Fmetadata%2Fauthor%3A(drew%20Robert s))
I just watched someone sign up for two domain names two days ago. The agreement stated that the terms could be changed by the registrar at any time. (With certain notice requirements.)
Am I to believe that these types of terms of service / use do not exist, or that all of the people who agree to them are legally insane?
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=(creator%
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
I download television and still pay to go to the movies (and pay for merchandise) because it's a different experience. In fact, I don't even bother to download movies because they are mostly a one-time viewing thing for me (with some rare exceptions). I download music and still pay for merchandise (not CDs, because I refuse to fund the RIAA) because I love the bands.
I am certain there must be some way to ensure that large-scale art can be funded and produced without suing 12 year olds who host mp3s on their machines. Can we agree on that, at least?
+++ATH0
Dear Mr Ross,
The truest sentence in your article was the one that said that "No sane business operator enters a contract in which one party has the right to disregard its terms at will." This applies to consumers too. You raised the scenario where a textbook provider could increase the license period from 4 months to 1 year. For whatever reason you chose not to discuss the opposite case where the textbook provider could shorten the license terms or charge additional fees for "new" services.
If you believe that the business model is the best for everyone, then great, implement it. If you think that you need the force of law to compel the average citizen to buy into your business model, then your model has a very serious problem and should be rethought.
As for innovation, you and the companies you represent seem to be doing your best to destroy any innovative edge the US may have ever had. Many, if not most, communications and security engineers will not do original work in the US because the chances of being sued, arrested or even just incarcerated is too great. If you don't think this is the case, look at encryption, communication and anti-virus. Of the top ten companies in each of those industries, how many are in the US? How many would have been 15 years ago? This is more than an economic problem: when a kid in Ireland can freely download and use a level of encryption that requires a box of forms just to look at in the 'States, your national security is also going to go down the gurgler. Now you want to add the use of "untrusted" operating systems and hardware to that pile. How is it that creating an environment where your best and brightest must flee the country if they develop anything more complex than "Pong" fosters innovation? If the carriage makers of 1910 had gotten their way, it probably would be illegal to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway. If they got their way, you could have counted on the US to produce the best buggy whips in the world today. Do you regret that loss?
From the oustide, you and the agencies you represent look like termites fighting over the last scrap of wood in a sinking ship.
I proclaim this to be non-sensical gibberish. It may be true that the cartel will attempt to squeeze consumers by "not releasing" some content in HDTV formats, but so what? As soon as one member of the cartel decides to seize the competitive advantage of being the only producer to release his content in HDTV without TPM/DRM/"Trusted Video" the whole house of cards crumbles.
Can you tell me that the stockholders of Sony would do anything but revolt if Sony titles sold half as many copies as another producers because Sony refused to release HD-content?
Who did what now?
The underlying assumption from which his whole argument springs, is the part that is unambiguously wrong.
Slashdot itself is one of a ridiculous number of counterexamples. When exactly did it become conventional wisdom that nobody would produce information or entertainment if they couldn't get stinking rich off of it?
Go Virginia! Between Mark Warner and this guy, I've never been prouder to be from the "Land of Dixie".
PS> Yes, we do have signs on our border that say "Welcome to the Land of Dixie".
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Actually, the poster asked the question, "who would be harmed if I downloaded a song I would NEVER buy." The question remais, why download something unless some level of "enjoyment" is to be derived from it? Obviously the downloader perceives the possbility of some enjoyment. Therefore, unless the product owner/creator authorizes a free download, there should be none. The downloader should pay for the content.
With respect to corporate radio going only 2 or 3 cuts in and therefore the downloader grants himself the right to obtain illegally uploaded tracks- bull. Unless the creator/author authorizes the relase of those tracks it is unethical to download illegally uploaded material.
We are talking two sides of the same coin. It is not proper to upload the tracks in question. And it is not ethical to download and take fair use of something that hasn't been purchased.
