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.
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 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
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.
> 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
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)!
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.
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)!
But I need TPM for my bunghole!
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.
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.
- 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
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.
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."
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.
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).
A fantastic response.
EULAs and the rest of it are just varieties of fraud, pure and simple. They exist only to make the consumer give up rights and safeguards that should be, and actually often are, protected by law.
I could agree with this sentiment. I look forward to the "contracts" line at Best Buy. My intended general point is that -this particular bill- gives too much carte blanche in the whole area of dominion of Fair Use over -real- contracts. I.e., the kind where we have a lawyer, or a handshake.
Indeed, it is painfully obvious that anything printed on the box is not a contract if you attempt to take back a game because its not "The greatest FPS ever" or whatever it says in lurid letters on the front. The same companies that want their tiny print on the back treated like a signed, considered, negotiated contract would be fucked if they were held to the same standard that they want to hold the consumer.
Fantastic line of reasoning. I like it. Things printed on the box should be enforced.
And, since we mention the consumer, where does he/she go to register additional conditions on the seller? Where do I write in "must not require patching for basic game functions on pain of 200% refund"? How odd! There doesn't seem to be a place for that. Again, the idea that a DVD box is some sort of contract benefits only one party: the seller.
I disagree. If the DVD box was a contract it could certainly benefit the consumer. As you pointed out, if it said "the best film of the year" on it and it was not the best film, you would be entitled to a refund. If it said "this product is protected by DRM, and by purchasing this disc you agree to not circumvent it" then you would know "hey, I don't want to accept this, I'll by a different movie".
But this is all digression, the main point is that a "real contract" should not and must not ever be subservient to a "generic fair use" argument. Thank you for clarifying and helping me to clarify.
If someone prints "Must send us first-born child" on a box it is ridiculous to imagine that anyone should be held to that.
That is already illegal based on already existing law, and thus such a contract would be invalid to begin with. That is the balancing act between a parent's "right to sell their children" and the child's "right not to be sold". All rights are fictions, created in society for its benefit. A society that disgregards the basic tenets of contract law is a defunct society, for that kind of law is quite nearly as innate as it gets, and harkens back to "I'll give you this pointy rock if you give me that apple".
MORTAR COMBAT!
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.
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
Part 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
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
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)!
Depending on people not to digitally copy and electronically distribute just doesn't work. See Napster. They will, if given 1/2 of a chance.
Yes they will. So you use legal means to prevent them. Not technological means that also punish legitimate users. Even better, you work the assumption that people are going to make copies into the copyright system, and make sure that there are adeqaute measures to accomodate that.
Your model will simply lead to a continuation of the current RIAA lawsuit situation. Why? Because it'll be the only tool that content providers have to go after copiers. Is that what you want?
It's not a choice of one or the other. There are other mechanisms. Make distribution a minor misdemeanor. Make it so that the fine is sufficiently large to become a deterrent, large enough to justify going after the infringers but small enough that people don't feel sympathy for the infringer.
This is a balancing act between content providers and content consumers. Content providers don't have the tools to distinguish effectively between "legal, reasonable, legitimate" copying vs. whatever the opposite is.
No they don't. However, I do. I know whether what I'm doing is legitimate use or unlawful copyright infringement. Since their technology can't make that determination, I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to circumvent it when it gets it wrong.
My challenge to you, and the "I bought it so I should be able to copy it" crowd, is to USE YOUR SMARTS to DESIGN TPM THAT WILL MEET YOUR NEEDS, yet also stop people from copying and mass distribution of protected content.
I have a mechanism. Nobody is interested. Much like security, copy protection is not a product or a device. It's a process. Unfortunately anyone I've approached with it can't understand this.