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
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
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
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.
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.
Patrick Ross == VP The Progress & Freedom Foundation == www.pff.org
http://www.pff.org/about/supporters.html
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.
- 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
Why is it impossible to be unbiased? Because we all have opinions. Even down to the events that an article chooses to relate, to the emphasis given can show our bias. Even if that bias is unintentional. A fly on the wall only sees certain things from a certain view. Give me two flys, on opposite walls, and I will have all the much more information to base a decision on. Three flys on differing walls is even more info.
So why do you ask for unbiasedness? Why not take what he has to say, then read the EFF website and see what they have to say, and base your decision on the arguments given. Listening to only one source, no matter how unbiased you think that source is, is a very shallow way of learning, and you are simply asking them to give you an opinion. That's not to say you will always walk away with their opinion, you may hate them so much that whatever they say you'll disagree with simply to spite them. Either way though, they are giving you your opinion.
An excellent example of this is right here. You'll have the RIAA haters shouting loudly that the RIAA sucks, then you'll have the RIAA saying loudly that you suck. No one is listening to the other and trying to find a middle ground that is right. (Note I am not saying that the exact middle is the right way. But typically there is some give and take, where both sides have a point).
I'm reminded of the old saying, "If I wanted your opinion, I'd tell it to you."
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
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