With respect to a user being leary of making a $12-$20 investment- again I say bunk. We do it every day. We buy houses in neighborhoods that can go sour. We date/marry women who turn into turbo-witches. We buy cars that break down after the warranty runs out. We buy computers whose hard drives eventually die. That is life and $12 is a minor "investment" in the grand scheme of things.
To these "users" I advocate listening to the tracks that make it to your favorite radio station. If you like them and like the band, buy the record and listen to the "deep tracks" that don't get much airtime. Life is full of chances and there are very few albums I've bought where every track was a great one. But this is no excuse to steal the ones we want.
Cogito Ergo Sum
The question was, "who would be harmed if I downloaded a song I would NEVER buy."
The answer is: the author, the company he signed with, the employees of that company, and the stock holders of that company. That's who you are hurting.
You may not like them because they have something you want for free, but that's life.
Again I ask, why download something unless some level of "enjoyment" is to be derived from it? Obviously you perceive the possbility of some enjoyment. Therefore, unless the product owner/creator authorizes a free download, there should be none. You are taking the content without paying- You should pay for the content.
Cogito Ergo Sum
MOO3? You can do better than that... (Galactic Civilizations, for one).
Cell phones seem to be moving in that direction. Unlike regular phones, however, cell phones may prove more problematic for the amish - while the whole community could see phone lines heading to the house of a family that used a regular phone, cell phones are "hidden", and thus they don't have as much social pressure on home cell phone users. Hmmm... a heat powered cell phone; I wonder which provider sells that one. My cell phone's battery need recharging occasionally and uses electricity to do that, which comes into my house via power lines, which are not unlike those dreaded phone lines. All joking aside, I think you are referring to Mennonites, not Amish. I live in Missouri, surrounded by a large Amish community, and I have never seen one with a cell phone, or for that matter any form of what we might call "technology", unless borrowed. And you can just forget electricity. I guess we must have old school Amish around here. And when you speak of their "jobs" and "being competitive" with "the English", I haven't a clue what you're talking about. The jobs they have around here include things like plowing fields, raising pigs, making furniture, working at the saw mill (Amish owned and water powered), etc. They're really not trying to complete with "the English" at all. They really don't care. They do what they do, how they do it. Don't get me wrong, if they need to get to town, they'd have no problem accepting a ride in my car. And I have had Amish "borrow" my cell phone to call stores in town and such, but I've never seen an Amish with his (or her) own cell phone. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I think that you've been dealing some rebel Amish that would be looked down on in these parts, or more likely, maybe you're confused and are talking about Mennonites.
Yes it is. Congratulations for amusing him.
Besides, it's not a very bad troll, except it's become old and stupid. I still get a chuckle though that the author is too idiotic to change the statement that Linux will remain with greater than 1% of market share unless it fixes its act.
Maybe a political metaphor wasn't the most clear, but its not offbase either
i c
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democrat
3: representing or appealing to or adapted for the benefit of the people at large
It would not benefit people to force artists to relinquish copyright on their works as your quote seems to imply I was thinking. That would be more of a Marxist political metaphor. Paid downloads where the artist contracts non-exclusively and directly with the service would be one of many choices of alternate distribution channels. Self-publishing and selling CDs at internet or independent stores would be another.
Artists might trust their customers to support them without DRM, believing that removing the evil middle-men would encourage customers to do so. Or possibly a more competitive market would encourage the development of a customer friendly DRM solution that does not impede the fair use doctrine. Right now the RIAA and MPAA is trying to move DRM into a distribution control mechanisim and not a copyright protection scheme. There is a big difference.
There are bunches of other revenue generating channels I could think of if artists were free to pursue them outside of their label's contracts. And I am sure there are an infinite number that other people would think of and develop in an open market free of RIAA/MPAA/mega-label legal, political and financial control. These organizations support the scant minority of artists, not the majority of them.
Isn't it about time that the consumer took back what corporations are taking from him? I believe that is what this bill is designed to do, at least in part. I do agree that the bill requires some revision, but this is a good starting point. No bill makes it's way through congress without modification, add-ons and negotiation. None of them. At least not in this day of Pork and other political wrangling/crap.
Bottom line is, you can subscribe to receive a service. As long as I subscribe I receive that service. It's logical and acceptable that I can not re-sell or duplicate that service without special consent/arrangements to do so. However we're talking about assets here.
But when we add things like assets into the mix, such as an electronic device, application or content asset, it is unacceptable for me to not own what I have purchased, 100%. It is unacceptable that I am told that I can not duplicate it again, modifiy it, or utilize it for my use. To be forced to act otherwise means I am actually subscribing to the asset. When I go to the music store and buy a CD, a song, etc., it's an asset, regardless of it's form. It's something I take away with me. It's mine. It's not "served" to me. It's mine. How anyone can act, presume or define otherwise really seems insane to me.
"Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
The free market works when participants in the market are rewarded in proportion to the amount of good they contribute. With DRM this proposition is reversed. Society gains less benefit from a protected work, but the owner of the work gets more reward. (Or so they hope.) On top of that, copy protection mechanisms invariably provide a less useful product even to the paying customers.
This simple bit of econ 101 explains why DRM is so universally reviled by consumers. The crux of the problem is that traditional market economics for manufactured goods like cars is based on marginal cost. For digital goods, the marginal cost approaches zero. Normal economics start to break down.
The other issue is that the publishing industry has set itself up as a middleman between the real content providers and consumers. They seek to use legislation to preserve this privileged position. A truely free-market approach would be to allow the middlemen to be made obsolete. This is what will happen eventually, the efforts of our toadying crony capitalist government notwithstanding.
We need to find market mechanisms that more closely align reward with contribution for the real content providers, the creative people. This is a tricky problem with no obvious solutions. For now, we'll have to put up with a lot of stupidity because so few people even clearly understand the problem.
-cbare
I love your first idea, I think it would be great. I don't really have a problem with equal time, but I have a problem with just letting them speak for equal time without being asked hard questions. Invariably, the people from the questionable side will use wording to try to confuse the less-educated-on-that-particular-issue people. So if you can't have representatives from both sides actually on the show, the reporters should at least do their homework on both sides so they could ask the hard questions. The reporter should ask the scientists about the problems the religious have with evolution (usually they're misconceptions about the theory, which could be explained in a way that would make it clear for the people watching), and the religious group should be asked questions about their justification for not believing certain evidence (you can see my bias in how I phrased that, but I wouldn't phrase it like that when asking the questions...I'm speaking to the audience here).
My problem with the media is that usually they just let whoever they're interviewing get away with things they shouldn't. Reporters should approach every person being interviewed as a someone who will be spouting bs. They should ask the hard questions and let the interviewee prove his knowledge on the subject and explain the reasons for the position he has taken, whether the reporter agrees with the position or not. I think that would make it pretty unbiased and the people who are watching should be able to make an informed decision based on the answers given.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Probably; one of the main reasons I haven't finished it is a bug in the GUI during the troop combat phase. Together with intermittent crashes that occur even with the final released patches, I give the interface a D+. I bought it because I had profoundly enjoyed MOO1 and MOO2, and the complexity and subtlety is almost everything I expected. I was mildly disappointed in that technological advancement still seems to be pretty much "progress" only — subtle things like the invention of the internet resulting in the development of Slashdot to waste productivity would have been amusing, especially if pre-requisites for more critical more advanced technologies — and a smarter viceroy would have been nice. But I still have fun with it every now and again, when I have the time.
Still, I'll note GalCiv for picking up when it hits the clearance shelves. =)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
I concur with everyone else here. We should be so lucky as to get realfacts along with our goodfacts...
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The choice isn't between the mailed fist of draconian copyright laws and a free-for-all where no rights are respected. But protecting copyright isn't the only goal of the government, and when innovation in other areas is stifled, we have to ask if this is really balance.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca